Nature v Nurture Debate- What is it and how does it apply to the Case?

 What is the Nature v Nurture Debate?

According to https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0163.xml (Published 30th September 2013, viewed 30th June 2021) the nature v nurture debate is evaluating the conditions regarding a defendant's reasoning/ ability to commit a crime. The Nature side focuses on how a defendant's behaviour or actions are a result of genes and DNA. The Nurture side focuses on how a defendant's behaviour or actions are a result of upbringing, the environment they live in and the morals they have been taught. The source I used is very reliable because it quotes theorists who used and have added to the nature v nurture debate; meaning that their information is up to date and accurate as many people have added to the debate. 

How does this Apply to the case?

Having looked at https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/article/born-evil-what-drove-james-bulgers-underage-killers (published 2021; viewed 4th August 2021) I have been able to split the Nature v Nurture Debate to apply to each defendant as shown below:     This makes the source reliable as it has allowed me to look at both defendant's nature and nurture so I can apply the debate. I have also used this website domain before so I am aware their information is reliable. 

Venables:

Nature: Prior to his release, the parole officer said that there was "no account of any sexual element to the offence". However, we know this to be incorrect as Venables and Thompson inserted batteries into James Bulger's anus, which is a sexual offence. Furthermore; Venables was later re-arrested in 2010 and later in 2017 with possession of child abuse and child pornographic images, which denotes a sexual element to Venables first offence in 1993. Therefore we can assume that Venables Nature was a significant factor as to why parts of the murder of James Bulger took place. Looking at the police interviews, venables is hysteric and acting like a child; which could suggest that he is not fully understanding of the magnitude of his crime. However, later on he becomes calm and collected when describing their crime and imitates James crying for his mother; which could denote a rather cynical and correct mental state at the time, as if he was not fully "with it" he wouldn't remember the cry James let out for his mother. 

Nurture: Venables is reported to have had a stable home life, not suffering any violence. He is also not known to be bullied at school, and has often been described as the more probable to be the bully. Many have argued that venables was led by thompson. However, his parents were not described as well off, and his mother was "estranged". It is also more likely that venables was easily led by Thompson, but may have taken things too far (linking back to Nature) as his future convictions of sexual offences shows us that it could be a well part of his DNA for sexual offences, so when given an opportunity that Thompson presented him with, he took it. It could also be probable that venables wasn't aware of the enjoyment he would get from sexual offences until he took part in James' Murder. 

Thompson:

Nature: Thompson's behaviour in the interviews was described as "calm and collected", which can show a few things. If a person, let alone a child, is calm and collected in an interview it can mean that a) they didn't do it and have nothing to hide; or most probable with Thompson b) they knew exactly what they did and are attempting not to reveal anything. This can show that he knew the full extent of what he had done, and by being calm and collected he was showing little if no remorse. 

Nurture: Thompson's home life was the polar opposite to Venables. He had a difficult upbringing with violence at home. His mother was frequently subjected to physical and sexual violence by his father. This violence continued after the father left, with the brothers turning on each other and the mother turning to alcohol. This could mean that the theory of Thompson leading Venables could be accurate, as with a background of viewing violence he would believe that it is acceptable and okay, so he would replicate those actions onto others. 

According to the presiding Judge, Mr Justice Morland, the responsibility of the crime at the feet of the parents. 

Looking at the Nature v Nurture of both defendants, the only piece of their backgrounds that doesn't make much sense is the victim. Why did both Venables and Thompson target a child? It could be that they felt as if they didn't have much of a chance with anyone their age/ slightly older; so would need a smaller person to fulfil their plan of physical and sexual dominance. 

The behaviour of the 2 defendants at trial:

It is difficult to apply the Nature v Nurture debate to the behaviour of Venables and Thomspon to the trial. This is because both have been called either Child A or Child B to protect identities; however both have been described as calm and collected throughout the majority, but this is only speculation as the identities of which one is Child A or Child B has not been revealed. 

Where now?

From this, I will now look at the criminal behaviour of both boys in the interviews, and if they demonstrate guilty or innocent behaviour.