Noted explorer, anthropologist and cousin of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, first used the phrase ¡§Nature versus Nurture¡ in 1871 (Lewis, 2000). The debate, however, is far older than that as it dates back to the early Greeks, whose literature debated the nature of fate versus free will (Oedipus the King, a play written by the Greek dramatist, Sophocles, c. 497 ¡V 406 B.C.). The nature vs nurture controversy has continued ever since and, although there are scholars who seek to finalise the discussion, it is doubtful this will ever occur. While studies of nature vs nurture are significant in the science of criminology as one means of determining causes of criminal behaviour, it is also present in a multitude of other scientific areas such as sociology, genetics and psychology to mention just a few.
             The nature vs nurture argument became ¡§biodeterminism vs environmentalism¡ in the twentieth century (Kimble, 1993). At the end of that century, an interesting compromise was made and ¡§biodeterminism vs environmentalism¡ became ¡§interactionism¡ (Gould, 1996). Interactionism focuses on the human being as an active participant in relation to his/her environment, defining the many issues and complex relationships between the individual and society, as well as the relevance of this perspective to understanding the human being (Charon, 1998).
             Since these early examples, many studies have been commissioned to determine the underlying principle that motivates a person towards a life of crime. Some experts would have us believe that genetics are solely responsible while others tout the theory that the individual¡s environment is the single contributing factor. This writer believes it is a combination of both theories.
             In this context, nature is the extent to which human behaviour results from biological factors; that is, any inclination toward criminal activity is genetically based. Nurture is the degree to whi...