The Criminal Mind

[judas69]

The Americans take over everything

@ Bloodsword: I think we should use rapists, paedophiles and twats like that guy for testing medicine and make up on instead of animals. That would sort a whole host of problems out in one go.

A good starting point ...

What struck me was the emotional response in everyone, how quickly they all jumped to one side and how distraught they became. I'm not saying this was wrong, or unjustified in the least, but it got me wondering a little about where it came from. After only a few posts, most people were considered generous short of killing or dismembering limbs, and no one really stepped in to say ..you know, perhaps this is a bit harsh and inhumane. To the contrary, one person pointed out that our kindness towards criminals in this regard, was almost some weakness of humanity in that we "value human life way too much".

From how I saw this, it felt as though all these posts were the words of angry sports fans, cheering on the lion about to sink it's teeth into the one who dared to cross the line of the norm and the socially accepted ..but this isn't about the law or justice, not about the details of the crime, we just want to see someone else suffer for a change and not have to feel weary about the system and it's criticisms for that short moment. I wonder if this is much the same reason people are fans of horror, the fear that it could be true, the excitement of it being true or at least appearing so. Thus, this "fan" involvement we find here is in my mind, an even more worry-some quality of the human and definitely reminiscent of Jesus being put to death on the cross. If you are religious or not it doesn't matter, this is a very powerful aspect of Christianity and a very telling quality of humanity. The scary part is that the whole thing is mindless, and it can turn on anyone for any reason where their own individual fear of the system, only serves to further support the system.

How we define a criminal is an important question in what Nile [mentions below], but it's even more important to look at how the individual defines a criminal in relation to themselves. My point here is, if there were for example a criminal in the audience cheering on the lion for the same reason as everyone else, he must on some level not view himself so much as this rotten, sick and twisted criminal, but a normal person, and surely the guy who is about to be impaled, chewed and eaten, was not normal ..and it's in this way I believe us to be natural hypocrites.

Blame is another area you guys might want to get into, as many abusers you read about in the news have themselves been abused. We've all heard this, we all know this, but our desire to punish and to inflict pain is stronger than our desire to understand ..or even know for certain we got the right guy. Many innocents I'm sure are put to death more as an obligation by the people to find someone to blame and kill, someone to put their mind to ease, than for any reason of justice. It's interesting to me that no one stands up with the same degree of passion towards a person who was punished, and was later proven innocent.

I'm reminded of a class presentation I did years ago about anger. I asked a simple question to the class, "Do you feel you have the potential to kill?". Well, almost no one put up their hand, especially not the females and by their reaction to the question, it was as though to even make the comparison was sick, twisted and accusatory of me. Again, it's interesting to me how passionate people become as though these criminals were extraterrestrial and not human, so remotely different in who they are to who we are that there really is no ground for comparison, no room for habilitation, humane treatement and beyond an honest attempt to understand the criminal mind.

 

[Patrick R.]

A good starting point ...

No, I think we should just get rid of them. If we do that, then we aren't moral anymore, we are just the same as them.

 

[Nile577]

What is the 'criminal mind?' Is it a mind that merely thinks criminal thoughts, or is it one that carries out criminal actions? For the purposes of this thread, under what rubric do we categorise acts as 'criminal' or 'legal?'

Do you suppose some acts to be objectively 'criminal,' or do we decide our moral compass in accordance to epistemic shift? (see changing attitudes towards pederasty since Attic times, for example)

Consider the utilitarian/deontological paradox: if a tyrannical despot tells you that unless you behead an innocent man, he will order a hundred-thousand people to be executed, does one behave 'criminally' if he commits murder? Does such a paradox prove that 'legal,' moral behaviour is not always beneficial for the masses?

Touching on another thread, if Daniel Dennett argues that ethics are as intuitive as math and may be 'discovered' by other intelligent species, are we to think of ethical 'criminals' as categorically 'retarded' or 'insane'? If so, should this affect our treatment of them?

Consideration of all these questions and more is needed before we can progress with any significance in regards to answering what should be done with 'criminals.'

