Critics of the genetic approach to understanding crime point out that there are a variety of ways in which a trait like skin color can interact with social forces such as racism to produce destructive social behavior, and there is no reason to believe that further biological research will result in genes being directly linked to behavior (Wasserman 108)
As Robert Sampson states, "everybody believes that poverty causes crime," but this materialist point of view is insufficient. It does nothing to explain why crime increases occur during times of economic growth, white-collar crime, the weak correlation between social class and crime, or the epidemics of violence in wealthy countries (Sampson 711). He also moves on to write that background variables such as race, family background, and class do little to predict the potential for an individual to commit a crime. Although Sampson believes that crime is indeed based in the social as opposed to biological contexts, he asserts that social processes on the community level are to blame, not individual background traits (Sampson 713-14). .
Another argument for the social side of the issue cites that the only thing that many crimes have in common is the fact that they are illegal. Law prohibits all murder, theft, incest, and speeding, but the only element that these behaviors share is the threat of punishment. Because of the wide range of these behaviors, it seems as though the only explanation is that the offender are responding to the prohibition of such crimes. Beyond this is also the assumption that most crimes are committed in an effort go gain status, material possessions or some other form of gratification. As this desire is seen in the general population, it is not abnormal and can be seen in those people with "standard genetic endowments" (Zimring 105). .
Despite the society-based arguments regarding violence, the other primary argument asserts that crime is based on genetics much more so than society or environmental influences.