Criminal Behavior: Psychology and Theories Research Paper

Introduction

Crime has appeared with the emergence of mankind. People have always displayed a wish to live by certain rules but there always were those who violated them and did not agree with those rules. Punishment for crimes was the initial reaction of human beings, but with the development of mankind people got interested in studying the motivations that criminals have for their deeds, and the science of criminology appeared.

This science studied all aspects of crime and criminals including motivations, means of crime committing, etc (Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., 2007). Further on, criminology developed into a set of branches that deal with a specific area of crime, and criminal psychology is one of those areas¹. In other words, it is called psychology in criminology and studies the psychological and psychiatric aspects of crimes. The aim of this paper is to define the role of psychology in the criminal justice field and consider the basic theories that explain criminal behavior.

Psychology

The role of psychology in understanding the basic reasons people have for criminal behavior is considerable. Psychology has made a sufficient contribution to the field of criminal justice by its help in identifying criminals by their psychological features. This, in its turn, helped the criminal justice not only to identify those who already committed a crime but prevent other crimes by determining the people who are likely to act criminally due to their psychological features.

Thus, psychology turned out to be a basic discipline in understanding the nature of criminal behavior. It often happens that detectives can not find the obvious motive for a crime, and only psychology can help in this case by dismantling the hidden underlying reasons and motivations for a crime². Moreover, qualified psychologists and psychiatrists are often invited to courts and investigations of crimes in order either to help the jury form the psychological portrait of the criminal or to help the investigators identify the criminal. One of the major means of identifying criminals is the so-called Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC).

PCC

Psychology of Criminal Conduct is the branch of psychology that deals with the differences in criminal/non-criminal behavior of people, i. e. the issue of why some people commit crimes and others do not. PCC also touches upon the factors that influence the criminal behavior of people and is based on theoretical and practical research. It does not study the exact crime rates in a certain area for a certain period of time but only the reasons for crime and ways to reduce criminal behavior cases.

Therefore it is a more qualitative method than a quantitative one³. The psychology of criminal conduct explores the questions of gains and costs for crime and violence and states the necessity to make their balance negative for criminals. In other words, those who commit crimes should be punished for it and deprived of their share of public wealth distributed among the members of human society. This aspect of PCC corresponds to the major expectations that society has towards any justice system – society should be safe from crime and those who commit crimes should be punished for them.

In these points, the ideas of Psychology of Criminal Conduct coincide with public expectations and can be of help for the society to meet the above-mentioned expectations (Morse, 2006). Thus, for example, Psychology of Criminal Conduct can explain the motivations of some people to commit crimes as contrasted to those who do not and identify certain groups of people as potential criminals according to their psychological features⁴. This, in its turn, will provide for meeting the public expectations of equal wealth distribution, safety from crime, and punishment for those who commit crimes (Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., 2007).

Dimensions

As a rather important phenomenon in social life, criminal behavior is considered in four major dimensions – legal, social, moral, and psychological. But the author of this paper keeps to the point of view that such a position is not quite adequate due to a number of reasons. First of all, it is not doubted that crime is illegal and this dimension is absolutely adequate because the essence of crime is the violation of norms of law.

However, all other dimensions can be doubted in certain circumstances⁵. Consequently, one can not state that all four dimensions are applicable to any case of criminal behavior. For example, a crime can be illegal but at the same time moral. This is the case of a theft motivated by hunger in some poor countries where people often have no opportunities to earn their living legally. In this case, the crime can be called anti-social but not predetermined psychologically as people are mentally healthy when they decide to make such a step. Even murder can be considered in three dimensions because mentally healthy people also commit it due to their own reasons⁶.

The same can be said about terrorism that is committed insane conditions by people who aim at breaking laws and act anti-socially and immorally. However, all four dimensions can be applied to crimes in certain cases, but not all crimes can be considered in these four dimensions (Tittle, 2003).

Correctional Treatment

As for the ways to punish people for crime and correct their ideas about what is lawful and what is not, various correctional treatments and institutions are invented by society. Among them, nowadays the institutions of prison and penitentiary are used in most cases. Other correctional treatments are house imprisonment, socially useful work that a person does without being deprived of freedom, various fines for less serious crimes, etc.

The author of this paper keeps to the point of view that the institutions of house imprisonment, socially useful work and fines are the most effective and not so dangerous for society as all other treatments and institutions. On the whole, the institution of socially useful work, if properly implemented, is the most effective one for reducing crime as criminals are not only punished for crimes but must compensate for the harm they caused to society by their work⁷.

On the contrary, the institutions of prison and penitentiary are rather dangerous for society. Their effectiveness has been doubted by numerous scholars and officials but they still exist. The main danger of prisons and penitentiaries is that they produce the layer of the society that is not adjusted to socially acceptable and lawful norms and lives according to criminal rules. On the whole, prisons are considered to be the producers of criminals or the institutions that encourage crime and violence by their nature. Thus, correctional treatment becomes the means of crime rates increase because it is practically impossible to get rid of the habit to commit crimes in the environment of criminals (Kruttschnitt et al., 2007).

