Crime as a Rebellion Against Reason

[bborg 0]

CRIME AS A REBELLION AGAINST REASON

Part I – The “virtues” of crime

Part II – The “victimhood” of the criminal

Part III – Prison life, the criminal’s dream realized

Abstract

The criminal is motivated by a wish to exist in a world ruled by force, rather than reason. Consequently he resents and attacks as an “oppressor” any authority attempting to prevent the exercise of his code of coercion. Some criminals delude themselves into believing that life as a man is possible through the use of force, while others are more “honest” about their motives and pursue not a human existence but life as an animal. However both accept an animal’s standard of existence, and in prison where inmate violence has become an increasing problem, the self-deluded are forced to face the natural end of their errors.

Part I – THE “VIRTUES” OF CRIME

The criminal – a definition

A criminal is one who initiates the use of force or fraud in his dealings with other men. The essential characteristic of crime is coercion. Some consensual behaviors I consider noncriminal but which face government opposition are drug sale and use, prostitution, “insider trading” and the alleged private monopolies. Illegal markets provide economic opportunities for criminals, as criminals are more willing to break laws than the law abiding, however their criminality is defined by their use of force and not their involvement in drugs, prostitution and the like. Therefore the focus of discussion of criminality will be the characteristics that lead an individual to use force or the threat of force.

Juveniles and criminal development

The beginnings of criminal behavior in childhood are frequently blamed on parents. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi refer to bad parenting as the major cause of juvenile delinquency. Conditions of successful child-rearing according to their theory include parental concern and affection, adequate supervision, recognition of deviant behavior and punishment of deviant acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 98-99).

Criminological theories frequently favor explanations of law abiding or criminal behavior in terms of successful or unsuccessful “socialization”. The responsibility for preventing crime is ultimately placed on authority figures. Crime is therefore a failure of the parents, of the school, or of society. Little attention is paid to the role of the delinquent in this process.

In fact, Stanton Samenow observes that parents of delinquent children are often caring and have tried exhaustively to create an environment of discipline and encouragement. Yet their child’s misbehavior is perceived as reflective of poor parenting skills:

“The counselor sees that the youngster is behaving outrageously and seems to be getting away with it. But the counselor may not realize that for years the child has thwarted nearly all parental attempts at disciplining him.” (Samenow, 2004, p. 21)

Thwarted how? Samenow relates the experiences of one couple raising their son, Bill. When Bill’s parents refused to buy him a toy gun at age seven, he took it from the counter and tried to make off with it before being caught by the store clerk. His reaction to being denied any indulgence was to pout, to throw tantrums, “and generally make life miserable”. This had a demoralizing effect on his parents. His mother said that Bill made her feel irrational and guilty. Bill’s other tactic for getting what he wanted was to promise good behavior, then to break his promise whether he was appeased or not. No strategy worked. Interestingly Samenow notes that rather than changing Bill, “it was Bill who modified his parents’ behavior.” (p. 21)

The role of the child’s own choices is critical during child-rearing. He is not merely a piece of clay to be molded by his guardians, but an autonomous being able to develop his own world view and value system independent of the wishes of his parents. To Bill, his parents are not guardians and not role models, but “merely vehicles to gratify his rapidly shifting desires” (p. 18).

The gang “subculture”

Given that the juvenile is free to develop his own wants and to act on them, the natural question is then, what exactly does he want? At first the answer seems to be that he wants material things. The delinquent child is “greedy”; he sees something and wants it and does not care about the means required to obtain it. However where delinquent behavior is most concentrated and easily studied – in gangs – this explanation does not hold water.

Albert Cohen (1998) studied what he referred to as the “delinquent subculture”, or a group of juveniles sharing hostility toward “middle-class standards”. Cohen discovered that gang activities were not aimed at gaining material values, but were an exhibition of “gratuitous hostility”:

“A group of boys enters a store where each takes a hat, a ball or a light bulb. They then move on to another store where these things are covertly exchanged for like articles. Then they move on to other stores to continue the game indefinitely. They steal a basket of peaches, desultorily munch on a few of them and leave the rest to spoil. They steal clothes they cannot wear and toys they will not use.” (p. 134)

Cohen identified delinquent behavior not as an alternative means of satisfying universal needs (see Strain Theory), but as a contemptuous flouting of the rules of adult society.

Samenow (2004) observed a similar phenomenon among young “compulsive” liars. He may lie so often that it appears compulsive, because we have difficulty ascribing a cause and conclude that it must be a form of mental illness. However, Samenow argued, the child who becomes a criminal lies to his parents to “[delight] in making fools of them by inventing things that never happened.” One child he interviewed explained that he lied "because it's so easy to get away with it" (p. 26). The same is true of the alleged kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs, their behaviors having no apparent purpose, and therefore treated as "impulsive disorders", confusing habit with a lack of responsibility. In both cases the motive is not monetary gain, but the power the delinquent wields over others (p. 127).

What beliefs or values is the young delinquent or criminal accepting in order to act in such a way? Why does he derive pleasure from the manipulation of others? Again it should be helpful to return to the environment where delinquency is most concentrated.

Walter Miller’s (1998) studies of gang culture found that gang membership status requires proving ones worth in three respects: Toughness, Smartness and Autonomy. The first two will be discussed here, and Autonomy will be discussed in a later part.

Toughness: According to Miller, toughness means physical prowess and bravery in the face of danger. This, however, is far too generous a classification. Miller notes that “lower class males” have an obsessive concern with “masculinity” as well as a concern with homosexuality. Delinquents act on this concern by baiting and violently attacking “queers”. Affection between gang members is disguised by aggressive verbal and physical reaction (p. 167). Toughness, in fact, is having the physical presence of the brute expressing his emotions not with his words but with his fists.

Smartness: Miller says this about “smartness”: “In its essence, smartness involves the capacity to achieve a valued entity—material goods, personal status—through a maximum use of mental agility and a minimum use of physical effort.” (p. 167-168). Again, this is bordering on an absurdly generous definition. “Smartness” means the ability to cheat and to defraud others. Miller notes the attitude of delinquents that those who work for their money are “suckers”, and formal education is “overtly disvalued and frequently associated with effeminancy”.

The pattern should become clear: the strong, the masculine, the respected, is the man who can get what he wants without working for it himself. Instead, either through brute strength or trickery, he is able to reap the rewards produced by the “weak” and the “gullible”.

Summary

The criminal’s behavior is volitional, deliberate, and purposeful in his actions. What makes those actions difficult to understand, however, is that he does not share the same values as the productive and law-abiding. He lies, but not always to his advantage; he steals, but not always to his personal gain. To many this seems most like mental illness or insanity.

The criminal values his “toughness” and “smartness”, and these are closely tied to his concept of masculinity. However the kind of respect commanded by these characteristics is not like the respect one has for a businessman or a skilled musician. The criminal does not respect knowledge or hard work, which he regards as belonging to the world of the “sucker”. The sucker, after all, can be conned out of his wealth. What the producer can create, the criminal can destroy. It is this capacity to fool, to steal, to force, that the criminal prizes above all other traits. These are his “virtues”. They are, according to his worldview, the only admirable way to reach any goal, and worth celebrating in themselves. The “purposeless” lie, the property he takes but has no use for, is the form this celebration takes. The criminal revels in his “efficacy” not as an achiever or producer, but as despoiler and a destroyer.

