There is also the issue that people with a criminal mind are not necessarily criminals. The societal pressures to stay within the lines are often sufficient to keep people from doing things that are illegal, things that they have no problem with morally. How many people would steal if they knew they wouldn’t get caught? Do they have criminal minds?
Well, behavioural genetics is generally very careful about such things in the methodology of their studies, but I won’t be able to dig up a cite until next week when I get back home. It’s cited in The Nurture Assumption, by Judith Rich Harris if you have a copy.
With regard to a person being mentally ill, things such as personality disorders are spread across the population and there is no mentally ill/not mentally ill dichotomy. The predisposition to criminal behaviour I’m arguing for would be spread in such a manner as well.
I believe that socialisation plays a key role in determining criminal behaviour. But what determines why they join that peer group in the first place? Not all people in notoriously rough suburbs turn out bad, and not all sheltered rich kids avoid criminal behaviour. IMO not only do biological effects influence criminal behaviour but influence children joining peer groups which hold norms approving of it.
“Are criminals born that way, unable to control antisocial instincts, or do they become possessed by malign beings - evil gods, demons or even the Devil himself”
Well, since evilgods, demons, and the devil don’t actually exist, I’ll address the antisocial thing.
I’ve seen varying levels of “criminal” in my years. One guy was abandoned on a street corner by his mother at the age of six. He spent tons of time in jail, cut a guy’s fingers off over a pool game, turned lying into an art form, and had such fitful, angry sleep that people would almost rather see his sorry ass awake all the time than observe his bizarre sleep patterns.
I know a woman who sent her kid to the neighbor’s garden to steal tomatos!
And then there are those darned pot-smoking criminals.
All of these types of criminals have one thing in common: an overblown sense of entitlement. Now, I don’t have a problem with pot at all. But people who smoke it (me included, occasionally) feel that it’s their right, regardless of the law. (No big deal in my opinion.)
The problem comes in when your sense of right and wrong is overpowered by your sense of entitlement. When you feel you must have something regardless of whether or not you own it (or can afford it). I don’t know what makes people get like this, but it seems to show up in every criminal that I can’t put into the “crazy” category.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that human beings are inherently evil. If a person receives no instruction in “how to behave properly”, that person will naturally tend to do what he/she feels is best for him/her.
Self-preservation in action. Doesn’t it make sense that the instinctive reaction to a situation is going to be “what is best for me”? You don’t have to teach a child how to misbehave. “Proper” behavior must be learned. Everything an infant does is based upon “Me me me!” Until you’re taught otherwise, you are the most important person in the world, and your needs are more important than the needs of others. That’s why we have the “terrible twos”. A two-year-old is mostly incapable of recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and is still in “me mode”. At the same time, that two-year-old is beginning to become capable of expressing his wants/needs in a coherent manner, through words and actions. And since that toddler is focused on “me”, the toddler will act out accordingly. Since the child’s understanding of right & wrong is still undeveloped, adults must deal with the behavior on an action/consequence level, i.e. discipline. In the beginning, the child doesn’t fully understand that “doing this is wrong”, so they instead need to learn “doing this will get me spanked/sent to my room/whatever”.
I think that the “criminal mind” develops out of extremes. At one extreme, a lack of discipline results in the child learning that yes, indeed, his needs/wants are the most important (because he’s not told otherwise) and there are no consequences to his actions. At the other extreme, too much discipline (abuse) results in the child learning that he’s going to be hurt no matter what he does, so he may as well do whatever fulfills his needs/wants, because the consequences are no longer a deterrent.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by mrsam *
**I believe that socialisation plays a key role in determining criminal behaviour. But what determines why they join that peer group in the first place? Not all people in notoriously rough suburbs turn out bad, and not all sheltered rich kids avoid criminal behaviour. IMO not only do biological effects influence criminal behaviour but influence children joining peer groups which hold norms approving of it. **
[/QUOTE]
I’m hesitant to ascribe tastes and preferences to any genetic factor.
I’m a person who prefers a quiet evening with a few friends. The other members of my family seem to prefer large, noisy groups. I’m an introvert who prefers to spend time with a book than at a party. My family craves social interaction. If the argument that who you chose to “hang out” with is somehow imbedded in our genetic makeup is true, then why don’t I long for more social interaction? I should have inherited a large dose of sociability.
I do think that what we call “personality” may be inherent. My sister’s personality was readily apparent even as a toddler, and she hasn’t much changed. However, her personality is much different than that of the rest of the family, along with her tastes and preferences. I would accept the theory that someone is born with their basic personality, but not that it’s necessarily inherited from the parents.