Psychodynamic Conception

One of the most interesting conceptions that aim at explaining the criminal behavior of individuals is the psychodynamic conception. The essence of this conception that was formulated by the famous Austrian psychiatrist and psychologist Sigmund Freud lies in the three concepts of “Id”, “Ego” and “Superego”. These concepts form the human personality according to Freud, and their interaction motivates human actions⁸.

Thus, “Id” is the person’s awareness of a public opinion about him/her and about their actions. The concept of “Ego” is the person’s perception of him/herself. Finally, the “Superego” concept is the difficult necessity for a person to conform to the socially accepted norms and expectations in behavior and actions. The fourth concept – “Alter Ego” appears in a personality if the three above mentioned interacting in a wrong way and leads to the so-called alternating personality state when a person is able of any actions, including crime, without remembering about them.

In case of energy (libido) of one of the concepts is not used, it is transformed into another kind of energy through sublimation that can be expressed either into positive or negative actions of a person. Thus, psychodynamic conception is rather applicable in criminal justice as the means to identify the possible criminals through defining weak and strong egos who are differently subject to criminal influence (Kruttschnitt et al., 2007).

Tentative Causal Formula

Another attempt to explain the criminal behavior motivations and underlying factors were made in 1950 by Glueck and Glueck who conducted a respective study and calculates their “Tentative Causal Formula” of explaining juvenile delinquency. Their research was a study of answers and personal profiles of 500 delinquents and 500 non-delinquents that helped to formulate the major factors that make delinquents out of young people⁹.

These factors are extraverted and aggressive temperament, physical power, lack of self-control, hostility, low IQ level, misconduct, negative environment, and lack of parents’ supervision. This formula is rather convincing due to the research methods used to create it and the reliability of the research findings. Moreover, the ideas expressed in Glueck and Glueck’s formula are rather adequate and realistic. According to them, juvenile delinquents occur rather rarely in positive environments, in people who have high IQ levels and enough parental supervision¹⁰. As far as these ideas can be proved by the specific examples from the objective reality, the formula by Glueck and Glueck is rather convincing.

Social Learning

The major arguments of the social learning concept of explaining criminal behavior lie in class, income, and psychological factors. Thus, the theory of “frustration-aggression” argues that criminal behavior, i. e. aggression, is encouraged but results from the frustration that this encouragement causes. The class theory is also important but it is argued by numerous scholars on the basis of the statistical data of their empirical research on the topic¹¹. Finally, the “differential association” theory is based on the assumption that criminal behavior is learned by people in interaction with others who demonstrate the possibility of law violations¹².

Thus, all these theories provide for a better understanding of the social learning theory and state that criminal behavior is not innate and is based on the psychological weakness of a person towards outside negative influences. Thus, if the environment did not influence the people, criminal behavior could be fought and eliminated. This idea is rather important for understanding criminal behavior and for inventing the effective means to reduce and eliminate it in society (Bilz, 2005).

Conclusion

To conclude the present research paper, it would not be out of place to state that the role of psychology in criminal justice is rather significant. Numerous psychological theories exist that explain criminal behavior based on various factors including the personal psychological features of a certain individual and outside influence that causes criminal behavior. Some of these theories are more convincing, others are less but, nevertheless, only the combination of factors considered in all theories can provide for a better understanding of criminal behavior and be of help in the work of the justice system.

End Notes

1. Refer Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. The Psychology of Criminal Behavior. Anderson Pub., 4 edition, 2007, Chapter 1.
2. Refer Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., Chapter 3 – 4.
3. Refer Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., Chapter 2.
4. Morse, Stephen J. “Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility.” Law and Contemporary Problems 69.1-2 (2006): 165+.
5. Tittle, Charles R. “Social Class and Criminal Behavior: a Critique of the Theoretical Foundation.” Social Forces 62.2 (2003): 334-358.
6. Tittle, Charles R., 334-358.
7. Kruttschnitt, Candace, David Ward, and Mary Ann Sheble. “Abuse-Resistant Youth: Some Factors That May Inhibit Violent Criminal Behavior.” Social Forces 66.2 (2007): 501-519.
8. Bilz, Kenworthey. “Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 96.1 (2005): 367+.
9. Kruttschnitt, Candace, David Ward, and Mary Ann Sheble., 501-519.
10. Kruttschnitt, Candace, David Ward, and Mary Ann Sheble., 501-519.
11. Refer Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., Chapter 3 – 4.
12. Bilz, Kenworthey, 367+.

Works Cited

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. The Psychology of Criminal Behavior. Anderson Pub., 4 edition, 2007.

Bilz, Kenworthey. “Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 96.1 (2005): 367+.

Kruttschnitt, Candace, David Ward, and Mary Ann Sheble. “Abuse-Resistant Youth: Some Factors That May Inhibit Violent Criminal Behavior.” Social Forces 66.2 (2007): 501-519.

Morse, Stephen J. “Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility.” Law and Contemporary Problems 69.1-2 (2006): 165+.

Tittle, Charles R. “Social Class and Criminal Behavior: a Critique of the Theoretical Foundation.” Social Forces 62.2 (2003): 334-358.