 

[fah-q]

In regards to the criminal mind...About 8 years ago, I read a book called Driven To Distraction. It is a book about understanding ADD/ADHD. within its pages (I am obviously paraphrasing) it talked about a study that was done on inmates in a few US prisons. Of those studied, 73% of them exhibited multiple signs of having ADD or ADHD. Impulse control is one of the main characteristics of ADD, as well as sociopathic behavior. Do you folks think there is a link between the two? Is the only difference between a sociopath and a person with ADD the presence of a conscience?
For the record, I am diagnosed ADHD and take Adderal XR for it.

 

[judas69]

I'm not sure if anyone heard but OJ Simpson is apparently releasing some sort of "hypothetical confession" in book or video form and I think it's entitled something to the effect of: "If I did it, here's what happened" ..and apparently it goes into incredible detail.

I'm not sure if this is being done by him to help relieve built up guilt for the crime, the anxiety of getting away with it, the money he surely needs, the attention he probably wants back or a combination of the above. Either way, I find it interesting and it would not at all surprise me if it were an instant hit. Infact, it would surprise me if it weren't, as there is definitely a perverse excitement in knowing that this story in all it's gory details, might well be true. To the reader, this creates the sense of being there and reliving a non-fictional description of a murder through the eyes of the killer ..almost in the same way one might look at the death of a relative for example, an event so unbelievable it surely didn't happen ..but it did, there's sick interest and magic there, and it's something every human wants to get as close to as they can, like reaching out to grab the flame.

To take this in a slightly more philosophical direction, can oneself be both the criminal and the victum (ie., does cutting yourself make you a criminal in much the same way? Or is it not if you are accepting? Is suicide for example, the crime of the introvert? Is homicide more then, the lashing out of the extroverted and outgoing, like Simpson? In othewords, is the tendancy the same but the expression different, or is the method unrelated in this way?

Lastly, do you view OJ Simpson as a criminal, a murderer ..this in light of his past, often favourable perception as portrayed by the media? I wonder how many females still want his autograph and how many more do subsequently. It seems females have this love-hate-love thing with the criminal mind; many females actually date and marry prisoners.

 

[BloodSword]

Judas, you certainly raise some good points. Some people believe that there are those criminals who are beyond any rehabilitation. Or once they "pay" for their particular crime they re-offend. It seems to me to be a "criminal mind" is someone who is/could be mentally ill. It also strikes me that the American justice system is designed to protect the criminal. Innocent until proven guilty. My feelings for a 21/2 month infant being brutalized like that could be percieved by some as the typical knee-jerk reaction by one of no tolerance for that inexcusable behaviour. I think the personality of this thread would be for suggestion as to, should we study and make determination, as to why this person committed these acts. To learn more about why, as it were. I don't have any answers, for I am completely appalled by these actions. Maybe you could elaborate?

 

[Norsemaiden]

there has been a widespread dissemination of psychotheraputic concepts, in however garbled or misinterpreted a form. These concepts have become the currency even of the uneducated. Thus the idea has become entrenched that if one does not know or understand the unconcious motives for one's acts, one is not truly responsible for them. This, of course, applies only to those acts which someone regards as undesirable: no one puzzles over his own meritoriousness. But since there is no single ultimate explanation of anything, one can always claim ignorance of one's own motives. Here is a perpetual getout.

Theodore Dalrymple "Life at the Bottom".

 

[judas69]

It's an intresting quote that can be taken in a couple direction namely (1) the relationship between the unconscious, the conscious mind and the degree of understanding between and (2) the psychological and societally influenced reasons we use as a basis to "puzzle over" the undesireable behaviour in the first place.

Dealing with the first part, his clear allusion is to everyone being "innocent" of all behaviour, as everyone is fundamentally "ignorant" to unconscious processing. This arguement is very similar to saying we cannot sin because to sin, is to be ignorant of the truth and thus, no one would desire to sin if they truely understood the truth. But really, to accept this arguement is to play into your own ignorance, and put your trust in the authority of the statement, as there is no way to know what objective effect truth would have. In this case, we are also giving into ignorance, as we really don't understand the relationship between the consciousness/unconscious mind clear enough to know for certain so, I'll tackle that a bit now.

Is the conscious mind the puppet of the unconscious, something generated, which has zero influence and thus its control is illusionary? Does the conscious mind relgulate the uncosncious like a filter, allowing or disallowing that which ones own person either agrees or disagrees with? If this were infact true, his quote may well be incorrect (assuming you aren't taking this in the way of free willy). Or is there some level of communication between both, as separate, independant and decentralized entities? If you go with the latter, it would be reasonable to assume that the level of responsibility we have in our actions probably relates directly to the level of obscurity of understanding one part has to the other in the decisions making process and of course, the degree of control inherent.

