Debate suggestion by Disinterested.

Psychopaths. Murders. Criminals. They are sadly everywhere, are jails are full with them. The question is, are these psychopaths created by the society they live in, or are their psychotic tendencies with them since their birth? Are they born that way or not?

This will be a formal, 1 vs 1 debate. Each debater will post an introductory post, followed by FIVE body posts and a conclusion for a maximum of seven posts each.

One debater will argue the possibility that Psychopaths are created by Society, and the other will argue they are born that way.

Good luck to both debaters!

I'll do it. *Goes to dig out old psycology text book*

Yeah, I think I'd like to take part in this too

Okay, sounds good.
And no favoritism too i promise talon.

The results of the coin flip are:

Talon, you will be debating that Psychopathic tendancies are with a person from the moment they are born.
Disinterested, you will be debating that these Psychos are a result of society.

As i said, One introduction, five body posts and one conclusion.
PM me if you have any questions either of you.
And try not to go 7 days without posting.

Good luck to the both of you!

Opening Statement:

Human beings are defined with what surrounds them. By their parents, their teachers, their friends, their peers.

Most known psychopaths do have troubling histories. They are known to be victims themselves, of molestation, rape, physical and emotional abuse, to name a few. It is known that in many cases, the victims will eventually become the abuser. We take in everything we've ever experienced, and use it in our adult lives.

Take Henry Lee Lucas, for instance. Virtually neglected by his parents, both who were alcoholics and his mother a prostitute. He would often witness his mother performing sexual favours. Henry became a well-known sexual predator and serial killer.

It is quite clear that society is what shapes us as people.

Introduction

Crime: a plague that has ravaged human civilisation since its birth. As tribes became clans, clans became cities, cites became nations, the increasing number of humans living within limited amount of space forced society to create laws – rules and regulations governing the interaction of these individuals. These codes of conduct are vital to humans to co-exist, laying down fundamental basics of living and co-operating together as a large group, and rights and wrongs of that society.
However, no matter what era of human history one was to look at, there could always be seen individuals who simply couldn’t or wouldn’t follow these laws. Refused to follow the rules which protected others and held together society. To these individuals we give the title, criminal.
Over time, laws can change, and indeed in time the image of some criminals is changed from felon to that of hero, becoming a martyr to cause they were punished for, as society changes its opinion of the morality of the subject at hand.
However, there are certain crimes that all human societies have always condemned and will never change its opinion of. Many of the actions considered criminal today such as murder have always and will always remain illegal. Although during the times it has indeed changed who this rule covers, such as slaves, lower classes or social non-conformists, it has always remained that those who were considered members of the society were protected from such behaviour.

However, this is not a debate of legitimacy of certain laws. It is not a debate of how criminals should be punished. It is a debate on the issue of why, after thousands of years of civilisation and the place in society of laws to govern right and wrong action do certain individuals persist in committing criminal acts.

For what reason do ‘social deviants’ such as psychopaths act in the manner they do. Are they the product of their genes, destined to their fate from the moment they were conceived, or rather are they the victims of the society and events of their upbringing?

The issue is very much genetics vs. psychology, and this is the case for the former.

The case will not argue that an individuals personality is not defined by their environment; clearly social background, wealth and upbringing do indeed shape us in language, thought and politics. As stated by one of the greats of psychology: “It can be argued that humans are the sum of their experiences”.
However, it will argue the case for why some individuals go too far over the line and break the code of laws that govern us, and in the worse of these cases, take the lives of their fellow civilians.
The argument that it is purely the sum of experiences which led to people to this path does nt explain why individuals of similar backgrounds can be found on both the right and wrong side of the law.

“Psychopaths. Murders. Criminals… are these psychopaths created by the society they live in, or are their psychotic tendencies with them since their birth? Are they born that way or not?”

In arguing this, four main areas will be covered;

Firstly, it will be argued that Psychopathic behaviour is based on a genetic disorder, and although society and environment can desensitise an individual, it does not make un untreatable disorder. Furthermore, it will attempt to discredit the notion that Psychopaths are automatically linked to criminal behaviour.

Second, genetics shall be argued, citing studied such as those of Patrick and Raine. These shall cover how those with abnormalities in neurotransmitter regulation and brain abnormalities developed during an individuals’ fetus or postnatal forms are linked to violent criminal behaviour, including murder, unreflective of social background.

Thirdly, basic hereditary genetics shall be cited involving studies such as that by Lagerspetz. These will argue that aggression - like intelligence, eye-colour etc – is passed down family lines from parent to child.