References

Cohen, A. K. (1998). Delinquent Boys. In F. P. Williams III, & M. D. McShane, Criminology Theory Selected Classic Readings. Anderson Publishing, Co.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.

Miller, W. B. (1998). Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency. In F. P. Williams III, & M. D. McShane, Criminology Theory Selected Classic Readings. Anderson Publishing Co.

Samenow, S. (2004). Inside the Criminal Mind. Crown Publishers.

[B. Royce 0]

Bryson, this is very interesting, well written and handsomely presented (especially the short paragraphs which make for easy reading). It would seem, generally, that the criminal's main motivation is taking from others what he thinks they value _for the sake of depriving them_ of that value. He has never learned to value for himself, and so aims to put his victim in his own position---a person devoid of values. He calls his victim a "sucker", but he himself is his own original sucker, having always chosen the easy way out with no real values to show for it.

[Arnold 0]

Very good bborg, well laid out. There is one point about parents that I think could be expanded on. After all, everything that the baby learns will come from them in the beginning, and he will soon learn what he has to do to get his way. If it works, he will repeat the behavior. If parents make sure that the wrong behavior never works, I think the kid has a good start, but if he gets away with lying and violent tantrums, he will go into life with a very different attitude.

In one way, I have thought that the permissive parent and the authoritarian had much in common - both denied the child the responsibility of using his mind. The permissive encouraged whim over reason in choices, and the controller denied the ability of the child to make choices at all. The parent who hands over choice and consequence according to the ability of the child, is, I think, less likely the breed a criminal. What do you think?

[bborg 0]

Bryson, this is very interesting, well written and handsomely presented (especially the short paragraphs which make for easy reading).

Thank you. I wrote it in Word and it was over 3 pages, so I was concerned the length might intimidate people from reading it. But the formatting is something I developed in my classes, which I've found makes it easier to look at (and I do get complements on that from my professors).

It would seem, generally, that the criminal's main motivation is taking from others what he thinks they value _for the sake of depriving them_ of that value. He has never learned to value for himself, and so aims to put his victim in his own position---a person devoid of values. He calls his victim a "sucker", but he himself is his own original sucker, having always chosen the easy way out with no real values to show for it.

I don’t think that’s exactly it, although I certainly agree that the deprivation of his victim is a huge source of pleasure for him, and is in a sense a form of recreation. However I focused on this recreational aspect of crime (the “purposeless” crime) to expose the underlying worldview of the criminal, which explains both why he takes pleasure from destruction in itself and why he pursues destructive means to live (what people refer to as the “career criminal”). He imagines the producers of the world as trees bearing fruit for him to pick. It is a massive evasion of the responsibility to think and reason, because he believes he can let others do that for him and he’ll simply reap the harvest at their expense. The career criminal doesn’t have job prospects, he has “marks”. But there is also the element of pure maliciousness that he wants to rub it in their faces that he’s not one of their kind and their rules of production don’t apply to him.

I think you’re absolutely right that the criminal is the original sucker. He’s suckered himself, and this has a real material and psychological toll on him. That’s an aspect I’ll address in Part II.

Very good bborg, well laid out. There is one point about parents that I think could be expanded on. After all, everything that the baby learns will come from them in the beginning, and he will soon learn what he has to do to get his way. If it works, he will repeat the behavior. If parents make sure that the wrong behavior never works, I think the kid has a good start, but if he gets away with lying and violent tantrums, he will go into life with a very different attitude.

In one way, I have thought that the permissive parent and the authoritarian had much in common - both denied the child the responsibility of using his mind. The permissive encouraged whim over reason in choices, and the controller denied the ability of the child to make choices at all. The parent who hands over choice and consequence according to the ability of the child, is, I think, less likely the breed a criminal. What do you think?

This is a topic of interest to me also, and one of the books still on my reading list is Samenow’s Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It. The difficulty I see with correcting criminal behavior in children is that the parent has certain responsibilities no matter what difficulties the child presents them with. The parent must feed, clothe, and see to the child’s medical and educational needs, even if he misbehaves or engages in crime. This greatly insulates the delinquent from the consequences of his actions. So I will be very interested to see what advice Samenow gives.

Incidentally, I’ve tried in the essay to demarcate the ideas that I did not originate. Samenow especially has done some amazing work and I doubt if I could have made the connections I did without the benefit of his experience. But he only goes as far as to identify the criminal’s personality. What I wanted to do was identify the underlying philosophy of crime.

[Scott A. 0]

I've looked forward to seeing and discussing this! It's the end of the semester, so time is scarce for about a week. But I'll follow the discussion so that I can join in prepared. And hopefully I can join in by the weekend.

[RayK 0]

Bryson,

I read Stanton Samenow's Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It after reading Inside the Criminal Mind and think that you might find them very similar in thought. What I mean by that is that Stanton Samenow does not give the reader (if the reader has already read Inside the Criminal Mind) any new fundamental ideas, he just uses the earlier ideas on kids that are headed in the wrong direction. He does use many real examples of parents/families with troubled kids that have brothers, sisters or even twins that act in totally different ways while demonstrating that the troubled child is making a choice to act badly and that the child knows what they are doing.

[bborg 0]

I've looked forward to seeing and discussing this! It's the end of the semester, so time is scarce for about a week. But I'll follow the discussion so that I can join in prepared. And hopefully I can join in by the weekend.

Thank you for your excitement, I'm glad you were looking forward to it. I hope you have the time to comment soon.

Bryson,

I read Stanton Samenow's Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It after reading Inside the Criminal Mind and think that you might find them very similar in thought. What I mean by that is that Stanton Samenow does not give the reader (if the reader has already read Inside the Criminal Mind) any new fundamental ideas, he just uses the earlier ideas on kids that are headed in the wrong direction. He does use many real examples of parents/families with troubled kids that have brothers, sisters or even twins that act in totally different ways while demonstrating that the troubled child is making a choice to act badly and that the child knows what they are doing.

Thanks Ray. What does he say about the "what parents can do about it"? It's probably worth reading just for the examples alone and more of Samenow's writing (I like his clear, no nonsense approach), but I was hoping he'd offer concrete advice as well.

[RayK 0]

Bryson, Samenow does offer many insightful ways that parents can overcome errors in their thoughts and actions while dealing with the child. A couple of those are items like; do not allow the child to split the parents into opposing sides, be firm with the child, demand personal responsibility, demand the truth, do not accept the child as the victim and more. Like you, I enjoy Samenow's approach and his priceless advice, and hope that you enjoy the book.

[bborg 0]

Thanks again Ray, I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it at some point. Too many books to read, too little time.

[Scott A. 0]

There are so many interesting things to discuss here, it's hard to know where to start! I'll try to keep it to a reasonable number.