For the second part, taking the example of a good law-abiding family, lets pretend the son went out and committed some crime against society and his family values, that night. The response of the mother would be interesting, especially since her son is a criminal now. Does she view her son like every other offender? Or does she make exceptions and use ignorance as a basis for accepting her son, because really, it's not like she would want to disown her own child, and yet, she has this hate for the criminal. She probably wonders who her son is, at some level, which is an interesting response. You often hear things like "He was a good kid" (past-tense) ..as though he were always just a criminal, and we just found this out now (the neighbour), or he was always a good kid, and this was somehow beyond him (the mother).

On another level, the mother, even if she disowns her child as a criminal she could never accept, there is still (1) a genetic/environmental connection, and (2) a social label. Genetically, if there exists a genetic component here, it was her offspring and she might somehow be implicated (or self-implicating), so she has fear there, or even from the environmental, that she was responsible for the childs upbringing that lead to this. As far as the label goes, I think this is a big one. Other families will now turn and go "huh", or whisper under their breath, as though again, she were either responsible, or connected in some way. If the mother stood up for her child, you might then think she was in support of the crime, and her child might then feel the crime was less serious, and have an even more relaxed approach with respect to criminal activity. All of these things play together which makes it hard when we consider the criminal, and what we mean by it, and who is to ultimately blame. If he were a good kid, having not committed the crime, she obviously would want to attribute all of his actions to the family, and accept that these were of his own doing.

So there is a strong psychological basis for why we support the good, especially if it benefits us, and why we condem the criminal and his actions. Perhaps too, this association from crime to humanity and back down to the individual, is what people ultimately fear, especially when society is so ruthless towards criminals that they may well be criminal themselves, and it's labels ..that come from every direction, so damning. No one wants to feel like they are an "outsider", especially when society provides all they have.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Dalrymple used to be a prison doctor and work as a GP (community doctor) in a very poor area of England. He observed that criminals had rehersed a whole string of excuses for why they are not to blame for their crimes, and will not take responsibility, feel shame or attempt to behave differently in future. They get the ideas for these excuses from middle class liberal types. However, whenever the criminal has done anything good, he doesn't want to find an environmental cause for his meritous behaviour, but wants it to be thought that he did well because he himself is so clever/talented/courageous , or whatever.

That their outlook is dishonest and self-serving is apparant in their attitude towards those whom they believe to have done them wrong. For example, they do not say of the policemen who they allege (often plausibly) have beaten them up, "Poor cops! They were brought up in authoritarian homes and now project the anger that is really directed at their bullying fathers onto me. They need counseling. They need their heads sorted out".

Instead they call the police bastards and want them severely punished! Ironic don't you think?

 

[judas69]

The police are seen as (1) an obstacle to their freedom, but more importantly (2) those responsible for the guilt they feel when they commit a crime, and scapegoats as a result. The guilt is the big issue, living in a world that will only see you as either a criminal or a non-criminal, and it's pretty difficult to live well as a criminal if you have a conscience about your crime. And so, because it's much too hard to accept themselves in this way, what with all of society against them, they instead make the police out to be criminals as you correctly stated, the ones who are imposing limits on their freedom, the ones that are racists etc ..they have to find some fault with them, all to justify their actions against any authority and all of society itself. Because again, you're either a criminal or you're not, they have to include all of society (or at least their victums) as being criminal aswell on some level, if they are to justify their crime, and to continue crime against society.

It is very interesting that they have to justify things to themselves as you point out, it shows they do have a conscience, they are human, as much as society and the world would not like to make them. It also shows that they really don't have a strong intellectual basis or understanding for why they do things (as the quote implies) and thus, they seek it after the fact when the desire has been fulfilled, and they're left alone to think.

Fah-q's previous post I think is accurate in this way, especially if the person has diminished impulse control.

Another interesting question, does the criminal feel he is guilty if not caught by society? You often hear people say (almost again to justify their own thoughts and actions ..especially because people are much more confident in what they think when others are in support of it) that it's not a crime unless you're caught. This, like the child whose mother gave her son love, instead of punishment (in the example from my last post), actually serves to encourage this sort of behaviour, especially since it helps eleviate self-blame in doing so. It's also interesting that most killers usually kill themselves after murdering others, as though there is just too much guilt to live with, knowing full well what one has done, and what society disproves of, and how alienated they feel.

