I thought good and hard about the questions posed, and the simple answer is that I think it is starting to get beyond my level of knowledge.
However, I can add this. The usefulness of categorization is the same in criminal science as it is in other social sciences and the hard sciences. In chemistry they categorize the elements based on a variety of properties, the most famous being of course the Periodic Chart of Elements which categorizes by atomic number (# of protons), but they also categorize by akalinity (sp?), inertness, oxidation, etc. Why? So as to examine the elements which share common characteristics. In the social sciences, they might break down a group of people by age, education, race. In the criminal sciences one such breakdown is motivation for the crime. So the analysis is why did those people whose primary motivation was “no preceived choice” have in common and what does that tell us. This is where my knowledge trails off. I really don’t know what this tells us because I am not a criminal scientist nor had any need for that information, it was always sufficient to know that there are these categories and that people in these categories sometimes have these attributes in common.
I understand that you are not an apologist for crim. psych and that its unfair to expect you to have the awnser. You’ve been too indulgent of me by far.
In relation the comparision with scientific categories I would suggest to you that these categories are based on a quantitative factor. Carbon will always have the same atomic weight , it will always have the same valence and as such it will always act in accordance with the expectations of its group membership. Its memebership of the group is defined by measurables. Its deviance from the norm in certain situations is quantifiable , the degree of its deviance is measurable.
How do you measure a motive ?
Can you break it down into the constituent chemical components. Can you relate it to the amount of seratoinin reuptake inhibitors in the system?
The awnser is currently no.
I suggest to you that criminal psychology is in no way a science , it is rather a deluded attempt to apply rationality and reason in an area where none exists. How does one fix rules where rules are meaningless. Society needs to brand criminals by type. It is an attempt to understand. Humans strive to understand and quantify things.
Criminal Psycology has its place as a tool , it serves a purpose in its attempts to explain , just lets not call it a science.
You measure motive in the same manner as you ascertain other qualities of a person. You ask them. Criminal surveys are conducted all the time. Also, criminal psychologists will report their findings in the same manner as another other psychologist might. Is psychology not a social science? Granted that the methodologies of the hard sciences are somewhat different than those in the social sciences but that is because, as you point out, the fundamental difference between trying to describe the physical universe around us that has much more distinctly quantifiable properties and the social sciences which deals with something more ethereal. However, the approach is still the largely the same. Make an educated hypothesis. Gather evidence. Analyze evidence. Reject or accept hypothesis. If accepted, make predictions/observations using it. Does it continue to hold? If not, adjust theory or reject it. Read the books, especially Samenow, you can see that this is what they are trying to do. It is a science that is and will continue to evolve as more studies are made.
I’ve know two actual con artists/white collar criminals/unscrupulous businessmen/whatever you want to call them. One of them went out the back window as the muscle guys were coming in the front door, the other had a date with the state’s attorney.
I don’t know a lot of the details behind their scams or what led up to them, but I do know that both of them were convinced that their plans were foolproof – that they’d covered every contingency, or at least they covered every contingency that would be run down in a scam that size.
As one of the witnesses later said, “if he’d put that much brainpower and energy into running his business honestly, he would have been rich.”
Neal Shover, in his studies on aging criminals, found that many of them come at the end of their lives to feel that they would have been better off putting their energy into legitimate work.
It’s not as though crime, for the most part, is the lazy way out. Doing it right involves a lot of hard work, and a lot more stress than less risky behavior.
I’vewhat I’d say was very accurate stuff in some posts so there is not much to add to what Wring and Little Nemo have already put.
There is a far greater incidence of low level mental illness amongst prisoners.
The academic education levels of prisoners are very commonly extremely low, in the UK the average reading age of prisoners has to be around 13 years but they have developed other skills instead, maybe you could call it a criminal way of seeing things but it does have it’s own pattern of logic.
I have noticed that they tend to have a black view of everything and usually have paranoid personalities, every misfortune in their lives is directed solely and personally against themselves.
They seem to have a particular way of reasoning and can often only see another point of view when it is shown them, even when this is blindingly obvious.
Many are so involved in their own world, selfish might be an interpretation of this,obsessive another, that they consistantly underestimate people and problems and are genuinely surprised when things go wrong. Combine this with the previous paranoid mentality and it paints a picture of very many prisoners.
There seems to be two different issues here. One is “why do some people commit crimes?” The other is “why do some people do things they know are likely to cause bad consequences?” Beatle’s OP overlapped them into “why do some people commit crimes when they’re likely to get caught?”
I already gave my opinions on the denial of consequences issue in my previous post. On the question of crime, I speak with no professional credentials but with almost twenty years’ experience in dealing with criminals. My conclusion: criminals are different from normal people. They have different backgrounds, different intelligence levels, different races, different genders, different ages, pretty much every variable you could imagine. But they have this in common; they lack empathy. Their only concern is their own well-being. Some criminals will help other people, but only because it’s to their eventual advantage or because it makes them feel better about themselves. I can’t ever think of an example where I’ve seen or heard of a criminal making any unselfish sacrifice for the well-being of another person, even for a friend or family member. Sometimes when I’m talking with a convict, we seem to be unable to communicate. I might be unable to understand how he can do something as callous as he has done. Or he might be unable to understand why I’m concerned about someone’s problems when they’re not my own. Each of us is unable to comprehend the other.
So some people do stupid things. And some people commit crimes. And some people commit stupid crimes.
Little Nemo what’s your background again?
I’ve worked w/exoffenders for 24 years (outside of a prison setting). Did residential services for 14 of the years (which involves long amounts of ‘quality time’ with them etc.) and employment related stuff for past decade.