The criminal is motivated by a wish to exist in a world ruled by force, rather than reason.

Would it be at all correct to say that the criminal is motivated by a wish to exist in a world ruled by his force and no others? I'd suppose they prefer to be unopposed or, at a minimum, dominant among those who use force. And I'd guess they don't want force used upon them. However, would this motive change if one truly identifies with a gang?

The beginnings of criminal behavior in childhood are frequently blamed on parents. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi refer to bad parenting as the major cause of juvenile delinquency. Conditions of successful child-rearing according to their theory include parental concern and affection, adequate supervision, recognition of deviant behavior and punishment of deviant acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 98-99).

Criminological theories frequently favor explanations of law abiding or criminal behavior in terms of successful or unsuccessful “socialization”. The responsibility for preventing crime is ultimately placed on authority figures. Crime is therefore a failure of the parents, of the school, or of society. Little attention is paid to the role of the delinquent in this process.

I wonder if there are a couple honest and, at least, common-sense based reasons or this.

The first I'd call the "innocence assumption." Children, especially young ones (say 6 and under), are not presumed to have malevolent motivations. I think parents understand that the child will try to get what it wants, perhaps even by duplicity. But they simply don't consider this coming from a malevolent intention. It's kids being kids. However, this might be the wrong premise; perhaps parents should think about how early successful coercion by children could become a criminal mindset and pattern if not dealt with?

The second issue I'd call the "authority assumption." It's unfathomable to a lot of people how a child, who lacks both the physical and intellectual power of an adult, can successfully manipulate and coerce his parents without assuming some kind of weakness on the parents' part. In other words, a parent should be able to handle a child and teach it how to behave. A consistent pattern of misbehavior by a child naturally makes one wonder, "who's in charge of this child?"

Finally, psychology has obviously had a huge role to play in emphasizing the importance of parent-child relationships in the development of personality. I suspect most people, whether they know particular psychological theories or not, explicitly understand the importance of good parenting in raising mentally healthy and law-abiding children.

I think that these are some reasons people look at failures of authority first. But, as you say, strict focus on authority and failure to look at the child's choices misses a big part.

In fact, Stanton Samenow observes that parents of delinquent children are often caring and have tried exhaustively to create an environment of discipline and encouragement. Yet their child’s misbehavior is perceived as reflective of poor parenting skills:

“The counselor sees that the youngster is behaving outrageously and seems to be getting away with it. But the counselor may not realize that for years the child has thwarted nearly all parental attempts at disciplining him.” (Samenow, 2004, p. 21)

Thwarted how? Samenow relates the experiences of one couple raising their son, Bill. When Bill’s parents refused to buy him a toy gun at age seven, he took it from the counter and tried to make off with it before being caught by the store clerk. His reaction to being denied any indulgence was to pout, to throw tantrums, “and generally make life miserable”. This had a demoralizing effect on his parents. His mother said that Bill made her feel irrational and guilty.

Honestly, I have a hard time not focusing on the parents here. Bill certainly is responsible for his pouting, tantrums, and so forth. But how did he come to use this as an habitual method and why does it demoralize his parents? I tend to think that such coercive behaviors become habitual because the parents were already demoralized. In other words, the parents' problems precede and likely facilitate the child's problems. This doesn't take the role of the child's choices out of it, but instead explains the context in which such choices are continually and then perhaps habitually made. Would you agree with this?

Bill’s other tactic for getting what he wanted was to promise good behavior, then to break his promise whether he was appeased or not. No strategy worked. Interestingly Samenow notes that rather than changing Bill, “it was Bill who modified his parents’ behavior.” (p. 21)

The role of the child’s own choices is critical during child-rearing. He is not merely a piece of clay to be molded by his guardians, but an autonomous being able to develop his own world view and value system independent of the wishes of his parents. To Bill, his parents are not guardians and not role models, but “merely vehicles to gratify his rapidly shifting desires” (p. 18).

This raises the issue of malevolence for me, but it will be more relevant below, so I'll address it then.

Given that the juvenile is free to develop his own wants and to act on them, the natural question is then, what exactly does he want? At first the answer seems to be that he wants material things. The delinquent child is “greedy”; he sees something and wants it and does not care about the means required to obtain it. However where delinquent behavior is most concentrated and easily studied – in gangs – this explanation does not hold water.

Isn't it the case that those who join gangs have at least some different motivations than the individual delinquent? In other words, although delinquency is more concentrated in gangs, might it not have a different motive and meaning than the actions of a single delinquent person? Or, is it that delinquency typically involves more than one person? Part of what I'm mulling is the difference between the gang member and the "lone wolf." The latter is far more dangerous than the former, although I wouldn't reduce the lone wolf's delinquency merely to greed for material things.

Albert Cohen (1998) studied what he referred to as the “delinquent subculture”, or a group of juveniles sharing hostility toward “middle-class standards”. Cohen discovered that gang activities were not aimed at gaining material values, but were an exhibition of “gratuitous hostility”...

Cohen identified delinquent behavior not as an alternative means of satisfying universal needs (see Strain Theory), but as a contemptuous flouting of the rules of adult society.

...However, Samenow argued, the child who becomes a criminal lies to his parents to “[delight] in making fools of them by inventing things that never happened.” One child he interviewed explained that he lied "because it's so easy to get away with it" (p. 26). The same is true of the alleged kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs, their behaviors having no apparent purpose, and therefore treated as "impulsive disorders", confusing habit with a lack of responsibility. In both cases the motive is not monetary gain, but the power the delinquent wields over others (p. 127).

This is where the issue of malevolence seems particularly poignant to me. Whether they call it "gratuitous hostility," contemptuous flouting, or motivation to wield power, it all seems rooted in a malevolent universe premise directed primarily at others. With that comes a malevolent mindset and intent. They're mean, and mean it!

However, I think it's very hard for people, myself included, to understand where such malevolence comes from. Yes, they are choosing to be coercive, but what has happened that influenced their minds in such malevolent directions and then encouraged them to act on it? What was going on around them? How were they being treated? Why were early attempts at coercion ineffectively punished? Who was in charge?

Toughness: According to Miller, toughness means physical prowess and bravery in the face of danger. This, however, is far too generous a classification. Miller notes that “lower class males” have an obsessive concern with “masculinity” as well as a concern with homosexuality. Delinquents act on this concern by baiting and violently attacking “queers”. Affection between gang members is disguised by aggressive verbal and physical reaction (p. 167). Toughness, in fact, is having the physical presence of the brute expressing his emotions not with his words but with his fists.

I really like this summary, and it helped me to see Ayn Rand's idea of "mystics of muscle" in a clearer way. Gang members revere physical strength with the same kind of mindless, semi-frightened (but aroused) awe that a mystic of the spirit would revere an allegedly intellectual but unintelligible philosophy. It seems that both are awed by what they see as the "force," meaning impact, of one thing on another. Of course, one very concrete representation of a physical force is one's masculinity.

In regard to this and the issues of toughness and smartness, I still have to wonder about the experiences that child has that help to form these premises and choices of values.