Certain personality traits may be strengthened by encouragement. If a child’s parents laugh or show approval when the child is aggressive, he will tend to display that trait more often. If a child sees his parents arguing frequently, he will tend to be more agrumentative, and so on.
Is there a “criminal” personality? In a way, I think so. Certain tendancies may be part of a child’s personality-- selfishness, cruelty, and greed, for example. Even if these traits are present, the influence of primary socializers can counteract them. As a personal example, I have a strong tendancy to be selfish, but my parents strove to discourage that behavior. I still have the urge to take the last slice of pizza, but through my parent’s efforts, I have the manners and self-control to ask others if they want it first. If my parents had ignored that trait, I would be more inclined just to grab whatever I wanted, especially if my peers encouraged that behavior.
All children have an inherent urge to break the rules. It’s the reaction to his misbehavior which sets a child’s course. If the teacher gives Little Johnny detention, do his parents talk to him about what he did, possibly grounding him as well, or do they ignore it? Do they care who his friends are? Do they care about his grades, or where he goes after school?
Children whose parents are uninvolved in their lives end up being socialized by their friends. It’s my opinion that parental inattention is more powerfully influential than any inherent personality traits or possible genetics when it comes to how a child will turn out.
So, the question becomes why a child choses certain groups over others. Personality plays a big part, of course. A child is not likely to be attracted to a group which likes to do something he does not. Secondly, some groups are more accessible than others. We all know how cruel children can be in rejecting one another, and sometimes a child falls in with a group of friends because they’re the only ones which will accept him. A child with no athletic ability, or one who can’t afford the latest clothing styles may find acceptance with a group whose only criteria is “bad” behavior, for example. Other factors, such as geographical proximity, race/ethnicity, and economics play a part as well.
I think simple bad luck has a lot to do with it.
Growing up in the same neighborhood doesn’t mean you have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages.
I recall an article in The New Yorker addressing this in relation to several developmental factors. The ones that stood out were 1) Head injury in infancy/toddler period; 2) Lack of eye contact during critical period of development (8m - 22m, IIRC); 3) Missing or (worse yet) negative familial interaction in youth.
Seems that the vast majority of habitual and truly psychopathic criminals match several of the risk factors. One diagnostic test is to stand behind someone and tap gently on the bridge of their nose. The people most at risk for criminal behavior go nuts, being unable to differentiate non-threating events from the truly threatening.
I’ll see if I can find this fascinating article online, or at least a cite – it’s within the last 7 years or so.
Have you heard about the sensation-seeking gene find? People with it are more likely to partake in risk-taking behaviours. Surely that would have some impact on whether one participates in criminal behaviour.
And I’m reminded of all the ridiculous coincidences in taste found in the identical twins separated at birth study. Things like twins both sneezing when it’s very quiet, dipping buttered toast in coffee, entering the water backwards and only up until their knees, having the same preference for clothes, cigarettes, beer…
As for personality, twin studies show us that the majority of the variation in the big five factors is due to genetic factors.
Well, for starters, parents don’t socialise children, children socialise children (with very few exceptions). However, that’s quite a hijack and I’ll start another thread if you want to debate this.
Secondly, the best example of this that comes to mind is a study done by Anna Freud of 4 children found at a concentration camp. They were hostile to any out-group members, but they were extremely caring and loving towards each other, making sure the others had enough to eat before they ate, etc.
And for the record, they turned out just fine.
Phase42:
“Proper” behaviour does not have to be learned. Dawkins’ metaphor of the selfish gene actually predicts that kin altruism should be hardwired into the organism (to specific ratios), and empirical evidence from sociobiology is highly accurate in backing it up. Also, Trivers’ work shows how reciprocal altruism can be innate.
Where, pray tell, did you get this list? 
quote:
Originally posted by Isabelle
Well some of the things to look for are:
cruelty to animals
bed wetting
fire starting
lying
excessive use of imagination
Cruelty to animals? Perhaps. The rest of the list is abject Bull^H^H^H^H nonsense.
Excessive use of imagination? The only way to prevent beicoming a “criminal mind” is to become a humorless peon of the system? Did you see American Beauty?
I like to start fires, and excessive imagination is the only hope we have.
Isabelle’s list looks to be an expansion of the “homicidal triad,” something I’ve read about in books by John Douglas and others. It won’t be hard to find information, including scholarly journal articles, with a google search on “homicidal triad.”
A striking number of future psychopaths did indeed display all three of the following characteristics: cruelty to animals, bedwetting, and fire-starting. All three, not two, not one, four is right out. The number is three, and three shall be the number. The key is that “cruelty to animals” does not mean putting clothes on the cat or pulling the wings off of flies; it means substained and dedicated torture and multilation of birds, reptiles, and mammals. Bedwetting continues long after the toddler and preschooler years, and the firesetting is frequent, inappropriate, and causes property damage. Most importantly, the child does all three. This is a warning that something is terribly wrong- not that the child is doomed or a bad seed, but that intervention is probably a good idea.
