You are on page 1of 3

Summer Batchelor

Mrs. Crist
English 4
September 28, 2016
Nature vs. Nurture
Law and Order, two things that our society today takes very strongly. No matter the
situation there are consequences for every decision we make, whether it be in the heat of the
moment and our judgement is clouded. We are held accountable for every move that we make
after a certain age. If someone makes a life changing decision and it affects their situation to the
extent that they are to brought forth into a courtroom, then all of the circumstances should be
taken into account. Very often there are scenarios where people make a decision after being
pushed to a certain extent. Many people may be affected by a type of behavioral disorder and not
even know it until it is too late. Nature vs Nurture should always be taken into account in the
courtroom. Whether the defendant inherited a disorder and is not aware of it, or if they simply
knew exactly what he or she was doing and the consequences that were to come, they should be
fully assessed regardless. Every person should be able to claim their innocence and express why
they feel this way.
One case that proves the fact of the matter that Nature and Nurture should both be taken
into account is the Stephen Stanko trial. Stephen Stanko was your average man. He had just
started a fairly new and successful relationship with his girlfriend Laura Ling. Soon Stanko
showed a side that no one would expect. Stanko was charged and convicted of double murder
and rape. In the beginning there was nothing else that Stanko could do but to plead guilty, there
was simply too much evidence of his crimes. Although he admitted to everything leading up to

the attack, he claims to have no memory of the gruesome crimes. Bill Diggs, a former Stanko
defense attorney, stated that he didnt even think Stephen understood himself what happened
(Reports Info).
There are many different ways that the argument of nature or nurture can effect and trial
outcome. In this specific case, even though Stanko did pled guilty to all chargers and was
sentenced to death, he later claimed the reasoning behind his actions and the justification of why
he could not remember any specific details from the incident was because of the brain defect that
he developed over time from a past injuring during his childhood. When arguing the fact that
Stanko did in fact have no recollection of the crimes commited, a lawyer, Brana Williams
statesIf you have a doctor who will say your client is insane, its inexcusable not to present it.
(Reports Info) For Stanko this not only causes the jury to second guess the truth of the motives
for his actions, but it also affects the verdict. Stanko says, I never would of hurt anyone on
purpose, never.(48 Hours) All children make mistakes and get injured, this is an argument that
the prosecutor claimed. What makes this case any different, Stankos Prosecuting attorney says,
No everyday childhood accident should justify a radical killing spree. (Reports Info)
Although Stanko may of had valid reasoning in his mind who's to say if he was not
outsmarting the system the whole time? He has a severe case of antisocial personality
disorder. said defense attorney Diggs. (48 hours) There is proof of a slight brain injury from his
childhood, but there is no specific answer of how it may affect Stankos decision making
capabilities. Regardless, are these variables enough to justify murder? This is one of the main
debates in the law system today. There are obvious complications in any case, but how is there
supposed to be security in any decisions when there are yet to be set ways to see the effects of
disorders or emotional trauma endured.

No matter what there is always going to be three sides to every story. There is the two
defendants sides and the truth. Whether it is prosecuting the crime maker or defending yourself
when it comes to your actions. All of the determining factors should be taken into account. If
one is to say they were physical and or mentally abused growing up, that is more than
appropriate to be broughten up when defending an action. There is always the likelihood that a
person inherits a mental disorder whether they are aware of it or not. Doctor Smith says that in
his own personal opinion Regardless if the person has knowledge of the mental defect or not it
will not go away and is bound to flair up when he or she is put in different situations. (Nature
via nurture) Nature vs. Nurture are both extremely important topics to be brought up when
stating the motives behind a crime.

1. 48 Hours. Dir. Latimerie Podivn. Dailymotion. Youtube, 7 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
2. Reports Info@myhorrynews.com, Staff. "Stephen Stanko Will Have to Wait to See If He Gets
a Second Chance at Life." MyHorryNews.com. Waccamaw Publisher, 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Oct.
2016.
3.

Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human.

Ridley, Matt
New York, NY, US: HarperCollins Publishers Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human.
(2003). 326 pp.

You might also like