The criminal does not respect knowledge or hard work, which he regards as belonging to the world of the “sucker”. The sucker, after all, can be conned out of his wealth. What the producer can create, the criminal can destroy. It is this capacity to fool, to steal, to force, that the criminal prizes above all other traits.

Would it be fair to say that the criminal is really trying to create, and impose through force, his own irrational reality? This may be along the lines of what B. Royce was saying in regard to putting others in the position that he is in.

These are his “virtues”. They are, according to his worldview, the only admirable way to reach any goal, and worth celebrating in themselves. The “purposeless” lie, the property he takes but has no use for, is the form this celebration takes. The criminal revels in his “efficacy” not as an achiever or producer, but as despoiler and a destroyer.

Do you think the criminal has any genuine sense of the concepts of virtue, admirable, efficacy, or even celebration? I understand that you are using those terms as a means of describing how the criminal explains or justifies his actions to himself. But do you think that the criminal actually feels any of the emotions that would go along with those positive qualities when he commits either a purposeful or "purposeless" crime?

(I tried to keep it brief, but it was too hard!)

[MikeMarotta 0]

In the main, bborg, I agree with your essay and I appreciate your skill in presenting your ideas. Your point that the parents must care for the child regardless of its behavior is cogent.

The idea that a "philosophy of crime" exists is interesting. Usually, we call that "criminology" but you are pursuing the criminal's "philosophy." Clearly, that must be implicit -- criminals have no philosophy. That is why they are criminals. Crime, like poverty, may need no explaining. They are anti-concepts, perhaps, in that they cannot exist without their opposites.

You cite classics -- Travis and Hirschi, Gottfredson, Samenow -- but that in fact highlights what may be the root problem of criminology: criminology is at best positivist, not objectivist. (Note the small-o.) Objectivism and positivism are both rational-empirical philosophies, but positivism has more unsolved problems, and internal contradictions. August Comte was the founder of positivism and he wanted a "priesthood of postivism" to rule Europe so that it could be more like India and China. Oppositiiont to positivism has broadly come from Marxism and now post-modernism, neither of those especially compelling to us here. For one paper, I tallied something like 42 different criminological theories (or sociological theories of crime). The fiield is awash with theories. None of them can "explain" crime because crime is an action of individuals -- as is all human action . These theories can categorize and differentiate classes of crimes and criminals, but little more. You speak of the "masculinity" theory of delinquency, which is fine -- except to explain girls who commit crimes. (Male burglars victimize their neighbors. Female burglars go into other neighborhoods.) Theories of street crime do not explain "suite crime" -- white collar crime.

I wrote a paper for my senior seminar, "The Choice to Think: A Metachoice to Explain the Conflicting Data of Rational Choice Theory." Following Rand, I posited evasion is the root of crime.

That said, one of my favorite theories with strong explanatory framework is TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION by Sykes and Matza. In one class, I applied to civil disobedience. Interviewing teenage delinquents in the 1950s, Sykes and Matza found that the boys actually ascribed verbally to common morality and recognized their actions as wrongful. They then offered excuses or justifications, which Sykes and Matza formalized into a famous inventory.

1. Denial of responsibility. The offender will propose that they were victim of circumstance or were forced into situations beyond their control.
   
2. Denial of injury. The offender insists that their actions did not cause any harm or damage.
   
3. Denial of the victim. The offender believes that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed
   
4. Condemnation of the condemners. The offenders maintain that those who condemn their offence are doing so purely out of spite, or are shifting the blame off of themselves unfairly.
   
5. Appeal to higher loyalties. The offender suggests that his or her offence was for the greater good, with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend.
   

(From Wikipedia but the list is canonic.)

Realize that at root, these excuses admit the premise that the acts were wrong. (Also, there are differences between "excusers" and "deniers" among criminals, but that is not important here.)

[bborg 0]

There are so many interesting things to discuss here, it's hard to know where to start! I'll try to keep it to a reasonable number.

You ask some great and very challenging questions. I’ll do my best to answer them. And again I’m glad that you’re enjoying the discussion. Not only do I love to talk about subjects I’m passionate about with people I respect, but it’s particularly exciting to have you involved as a psychologist.

Would it be at all correct to say that the criminal is motivated by a wish to exist in a world ruled by his force and no others? I'd suppose they prefer to be unopposed or, at a minimum, dominant among those who use force. And I'd guess they don't want force used upon them. However, would this motive change if one truly identifies with a gang?

Yes, although for his force to win, force as such needs to be a mover in the world. And there is evidence that criminals “respect” other criminals for their willingness to use violence or for their schemes. So I don’t think there is any contradiction if he identifies with a gang, even if he is not the leader. And after all, in their company he is free to be himself and can enjoy some level of insulation against the real world.

I think that these are some reasons people look at failures of authority first. But, as you say, strict focus on authority and failure to look at the child's choices misses a big part.

I think it’s generally an honest error, yes, but the error goes both ways. Some assume that all children are innocent, and that some trauma or gross negligence by the parents must be responsible for criminal behavior. But remember from our other discussion that classically-based theories such as G&H’s are assuming a Hobbesean view of man. So misbehavior is natural and based on a “rational” pleasure/pain calculation in the absence of some form of control. By that logic, criminal behavior necessarily means that the guardians didn’t do their job. Both theories treat the child in a deterministic way.

Honestly, I have a hard time not focusing on the parents here. Bill certainly is responsible for his pouting, tantrums, and so forth. But how did he come to use this as an habitual method and why does it demoralize his parents? I tend to think that such coercive behaviors become habitual because the parents were already demoralized. In other words, the parents' problems precede and likely facilitate the child's problems. This doesn't take the role of the child's choices out of it, but instead explains the context in which such choices are continually and then perhaps habitually made. Would you agree with this?

Well, the problem is that if parents are acting on the assumption that punishment will change their child’s behavior, then if their child is a budding criminal (rather than just “kids being kids”) they are in for a rude awakening. That strategy will lead to failure if it does not address the thinking process of the child. That’s Samenow’s major point. While persistent delinquent behavior may mean the parents aren’t acting properly, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were already demoralized. They could have tried based on the most popular theoretical knowledge out there, and failed. You would know better than I, but I doubt if most literature on child discipline acknowledges or takes into account the criminal mind.

Isn't it the case that those who join gangs have at least some different motivations than the individual delinquent? In other words, although delinquency is more concentrated in gangs, might it not have a different motive and meaning than the actions of a single delinquent person? Or, is it that delinquency typically involves more than one person? Part of what I'm mulling is the difference between the gang member and the "lone wolf." The latter is far more dangerous than the former, although I wouldn't reduce the lone wolf's delinquency merely to greed for material things.

Criminality is a distinguishing feature of gangs, but crime is not their primary function. Gangs are social groups and although they draw a different sort of individual, I think the draw is based primarily on a desire for social interaction and camaraderie. So I think the difference between the gang member and the “lone wolf” is based on personality issues apart from criminality.

