IELTS Writing Task 2 Topic:
Some scientists believe that studying the behaviour of 3-year-old children can predict their criminality. To what extent do you think a crime is a product of human nature or is it possible to stop children from growing up to be criminals.
There is a multitude of people who subscribe to the notion that by observing the behaviours of young children, we can predict their likelihood of becoming criminals in the future. However, it is believed that other external factors can also heavily influence children’s development and their mannerisms in adulthood.
Through various researches, scientists found that delinquents, in fact, share some personal traits in their childhood that can help foretell their criminality. Generally, these individuals were more aggressive and impulsive than their peers when they were kids. For these reasons, it is understandable why some people contend that learning about how one behaves as a child can help foresee their chance of committing crimes as an adult.
Nevertheless, compared to other extrinsic elements, such as upbringing and schooling, genetic characteristics appear to be less influential on children’s behaviours. It is no surprise that children who are raised in a healthy and educational environment often grow to be ethical citizens. On the contrary, most convicts have some extent of tragedy in their childhoods, such as parental divorce and family breakdown. Without their parents’ guidance and sufficient attention, kids lack the ability to judge right and wrong, a skill that is vital in a moral society. For that reason, it is necessary that adults need to monitor and control youngsters’ behaviours and undertake/take/implement any corrective measure when it is needed.
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, there is no point arguing whether there is a nexus between one’s genes and their behavioural patterns. However, it is strongly supported that when children receive good care and ethical education, it is unlikely that they will commit any unlawful activities in the future.
Some scientists are of the opinion that hereditary characteristics are responsible for the person’s temperament and hence future career. I disagree with this notion. I believe genes do play a role, but the primary determinant is nurture – education and bringing up. It is definitely possible to mould a child into any direction by proper bringing-up.
If we adopt the mindset that if parents are criminals then so will the children be, we are limiting or even damaging the individual’s basic right to achieve his very best. Children can rise above the gene pool and rise to great heights. Even if a child is born to criminal parents but brought up away from that environment and provided quality education, he will not be a criminal.
The debate on nature versus nurture has been raging for ages, and no clear cut answer has come forward. A child prodigy can be born to ordinary parents, and many intelligent parents can have ordinary children. A talented person can go unnoticed in the absence of the right environment and upbringing, and an ordinary person can reach great heights with proper training. So the interplay between hereditary and environmental factors must be there.
It has been seen that children born to intelligent parents also are intelligent and successful. But it is also possible that such parents provide an environment which nurtures the development of their children. When we see some programmes such as ‘India’s Got Talent’ and ‘Little Champs’, we notice some extremely gifted children who are born with talent and also some who have achieved great heights with great perseverance and proper coaching.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that both nature and nurture play a part in determining the character of a person. It can also be concluded that both are inextricably linked with each other. But nurture weighs over nature, and it is definitely possible to prevent children from growing up to be criminals.
Also check :