Although criminals do indeed lie and fantasize, I’ve never read anything linking those two qualities to the homocidal triad. Every child does indeed lie and fantasize, and really little kids can’t tell the difference between the two.
Isabelle, I wouldn’t call Ted Bundy’s childhood normal. He was illegitimate, and his mother never told him who his father was. His mother gave birth in one of those homes that unwed mothers went to in the fifties, and left him there for the first few months of his life while she tried to decide whether to keep him or not (that had to interfere with that crucial early-life bonding). They lived with her parents for several years, and her father had quite a temper. Ted’s mother and aunts described how the family would scatter and run when grandfather got mad.
A criminal is someone who breaks a law; criminals are a subset of the people who are willing to break laws. What makes you think that criminals and ethicality are exclusive categories? More to the point, what makes you think you understand the nature of ethics?
People capable of violating social norms are absolutely necessary for the healthy of society and humanity. A person incapable of breaking laws is a mindless drone.
Well, let’s define our terms: are we debating criminals or sociopaths? Pot smokers or serial killers?
**
I’ve never read any of them. If you have a link to one you’ve read, please post it.
The skeptic in me cries that it’s just coincidence. Pretty remarkable coincidences, I’ll grant, but stranger things have happened. What concerns me is that the study may have solely focused on the similarities, ignoring the differences in order to make its point. (Sorry to be such a Doubting Thomas, but I’ve read way too many studies which turned out to be utter bunk.)
**
Please do. I don’t agree with this statement.
**
You gotta admit, these are some pretty extraordinary circumstances. Unless these children were born and raised in the camp, their parents had socialized them during their earliest and most formative years.
I’m slightly confused by this. If it’s “reciprocal” how can it be “altruism?” Isn’t the very definition of altruism an act done expecting nothing in return? Reciprocal altruism sounds like “trading” to me. (I haven’t read the book, so let me know how I’m wrong.)
I have seen cases in which animals act in altruistic ways, helping animals of other species, for example. However, I’ve never heard of a case in which animals stopped chasing their prey, or caring for their young in order to do so. All of the cases I have read have involved an animal which wasn’t actively engaged in important survival “duties.” The animal chose to help out another, but not necessarily at its own detriment.
According to one book I read on the subject, altruism in animals seems to occur most often when the animal in trouble is young. The book suggested that animals may be reacting to “baby in trouble”-- that the intsinct in question is to protect the young. It becomes very curious when the animal saved is the usual prey of the “hero” animal. The author argued that the “prey” instinct in these cases hadn’t been triggered, because they were not the cause of the young animal’s distress, so the “protect the baby” instinct kicked in.
In humans, we actively encourage altruistic behavior. We urge our children to share their toys, and to think of others’ needs. If we don’t encourage that behavior, then a person is less inclined to be “nice.”
My husband, a sociologist, works in a prison. We’ve had discussions about the frequncy of altruism “on the inside.” His casual findings were that it was significantly less common in the prison than it would be “on the outside.” No exact figures, of course, but the prisoners rarely act without the expectation of recieving some benefit from helping others.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I highly doubt that unselfish behavior was encouraged in the inmates when they were young. Most of them describe horrible home lives-- that they had to “look out for themselves.” Going further out on the limb, I believe that had their parents encouraged unselfish behavior, they wouldn’t be where they are today.
This seems too big a question for one OP
For a start, you’d need to define “criminal” - it’s a pretty big catchall category, and definitions of criminality vary across time and between cultures and political standpoints - are they terrorists or freedom-fighters, thieves or redistributors of wealth etc etc
If, on the other hand you are asking about the development of conscience (another huge question), I’d agree with Latro that respect for other living things has to be taught, but it also presupposes an innate capacity for empathy and imagination (so much for the last item on Isabelle’s list!).
Children learn not to hurt others initially because they know they will be told off if they do, but as their understanding becomes more sophisticated, they don’t do it because they are able to imagine what it would be like. If they are never told that hurting others is not OK, or they lack the imaginative capacity to identify with others, then you’ve got a problem.
This however does not explain sadism, which does seem to require a distorted form of empathy (otherwise what’s the point in the sadism). I don’t have an answer to this one.
One way of thinking about conscience is to imagine that you could press a button and some unknown person would die - then you’d get millions of pounds/dollars and no-one would know. I’d guess (hope) that you wouldn’t do it. Why? Because you would anticipate the guilt you would feel. You know in advance that your conscience would poison the pleasure in the money and you’d spend the rest of your days wondering what happened to the person at the end of the button. Imagination - it’s a curse!