This is where the issue of malevolence seems particularly poignant to me. Whether they call it "gratuitous hostility," contemptuous flouting, or motivation to wield power, it all seems rooted in a malevolent universe premise directed primarily at others. With that comes a malevolent mindset and intent. They're mean, and mean it!

However, I think it's very hard for people, myself included, to understand where such malevolence comes from. Yes, they are choosing to be coercive, but what has happened that influenced their minds in such malevolent directions and then encouraged them to act on it? What was going on around them? How were they being treated? Why were early attempts at coercion ineffectively punished? Who was in charge?

That sounds like a good question for child psychology. Even Samenow only identifies the criminal’s thinking patterns, not why he adopted them. Because criminality appears to start at a very young age, you’d not only have to contend with getting beneath the rationalizations but also with undeveloped communication skills.

Would it be fair to say that the criminal is really trying to create, and impose through force, his own irrational reality? This may be along the lines of what B. Royce was saying in regard to putting others in the position that he is in.

I’ll have to give this some more thought, I’m not sure. He is evading reality, attempting to pretend that he can operate outside of it, but I don’t know yet if he is also trying to force that view of reality on others. It’s an intriguing idea, though!

Do you think the criminal has any genuine sense of the concepts of virtue, admirable, efficacy, or even celebration? I understand that you are using those terms as a means of describing how the criminal explains or justifies his actions to himself. But do you think that the criminal actually feels any of the emotions that would go along with those positive qualities when he commits either a purposeful or "purposeless" crime?

Well, since we have no vocabulary for criminal “values” we’re stuck with what we have. When you read “celebration”, think of Taggart’s choice of celebration with Lillian Rearden… Since criminality is not aimed at achieving real values, no act following from it can result in joy or happiness. Samenow describes the highs the criminal experiences almost like a drug high, and even a form of addiction because when they don’t feel the thrill of getting away with something they have to face the depression of their meaningless existence. So I use certain value-charged terms, and the criminal may fool himself into believing that he’s feeling the real thing, but he’s not.

(I tried to keep it brief, but it was too hard!)

No problem.

[bborg 0]

In the main, bborg, I agree with your essay and I appreciate your skill in presenting your ideas. Your point that the parents must care for the child regardless of its behavior is cogent.

Thank you.

The idea that a "philosophy of crime" exists is interesting. Usually, we call that "criminology" but you are pursuing the criminal's "philosophy." Clearly, that must be implicit -- criminals have no philosophy. That is why they are criminals. Crime, like poverty, may need no explaining. They are anti-concepts, perhaps, in that they cannot exist without their opposites.

Everyone has a philosophy, which only means they are acting on some premises about reality. Those premises can be irrational and invalid, but they’re there. Understand someone’s ideas and you understand their behavior.

The fiield is awash with theories. None of them can "explain" crime because crime is an action of individuals -- as is all human action . These theories can categorize and differentiate classes of crimes and criminals, but little more.

I agree that most theories are poor attempts to explain by means of categorization, so I try to focus on the observations people have made and make my own conclusions based on them. For example, I cited the observations of Cohen and Miller in my essay to support my ideas, but I don’t agree with their theories (they are, however, better than most that I read).

You speak of the "masculinity" theory of delinquency, which is fine -- except to explain girls who commit crimes. (Male burglars victimize their neighbors. Female burglars go into other neighborhoods.)

I think this confuses my inductive approach with classification. The point was not merely to name various characteristics of criminals, but to arrive at the criminal's view of reality by means of their expressed values. Those values are in fact twisted versions of the ones a rational person would recognize. Hence we look up to the accomplished athlete, while they look up to the thug; we study the work of entrepreneurs, while they aspire to become con artists. The lesson is that the criminal's values are based on an idea of the efficacy of force. This is especially evident in the criminal's view of masculinity, defined by Ayn Rand as “strength”, distorted to mean power. Samenow has a very good theory that rape is how the criminal reaffirms his masculinity, especially if his initial advance is rejected. His pseudo-self esteem is based on a view of himself as able to get what he wants from people.

I have not read enough about female criminals (hardly anything has been written about them) to know what particular form their view of sex takes. Since women rarely have the physical strength to match their victims, I would expect to see much greater value placed in “smartness”. My thoughts go back to Lillian Rearden attempting to destroy Hank. Of course she was not herself a criminal in the legal sense, but she certainly had the mind of one and conspired with them in the government.

Theories of street crime do not explain "suite crime" -- white collar crime.

A couple points here. If the essence of criminality is the same in both the street criminal and white collar criminal, then you can study it in either one. Also, clearly not all criminals are the same. Some are murderers, some are pickpockets, and some are embezzlers. And of course a habitual liar is not a criminal at all. What explains the differences between these is not different kinds of criminality, but varying degrees of it. Some criminals are willing to use violence, and some aren’t. But both are accepting at least some part of the value system I’ve tried to identify.

I wrote a paper for my senior seminar, "The Choice to Think: A Metachoice to Explain the Conflicting Data of Rational Choice Theory." Following Rand, I posited evasion is the root of crime.

It certainly is, although not all evaders are criminals. That's why I think it's necessary to identify the fundamental premises of criminality.

That said, one of my favorite theories with strong explanatory framework is TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION by Sykes and Matza.

I’ve read the theory, and again while I enjoy reading about the observations I think the explanation is wrong. These rationalizations do not necessarily indicate an acceptance of wrong-doing. All criminals, whatever their particular differences, are manipulators, and they have been that way for long before they started breaking the law. They certainly know that you think what they did was wrong, and that if they are held responsible that means punishment under the law. So these techniques are more consistent with their criminality and a desperate attempt for sympathy and leniency, than an admission of guilt. They are not trying to convince themselves, they are trying to convince you, and these are the kinds of excuses they think you might accept. In fact, some do.

But I’d like this thread to focus on the ideas in my essay, especially because I have yet to put together and post Part II and III. If you want to create a separate thread to discuss the techniques of neutralization, I’d be glad to participate.

[Ed from OC 0]

Bryson,

Nice essay. Here's some more information you may find of interest, if you haven't already seen it:

Dr. Peikoff gave a Ford Hall Forum lecture (4.23.95, reprinted in the Sept. 1995 Intellectual Activist) entitled "What to Do About Crime." He identifies 5 criminal traits:

1. Impulsiveness

2. Anti-Intellectuality

3. Defiance of Authority

4. Amorality

5. Feeling of His Own Victimization

In addition to Samenow's book, his references include:

Wayt. W. Gibbs, "Seeking the Criminal Element," Scientific American, March 1995

James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Hernstein, Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime (Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1985)

[Ed from OC 0]

Criminal psychology is an interesting topic, and I like what your wrote. A few thoughts, if you wish to read them:

1. It may be worthwhile to distinguish a criminal who uses force to violate the rights of individuals vs. someone who breaks the law, regardless of whether the law itself is just, moral, and respects individual rights. For certain audiences this would be a given, for others, not. It isn't clear in the definition section why you oppose drug or prostitution laws, and why those should be differentiated from laws prohibiting theft and murder. The point is one that I think Ayn Rand originated: force is the only means of violating rights. Non-Objectivists will probably not be familiar with her argument, and argue that there are other means.

