On March 2nd of 2010 Jon Venables (27) was re-arrested for an unspecified breach of the terms of his parole. Venables along with Robert Thompson were given lifelong parole upon release after serving a 7 year sentence for the murder of 2 year old Jamie Bulger on the 12th of February 1993. Although the authority’s have not been forthcoming in giving details, rumors have begun to swirl that Venables was arrested for a variety of offences ranging from possession of child pornography to violence. Most shocking of all is the speculation that Venables is now a father of two and is engaged to be married. This raises the question, is Venables family aware of his past or has his government provided new id (at a cost of £250,000) to hide the truth? This has not only opened old wounds across Britain but has also resurrected the Nature vs. Nurture debate.
This is the eternal debate of which has a greater effect on the person we will become, the genes we are born with or the environment in which we are raised. In the Bulger case we would be quick to presume that Venables was born a monster due to his young age and the heinous nature of his crime, but that would be all too simple of an answer. Evidence produced during the trial seemed to indicate that Thompson was the instigator which would clearly show evidence of the Nurture side of the argument. Geneticists and psychologists have for decades been using cases of twin separation and adoption in the hopes of discovering which argument has the greater effect.
In most cases it was shown that identical twins separated at birth, on average share more personality traits then the vast majority of strangers. However this is hardly conclusive. In only a very few cases is it fair to say that a trait is due almost entirely to nature, or almost entirely to nurture. In the case of most diseases now strictly identified as genetic, such as Huntington’s disease, there is a better than 99.9% correlation between having the identified gene and the disease and a similar correlation for not having either. On the other hand in relation to animal husbandry, Huntington’s animal models live much longer or shorter lives depending on how they are cared for. At the other extreme, traits such as native language are environmentally determined. Several linguists have found that any child (if capable of learning a language at all) can learn any human language with equal facility. With virtually all biological and psychological traits, however, genes and environment work in concert, communicating back and forth to create the individual.
Experimental psychologist Steve Pinker described the situation in the following way…” concrete behavioral traits that patently depend on content provided by the home or culture —which language one speaks, which religion one practices, which political party one supports— are not heritable at all. But traits that reflect the underlying talents and temperaments —how proficient with language a person is, how religious, how liberal or conservative— are partially heritable.”
Then there are the volumes of statistics that show, in relation to crime, children raised in lower socio-economic brackets or in broken homes are far more likely to commit a crime before the age of 25 then those raised in the wealthier more educated families. These suggest that environment can and does play a much more important role. The creation of sub-standard council estate in the past led to a massive surge in anti-social behavior, thus showing environments huge influence.
However can we ever really calculate what makes us who we are? Can you honestly say which had a larger effect on your life, your genes or the friends, family and city with which you grew up in. All academics can agree on is the both nurture and nature playing roles, but if we fundamentally change the characteristics of an area then we change the very nature of the people in that area and the children they would have. Still today we can’t say which is more important. We may never know.
What about Venables? Was he born with the urge to commit that monstrous act or was he a victim of circumstance. Did spending his entire childhood in prison, having to change his identity and the constant shame of his act force him to recommit? We may never know, however he is now and will remain a lasting reminding of the random acts of evil we all potentially have within us all and a symbol for the destruction of innocence in modern society.
