It is my position that crime is largely a consequence of nurture. The case of Kuklinski can be used illustratively. Social upbringing has a large bearing on the decision. Kuklinski, for instance, is a product of brutal parenthood from his father. He equally admits that he hated his mother who would punish him by the cane (used broom to punish him). He (Kuklinski) confirms that he derives no pleasure from killing. In fact, he limits his pleasure feeling to sexual intercourse. However, it is not always the case that everyone who is neglected and abused would turn violent. Determining the course one takes is the personal character. For instance, Kuklinski appears to a have a sadistic personality. He informs the psychiatrist that he would torture cats in some cases even burning cats alive. The personal character of the person, therefore, will inform his decision as to crime or not.
The post appreciates the troubled life Kuklinski had. In equal measure, it observes the determined nature of the psychiatrist who professionally gets Kuklinski to tell his story. Indeed, I do concur with the post in the sense that Kuklinski is a product of nurture and nature. He was naturally a sadist and this informs his decision to join crime. In addition, the lack of family love caused worsened the situation by creating a state of anger in him.
The post takes the position that Kuklinski is a product of nature and nurture. I do concur. However, I tend to disagree with the view that Kuklinski did not elect to join crime and that he was rather predisposed to being a criminal. I believe the actions by Kuklinski are influenced by both nature and nurture and for that reason he made a decision to join crime.
The Iceman Tapes: Inside the Mind of a Mafia Man. n.d. <http://youtu.be/psoq8qYvx18>.