Crime as a Rebellion Against Reason

[bborg 0]

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).

Well, we "respect" it in that we try to not be on the receiving end.

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?

I think this is still assuming that the cause has to be external. That something must act on the child to produce criminality. Why can't the change be caused by his own choices?

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

Not sure. Why do you think he might? Of course what came to my mind when you first said "lone wolf" was the serial killer, but I don't quite understand yet how they fit in...They're very sick and unusual, even for criminals.

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.

Great! I look forward to it.

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 ultimately he is expecting the victim to answer to his view of reality, that's true. Also, this plays into his feeling of victimhood, which I'll ground in his "values" in the next part.

[Scott A. 0]

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?

I think this is still assuming that the cause has to be external. That something must act on the child to produce criminality. Why can't the change be caused by his own choices?

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't caused by his own choices. What I'm saying is that choices occur in a context. Some contexts are probably more or less facilitative of malevolence or benevolence than others.

Additionally, some contexts make certain choices more "real" in terms of a legitimate (although not necessarily moral) option than others. A positive example would be going to college, which creates the opportunities to study different subjects, meet new people, and pursue any of a number of intellectual and career paths. A negative example would be growing up in a place where one experiences actual threat if he doesn't conform to some group. Or, there is opportunity for "gain" through force that isn't punished. In all cases, the person has to make his own choices, but what options are more "real" to the person? That, to me, is the psychological issue.

Specific to the point of external cause, since I don't believe anyone is born malevolent, I do believe that something external happens that, at a minimum, facilitates the development of a malevolent sense of life and, possibly, set of premises. That being said, one has multiple choices along the way of how to understand and deal with whatever the external event is, one's emotional reactions to it, and so on. So the relationship between external events and choices is correlational to me, not necessarily causal.

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

Not sure. Why do you think he might? Of course what came to my mind when you first said "lone wolf" was the serial killer, but I don't quite understand yet how they fit in...They're very sick and unusual, even for criminals.

Yes, the serial killer is the archetypal lone wolf. I did mean it more generally, though. The loner can be alone for a lot of different reasons, including rejection from groups. I see Toohey as a lone wolf of sorts. He is obviously no physical threat, but look what his use of ideas does to people. So, my initial thought was that the lone wolf, while not exempt from interest in toughness, will probably be forced to use his "smartness" to get what he wants. He has no posse at his disposal.

Well ultimately he is expecting the victim to answer to his view of reality, that's true. Also, this plays into his feeling of victimhood, which I'll ground in his "values" in the next part.

I'll look forward to that!

[bborg 0]

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't caused by his own choices. What I'm saying is that choices occur in a context. Some contexts are probably more or less facilitative of malevolence or benevolence than others.

Sometimes that’s pretty clearly the case. For example, I think there are two major reasons why crime is more common in poor communities. The first, which is not what you’re talking about but I think is a good point to make, is that the more consistently criminal a person is, the more he sabotages his success in life. This is the reverse of what you often hear, that poverty leads to crime. I think it’s the other way around. So you’re always going to have the most criminal elements in environments of poverty. The other reason, which speaks to your point, is the welfare culture we have today that breeds feelings of entitlement. The government uses force to redistribute wealth, condoning the morality of the criminal. This has increased the amount of crime way beyond that which one would expect to find in a rational society.

However, there are many cases that are not so clear. What about the Jeffrey Dahmers who seemed to have loving, responsible families but from a young age took a sick pleasure in death?

Yes, the serial killer is the archetypal lone wolf. I did mean it more generally, though. The loner can be alone for a lot of different reasons, including rejection from groups. I see Toohey as a lone wolf of sorts. He is obviously no physical threat, but look what his use of ideas does to people. So, my initial thought was that the lone wolf, while not exempt from interest in toughness, will probably be forced to use his "smartness" to get what he wants. He has no posse at his disposal.

This is making me think a little more about what sort of criminal is the lone wolf. The problem is that most crime requires (or at least is greatly benefited by) support from other criminals. This is true not only of street crime (think liquor store robbery) but white collar crime as well (you need conspirators to help hide the evidence). Now, you mention Toohey but of course he was not technically a criminal. And maybe this is where most lone wolfs remain, as the manipulators. It can also become physical abuse, that’s when he becomes comfortable that his victim is unable emotionally to escape, so you have the abusive husband or parent. But as you said, it’s primarily psychological control, requiring “smartness”. I think you just may have something there.

[Scott A. 0]

Sometimes that’s pretty clearly the case. For example, I think there are two major reasons why crime is more common in poor communities. The first, which is not what you’re talking about but I think is a good point to make, is that the more consistently criminal a person is, the more he sabotages his success in life. This is the reverse of what you often hear, that poverty leads to crime. I think it’s the other way around. So you’re always going to have the most criminal elements in environments of poverty.

This is very interesting, and I believe economics backs this up. Tom Rustici, who is at George Mason University and taught economics at Founders when I was there, talked about this specific thing. The point he made (and supported with data and common sense) was exactly what you said--poverty doesn't breed crime, crime breeds poverty.

