Introduction
Several studies have been conducted to ascertain the meaning of crime and unearth how criminals operate, behave and why they do so. Various concepts have been developed about the need to establish the causes of antisocial and criminal behaviors in general. Psychologists, in particular, have developed various theories as concerns crime. For example, the development of criminal psychology has seen various evolutions in the field of psychology. The most important question one would ask is whether there’s anything like a criminal mind. Are criminal activities controlled by the criminal mind? But first, it’s important to establish the meaning of the criminal mind? Does it exist? If so, how is it connected to criminal activities? This paper seeks to establish the actual meaning of the criminal mind, and whether it does exist. Some scholars have advanced various arguments that the criminal mind does exist, while others have criticized this belief, focusing on the actual crime at hand rather than connecting it to the historical past. Critical analysis of the evidence available that follows will establish whether criminal minds do exist.
What’s ‘Criminal Mind’?
‘11-year-old boy kills a 9-year-old in Texas’; ‘two suicide bombers kill thirteen worshippers in a church in West Bank’; ‘a man shoots his wife to death after family difference in Florida’; ‘a man in Chicago admits killing 12 prostitutes after having sex with them in his hotel room’, etc. Such statements frequently grace our newspapers’ headlines in today’s society. Why would such gruesome acts become familiar happenings within our society daily? Are there some explanations for them? Do the theories formulated to explain them justify the increasing criminal behaviors? Or is there anything like a criminal mind? Such are the questions one would ask to get a grasp of what is happening in our society.
At tender age of four, five, eight or fifteen, a few parents may be in a position to predict that their baby, whom they adore dearly, would one day become terrorist, serial killer, rapists, etc. However, with the help of hindsight, some parents of criminal offenders have the ability to reflect on the lives of their children and recall certain behavioral acts as well as attitudes that may have been seen as predictors of future trouble with the son or daughter.
The mother of Ted Kaczynski, the infamous airline and university and bomber whose criminal acts spanned for nearly two decades, recalled some of her son’s childhood behaviors that were significant evidence that he was bound to be serial criminal (Maguire, Morgan & Reiner, 2007). A brilliant mathematician and a social critic from middle class America, Ted had developed some unusual behaviors during his childhood that could have signaled some warning signs of maladaptive development. The mother reckoned that Ted’s childhood life and upbringing may have contributed to his criminal act. She states that Ted started developing some solitary lifestyle, devoid of friends. He was defiant towards systems, and always criticized routines, sometimes even failing to do assignments given to him by his mother. He also believed in his ability and saw any one who challenged him as bad and deserves punishment. Although some of his mother’s recalled history may have been distorted with lens of time, it is evident that it had significant impact on his adulthood. These traits appear in certain pattern of psychological development, social history, as well as features of maladjustment observed in many criminals (Cassel & Bernstein, 2007; Maguire, Morgan & Reiner, 2007). It is possible to reason out that Ted’s is a typically developed criminal mind.
Criminal Mind Doesn’t Exist: Rational Choice Theory
How would one explain a person who kills due to revenge or anger? In such a case, it is important to note that the criminal was offended and got angered by the event. It follows that the act of killing is not entrenched into the person’s mind, but was provoked by particular unpleasing scenario. It is therefore possible to argue that the person couldn’t have killed if he or she had not been provoked by such events. From this perspective, some psychologists like Dr. William Glasser argued that a person may make a choice to kill, independent of his or her upbringing, or social orientation during his childhood (Bersoff, Ogloff & Tomkins, 1996). According to choice theory, a criminal offender is aware of his or her sense, hence the decision to act against the law is voluntary rather than reflex. Some of these acts may be caused by a person being pushed by particular need or situation in life. But how would one categorize a serial killer with no express reason to kill, at least to the view of an ordinary person? According to classical criminologists, the only way to prevent choice criminal activities is to make sanctions dreadful to the offenders.
Criminologists have developed certain theories to explain criminal activities such as murder. Choice theory, considered to be one of the most acknowledged theories of all times, is seen as the best way to explain the decision of an individual to engage in criminal activity. There are three basic levels of criminal behaviors, normally referred to as “models criminal behavior, namely: rational actor, predestined actor, and victimized actor” (Bersoff, Ogloff & Tomkins, 1996, p.2004). The rational actor suggests that persons develop the freedom of choice on whether to commit criminal offence, hence the best way to reduce crime as far as this model is concerned is to increase of penalties for crimes committed (Bersoff, Ogloff & Tomkins, 1996). However, it has been observed that certain criminals do not fear, at all, any form of sanctions that come with their actions. A case in point is that of a suicide bomber. When you would think that the person would fear any form death, he offers to kill himself or herself along the target group of perceived enemies. The predestined actor on the other hand suggest that criminal offenders are not in control of their urge to commit crime, especially once they are exposed to certain types of environment. It therefore means that certain environment increases the urge to commit crime, supposedly increasing the belief that there is criminal mind that is normally developed with time. To solve the problem arising from such act, it’s advisable to “change biological, sociological, and psychological environment of the offender” (Burke, 2001, p. 379). However, historical facts suggest that this kind of action may not help much as serial criminals would still continue with their acts even when taken to different locations, independent from the previous supposed instigators. The last model is that of victimized actor model, which suggests that crime, is simply an outcome of unjust society- a society full of inequality. It therefore follows that the simple way to control such criminal acts would be to carry out legislation that would reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots; to establish a just society with social, political and economic resources equally shared among the actors.