Fourthly, although the argument believes it is impossible to argue with the fact most criminals do indeed from lower-income backgrounds, it will make a case of why some of these individuals revert to crime and others of similar surroundings do not. Furthermore, social influences such as television and video game violence will be argued, despite current reports in the press against the games GTA: 3 and Manhunt, to have no impact on the murders they accused of have instigated.

Though we do not know exactly what creates a psychopath, there certainly is no shortage of theories. But most do seem to fall on the fact that this behaviour is learned, beginning at a young age. The parents are usually the biggest influence on a child's life.

Take fifteen year old Willie Bosket, who first killed a man because he wanted to know what it was like. He'd been waiting for that moment for quite some time. After wards he felt invincible, like he was higher than the law.

This behaviour could have come from many factors. His father was in jail for murder, and he was living in a foster home. He had a criminal history. He barely knew his mother. A friend of his mothers gave him a gun, and said it would get him respect on the streets. Bosket learned his behaviour. He was not born with it, growing up with violence all around him.

Most of us are familiar with "shaping", which is where we teach a specific behaviour to achieve a specific response. In most cases the psychopath has become obsessed with thoughts and ideas of what is around him. They are a direct result of their environment.

Shirley Lynn Scott has explained a few theories on Crime Library, such as adoption, peer rejection and witnessing violence.

In the chapter "Psychopaths?" she gives the following points on what psychiatrists say creats a sociopath:
• Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent;
• Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or absent;
• Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft, child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother;
• Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while publicly presenting the image of a "happy family".

Even adopted children have become sadistic because of their environments. Given up because their biological mother could not take care of them, thrown into a home where they have succombed to their surroundings.

Post 1

The first area that must be addressed is the issue of what Psychotic behaviour entails. The term has in recent become over used and often interchanged with the word ‘psychotic’ a totally different mental disorder. Due to the examination of reasons that drive humans to become criminals and murders that also occurs in the topic at hand, it is important to differentiate between the too groups, so that it is realised they must be tackled separately and not bound together.

The dictionary states that ‘Psychopathy’ is “any disease of the mind; the psychological state of someone who has emotional or behavioural problems serious enough to require psychiatric intervention”. Any individual suffering from this, and therefore a Psychopath is therefore deemed to be “suffering chronic mental disorder characterised by anti-social behaviour and lack of guilt, and little capacity for forming emotional relationships with others.” Therefore, psychopath does not mean psychotic, nor does it instantly make one a criminal. To be psychopathic, rather, describes the lack of emotion responses to certainly stimuli seen in other humans.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Psychopathy ; http://www.health.qld.gov.au/mental_hlth/g...y_terms_nr.asp)


As such the first issue that shall be looked at is genetics and there influence on crime both by psychopaths and non-psychopaths.


First, in relation to Psychopaths and crime;

Studies such as those by Patrick et al. who monitored 101 male children as they grew from 15-24, noting that those who committed crimes "had a significantly lower resting heart rate, skin conductance activity, and more slow-frequency electroencephalographic activity” in line of psychopaths; regardless of “social, demographic, or academic factors.”

Patrick et al.'s research strongly supports an earlier prospective study by Adrian Raine and colleagues. In the late 1970s, Raine et al. measured the resting heart rate, skin conductance and EEGs of 101 15-year-old male school children in England. When the subjects reached the age of 24, in 1988, the researchers ran computer searches to locate all who had been found guilty of crimes. They discovered that the subjects who later committed crimes "had a significantly lower resting heart rate, skin conductance activity, and more slow-frequency electroencephalographic activity than non-criminals." These differences were not related to social, demographic, or academic factors.
(http://216.117.159.91/crimetimes/95a/w95ap9.htm)


Furthermore, the opposition’s own source from Shirley Lynn Scott, states that “according to one psychological surveying tool (DSM IIIR) between 3 - 5% of men are sociopaths; less than 1% of female population are sociopaths”. This firmly places the majority of psychopaths as male, men being between three to five times more likely to be psychopathic than females.
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/psych_6.html?sect=19)
This does not support the argument of the opposition that psychopaths are the result of their environment. If these individuals truly were subject to social effects, then the results would average out to be the same, as females as well as males can suffer from bad environments. Particularly so in the issues of “rape” and domestic “physical… abuse” which the opposition state as leading to psychotic behaviour (their opening post), were females are more likely to be the victim than males.
Since the results are not equal it the opposition can only conclude the males are far more likely to suffer the harsh environments that lead to psychotic behaviour than females. Since this is obviously untrue, the only correct conclusion is that genetic differences between males and females are the reason. Either male genetics are more prone to psychopathic behaviours, or female genetics are more prone to resist such behaviours. An example may be that males are more prone do to evolving as hunters and warriors, while females are less prone having evolved to be nurturing carers and social animals.