QUOTE
Children whose parents are uninvolved in their lives end up being socialized by their friends. It’s my opinion that parental inattention is more powerfully influential than any inherent personality traits or possible genetics when it comes to how a child will turn out.
I come from a family of 4. I am the eldest. My parents NEVER had time for me. Never were involved in my academics, etc… But they were very involved with my siblings.
While I never got into trouble with the police my siblings did. They were in and out of trouble from an early age. They are in their mid-late 30’s now and they still don’t have their act together.
None of them graduated from high school. I did with Honors.
None of them went on to College. I did.
None of them can hold down a job for longer then 6 months. I have been with the same company for 9 years
I could go on and on. We had the same parents. The same enviroment. But they chose one path and I chose another.
The funny thing is I am the one seen as the “blacksheep of the family” go figure!
There’s much more to socialization than playing catch in the backyard, or having heart-to-heart talks on the sofa.
I have some questions for you, some of which you may not be able to answer, but perhaps might show you to what I’m referring.
-
How much time did your parents spend with you as an infant? Did your mother spend time cooing at you, playing with your toes, and interacting with you? (Eye contact, vocalization-play, and physical contact are crucial to babies’ development.)
b.) To your knowledge, did your parents have less of this contact with your siblings as infants? -
Did your parents teach you to read, or to count, or to tie your shoes? Did they try to teach you to say “please” and “thank you?” Did they correct you when you did something “mean” to your siblings, or when they saw you being selfish? Did they give you a firm sense of what was “good” and “bad?”
-
As an older shild, were you still subject to parental restriction? (I.E, not allowed to stay out late, or not allowed to wear certain clothes?)
The reason why I ask these things is that sometimes we tend to underestimate the powerful influences our parents had on our foundational socialization. The earliest years are the most important. We may not have direct memory of them, but the lessons we learned are crucial.
As infants, we learn that mother smiles when we vocalize. Encouraged, we try to make more sounds. While we play, we form a tight bond, and it becomes important for us to try to keep the attention and approval of mother. Later, she starts teaching us the fundamental aspects of human interaction. We learn how to communicate, and later we begin to learn the nuances of polite interaction. (Much of this comes from studying the way Mom interacts with others.)
A small child who hasn’t had the benefits of intense socialization is often a very sorry sight, indeed. Of course, the damage can sometimes be repaired, but the child tends to be behind his peers in social development. It’s my opinion that some of this may be responsible for what we call “the criminal mind.”
Lissa:
“Reciprocal altruism” is a term coined by Robert Trivers and it refers to altruism towards non-kin. Altruism in the sense you are trying to think of it pretty much doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom: unless there is a benefit to the “altruistic” party such behaviours are highly selected against.
The textbook example of “reciprocal altruism” is to imagine a species of birds which get ticks on the back of their necks. It is beneficial for them to clean each other’s necks when they present their heads to each other. But then, say a group of freeloaders comes along. They present their heads, but don’t clean anyone elses. This group will have more time to feed etc. and they will be selected for. So, you can imagine the logical conclusion of this process: you end up with a group of birds who all present their heads to be cleaned, but none of whom are willing to clean anyone else’s head, and they all die.
So, a third group comes along. They clean the heads of those who cleaned their head, but they don’t clean the freeloaders. Nature’s own version of tit-for-tat. This prevents the freeloaders from overrunning the species, and this tit-for-tat style group will be selected for.
Was this group of birds socialised into the process of not cleaning the freeloaders? Hardly. But a hard-wired mechanism in this species of birds that could be easily misconstrued as some kind of socialised punitive mechanism against the freeloaders.
Cite? I disagree with this statement.
Also, your opinions on socialisation are outdated and incorrect IMO - it sounds like a mixture of Freud and Bowlby. I’ll start up that thread I promised tonight if I have the time. The only bit I’d agree with is:
If a child has no socialisation, problems ensue. The brain is very much a use-it-or-lose-it organ; if you don’t have social interactions at a young age you will have more difficulty with social interactions than others. I think it is worth noting that the quality of interaction doesn’t matter as long as there is interaction at all. However, no data has been obtained from the case of highly toxic parenting due to ethical issues, so an exception may exist there.
As for the sensation-seeking gene, a link from the BBC
And the entire point of the Anna Freud study I cited was that it investigated the effects of parental deprivation. There was no possible way in which their parents could have socialised them.
Comparing the effects of peer socialization between children who have no parents and children who do seems to be comparing apples and oranges. Note the use of the words “substitute affections among their peers.”