While there are lots of generalities to be made, the ‘total lack of empathy’ isn’t one that I’ve seen in general. Yes, they often don’t see the ‘who am I hurting’ factor in stealing from stores, insurance, companies, the rich (who can afford it) etc. and certain drug activity will damage a person’s perception of the harm they’re doing to their children for example (“I always fed my kids breakfast before I went out and copped”). But I’ve also seen quite a bit of compassion, empathy, sympathy etc.
I’ve worked in the “security” end of the prison business since 1982.
As for my “lack of empathy” theory, I’m standing by it. Like you, I’ve also seen convicts who display like compassion and sympathy. But inevitably, when it’s to their own advantage to do so.
I’ve listened in to the telephone calls where prisoners chat with their loved ones.
“Did you mail my cigarettes?”
“No, I’m sorry homey, I couldn’t”
“What the fuck you mean? You couldn’t?”
“I’m sorry, I’m short of money and I’ve got to pay the bills. A carton of cigarettes costs forty dollars.”
“What the fuck do I care what it costs? I need my cigarettes.”
“But the utilities say they’ll cut off the heat if I don’t pay the bill this week.”
“So use a blanket.”
“But it’s January and Jimmy’s been sick.”
“Damn, woman, I don’t want to hear about your problems. I’m in prison. You ever think about that? All I ask for is some cigarettes and you go telling me no. How’s that fair?”
“I’m sorry baby. Don’t get mad at me. I’ve been working so hard at my jobs. And my momma’s too old to be watching our son all the time.”
“I told you. I don’t want to hear all that. I just want you to put my cigarettes in the mail today.”
“But the mail’s already gone out today.”
“Goddamn, woman, see what you’ve done now. Now you’re going to have to bring them up on the bus.”
“Not the bus honey, that’ll take me all weekend. Momma can’t watch Jimmy all weekend.”
“Then bring him along. It’s a free bus.”
“Yes but we have to wait in line at two in the morning at the Port Authority and spend ten hours on the bus. And then wait in the visit center. Then after we see you we have to spend another ten hours going back. And if we do, Jimmy’ll miss a day of school…”
“Shut up, bitch, this is all your own fault. If you had sent me my cigarettes like you were supposed to, you wouldn’t be having all these problems. So shut the fuck up and bring me my cigarettes.”
“Okay, dear, I’ll do it … I love you.”
“You should. Now go get those cigarettes before the store closes.”
Is anyone aware of police development of what they consider to be viable face-reading techniques? By that I mean techniques used to discern character and possible criminal tendencies by assessing a person’s appearance. I rarely speak to policemen but I had a reason to approach one last year. In the middle of the conversation I was aware he was studying my face very carefully. He stared at me for awhile and then asked me if I had ever been in trouble with the law myself. I remember saying something completely fatuous in a high squeaky voice. I think I said, “No, but I like talking to policemen” or something similar. I was just little shocked by the question. That wasn’t the only time, however, that I was given to believe in police face reading. But this post is long enough already. Remember in Victorian times how doctors used to think bumps on the head meant something? Is that whole idea new again in relation to the face?
Is it rationalization or lack of rational thought?
At coin-op company accountant prepares $500 of quarters per bag for delivery to bank. Whoever is available in warehouse delivers them to bank. Lo and behold the bank calls every once in a while to say bags are short by about $10, a handful of quarters! Okay, let’s keep track of who delivers when; one name always comes up.
G. Nome: I’d tell you but then I’d have to kill you.
Seriously, most police academies spend a lot of time role playing a variety of scenarios. In these scenarios you are taught how to read somebody based on their non-verbal communication (i.e their body gestures and facial expressions). This is also something you pick up while on the job.
Note, that the purpose of the role playing is not just to teach recognizing non-verbal communication.
The problem is that while some policemen, detectives etc. may be good at this some are not, yet think they are and make serious mistakes based on incorrect notions that they have scoped out the guilt of innocent people. I would wager there they are innocent people without means rotting in prison today as direct result of a mistaken impression of guilt that cascaded into a conviction.
Although I wouldn’t say it is impossible the responsability cannot be solely placed on the mistaken officer. We are talking about a major failure of the system. The situations requires the following components:
The person displaying some kind of behaviour to be misinterpreted.
The officer to misinterpret it.
The officer to then find evidence of a crime.
The prosecuting attorney to accept the evidence and the guilt of the person and decide to prosecute.
The judge to accept the evidence and allow the case.
A jury of 12 people to accept the evidence and find the person guilty.
Impossible? No, but extremely unlikely in my opinion. If your claim that a innocent person has been found guilty (of a crime requiring jail time, not a speeding ticket) with no greater evidence than an officer’s interpretation of non-verbal communication I would find this to be astronomically unlikely.
well Little Nemo I’m not going to tell you you don’t see what you see. I see other things, however. I have seen some who are manipulative to the extreme (moms dragging their kids out to ER’s to camoflauge the fact they’d been awol for example). but I also see human empathy, sympathy towards others etc.
Beyond the strict facial guilt intepretation issue for a moment, for all the best intentions in the real world of the overburdened criminal justice system, in many cases unless you have access to means and competent counsel steps 4, 5 and 6 are often simply exercises in just how much quicky the system can process the case. There are several examples of people who have been freed by genetic evidence (some off death row).
I agree with you. The justice system makes mistakes thats why I would rarely be inclined to agree with any rule that makes it easier to convinct somebody. The burden needs to be high to prevent mistakes from happening.
But still you have to admit that going from misinterpretation of a facial expression to rotting in prison is a big jump and requires numerous other major factors, no?
And that vein I have to say that I actually enjoy the restrictions that are placed on me with regards to making an arrest. I feel safer and prouder knowing that I am more than likely really putting a bad guy away then I would if the system were to rely on my personal human judgements alone.