The other reason, which speaks to your point, is the welfare culture we have today that breeds feelings of entitlement. The government uses force to redistribute wealth, condoning the morality of the criminal. This has increased the amount of crime way beyond that which one would expect to find in a rational society.

I completely agree. Additionally, you can have this kind of thing happening at the level of the family, too, where some child or children are either implicitly or explicitly condoned for criminal actions, or the punishment isn't severe enough to stop it. A child could also get mixed messages from parents, or parents could be explicit models of criminality.

However, there are many cases that are not so clear. What about the Jeffrey Dahmers who seemed to have loving, responsible families but from a young age took a sick pleasure in death?

I went on wikipedia to get some background information on Dahmer. You're right that it suggests his childhood up until 8 was relatively normal, but few details are provided. I'm no expert on serial killers, but what I have read typically suggests some kind of horrific trauma, perhaps repeated over time, that facilitates their malevolence.

This is making me think a little more about what sort of criminal is the lone wolf.

I used Phil's cd to look up what Ayn Rand had to say, as I recalled her talking about the "lone wolf," but didn't remember where. In The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 18 June 4, 1973, "Selfishness Without A Self," she talks specifically about the "tribal lone wolf." This letter is a continuation of a discussion of the anti-conceptual mentality and how it is manifest. Here are some brief excerpts:

All tribalists are anti-conceptual in various degrees, but not all anti-conceptual mentalities are tribalists. Some are lone wolves (stressing that species' most predatory characteristics).

The majority of such wolves are frustrated tribalists, i.e., persons rejected by the tribe (or by the people of their immediate environment): they are too unreliable to abide by conventional rules, and too crudely manipulative to compete for tribal power. Since a perceptual mentality cannot provide a man with a way of survival, such a person, left to his own devices, becomes a kind of intellectual hobo, roaming about as an eclectic second-hander or brainpicker, snatching bits of ideas at random, switching them at whim, with only one constant in his behavior: the drifting from group to group, the need to cling to people, any sort of people, and to manipulate them.

Whatever theoretical constructs he may be able to spin and juggle in various fields, it is the field of ethics that fills him with the deepest sense of terror and of his own impotence...The tribal lone wolf has no firsthand grasp of values...The whims that guide him and switch from moment to moment or from year to year, cannot help him to conceive of an inner state of lifelong dedication to one's chosen values. His whims condition him to the opposite: they automatize his avoidance of any permanent commitment to anything or anyone. Without personal values, a man can have no sense of right or wrong. The tribal lone wolf is an amoralist all the way down.

...

The normal pattern of self-appraisal requires a reference to some abstract value or virtue—e.g., "I am good because I am rational," "I am good because I am honest," even the second-hander's notion of "I am good because people like me."...The amoralist's implicit pattern of self-appraisal (which he seldom identifies or admits) is: "I am good because it's me."

...

The implicit pattern of all his estimates is: "It's good because I like it"—"It's right because I did it"—"It's true because I want it to be true." What is the "I" in these statements? A physical hulk driven by chronic anxiety. [italics in original.]

As usual, there are many other jewels of insight in that letter, so if you have access to it, I'd check it out. I think, though, that this is somewhat different than the serial killer type of lone wolf. To my understanding, serial killers don't feel anxiety; they don't really feel anything. If they did, it would be some kind of volcanic rage, probably in reaction to a metaphysical fear of reality and particular kinds of people.

[bborg 0]

This is very interesting, and I believe economics backs this up. Tom Rustici, who is at George Mason University and taught economics at Founders when I was there, talked about this specific thing. The point he made (and supported with data and common sense) was exactly what you said--poverty doesn't breed crime, crime breeds poverty.

I don’t have data on the impoverishment of a community, but I’ve read about how the criminal lifestyle makes the criminal poor. G&H actually criticize the idea of a “career criminal” because they just don’t have the income from criminal activities to call it a career. I think that misses the point, since “successful” is not implicit in “career”, but it’s a good observation. Samenow has observed that whatever money criminals make, they spend it irresponsibly so they’re almost always broke. He also talks about how criminals become easily frustrated with their employers when they don’t get their way, and are either fired or quit. They fantasize about waltzing into a new job and being given the keys to the castle, but find they are asked to prove themselves, which they don’t think they should have to do. So we have someone who doesn’t make enough money from crime to support himself, spends what he gets recklessly, and refuses to do the work to advance to a higher paying job. And yet people say criminals suffer from lack of opportunity and if someone would just give them a chance…

It also occurred to me once that residents and businesses who can afford to will move away from crime, again making that area poorer. And the answer liberals have for this? No, don’t clamp down on crime, that would be racist. The answer is to cut more welfare checks, to offer free education and medical care.

I went on wikipedia to get some background information on Dahmer. You're right that it suggests his childhood up until 8 was relatively normal, but few details are provided. I'm no expert on serial killers, but what I have read typically suggests some kind of horrific trauma, perhaps repeated over time, that facilitates their malevolence.