2. I see the word "socialization" and read "conformity." I think there are some who obey the law out of conformity and nothing else; raised elsewhere they would obey a different set of laws. Such sheep may jump to another herd and follow their leadership, and thus obey some laws and break others, out of peer pressure. It is the rational, independent man of principles that recognizes the rights of others consistently and acts on principle to respect those rights. Other people will obey laws out of emotion - peer pressure, tradition, etc. The danger of relying on "socialization" to turn out law-abiding citizens is that the views of the group are taken as the highest authority, rather than reason, reality, and the rights of man. It is, as you point out, more an issue of freewill than environment, but also one of the basis by which the person chooses.

[B. Royce 0]

Regarding just one issue---who the criminal admires---I would say in general that criminals look up to the "accomplished" thug, not because he has independently accomplished something, but because he has dependently (and thus, selflessly) made suckers out of others. (Not of course, that he thinks in these terms.) Whereas, the person of high self-esteem (the selfish one) looks up to the accomplished athlete or businessman because he _has_ independently and selfishly accomplished something. I think this may go a way toward explaining why a great number of people admire gangsters, and Billy the Kid, and Jesse James, even though they themselves might never engage in criminal activities. Their relatively low self-esteem leads them to the admiration of sucker-makers.

[MikeMarotta 0]

"But I’d like this thread to focus on the ideas in my essay, especially because I have yet to put together and post Part II and III." -- bborg.

I will try to do that here. I believe that these are your own main points, independent of the authorities you cited.

The criminal is motivated by a wish to exist in a world ruled by force, rather than reason. ... forced to face the natural end of their errors.

A criminal is one who initiates the use of force or fraud in his dealings with other men. The essential characteristic of crime is coercion. ...

The role of the child’s own choices is critical during child-rearing. He is not merely a piece of clay to be molded by his guardians, but an autonomous being able to develop his own world view and value system independent of the wishes of his parents.

In both cases the motive is not monetary gain, but the power the delinquent wields over others (p. 127).

Toughness, in fact, is having the physical presence of the brute expressing his emotions not with his words but with his fists. ... “Smartness” means the ability to cheat and to defraud others.

The criminal’s behavior is volitional, deliberate, and purposeful in his actions. What makes those actions difficult to understand, however, is that he does not share the same values as the productive and law-abiding. He lies, but not always to his advantage; he steals, but not always to his personal gain. To many this seems most like mental illness or insanity.

It is this capacity to fool, to steal, to force, that the criminal prizes above all other traits.

I agree that you have defined the problem. Gregg Barak perhaps quoting others said that all crime comes down to a transfer of one of three things: wealth, status, or reality. For different reasons of our own, the strong post-modernist and I both agreed that it comes down to reality. The criminal wants to force his reality on you: the money and the status are secondary, merely perhaps the measures of how well they have affected you.

A stronger Objectivist restatement is that the criminal wants your sanction to validate his subjectivist desire to evade reality.

This still seems not to get to the root of the individual criminal's desire for power. If siblings do not share it, is it choice? Siblings may not share eye color, though eye color is not volitional. So, then, is criminality inheritable? I wrote a paper for my community college seminar class on genese and crime. It is not an answer, but perhaps an indication. I say that because you say that the parents attempt to correct the child delinquent externally without getting to his ideas. But that comes back to the "clay" theory as most of us were raised with mystic-altruist-collectivist ideas that we rejected and abandoned. So, even getting to the ideas of the criminal seems only so rewarding.

[MikeMarotta 0]

1. It may be worthwhile to distinguish a criminal who uses force to violate the rights of individuals vs. someone who breaks the law ... 2. I see the word "socialization" and read "conformity."

One problem with criminalization is that it forces all illegal activities into the same channels or out of the legitimate paths. I recommned highly the ideas of ROBERT MERTON, himself a fascinating exception to his own rules. Merton came up with a classification based on whether the subject accepts or declines the socially-approved values and the socially-approved norms. If you do what everyone else does in order to enjoiy what everyone else likes, you are a conformist. If you show up to work every day, mow the lawn, etc., and are not happy, you reject the goals, but accept the means and therefore are a drudge. "Innovators" can also be "criminals" who accept the goals, but find their own means to achieve them. Those who reject both are "retreatists" -- not libertarians in Montana, but vagrants, winos, outcasts, etc., skid row to a greater or lesser extent. Then there are the radicals off on their own, a fifth element who create new means and new goals, the artists, philosophers and social innovators.

[B. Royce 0]

Regarding just one issue---who the criminal admires---I would say in general that criminals look up to the "accomplished" thug, not because he has independently accomplished something, but because he has dependently (and thus, selflessly) made suckers out of others. (Not of course, that he thinks in these terms.) Whereas, the person of high self-esteem (the selfish one) looks up to the accomplished athlete or businessman because he _has_ independently and selfishly accomplished something. I think this may go a way toward explaining why a great number of people admire gangsters, and Billy the Kid, and Jesse James, even though they themselves might never engage in criminal activities. Their relatively low self-esteem leads them to the admiration of sucker-makers.

Thinking further about the criminal's view of his victim (real or potential) as a sucker, it would appear that the criminal's main motive (speaking especially of theft) is not simply taking things from someone so that they become suckers. For should the victim's response to becoming a victim be one (if you can imagine it) of lighthearted cheer and confidence, the criminal would not, I think, be glad of his booty, but on the contrary, very angry. The stealing was a means of creating sadness, anger, negativity, in the place of positive gladness.

His victim must be at a loss, not just materially, but, more importantly, psychologically. His self-assurance, sense of well-being and success, must be shaken. Then the criminal can laugh, to himself, or amongst his fellows. He might say, "Did you see the look on that fool's face? He was so damn scaered. Ha, ha!" Or, of a robbery at night, "Are they gonna get a big surprise when they open the store in the morning. I can hear them now, 'Oh my God, what happened?' Ha, ha ha!" He can feel superior, because he "put one over" on his actual superiors. He can evade his feelings of inferiority. He feels inferior because he is in fact inferior. He has never discovered independence (his own reason) and self-esteem.

Imagine this: a criminal has knocked a man out on the street late at night. He has taken his wallet, his watch, his ring, etc. Then he goes to his car down the street and waits in the darkness to see his victim wake up. The man only pretended to be unconscious. He has covertly seen the robber get in his car and wait. After a while he turns over and stands up, pretending to discover his wallet, watch and ring gone. Then he starts singing "I'm Singing In The Rain" while skipping down the street. Then he stops and gladly shouts "Hey, I've been robbed! How wonderful it is to be alive!" The criminal starts feeling that something went wrong, that things are not how they are supposed to be. He had been prepared to say "Ha, ha, you got yours, sucker", but somehow the words don't apply and he can't say them. This is not what he had set out to create.

[Scott A. 0]

Not only do I love to talk about subjects I’m passionate about with people I respect, but it’s particularly exciting to have you involved as a psychologist.

Thanks, Bryson!

