Recent statistics show that crime rates have continued rising despite several advancements in prevention strategies put up by security agencies at the community and operational levels. Moreover, several researchers have carried out studies to ascertain the association between the crime on one hand and the social environment and genetic makeup on the other hand. Raine asserted that conflicting studies have failed in explaining the genesis and the drivers of crime due to their selectiveness while dealing with the issue (1993, p.46). Proponents of biological positivists and social scientists have delved on separate studies thereby leading controversies on the tenacity of their findings. Despite this setback, the opponents have come to the conclusion that crime is mainly driven by a constellation of factors that include genetic makeup and influences from the social environment. This essay will support the notion that criminals are made with reference to the nature versus nurture debate. First and foremost, a criminal is anybody who indulges in an act that is against the set rules governing an organized system in the society and may lead to prosecution and conviction. Since crime is not a new occurrence, different theories that serve to explain the process exist. More importantly, different ways of addressing the vice forwarded by psychologists and sociologists have continually found usage in modern society. The nature versus nurture debate has found usefulness in the explanation of the criminal aspect of the society (Plomin, Fulker, Corley & DeFries, 1988, p. 448). To start with, nature versus debate is a concept that tends to explain the influence the environment and the heredity factors have on the professional or social careers of individuals in the society. While nativists believe that inherited factors and the genetic makeup play a major role in individual development, the empiricists are of the opinion that the interaction with the social, economic and political environment has more influence in deciding the destiny of an individual. This debate has continually informed psychologists who have ultimately utilized it to develop the interactionist theory that denote that interaction between environment and hereditary factors are responsible for the development of an individual social life (Plomin, Fulker, Corley & DeFries, 1988, p. 445). Although genetic makeup plays a role in development of social life, it would be unfair to fail to overemphasize the role of the environment in influencing criminal life in the society. Studies have shown that there are variations in behaviors especially of twins brought up in different backgrounds in terms of the environment. The social learning theory and the labeling behaviour are some of the theories that have informed and supported the association between crime and environment. The theories assert that criminality is mainly a product of the socialization experienced by the individual. Socialization with various groups and individuals such as peers, family members and other agents may have a positive or negative influence on a person’s life. According to Hale (1998, p.54), criminal life is something that is learnt and acquired during social interaction. Learning of criminal behaviour is mainly through communication, obser