I watched a biography on Dahmer that was available on youtube. I did a search and I think it was the A&E one. A large part of it is interviews with his parents. They seemed normal enough to me, and I don’t remember them mentioning anything that would have traumatized young Jeffrey, but I’d be interested to hear your evaluation.

I used Phil's cd to look up what Ayn Rand had to say, as I recalled her talking about the "lone wolf," but didn't remember where. In The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 18 June 4, 1973, "Selfishness Without A Self," she talks specifically about the "tribal lone wolf." This letter is a continuation of a discussion of the anti-conceptual mentality and how it is manifest. Here are some brief excerpts:

I wish I had purchased one of Phil’s CDs when I had the chance. That’s an interesting excerpt, but I’m having trouble applying it at the moment.

As usual, there are many other jewels of insight in that letter, so if you have access to it, I'd check it out. I think, though, that this is somewhat different than the serial killer type of lone wolf. To my understanding, serial killers don't feel anxiety; they don't really feel anything. If they did, it would be some kind of volcanic rage, probably in reaction to a metaphysical fear of reality and particular kinds of people.

As far as serial killers, I haven’t read extensively about them but from what I have read I don’t think they feel anxiety either. They may feel a nervous excitement, but anxiety implies they are unsure of themselves. One very common childhood behavior for serial killers is the torture of animals. I mentioned earlier that to be a criminal is one thing and to face ones criminality is another. Serial killers are comfortable with who they are and are excited (for some, sexually excited) by suffering and death.

Something that I did think about when enrolling in the masters program is what studying crime might do to my sense of life. I’m fine with studying most crime, and I will alternate between the intrigue of studying a specimen or the anger of wanting to put a stop to it. It’s only the serial killer that leaves me with a sense of sickness, in comparison to which all other crime seems almost innocent. I can only take studying that in small doses.

[Ed from OC 0]

Sometimes that’s pretty clearly the case. For example, I think there are two major reasons why crime is more common in poor communities. The first, which is not what you’re talking about but I think is a good point to make, is that the more consistently criminal a person is, the more he sabotages his success in life. This is the reverse of what you often hear, that poverty leads to crime. I think it’s the other way around. So you’re always going to have the most criminal elements in environments of poverty. The other reason, which speaks to your point, is the welfare culture we have today that breeds feelings of entitlement. The government uses force to redistribute wealth, condoning the morality of the criminal. This has increased the amount of crime way beyond that which one would expect to find in a rational society.

I agree that crime causes poverty, not the reverse. Another way that it manifests itself is socially. Areas that have high crime rates are less likely to attract new businesses and hence there are fewer opportunities for growth. Likewise, crime depresses real estate values so that home owners don't build wealth. Money gets wasted on broken windows, cleaning up graffiti, etc., which raises the cost of doing business or maintaining one's home.

Even in his own mind the criminal mentality leads to poverty. Investing in one's own education through years of effort and study do not fit with the impulsive mindset of the criminal. He wants immediate gratification. Working hard for the future is too long range. Building relationships with other people, trusting them to do their jobs and deliver on promises, not once but over the span of many years, requires viewing those people as reliable and trustworthy. A criminal trusts nobody and is paranoid about everyone; his concern is convincing himself that another person won't make a sucker out of him, rather than establishing a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship. (And speaking of relationships, the same is true of personal and romantic relationships; his happiness in those areas is equally doomed.)

One could be rationalistic about it and put it as a syllogism: crime is anti-intellectual; reason is the source of wealth; therefore crime causes poverty. But that's a poor argument, as the premises must be proved. The better argument is built inductively.

[MikeMarotta 0]

I think there are two major reasons why crime is more common in poor communities. ...

I agree that crime causes poverty, not the reverse.

"Poverty has no cause. Only prosperity has causes." Jane Jacobs. The Economy of Cities

Poverty and crime are anti-concepts, negatiions that we perceive by the absence of something else. Studying crime is like studying hunger or malnutrition. I completed first an associate's and then a bachelor's in criminal justice and criminology because those were the only rubrics offered for my interest in private security. Since then, I have continued with graduate classes in criminology, but only as "cognate electives" for a master's in social science. This summer, I have a class in "Miscarriages of Justice." We are studying the failure modes, mostly through DNA exonerations: false confessions, prosecutorial misconduct, falsified evidence, suborned witnesses and their false testimony. One estimate is that there have been 87.000 wrongful convictions of all kinds since 1989. For this class, one paper must be about a capital case reveresed by DNA evidence. For the other, I am taking Arthur Andersen. (Recently, a blogger for The Huffington Post offered this view of Jack Abramoff.) Understanding a disease can help you find a cure.

Poverty, crime, wrongful convictions, hunger, stupidity, bad manners and more all need to be remediated if we are to have a better world.

That said, I believe that there is more to be gained by studying security, safety, wellness, commerce and socialbilty. I see myself as a social "fire fighter" but fire prevention is the key to fire safety. So, too, with crime and poverty. They have the same cause: the failure to think.

