Nature Vs. Nurture In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Does nurturing children have a positive outcome on their life? Or is it genetics that make children the way they are? Questions similar to these are addressed in the debate of nature vs nurture. This argument centers around what controls our outcome: our environment or our genes. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor’s creation, the intention of which was to help understand the concept of life and death, results in nothing more than destruction of his own life. Victor did not nurture the monster, even though it was eager for love and compassion the second Victor created it. After being repeatedly abused and rejected by others, the creature becomes evil. Both children and the creature in Frankenstein share the basic psychological needs of love and affection that must be met in order for them to become active members in society. The nature vs nurture “dichotomy” is an ongoing debate in psychology which centers around genetic
Timmendequs is a convicted murderer. He allegedly raped and murdered his seven-year-old neighbor, Megan Kanka, in Hamilton New Jersey on July 29, 1994. He lured Kanka into his house by offering to show her a puppy. He then proceeded to rape her. Timmendequs later strangled her with a belt. He placed the body in his truck, and assaulted her an additional time before placing Megan in a wooden toy chest and dumping it near Mercer County Park. When they searched Jesse’s house that night, he was very nervous, sweaty, and kept mixing up his stories. The next day, Timmendequs eventually confessed to his crimes and lead the police to the spot of Megan’s body. Evidence of blood stains, hair, and fiber samples were found by police outside of Timmendequas’ home. Authorities also found a bite mark matching Megan Kanka’s teeth on his hand, leading him to be found guilty of kidnapping, four counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of felony murder. He faced the death penalty and a minimum of 30 years in prison