It all seems to come back to the hypocrite in the crowd from my first post, no one wants to think themselves as a criminal and will do anything, even make everyone else out to be the criminal, as illogical as it might sound. And more generally, this I think is the reason why certain people fit the bully mentality, they feel bad about themselves so, finding flaws in others whom they feel is better, or who they feel thinks is better, makes them less insignificant, and in this case, less criminal and subsequently, much easier to accept themselves.

 

[jojoNZ]

A big percentage of criminals that have existed, and exist out there, usually have mental disorders. Mostly stemmed from their childhood, bad childhood experiences and traumatic experiences. They usually have been abused as a kid. They get taught and told things which stay in their heads, these things that they believe are right.

So some criminals, not all, really can't tell the difference between what is wrong or right and it's still not too late to teach them and make them 'good' again, right?

We may find it easy to put the blame on criminals since we all know that they do bad things. But still, not all criminals are the same. Some might be doing it for good... example, they can't afford medicine for someone sick they care about so they resort to stealing it. Or things like the whole Robin Hood story, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I hope you get my idea.

 

[judas69]

I wonder how much criminality is in our genes, in our nature, and not the result of mental illness. I mean, rewind our history back a few hundred years and it's pretty shocking how cruel and relentless humanity was, and how drastically we've changed in the advent of technology and civilization.

 

[jojoNZ]

As society changed, so do people. Same with our surroundings, and everything else we see and are taught. We all know that acting savage and uncontrolled is uncivilised, and humans don't like to be outcasted so we act the way we do.

Sort of like sheep in a way, not all of us, but most. Not wanting to be left out or shunned from the community, so we act how other people want us to be, to be liked.

err i think i just totally went off topic there, sorry people.

 

[judas69]

One thing that had me interested in this topic (and why I felt the need to do a stream of consciousness thing and try to stir up some ideas here, if not for anyone else but myself) was how quickly people change, and how strongly and passionately they react despite a very shallow, and often baseless, viewpoint. Albeit, relative or stranger, just catch anyone you know the wrong way, and your once best friend becomes your worst enemy. Thus, the less involved you get with people, the less trouble you'll likely find in this regard because you never really know the limits of the person you're dealing with.

This is human nature of course, but as far as civilization goes, I believe people will only follow and support the rules of the group so long as it suits themselves, the moment it doesn't, they'll step out of bounds and resort to what they feel they need to do, which usually involves some sort of primitive, reptilian brain response (ie., physical violence). As far as what you've mentioned, I believe you're correct (again there are a lot of relating factors) in that fear, or maybe just contentment (in the form of food or drug) for some, is what likely keeps them from lashing out so violently and expressing the darker side of their nature. As true as this is however, there are going to be times when the rules of society feel more like a cage to the wild.

In response to my last post, I do feel we've changed a lot definitely, but I think when it comes to our true animal nature, it's more surpression and displacement than anything real or genuine.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is very interesting that they have to justify things to themselves as you point out, it shows they do have a conscience, they are human, as much as society and the world would not like to make them. It also shows that they really don't have a strong intellectual basis or understanding for why they do things (as the quote implies) and thus, they seek it after the fact when the desire has been fulfilled, and they're left alone to think.

You make some interesting points Judas, but the author of the book doesn't see these justifications voiced by the criminals as being any kind of attempt to analyse themselves.
Rather, he thinks the criminal is (in a psychopathic, unremorseful way) actually just trying out some well rehersed "getout" excuses for his behaviour ,which he just voices when in the presence of someone he considers gullible enough to accept these excuses and give him sympathy.

 

[judas69]

You make some interesting points Judas, but the author of the book doesn't see these justifications voiced by the criminals as being any kind of attempt to analyse themselves.
Rather, he thinks the criminal is (in a psychopathic, unremorseful way) actually just trying out some well rehersed "getout" excuses for his behaviour ,which he just voices when in the presence of someone he considers gullible enough to accept these excuses and give him sympathy.

I get what you're saying now and I agree, those criminals in maximum security prisons for example are different sorts, definitely not normal in many respects however, the average person (whom I was hinting at being the criminal, and a hypocrite at that) would have to feel some guilt in what they do if they were half honest with themselves so, some of what I said should hold I would think in this way.