[MikeMarotta 0]

This is very interesting, and I believe economics backs this up. Tom Rustici, who is at George Mason University and taught economics at Founders when I was there, talked about this specific thing. The point he made (and supported with data and common sense) was exactly what you said--poverty doesn't breed crime, crime breeds poverty.

I also perceive a "classist fallacy" in this, that poor people are criminals. Truly, when said that way, the denials come quickly. However, I point out that people steal where they shop, including Niemann-Marcus and Tiffany's. When you see a nice suburban subdivision with manicured lawns and new siding, you do not see the police cars there at night -- 80% of your calls come from 20% of your addresses and neighborhood has nothing to do with it, rich or poor. Crime is caused by people. Rich kids break into garages. Rich kids shoot out street lamps. Rich men beat their wives. Rich uncles rape their neices... and nephews. The criminal justice system just sweeps all of that under the rug and puts ever more cops in poor neigbhborhoods, where they discover ever more crime.

The four most criminal counties in America.

... the nation's wealthiest live in the D.C. suburbs.

Fairfax County, Va., Loudoun County, Va., and Howard County, Md., top the list of America's richest counties ...

well-paid government employees, and the area's lobbyists, lawyers and other tangential personnel, are "suburbanizing like mad" and in doing so have created a "feedback loop," driving more money into the area's suburbs by populating them with higher-priced homes and better school systems.

Story from Forbes 2006 here.

What you will not find is old black men, standing around a fire in a trash barrel passing a bottle of wine in a paper sack. Yet, that scene is what stops the cop car, not looters paying lawn services with your tax-dollars.

[bborg 0]

Poverty and crime are anti-concepts, negatiions that we perceive by the absence of something else. Studying crime is like studying hunger or malnutrition.

This is not what an “anti-concept” is. Please see Ayn Rand’s definition:

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .

One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what? . . .

Is it the case that poverty and crime are terms with only approximate meanings? And if they are anti-concepts, which legitimate concepts are they replacing?

Understanding a disease can help you find a cure.

But you also say that poverty and crime have no cause and need not be explained. Could you reconcile these two statements?

The criminal justice system just sweeps all of that under the rug and puts ever more cops in poor neigbhborhoods, where they discover ever more crime.

As you know, police do not have unlimited resources and have to prioritize where their attention is focused. That means a larger police presence in communities where not only do you have teens breaking into garages, but robberies and gang violence. It is not merely that police “discover” more crime there. Victimization of the poor is much higher than that of the middle to upper income brackets according to victimization surveys. In 2006 the rate per 1,000 of being the victim of a personal crime was 64.6 for families with annual income less than $7,500, compared to a rate of 14.6 for families making $75,000 or more. So it is absurd to claim that by focusing attention on poor communities the police are being prejudice toward the poor or even being racist, because while they may disproportionately arrest young black males, they also disproportionately help other blacks in the same community. In case you have been influenced by all the racist propaganda schools sell in some of the more progressive criminal justice literature, I suggest you check out William Wilbanks’ The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, an excellent analysis of the claims of liberals.

Also, police patrols only help to respond to street crime, partly because it may be in a public area spotted by police but mostly because it is the kind of crime that is reported as it happens. The same is not true of uncles raping their nieces. It will also do nothing to address “white collar” crime, which is discovered by analysts not patrol officers. Filling suburban communities with cops isn’t going to do anything but lead to a lot of bored cops and a lot more victims in urban areas.

[bborg 0]

In 2006 the rate per 1,000 of being the victim of a personal crime was 64.6 for families with annual income less than $7,500, compared to a rate of 14.6 for families making $75,000 or more.

I should have said per 1,000 households. Anyway again I don't want the discussion to get too far from my essay, but the survey info I linked to has some interesting statistics that make my point for me.

I'm hoping to do Part II in the next couple weeks, but I am busy with class writing. Today is the last day of Critical Issues in Corrections, and tomorrow begins Advanced Techniques & Applied Research in CJ.

[B. Royce 0]

In 2006 the rate per 1,000 of being the victim of a personal crime was 64.6 for families with annual income less than $7,500, compared to a rate of 14.6 for families making $75,000 or more.

I should have said per 1,000 households. Anyway again I don't want the discussion to get too far from my essay, but the survey info I linked to has some interesting statistics that make my point for me.

I'm hoping to do Part II in the next couple weeks, but I am busy with class writing. Today is the last day of Critical Issues in Corrections, and tomorrow begins Advanced Techniques & Applied Research in CJ.

Write on!

[MikeMarotta 0]

In case you have been influenced by all the racist propaganda schools sell in some of the more progressive criminal justice literature ... Also, police patrols only help to respond to street crime, partly because ... Filling suburban communities with cops isn’t going to do anything but l...

As you say, you prefer to discuss the ideas in your own essay and I did above respond at length. You may have missed that as it was the last on a previous page, or, perhaps, beecause, like your essay, my reply was largely unarguable, there was not much to say.

