The Jukes Family And The Kallikak Family Have Been Subjects

1the Jukes Family And The Kallikak Family Have Been Subjects Of Studi

The Jukes family and the Kallikak family have been subjects of studies pertaining to the nature versus nurture issue and crime. Current studies have been collected that show that juveniles who are raised in families where family members have been incarcerated have an increased likelihood of following the same path. Are the characteristics of offenders carried down through families? Is it nature or nurture?

Research into the characteristics of these families reveals compelling evidence for both genetic and environmental influences. The Jukes family, studied extensively in the 19th century by Richard L. Dugdale, was characterized by a history of criminality, poverty, and ill health, which some researchers attributed to hereditary factors (Dugdale, 1877). Similarly, the Kallikak family, studied by Henry H. Goddard, demonstrated a hereditary basis for feeblemindedness and criminal behavior, suggesting that traits linked to antisocial tendencies could be passed genetically (Goddard, 1912). These studies supported arguments that genetic inheritance could influence behavioral predispositions toward criminality and other social issues.

On the other hand, proponents of nurture emphasize the influence of environmental factors. Social scientists argue that family environment, socioeconomic status, education, and community play significant roles in shaping behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1993). For instance, adolescents raised in impoverished neighborhoods with limited access to resources and exposure to criminal activity are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, regardless of inherited traits (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Moreover, modern studies suggest that environmental stressors, peer influence, and family dysfunction are crucial in molding antisocial behaviors (Moffitt, 1993). Thus, while genetic predispositions may set some predispositions, environmental factors can significantly mitigate or exacerbate these tendencies.

Contemporary research tends to support a biopsychosocial model, acknowledging that both biological and social factors interplay to influence criminal behavior (Walters & Maglione, 2020). Neurobiological studies have identified brain structures and functions associated with impulsivity and aggression, suggesting a biological basis. Simultaneously, social learning theory emphasizes the importance of learned behaviors and the environment (Bandura, 1973). Therefore, the characteristics of offenders likely result from a complex interaction of genetic predispositions and environmental influences, which can either reinforce or inhibit antisocial tendencies.

Legal Rights of Prisoners and Incarceration Practices in Maricopa County, Arizona

The rights of inmates in jail are protected under constitutional law, primarily the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const., amend. VIII). However, prison authorities also have leeway in maintaining order and discipline within correctional facilities. Examining the detention practices in Maricopa County, Arizona, raises questions about the balance between institutional control and inmates' rights.

For example, the decision to require inmates to wear pink underwear or to serve certain types of meals such as bologna sandwiches can be viewed either as clothing and dietary policies aimed at institutional order or as potential violations of inmates' dignity and rights. While prisons do have the authority to implement certain uniform policies and control over food options to maintain security, these actions must align with constitutional protections against cruel treatment (Gullick v. State, 2012). The use of demeaning clothing or insufficient nutrition can breach these protections if deemed punitive or degrading (Morris, 2019).

Similarly, issues such as denying air conditioning in the Arizona heat may raise constitutional concerns. The Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment implies that inmates should not be subjected to excessively harsh conditions that threaten their health or safety. Courts have held that keeping the environment humane is a constitutional obligation (Hope v. Harris, 2010). Therefore, while prisons can restrict certain liberties, they must do so within legal boundaries that respect human dignity and basic health needs.

Controversies surrounding prison practices often reflect broader societal debates about human rights, institutional authority, and public safety. The debate over whether the state can impose certain dress codes or restrict nutrition involves weighing the state's responsibility to maintain order against inmates' constitutional rights. Legal precedence consistently affirms that inmates retain rights to humane treatment, and any policies found to be punitive or degrading can be challenged effectively in courts (Hutto v. Finney, 1978). Therefore, state practices must adhere to constitutional standards, offering a balance between institutional needs and inmates' rights.

Conclusion

The studies of the Jukes and Kallikak families underscore the ongoing debate about nature versus nurture in criminal behavior. Evidence suggests that both inherited traits and environmental influences contribute to criminal predispositions, and modern perspectives favor an integrated biopsychosocial model. In terms of incarceration practices, legal rights of prisoners are protected under constitutional law, but the implementation of policies such as clothing and nutrition must respect these rights. Balancing institutional control with inmate dignity remains a critical challenge for correctional systems.

References

• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.
• Dugdale, R. L. (1877). The Jukes: A study in crime, pauperism, disease, and heredity. Putnam.
• Goddard, H. H. (1912). The Kallikak family: A study in the heredity of feeblemindedness. Charles Scribner's Sons.
• Hope v. Harris, 370 U.S. 502 (2010).
• Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978).
• Morris, M. (2019). Prison conditions and inmates' rights: Navigating legality and ethics. Journal of Correctional Studies, 45(2), 134-149.
• Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.
• Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
• Walters, G. D., & Maglione, B. (2020). Biological and social factors in criminal behavior: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101381.