As such psychopathic behaviour in criminals, appears regardless of social environment (contrary to the argument of the opposition), and is instead linked with heart rate, gender, skin conductance activity and electroencephalographic activity, issues related to genetics.



Second, in relation to criminals in general;

Further biological causes of violent behaviour also relate to brain damage during an individuals’ fetus or postnatal forms. In the Journal of Biological Psychiatry, Adrian Raine and the University of California reveals that the brains of murderers, on average, have significantly lower rates of glucose uptake than the healthy brain of the control subjects.
Raine, noted "Poor functioning of these limbic area helps explain why violent offenders fail to learn from experience and are less able to regulate their emotions.”
(http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/Katz.html)
Studies by Caccaro in 1989 also linked damage to the amydgala, hypothalamus, and related areas of the limbic system, before and after birth, to aggression. Damage to these areas produced defensive methods, included increased aggression to stumuli that are not usually threatening or decrease in the responses that normally inhibit aggression.
This links brain damage to criminal violence such as murder.


Also, several studies of the of the central nervous system (CNS) suggest that low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin have an effect on impulsive aggressive behaviour and irritability, and any crimes carried out as a result.
Violent, spur of the moment crimes, can be linked to the lack of impulsive control seen in individuals who have below-average levels of neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine or dopamine as a result of a increases in serotonin.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...aper1/Katz.html

Furthermore, levels of aggression also change with levels of testosterone in both sexes, and violent criminals tend to have higher amounts that non-criminals. (Dabbs et al, 1995) One experiment found that pregnant woman given testosterone in an attempt to avoid miscarriage gave birth to children twice as likely in males and third more likely in females to be more aggressive than same-sex siblings who were not exposed. (Reinisch, Ziemba-Davis, & Sanders, 1991)
(http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/view.php/d/272.HTM)


Lastly, although not pre-determined before birth, it is neither an aspect of their social environment. A happy miscellaneous item, it fits closer to the genetics argument in arguing against social facts than it does the other way around.
A study published in the Clinical and Consulting Psychology on wife beating found that most men who beat there wives/partners were indeed subjected to violence childhoods, often by male-role models against women. However, the study also found that men who had suffered head-injuries were six times more likely to abuse their partner than men who had not.




It seems clear that natural chemicals in the brain increase violence, just as non-natural ones such as alcohol do. Therefore, unlike the opposition’s argument, there is evidence that environment may only be a trigger mechanism for those whose genetics have already rigged to not deal with issues, particularly stress, in the same matter as others.

Still waiting for Body Post 2 from Disinterested.
I'll see if she's still willing to participate..

Sorry this one took so long... and it's so short too. I'll make up for it in my next post.

-----------

In this article by psychiatrist Elliott Barker, he states "Evidence exists that psychopaths are created early in childhood; disruptions caused by extreme and multiple separations from caregivers in the first three to five years of life impair later capacities for trust, empathy, and affection."

Psychopaths are anti-social. They do not conceive emotion the same way the rest of us do. They are concerned with their own pleasure and gratification. They often appear charming, typically the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. They study everyone else around them frequently and learn their behaviours. They are manipulative.
In the first few years of a child’s life, the relationship with the mother usually seems to be the most significant. Many psychopaths have had rather twisted relationships with their mothers: some being too distant, never offering love or any affection; others are too close to them. Ed Gein’s mother told him that all women were whores, with the exception of herself. He had never dated, and lived with his mother until she passed, and continued living in her farmhouse afterward, leaving her room untouched.