Thanks for the pointer to Ayn Rand's definition of "anti-concept." I misused the word. The validity of her defintion is a different matter entirely, but in this case, I see that I need a different label. If crime is "revolt against reason" then so are poverty, hunger, parking lot fender benders and losing your glasses in your own office. I agree completely. As I said above, I also gave a senior seminal presentation on evasion as the root of crime. In fact, my visial aid for that was the John Galt Speaking video from YouTube on "Evasion." So, again, I agree with the premise. My last point was only that there is more to be gained by studying the positives -- wealth, health -- than in their absence. For that reason, my person career interest is security, not criminal justice.

That said, there is much else here to be discussed. For one thing, in many instances -- anti-trust; drug laws -- "cirme" has no objective existence, but is only a "primacy of consciousness" error by the collectivity that we call the legislature. However, rather than derail the topic here, different topics under other rubrics can help.

[bborg 0]

After a long delay, here is the second part of my essay. I was distracted with school work, and was not in the frame of mind to continue developing this. I hope it was worth the wait.

Part II – The “Victimhood” of the Criminal

The criminal’s “independence"

In the previous section I introduced the criminal as an individual who attempts to accept and act on a code of force. He regards the use of force as an expression of his efficacy and (for male criminals) masculinity. The world is made up of two kinds of people, according to this view: the “suckers” who work and achieve, and those with the “toughness” or “smartness” to exploit the suckers to their own advantage.

The criminal also has a sense of his own worth, in accordance with this world view. Walter Miller (2007) noticed that delinquents displayed a high regard for their own independence, or “autonomy”. “Autonomy”, Miller defined as “freedom from external restraint; freedom from superordinate authority; independence” (p. 166). How is this different than the law abiding man’s notion of independence? The criminal offers clues to this in the types of people he has a high regard for.

One such type seems an unlikely source. Samenow (2004) observes that although criminals are portrayed as hating police, they often admire them, imagine themselves in the role, and some even assisting departments to catch other lawbreakers. He quotes one burglar who wrote to an agent that, “You have impressed me as a very efficient no-nonsense guy who won’t tolerate inefficient police work, and I really hope that you will match any criminal power thrust with an overwhelming display of power on the side of law and order” (p. 170). The criminal only feels contempt for the police when their power is used against him.

However this fascination for law enforcement should not be confused with a respect for law. What the criminal is in awe of is the officer’s use of power. There is a similar “respect” held for the most violent criminals. Jack Abbot, a “state-raised” convict, spoke of

the high esteem we naturally have for violence, force. It is what makes us effective, men whose judgment impinges on others, on the world…Here in prison the most respected and honored men among us are those who have killed other men…It is not merely fear, but respect (Johnson, 2006, p. 193).

An ex-inmate, Shroeder, went even further, claiming that

if you could convince inmates and guards that you had absolutely nothing to lose and that your countermeasures…would be totally unrestrained…then you were given respect and a wide berth, and people looked to you for leadership and advice. “He’s crazy,” they’d say admiringly, even longingly, when the name came up. “He’s just totally, completely insane” (p. 193).

The theme of the alleged efficaciousness of force pervades the criminal world, and “independence” becomes the ability to exercise this capacity without restraint, and to be respected and admired for it.

When reality fails to live up to fantasy

Nothing can more quickly bring a criminal down to earth than to learn that his skills have failed to earn him the “respect” he believes he deserves. Hard work and planning, according to his system, is for the “sucker”, and he is no sucker. Consequently he rejects paths to success that require study and discipline. This begins at an early age, in school. Samenow (2004) discussed one teen’s admission that he would lose academic interests as soon as someone provided direction, tested his knowledge, or imposed a deadline. This produced a “conflict”, where he “objected to anyone telling him what to do, whether at school or anywhere else” (p. 58). The pattern continues into adulthood. To work means “to sell one’s soul, to be a slave” (p. 72). To answer to anyone threatens the “autonomy” of the criminal, his sense of his ability to live by force.

The criminal feels oppressed and restrained from being the man he should be. Living in a world where the initiation of force is illegal and punished, the criminal feels singled out and victimized. In fact, Samenow (2004) observes that criminals are sometimes unable to admit the harm they cause, focusing only on the world’s reaction to their behavior. One of the teens he once interviewed, David, had robbed a restaurant at gunpoint where he worked. Samenow asked him about the impact of the robbery:

He stared at me blankly and replied, “No one got hurt.”…I pointed out that the employees might have suffered flashbacks, become terrified to work or to venture out at night. There likely was a severe impact on the victims’ families and friends, and on the employees of other businesses in the area. David shrugged and remarked, “I never thought of all that.” Even though he knew full well he had done something very wrong…[f]rom his perspective he was the only true victim because he was incarcerated (p. 172).

This sense of frustration and victimhood after unsuccessfully controlling others can itself lead to intense anger and additional crimes. This may manifest in domestic abuse or other violent offenses. Samenow (2004) suggests that “hate crime” committed towards a particular group is one way the criminal attempts to “build himself up by putting others down” (p. 111). The group becomes a target of the criminal’s rage in an attempt to reassert control.

