I think this debate between kind of nature and nurture is usually a dead end. I feel that usually people defend one side or the other depending on their past experiences and the narrative they identify with the most. I read that the number of studies defending nurture over nature exploded as a reaction to the second world war, just because it was good to have opinions very opposed to all those the nazis had. But that's just a narrative. Now the scale is moving back slightly from that position.
If someone says such a disease is caused by genetics and not traumas, many people will not like this explanation because to them it will mean that nothing can be changed and that they are hopeless. If someone says that the same disease is caused by traumas and can be solved by therapy, many people are going to dislike this explanation because to them it will mean they are to blamed if they are not better yet.
If someone says that criminals with schizophrenia are not responsible for their actions, many people are going to dislike it because they will picture a guy with schizophrenia who is responsible for his actions nonetheless and escapes his responsibily with a grin to the victim. If someone says that criminals with schizophrenia are responsible for their actions, many people are going to dislike it because they will picture a guy who was victim of a psychosis break, who clearly didn't know what they were doing, who were not in control of their brain and who are being lynched by an ignorant mob.
Just because we tend to identify with one narrative or the other, we will tend to stick to one opinion or the other. But the truth is it sucks to be blamed for your disease, it sucks to be hopeless, it sucks to be held responsible when you are not, and it sucks that some people use a diagnosis to escape their responsibilities. But we cannot go 100% in one direction just based on what situation we hate the most or based on the situation we identify with the most. I think we can find answers but it will never be simple. Also it's tempting to imagine that when one person expresses an opinion that isn't as strong as ours they automatically fall in the opposite category defending the other extreme, and then all parties end up defending extremes when they all started from a similar more nuanced opinion.
That's my two cents words of "wisdom".