Yes, although for his force to win, force as such needs to be a mover in the world. And there is evidence that criminals “respect” other criminals for their willingness to use violence or for their schemes. So I don’t think there is any contradiction if he identifies with a gang, even if he is not the leader.

Yes, I see what you're saying. My thinking was along the same lines, which is why I mentioned in the last post the "awe" I see them as having in regard to physical force. In fact, I think all people, and perhaps men especially, "respect" the power of brute force, be it one man, a gang, or the physical force of nature. But the criminal seems to revere it almost as something mystical (i.e., mystics of muscle).

I think it’s generally an honest error, yes, but the error goes both ways. Some assume that all children are innocent, and that some trauma or gross negligence by the parents must be responsible for criminal behavior. But remember from our other discussion that classically-based theories such as G&H’s are assuming a Hobbesean view of man. So misbehavior is natural and based on a “rational” pleasure/pain calculation in the absence of some form of control. By that logic, criminal behavior necessarily means that the guardians didn’t do their job. Both theories treat the child in a deterministic way.

I certainly disagree with the Hobbesean view of criminal behavior as natural. I also wouldn't assume all children are innocent. The issue for me is how the malevolence that seems at the root of criminality sets in and motivates the person's thoughts and actions. And you are probably right when you say below that this is what child psychologists are supposed to be figuring out.

Well, the problem is that if parents are acting on the assumption that punishment will change their child’s behavior, then if their child is a budding criminal (rather than just “kids being kids”) they are in for a rude awakening. That strategy will lead to failure if it does not address the thinking process of the child. That’s Samenow’s major point. While persistent delinquent behavior may mean the parents aren’t acting properly, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were already demoralized. They could have tried based on the most popular theoretical knowledge out there, and failed.

I'm obviously stuck on this point, but I keep returning to the issue of what it is that facilitates a "budding criminal." You're right that trying to apply punishment to a such a person will fail because the criminal thought process is already established, which punishment won't necessarily address. But what helped establish the criminal mindset and thought process?

As I see it, the child first had to develop an underlying malevolence. Since I don't believe anyone is born malevolent, I assume something happened (or failed to happen) that induced this sense of life (and the beginnings of a malevolent set of premises). This could be something the parents do (or fail to do) or something that happens to the child outside the family. (And I'd bet the specifics of what this is take the form of a criminal "theme" of sorts. Specifically, the type of crime on which he focuses. But obviously I'm speculating.)

In any event, I would think the second step is that the malevolence evolves from a sense of life to an active motivation (in the form of both premises and psychological energy). In other words, it goes from the pre- or semi-conscious "feeling" that the world is bad, to the conscious judgment that it is. With the judgment comes actions directed by and reinforcing of that judgment. Finally, I would suspect that the child somehow repeatedly "gets away" with the delinquent behavior, or the punishment simply isn't effective enough to stop it. Ultimately the mindset and related method is formed. What do you think about this?

Criminality is a distinguishing feature of gangs, but crime is not their primary function. Gangs are social groups and although they draw a different sort of individual, I think the draw is based primarily on a desire for social interaction and camaraderie. So I think the difference between the gang member and the “lone wolf” is based on personality issues apart from criminality.

That makes sense to me. I wonder if the lone wolf prizes "smartness" over toughness and masculinity?

That sounds like a good question for child psychology. Even Samenow only identifies the criminal’s thinking patterns, not why he adopted them. Because criminality appears to start at a very young age, you’d not only have to contend with getting beneath the rationalizations but also with undeveloped communication skills.

Yes, now I can see the potential importance of some of the theories of psychotherapy we have been discussing. One in particular that will be coming up, called Self Psychology and developed by a man named Kohut, has some very interesting things to say about early parent-child interactions. He focuses on narcissism, but I think there are some links to what we're discussing here.

Would it be fair to say that the criminal is really trying to create, and impose through force, his own irrational reality? This may be along the lines of what B. Royce was saying in regard to putting others in the position that he is in.

I’ll have to give this some more thought, I’m not sure. He is evading reality, attempting to pretend that he can operate outside of it, but I don’t know yet if he is also trying to force that view of reality on others. It’s an intriguing idea, though!

The two sayings, "It's my way or the highway" and "Your money or your life" come to mind as illustrative of the idea. But I'm not sure the general idea is right, either.

Well, since we have no vocabulary for criminal “values” we’re stuck with what we have. When you read “celebration”, think of Taggart’s choice of celebration with Lillian Rearden… Since criminality is not aimed at achieving real values, no act following from it can result in joy or happiness. Samenow describes the highs the criminal experiences almost like a drug high, and even a form of addiction because when they don’t feel the thrill of getting away with something they have to face the depression of their meaningless existence.

[sA: Bold mine.]

Yes! This is exactly what I was trying to describe when I said that the thug experiences a "mindless, semi-frightened (but aroused) awe" in regard to physical strength and acts of force in particular. There is an almost intoxicated aspect to it, and the "thrill" is in a low form.

[MikeMarotta 0]

That makes sense to me. I wonder if the lone wolf prizes "smartness" over toughness and masculinity?

That certainly applies to white collar criminals, but only applies some women (obviously) and of course not to female white collar criminals. I went back to the General Electric/Westinghouse anti-trust case that Ayn Rand wrote about in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. That illuminates other aspects of the cases still in the news, Enron, for instance. Whether or not what these people do is objectively wrong, it is illegal and they know it. In an earlier post, I cited Techniques of Neutralization. An essential feature of that theory is that the delinquent knows that his acts are wrong and he is exusing and justifying them. Following Samenow, bborg offered that the criminal does not feel or care that the acts were wrong, but is only attempting to elicit sympathy to further manipulate you. Now, apply that to Rearden Metal the Danagger Trial and Dr. Floyd Ferris. We know the man, Hank Rearden, from the inside because the author presented him that way. Seen from the outside, from a real-world context of white collar crime, the matter is different. White collar criminals -- even if their actions are not objectively immoral -- seek to get one over on the suckers. They have "criminal minds" according to the schema of Samenow.

I am not sure about that. I am not sure that every action that harms other people is necessarily wrong. What, after all, is harm? Ultimately, as all economic values are subjective, harms are defined by the subject. We reject the whiner who says that he "feels" harmed and offers no objective proof of loss of person, property or liberty. The federal government claims that it was harmed when all of hte bidders on its many large projects previously met in a hotel room and decided among themselves how the bidding would go. Again, we Objectivists argue otherwise, but the perpetrators engaged in what they thought was a crime. The theorem of sociologist W. I. Thomas says: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." Certainly, in the cases of white collar criminals who are convicted of violating (non-objective) laws, the consequences are real indeed.

[bborg 0]

Ed, I did not know about Peikoff's lecture, but I'm glad he's read Samenow's book. I'll have to see about ordering the issue once I'm done with my essay. I don't want to interrupt my stream of thought with someone else's, and I don't think I'd get the full benefit of the exercise if I didn't do it on my own.