Rape is sometimes used by criminals as an expression of anger. According to the Crime Classification Manual, the primary motive for “anger rape” is anger and not sexual gratification. The offense is predominately impulse driven (being a crime of opportunity, possibly coupled with impairment from drugs or alcohol). Categories of anger rape include gender (women-hating), age (targeting an age group, such as children or the elderly), and racial. There is also a “global” category reserved for rapists “who appear to be angry at the world”. These offenders also have a history of verbal and/or physical abuse against both males and females (219-225).

Summary

Because of the criminal’s view of the world as one moved by force, his goals and actions are directly at odds with those of others living in society. When this conflict leads to failure, rather than acknowledging his wrong views he blames the world for not living up to them. If this persistence causes him personal harm, he becomes a “victim”. He may simply use this reasoning to excuse his continued behavior, or his failures may enrage him, causing him to lash out. This may be the real reason answer to a peculiar observation made by Miller (2007), on the paradox of the criminal’s “autonomy”:

While under the jurisdiction of [correctional systems], the [delinquent] generally expresses to his peers continual resentment of the coercive, unjust, and arbitrary exercise of authority. Having been released, or having escaped from these milieu, however, he will often act in such a way to insure recommitment…” (p. 171)

References

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

Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (1997). Crime Classification Manual. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

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

Johnson, R. (2006). Prowling the Yard. In K. C. Haas, & G. P. Alpert, The Dilemmas of Corrections. Waveland Press, Inc.

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.

[bborg 0]

I noticed a couple of the references listed were a spillover from the first part. I neglected to delete them.

[Arnold 0]

A good summary of the criminal mind. Perhaps you can edit it down for publication to an appropriate 'letters to the editor'. Too few grasp that it is the way they think, that makes them a criminal.

[bborg 0]

A good summary of the criminal mind. Perhaps you can edit it down for publication to an appropriate 'letters to the editor'. Too few grasp that it is the way they think, that makes them a criminal.

Thanks Arnold. My plan was to write this for my own edification, but I suppose it could develop into something publishable with work.

As to understanding how the criminal thinks, I hope that what I've written so far does not seem merely redundant to Samenow's theory. I'm using his observations extensively but trying to take them one step further. He only goes as far as psychology, and I think it's important to get down to values. At best, he suggests that criminal behavior is like a drug addiction, that it gives the offender a high that he can't get elsewhere. While I think that's an apt comparison, that leaves you where other "rational choice" theories leave you, which is that the criminal has simply chosen short-term pleasure over long-term happiness. Samenow definitely does better than others in that he talks about how "pleasure" for the criminal is distinctly different than it is for normal people, and that his self-image is also very different. What he doesn't get at is why he gets pleasure from hurting others, and where this self-image comes from.

That's what I'm tackling. I think it all comes down to an alternate code of living, a code that some criminals even seem to hold to explicitly. So in a way I am revisiting familiar territory for those who have read Samenow, but I hope in a context that sheds new light on criminal behavior and ties more of it together. I don't just want to know how a criminal thinks, I want to know what it is they're hoping to achieve. If everyone acts to create a world of their values, what kind of world is it the criminals are fighting for? With that in mind, the 3rd part will be introducing an idea I think few have considered.

[Arnold 0]

Samenow definitely does better than others in that he talks about how "pleasure" for the criminal is distinctly different than it is for normal people, and that his self-image is also very different. What he doesn't get at is why he gets pleasure from hurting others, and where this self-image comes from.

I wish you well, but this still sounds like psychology to me. Then again, values and psychology are very interwoven, and need to be teased apart.

That's what I'm tackling. I think it all comes down to an alternate code of living, a code that some criminals even seem to hold to explicitly. So in a way I am revisiting familiar territory for those who have read Samenow, but I hope in a context that sheds new light on criminal behavior and ties more of it together. I don't just want to know how a criminal thinks, I want to know what it is they're hoping to achieve. If everyone acts to create a world of their values, what kind of world is it the criminals are fighting for? With that in mind, the 3rd part will be introducing an idea I think few have considered.

One thing that always stood out for me, was the common reply to the question: "Why did you do it"? The response is a shrug and "Because I felt like it." In other words there was no reasoning involved. Without the mind employing reason, there is no "reasonable," justification, and the outcome will always be 'unreasonable'. At core, is the failure to think rationally. I long ago stopped expecting justifications for crime, other than the failure to think, along with rationalizations to cover that inadequacy. Anyway, I look forward to your next set of thoughts, because I think you are on the proper path; looking to the individual rather than society for the answers.

[bborg 0]

If criminals commit crimes because they "felt like it", why don't I ever feel like it? How is it that one person can "feel like" soliciting his friends to go conduct a home invasion, or snatch a girl off the street to rape, but to me these activities are horrific? Isn't it because we don't share the same moral code? The criminal may not be aware of his code, he may tell you he just does things because he feels like it, but that doesn't mean you've reached an explanation. 

