performed, a very similar situation already exists. It is referred to as adoption. A study done on the criminality of sons by Wilson and Herrenstein shows the results of this exact experiment. Close to four thousand adopted children were studied. The study showed that of the children whose biological and adoptive parents had never committed a criminal offense, only 13.5% of the children committed a crime in the future (Livingston 320). Now when the child's biological parents were criminals, it turned out that 20.0% of the children committed a crime (Livingston 320), whereas if only the adoptive parents were criminals, then the percentage decreased to 14.7% (Livingston 320). So we see that there is slightly more than a one percent change when a child with law abiding parents is compared to a child whose adoptive parents were criminals. Perhaps this shows that those who do not hold a certain genetic predisposition toward violence will hardly let their environment motivate them to a criminal life. Yet what would happen to a child who already has a predisposition toward violence and is placed in the care of parents who are criminals? The study found that when this occurred, the percentage of children who turned to crime jumped to 24.5% (Livingston 320). Hence, the study shows that the biological factor has a significant advantage over the environmental factor in determining criminality, while the two factors also work well together in fostering criminality.
             Wilson and Herrenstein's study touched on the passing of criminal traits through the genetic parents and placed the weight solely on their shoulders. Its focus is mainly on the parents who committed crimes. Although it produced some concrete results, it does not reckon with parents with criminal tendencies who have never been charged with crimes. This next study will now place the attention solely on the child. Studying one child may prove to be inconclusive, ...