Personality and Crime: Trait and Eysenck’s Theories
The concern about increased criminal activities drove many scholars to develop theories of criminal psychology. In the early times, psychologists applied what was mainly considered genetics, intelligence, and psychic functioning to advance theories concerning criminal behaviors. But it is evidently difficult to ascertain the difference between the early scholars’ claim and those of the emerging disciplines synonymous with criminology. For instance, early empirical studies on criminology focused a lot on genetics and individual differences (Burke, 2001). Burke based his theory on the hereditability of criminal traits of individuals. He believed that habitual criminal conducts are products of genetic orientations of individual criminals. Another study, which focused on large number of prisoners, with the help of anthropological methods as well as measures, revealed that criminals are affected by defects in their intelligence, which is considered a hereditary factor (Burke, 2001). To reinforce on this idea, Wiebe (2004) revisits the theory of delinquency, which he referred to as ‘latent delinquency’, a psychological disposition acquired when children are less exposed to socialization and runs short of emotional development. This subsequently emphasizes the development of latent delinquency to generate into overt conducts. Other studies such as that of Cassel & Bernstein (2007) emphasized that if psychological impulses, believed to be connected to emotional connections with parents, are put into actions, there’s a possibility of the increased development of antisocial behavior. It is therefore possible to assert that parental deprivation, which may lead to emotional impact on a child, is likely to cause persistent delinquency even in adulthood.
It is widely believed that criminal behaviors start to develop in early childhood life of children. According to Hans Eysenck, crime is linked to personality of an individual; a product of interaction between particular conditions in an environment a person has been exposed to. In this scenario, the proponents of this theory put a lot of emphasis on the genetic orientation towards certain antisocial and criminal acts of individuals. The belief is that each criminal offender has some exclusive neural and physiological setup that when interacted with particular environments, will automatically lead him or her into criminal activities.
In this regard, it is important to note that this kind of suggestion does not mean that criminals are born, rather product of environmental influence, neural and biological orientation, and personality factors, which eventually lead to various types of crimes. Of more importance is the fact that various personalities expose more susceptibility to particular criminal acts.
In his empirical study on crime and childhood, Bersoff, Ogloff & Tomkins (1996) believe that there is criminal mind or personality, which is caused by various “dysfunctional, abnormal emotional adjustments or deviant personality traits” (p. 218), acquired during early childhood development and socialization. The common belief within this perspective is that criminals born with criminal minds are bound to be criminals, as it is in their genetic make-ups, reinforced with various interplays between physical and psychological conditions they encounter during early childhood development. This is normally referred to as trait theory, which is a heightened form of Eysenck’s theory.
Modern trait theorists have toned down on the earlier belief that a single physical or biological may lead to criminal activity. However, it is observed that each criminal has exclusive character traits that would explain certain behaviors. In effect, some people may have inherited the trait, while others may have experienced neurological problems that somewhat distorted their mental ability to restrain from crime. Yet some studies have revealed that certain criminal offenders may have developed some blood chemistry disorders, which distorted their decision-making process even as they desire not to commit crime. Evidence shows that there’s a connection between habitual behavioral acts in criminals and changes of chemicals that occur within their brain as well as nervous system. This thinking dimension also suggests that various criminals are affected by their genetic make-ups, which predetermine their intentions to commit crime. The argument is that the body needs certain levels of minerals as well as chemicals in order to effectively function.
How would one then explain individuals who rejoice in committing crimes? Is it a choice or a psychological conditioning? Following the above analysis, it is possible to confidently elaborate that criminals have developed criminal minds, and that its existence is a factor of various impacts associated with environment and social orientation, coupled with some genetic make-ups. In Sigmund Freud’s view, criminal activity is a “residue of the most significant emotional attachments of our children”, which defines the forthcoming relationships between persons (Burke, 2001, p.380). In this aspect, the act of committing crime is based on three main concepts; the id, the individual’s ego, and the super ego. A combination of the three would control how we eat, sleep, and our primary instincts that guide our daily behaviors and conducts. Id part of a person is considered the less developed one, but when exaggerated, it may overshadow the superego section which controls the moral judgment of an individual. If it happens so, an individual’s urge to seek pleasure is heightened, thus overlooking the need to observe other people’s needs and demands.
Conclusion
It has become apparent that criminal offenders do act from certain multilevel influence of factors that control human behaviors. While some researchers have argued that ‘criminal mind’ does not exist, it is apparent that the reasons put forward to justify this stand are less exhaustive. Put differently, such reasoning cannot exhaustively explain why an individual would decide to kill himself or herself in suicide bombing; why an individual would find pleasure in mass shooting of innocent individuals; why a serial sexual offender would repeat the same act immediately after completing his or her jail term; why a 12-year-old would maim or even kill his playmates and sees nothing wrong in it; and several other examples. While it’s acknowledgeable that some criminal activities are event-instigated, it’s still possible to state and justify the fact that even if a person is provoked, the inability to restrain from criminal activity would be linked to some social and psychological or rather genetic orientation. While an individual without criminal mind would find it easy to restrain under whatever level of provocation, it is not easy for one with the former. In other words, criminal activities can be learned, and that one can always watch people in his or her environment act aggressively, and adopt the same. For example, when a child beats up his or her playmates in the presence of much younger siblings without any express reasons, the latter develop criminal mind through observation. It is thus possible to conclude that criminal minds exists, but with a series of multiple factors that may have developed over several years of social, psychological and environmental orientation.
Reference List
Bersoff, D.M., Ogloff, J. P., & Tomkins, A.J. (1996). Education and training in psychology and law/criminal justice: Historical foundations, present structures, and future developments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 200‐235.
Burke, R. (2001). An introduction to criminological theory. Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 377‐381.
Cassel, E., & Bernstein, D. (2007). Criminal Behavior. London. Routledge.
Maguire, M., Morgan, R., & Reiner, R. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiebe, R. P. (2004). Biology and behavior. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 196‐205.