[Arnold 0]

If criminals commit crimes because they "felt like it", why don't I ever feel like it? How is it that one person can "feel like" soliciting his friends to go conduct a home invasion, or snatch a girl off the street to rape, but to me these activities are horrific? Isn't it because we don't share the same moral code? The criminal may not be aware of his code, he may tell you he just does things because he feels like it, but that doesn't mean you've reached an explanation. 

Fair enough, that is because an explanation embodies rationality. I think I see where I may be confusing with my opinion. I am not saying that the 'explanation' ends with 'I felt like it', but rather that that is where it ends for the criminal. As to why the criminal acts according to his feelings. that is a slightly different question, and the one you are writing about. The reason you are not a criminal is because you don't have the criminal mentality, or the irrationality upon which it is based.

The reason(s) the criminal acts according to his feelings are many, including the ones you describe, but underlying them all, is irrationality. It is for that reason I don't expect to hear a 'reason' for a crime. That doesn't mean I don't think there is no reason for his crooked thinking.

[Scott A. 0]

I'm glad you've posted more on this, Bryson! It's very thought-provoking.

The criminal also has a sense of his own worth, in accordance with this world view. Walter Miller (2007) noticed that delinquents displayed a high regard for their own independence, or “autonomy”. “Autonomy”, Miller defined as “freedom from external restraint; freedom from superordinate authority; independence” (p. 166). How is this different than the law abiding man’s notion of independence?

It seems that one difference between a criminal's and a rational man's idea of autonomy lies in the idea of "freedom from" and "freedom to."

The rational man sees freedom or autonomy as the opportunity to use his own judgment and pursue rational self-interest without irrational obstruction. He has the "freedom to" pursue his interests. He has "freedom from" irrational and oppressive authority, i.e., force.

The criminal, on the other hand, wants "freedom from" rational authority that would obstruct his "freedom to" fulfill his desires by force. His autonomy is not the use of rational judgment to pursue values, but the fulfillment of a whim without restraint.

Also, note that the criminal isn't really free or autonomous. He is completely dependent on others, although his use of force against them is obviously a different form of dependence than that of a beggar.

[Scott A. 0]

However this fascination for law enforcement should not be confused with a respect for law. What the criminal is in awe of is the officer’s use of power. There is a similar “respect” held for the most violent criminals. Jack Abbot, a “state-raised” convict, spoke of

the high esteem we naturally have for violence, force. It is what makes us effective, men whose judgment impinges on others, on the world…Here in prison the most respected and honored men among us are those who have killed other men…It is not merely fear, but respect (Johnson, 2006, p. 193).

I think this goes back to a part of our discussion of part 1 of your essay. Specifically, the idea that criminals are "mystics of muscle." They revere and are in awe of the power of physical force, almost as though it were the supernatural made real.

In some sense, I can understand this. As a lover of football, and having played the game (as well as lacrosse), I understand firsthand the reality of one person's physical force colliding with another's. And I admit that I got some level of pleasure when I laid a good hit on someone (just as I'm sure others did when they got a good hit on me!). Similarly, when watching contact sports, one can't help but react with a certain amount of awe when you see one guy really hit another one hard.

The difference, though, is that it never occurred to me to stand over someone I hit, gloat, and gain my core self-worth from the fact that I hit him. And whatever pleasure I felt didn't come primarily from knocking someone down. It was really the execution of a physical skill (and there really are very specific techniques to blocking and tackling) and seeing that I had the physical strength to do it. The pleasure was about something I was able to do and not that I did it to someone else (i.e., I also felt pleasure effectively hitting tackling dummies in practice, although it was better to do it in a game because it is obviously harder hitting a moving person than a stationary dummy). It was all just part of the game, and you go on with the understanding that it could be you on the ground during the next play.

However, I think the criminal would and, from the quotes you include, does evaluate his core self-worth on this basis. Physical force against others, for him, provides a concrete, metaphysical experience that he takes to be a measure of his efficacy. His worth requires another person to be down or subordinate as a result of his physical force. As the person quoted above says, "It is what makes us effective..."

It's interesting that the criminal's apparent hatred of control by others coincides with his desperate need to control others (which ironically makes him dependent on, even controlled by, others in this sense).

[bborg 0]

Also, note that the criminal isn't really free or autonomous. He is completely dependent on others, although his use of force against them is obviously a different form of dependence than that of a beggar.

You've touched on something that I was saving for the last part, but I'll mention here. Miller calls this the "dependency craving", which he believes is merely concealed by the pose of tough rebellious independence. This was his explanation for why criminals keep getting arrested, is because "being controlled" is equated with "being cared for". Once again I think he's giving criminals way too much credit, in that he says what crime is then is an appeal for help. But I agree with him that criminals have this craving - mainly because they don't see it as dependence, they see it as taking what's theirs. What this calls to my mind is the burglar who injures a homeowner and says he's sorry but "she shouldn't have gotten in the way".