The criminal mind is indeed complex, yet most crimes are quite simply primitive acts of desire and emotion.

 

[Norsemaiden]

What about criminals like this?

A young Sikh boy formed a liason with a Muslim girl. He was an outgoing lad, a good student and fine athlete who represented his school and his city at several different sports. He used to meet his girlfriend clandestinely, in the flat of a young Muslim friend of his - or someone whom he had considered his friend. The friend, however, telephoned the girl's brothers and asked how long they were going to allow their family to be dishonoured.

On his way to his evening work, the Sikh boy was attacked with machetes by the girl's three brothers. They knocked him to the ground, threatened to cut his throat next time, and hacked repeatedly at both his arms. This took place within a hundred yards of my hospital's main entrance. He had a compound fracture of his humerus, and so many of his tendons were cut that he will never recover fully use of his hands and arms.

The three brothers were duly caught and tried. Unfortunately, they were granted bail, and when it was clear that the trial was certian to result in a verdict of guilty, they failed to attend the court and were sentenced in absentia to long terms of imprisonment. My patent went into hiding in a city four hundred miles away, fearing to leave his flat there and sleeping always with a knife under his pillow. He had recieved informantion from a reliable source that the three brothers were still looking for him and would kill him if they found him. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the story is that the three brothers were not regarded as delinquents by other members of their community but as having behaved in a thoroughly houourable and decent way. That they had broken the law in pursuing their vendetta, thus risking imprisonment, only added to their honour: they were spirited boys to be proud of.

From the book previously mentioned

 

[judas69]

First, I guess I wonder about the community (or neighbourhood) in that example ..was their basis for accepting of (or identifying with) the criminal on some level out of (1) personal fear, where it's better to join the group and support the individual you fear most, than to be against by either not taking a stand (ie., not in support of their actions, but not against them) or directly opposing them, or perhaps, (2) out of sympathy for their own criminal and rebellious disposition whereby, watching others committing the crime justifies and supports their own freedoms there of? Maybe it's for reasons of (3) humour? Some people actually find stuff like this funny, check the net for "faces of death" and it's growing popularity which again makes me wonder, how many of these criminals are walking around normally in our society ..and should we consider this tendancy apart of humanity or not? Either way at some level, crime and violence is "cool", especially amongst the black community, and is quite glorified.

Lastly, who would they have to fear ..if they were the criminals in the community (assuming a strong non-criminal society)? No one. Perhaps then, they are on top of society in this way, as the word "honour" might imply within their gang by those who support them and what they've risked, as you mentioned. They would be more cunning, more intellectual than those who try to regulate the laws (police, society) all the things they clearly do not identify with for whatever reason.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The example with the Muslim's attacking the Sikh who went out with one of their women is something that Muslims do a lot. Similar things have happened in Ireland also, when a Catholic girl is going out with a protestant lad. What has often happened also is that the Catholic girl gets "tarred and feathered". I don't think this happens any more, as the sectarianism is not as bad as it was. And that reminds me of the way women in France were treated after the war, if they had had a relationship with any of the Germans.

It regularly happens that a Muslim father will murder his daughter for dishonouring the family as regards her choice of boyfriend or western lifestyle - so called "honour killing".

They don't consider themselves criminals for what they do, and their community seems to side with them also.

The kind of criminals who do things like street muggings, shop lifting and burglery don't normally feel any guilt. Often they have an attitude that the person deserved it for being richer than them, or because they don't see why they should work for something they can just take (from someone they feel nothing in common with), or because they think that the insurance will cover the loss anyway.

Once people lose their community spirit through being mixed up with people who are not like them, crime inevitably increases. And as the lack of empathy with others is eroded, so feelings of guilt disappear also.

 

[jojoNZ]

What has often happened also is that the Catholic girl gets "tarred and feathered". I don't think this happens any more, as the sectarianism is not as bad as it was.

Tarred and feathered? Ouch.


A lot of examples could be said about that - different religious people not being approved of being together, sometimes even in their own religion we see acts like these being carried out.

And some people, kleptomaniacs, can't help stealing. I have no idea what causes it, but it's some kind of impulsive thing. Not being able to stop stealing, whether they know they're doing it or not. I think my friend is one, or was. hmm.