Post 2

Hereditary

In 2002 The New Zealand longitudinal study researched an unidentified number of individuals, linked their childhood to crime or lack-there-of, to levels of the genotype MAO A (enzyme monoamine oxidase A).
Of those studied, 36% had by the age of 11 been maltreated (8% severely so) as defined by frequent changes in primary caregiver, rejection by the mother and physical or sexual abuse.
The study found that maltreated subjects, despite making only 12% of those with low MAO A activity, they accounted for 44% of their generation's total convictions for assault and other violent crimes.
Although this would imply upbringing played a part, magnifying the likelihood of committing a crime 9 times over, it was found that those with high levels of MAO A, even those who had been maltreated, were unlikely to have been convicted of a crime.
Moffitt concluded that "The genotype of high MAO A activity may promote 'trauma resistance.” And although it does not explain why people are violent, it is clear that those suffering from low MAO A enzyme levels are clearly more likely to commit crime whether they have been maltreated or not.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/2003_08.html

Another case of MAO A related violence was published in Discover Magazine, where a study of a single family over five generations in which ten men were unusually aggressive compared to other family members. All 10 members were male, and carried a malfunctioning MAO A codes which had been passed through the family from mother to son through the X chromosome.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...aper1/Katz.html


Also genetic is the Double Y chromosome, of which carriers are more likely to serve sentences in jail than normal XY males. Contrary to common thinking, modern studies have disproved the believe that being an XYY male makes the individual more violent. However, the studies did prove its link with lowered intelligence which is blamed for the increased chance of running foul of the law.
http://www.genomicart.org/genome-chap3.htm


The oppositions own source from Shirley Lynn Scott, reports also on the behaviour of the biological children of psychopaths, who have been adopted into ‘normal’ families.
She writes than in one study in Copenhagen sociopaths who had been adopted were 4-5 times more likely to sociopathic biological relatives, than a non-sociopathic adopted individual.
Therefore in most cases having a psychopathic parent increased the likelihood of an individual being psychopathic themselves, despite being adopted into a completely different family. She concluded that genetics was the “predisposition to antisocial behavior” with social background only being the “make or break” trigger that activated such behaviour.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers..._6.html?sect=19


A study by Rushton also on adoption found that twins, whether reared together or apart tend to show similar levels of aggressiveness, even when raised in totally separate backgrounds. (Rushton et al, 1986) Similarly they can inherit impulses that may make violence more likely (Baron & Richardson, 1994)


Scott further writes inherently genetic-based developmental disabilities that can cause psychopathic behaviour include, “stunted development of the higher functions of the brain”. She explains that the brain wave patterns, or EEGs, of between 30 and 38% of psychopaths are abnormal. Normally children have slower brain wave activity than adults, but while in normal people this increases as they progress to such, psychopaths do not. These genetic disabilities affect the temporal lobes and the limbic system, creating abnormalities in memory and emotions.
She adds, that when this genetic problem is combined with abusive, irresponsible or manipulative parents, “the stage is set for disaster”. Once again therefore, genetics is the factor in predetermining a psychopath; environment is simply the trigger that sets them off.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers..._6.html?sect=19



The fact is, that hereditary aggressiveness is strong, especially if looking at other forms of animals. In one study a large group of mice were interbred, with each passing generation taking the most aggressive individuals in the litter and breeding them. The result was the breeding of mice who would attack any other mice placed in a cage with them. Alternatively a similar breeding program taking and breeding passive mice in every generation eventually produced a litter who refused to fight even when attacked. (Lagerspetz & Lagerspetz, 1983).

Due to time restraints, Disinterested has informed me she is unable to continue this debate. Which is a shame because you've both posted a few great posts here. Which has lead me to pass this debate straight to the debate judges instead of closing it and declaring Talon the winner.

So thank you very much for the debate, and now it's on to the judging.

What a shame the debate could not be continued...I was really getting into it. Well done to both of you.

Debater/ Disinterested

Relevancy: 8
Countering: 4
Style: 7
Persuasiveness: 5
TOTAL: 24

Debater/ Talon

Relevancy: 8
Countering: 9
Style: 8
Persuasiveness: 8
TOTAL: 33

This debate was really going well, both sides were were arguing terrificly for their side of the debate.


Debator: Disinterested!

Relevancy: 8
Countering: 5
Style: 7
Persuasiveness: 6
TOTAL: 26

Ivery good just more countering needed and I have to deduct points for pulling out but otherwise good job!

Debator: Talon.S

Relevancy: 8
Countering: 7
Style: 7
Persuasiveness: 9
TOTAL: 31

Excellent devating Talon, very detailed posts, myabe a little long but very persuasive!

Its a pity this one didnt go longer

Debator: Disinterested

Relevancy: 8
Countering: 6
Style: 7
Persuasiveness: 6
TOTAL: 27

Debator: Talon

Relevancy: 8
Countering: 8
Style: 8
Persuasiveness: 7
TOTAL: 31

Thanks Judges!

And the results are in.

Disinterested had a fantastic start and racked up an average score of 26.

Talon came out on top with a terrific average of 31.


Thanks very much to both of you for taking part.