[bborg 0]

The difference, though, is that it never occurred to me to stand over someone I hit, gloat, and gain my core self-worth from the fact that I hit him. And whatever pleasure I felt didn't come primarily from knocking someone down. It was really the execution of a physical skill (and there really are very specific techniques to blocking and tackling) and seeing that I had the physical strength to do it. The pleasure was about something I was able to do and not that I did it to someone else (i.e., I also felt pleasure effectively hitting tackling dummies in practice, although it was better to do it in a game because it is obviously harder hitting a moving person than a stationary dummy). It was all just part of the game, and you go on with the understanding that it could be you on the ground during the next play.

I think it's a little more than that. Think about the kind of force you're using in football, or in any sport. Even boxing, I would say, even though that's too savage for my tastes. You have rules, there are only certain ways you can use force (and if someone is hurt they can stop playing). There is protective equipment. The opponent is a match for you, you aren't pitted against people you can uterly destroy or vice-versa. There is a ref supervising the game so the rules are followed. And in team sports, players are working together to accomplish an objective that is apart from the force being used. All of these rules are restraints on force, a criminal would not be able to satisfy his fantasies of domination in this way. To take the opposite kind of person, do you think you would have enjoyed the game if it was just a bunch of men beating on each other with no point except that physical force? How about if you add women and children? Hope you don't mind if I answer for you -no! You actually need those restraints so you know you won't seriously injure anyone, and no one who was not free to leave. You'd feel bad if you were playing against someone who had no chance, unless you handicapped yourself in some way. So yes you're right that your focus is on skill, but also your needs are entirely different, in line with your morality. You are looking to succeed through your own effort, not at the expense of someone else's.

Have you seen Fight Club? I've always been fascinated with this film, and I'm beginning to see why. This is a movie about men getting in touch with their criminal selves. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend it only to see the kind of glorification of physical violence I'm talking about. In fact I don't know if any movie has done this any better. So depraved.

However, I think the criminal would and, from the quotes you include, does evaluate his core self-worth on this basis. Physical force against others, for him, provides a concrete, metaphysical experience that he takes to be a measure of his efficacy. His worth requires another person to be down or subordinate as a result of his physical force. As the person quoted above says, "It is what makes us effective..."

Yes, exactly! The damage he does is like a badge of honor, it proves his own worthiness as a man of power. Think gang initiations.

[Scott A. 0]

You've touched on something that I was saving for the last part, but I'll mention here. Miller calls this the "dependency craving", which he believes is merely concealed by the pose of tough rebellious independence. This was his explanation for why criminals keep getting arrested, is because "being controlled" is equated with "being cared for". Once again I think he's giving criminals way too much credit, in that he says what crime is then is an appeal for help.

I agree he is giving them way too much credit. Equating control with caring (in the criminal's psyche) sounds like psychobabble to me. That might be too strong a word, as I suppose it's possible that some criminal(s) see it that way. But I'd guess they are the exception.

[Scott A. 0]

I think it's a little more than that. Think about the kind of force you're using in football, or in any sport. Even boxing, I would say, even though that's too savage for my tastes. You have rules, there are only certain ways you can use force (and if someone is hurt they can stop playing). There is protective equipment. The opponent is a match for you, you aren't pitted against people you can uterly destroy or vice-versa. There is a ref supervising the game so the rules are followed. And in team sports, players are working together to accomplish an objective that is apart from the force being used. All of these rules are restraints on force, a criminal would not be able to satisfy his fantasies of domination in this way. To take the opposite kind of person, do you think you would have enjoyed the game if it was just a bunch of men beating on each other with no point except that physical force? How about if you add women and children? Hope you don't mind if I answer for you -no! You actually need those restraints so you know you won't seriously injure anyone, and no one who was not free to leave. You'd feel bad if you were playing against someone who had no chance, unless you handicapped yourself in some way. So yes you're right that your focus is on skill, but also your needs are entirely different, in line with your morality. You are looking to succeed through your own effort, not at the expense of someone else's.

Right, and I almost put in a statement along the lines of what you're saying to acknowledge the vastly different context of sports vs. criminal force in everyday life. My main point was to indicate that having some degree of respect, even awe, for the power of physical force can be understandable, but also to draw a distinction between those who can appreciate physical force (in the proper context) and those who worship it, i.e., criminals.

Have you seen Fight Club? I've always been fascinated with this film, and I'm beginning to see why. This is a movie about men getting in touch with their criminal selves. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend it only to see the kind of glorification of physical violence I'm talking about. In fact I don't know if any movie has done this any better. So depraved.

I've only seen about the first 10 minutes. I've heard mixed reviews of it. I'm not sure I want to see any more of it.

Yes, exactly! The damage he does is like a badge of honor, it proves his own worthiness as a man of power. Think gang initiations.

It seems like no matter what the concept--autonomy, freedom, virtue, honor, pleasure, etc.--criminals completely reverse and pervert it. It's as though the criminal's "psychological poles" are switched from positive to negative, so that autonomy becomes dependence, freedom is slavery, virtue is vice, honor is dishonor, and pleasure is pain. I understand that's not how they see or perhaps even experience it, but that seems like what it is. No wonder it's hard to understand!