1. It may be worthwhile to distinguish a criminal who uses force to violate the rights of individuals vs. someone who breaks the law, regardless of whether the law itself is just, moral, and respects individual rights. For certain audiences this would be a given, for others, not. It isn't clear in the definition section why you oppose drug or prostitution laws, and why those should be differentiated from laws prohibiting theft and murder. The point is one that I think Ayn Rand originated: force is the only means of violating rights. Non-Objectivists will probably not be familiar with her argument, and argue that there are other means.

Hmm, what would you add to my definition to make this clearer? I wrote that section for the reason you've stated, and thought I did a pretty good and concise job considering that the reader is expecting to read about criminality and not natural rights.

2. I see the word "socialization" and read "conformity." I think there are some who obey the law out of conformity and nothing else; raised elsewhere they would obey a different set of laws. Such sheep may jump to another herd and follow their leadership, and thus obey some laws and break others, out of peer pressure. It is the rational, independent man of principles that recognizes the rights of others consistently and acts on principle to respect those rights. Other people will obey laws out of emotion - peer pressure, tradition, etc. The danger of relying on "socialization" to turn out law-abiding citizens is that the views of the group are taken as the highest authority, rather than reason, reality, and the rights of man. It is, as you point out, more an issue of freewill than environment, but also one of the basis by which the person chooses.

I agree and would also add "deviance" as another term that is commonly used to refer to criminality but which of course means nonconformity. I think many people use these terms innocently, but the theories have collectivist baggage that desperately needs to get dumped.

[bborg 0]

Regarding just one issue---who the criminal admires---I would say in general that criminals look up to the "accomplished" thug, not because he has independently accomplished something, but because he has dependently (and thus, selflessly) made suckers out of others. (Not of course, that he thinks in these terms.) Whereas, the person of high self-esteem (the selfish one) looks up to the accomplished athlete or businessman because he _has_ independently and selfishly accomplished something. I think this may go a way toward explaining why a great number of people admire gangsters, and Billy the Kid, and Jesse James, even though they themselves might never engage in criminal activities. Their relatively low self-esteem leads them to the admiration of sucker-makers.

I've wondered about that as well, but I think you just nailed it. After all, those virtues the individual of low self-esteem feels he lacks -- you don't need them to be a "successful" criminal.

Thinking further about the criminal's view of his victim (real or potential) as a sucker, it would appear that the criminal's main motive (speaking especially of theft) is not simply taking things from someone so that they become suckers. For should the victim's response to becoming a victim be one (if you can imagine it) of lighthearted cheer and confidence, the criminal would not, I think, be glad of his booty, but on the contrary, very angry. The stealing was a means of creating sadness, anger, negativity, in the place of positive gladness.

First, just a correction. The criminal is not acting so that his victim becomes a sucker. His victim is already a sucker for getting an education, for going to work every day etc. You know who I think about is James Taggart, bragging to Dagny about "making" money through Washington deals after she had worked so hard to earn it through trade.

As far as the criminal wanting his victim to feel sadnesss, anger, depression, I think that's optional. How many criminals wait around to watch their victims' reactions? The rush they feel is not primarily at the aftermath they cause, but at their own ability to get what they want through force. In fact many criminals evade the harm they cause because it makes them feel guilty. The nature of criminality is destruction, but psychologically to face the reality of ones nature is a different matter. Samenow goes into some depth about this, that the criminal must believe that he is at heart a good person and that the harm caused is other people's fault. So for example, the burglar shows remorse that he shot a homeowner but says, "she shouldn't have gotten in my way." This is actually the opposite of what MickeMarotta posted about the "techniques of neutralization". The criminal is not trying to find some loophole in a positive moral code he accepts to excuse his behavior; he is trying to find a way to evade the knowledge of what the destructive code he has accepted leads to.

That isn't to say that the criminal can't enjoy the suffering of his victims, but I think perhaps this is a secondary source of excitement that separates property crime and situational violent crime (meaning violence committed in panic during an act of theft) from premeditated violent crime.

[bborg 0]

That isn't to say that the criminal can't enjoy the suffering of his victims, but I think perhaps this is a secondary source of excitement that separates property crime and situational violent crime (meaning violence committed in panic during an act of theft) from premeditated violent crime.

I should have said that this may separate those guilty only of property crime and situational violent crime from those guilty of premeditated violent crime. The unit of study isn't the crime, it's the criminal. Killers can also be thieves, not all thieves are killers.

[B. Royce 0]

Regarding just one issue---who the criminal admires---I would say in general that criminals look up to the "accomplished" thug, not because he has independently accomplished something, but because he has dependently (and thus, selflessly) made suckers out of others. (Not of course, that he thinks in these terms.) Whereas, the person of high self-esteem (the selfish one) looks up to the accomplished athlete or businessman because he _has_ independently and selfishly accomplished something. I think this may go a way toward explaining why a great number of people admire gangsters, and Billy the Kid, and Jesse James, even though they themselves might never engage in criminal activities. Their relatively low self-esteem leads them to the admiration of sucker-makers.

I've wondered about that as well, but I think you just nailed it. After all, those virtues the individual of low self-esteem feels he lacks -- you don't need them to be a "successful" criminal.

Thinking further about the criminal's view of his victim (real or potential) as a sucker, it would appear that the criminal's main motive (speaking especially of theft) is not simply taking things from someone so that they become suckers. For should the victim's response to becoming a victim be one (if you can imagine it) of lighthearted cheer and confidence, the criminal would not, I think, be glad of his booty, but on the contrary, very angry. The stealing was a means of creating sadness, anger, negativity, in the place of positive gladness.

First, just a correction. The criminal is not acting so that his victim becomes a sucker. His victim is already a sucker for getting an education, for going to work every day etc. You know who I think about is James Taggart, bragging to Dagny about "making" money through Washington deals after she had worked so hard to earn it through trade.

As far as the criminal wanting his victim to feel sadnesss, anger, depression, I think that's optional. How many criminals wait around to watch their victims' reactions? The rush they feel is not primarily at the aftermath they cause, but at their own ability to get what they want through force. In fact many criminals evade the harm they cause because it makes them feel guilty. The nature of criminality is destruction, but psychologically to face the reality of ones nature is a different matter. Samenow goes into some depth about this, that the criminal must believe that he is at heart a good person and that the harm caused is other people's fault. So for example, the burglar shows remorse that he shot a homeowner but says, "she shouldn't have gotten in my way." This is actually the opposite of what MickeMarotta posted about the "techniques of neutralization". The criminal is not trying to find some loophole in a positive moral code he accepts to excuse his behavior; he is trying to find a way to evade the knowledge of what the destructive code he has accepted leads to.

That isn't to say that the criminal can't enjoy the suffering of his victims, but I think perhaps this is a secondary source of excitement that separates property crime and situational violent crime (meaning violence committed in panic during an act of theft) from premeditated violent crime.

Thanks for the correction. Just a couple more remarks about the sucker. Since the criminal regards the honest, hard-working man as a sucker, that means he regards him as wrong, as living wrongly. And if a man lives wrong, he should not feel happy and confident.. So, when the criminal takes from, or harms, the sucker, he is merely administrating justice. ("That S.O.B. got what was coming to him.")