criminal behavior, an appraisal

7/28/2019 Criminal Behavior, An Appraisal

1/40

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: AN APPRAISAL

THE ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Criminal behavior is the result of sociological,

biological, and psychological factors. It is a complex

whole, a framework which can only be separated

artificially into parts and analyzed.

Sociological Factor

A factor cannot be a cause before it is a motive.

West notes that social pressure seeks or rather traces

unemployment due to lack of education. However oversize

poor families and sure-down neighborhood are all found to

be complete with delinquency rates. He is careful to add

that unfortunately, things are not really so simple.

Statistically appealing thought, each factor of social

background adversely correlates positively with

delinquency. None of the correlation is spectacularly

large.

Biological Factor

Lombroso, an early advocate of the biological

theory, advanced the concept of the born criminal. He

believed that there was a direct relationship between

physique and crime.


2/40

On the other hand, Ellis has given a number of

examples from literature which relates a criminal

behavior to physical appearance. Several authors have

explained further that persons with physical deformities

are usually inclined to crime as compared to the body

types of delinquent boys with those of college students.

He goes on with his study by measuring the body type of

individuals. The three excessive types are described.

Extomorphs are tall and this endomorphs have a stocky

built with barrel chest and large abdomen, mesomorphs

have a solid muscular built.

Psychological Factor

It may be safe to say that the psychology of

criminal behavior is the psychopathology of everyday

life. Our understanding of the psychological is derived

largely from the theory and practice of psychoanalysis;

however, the contribution of the school of psychology

cannot be disregarded. Freud believed that two traits

which are essential in the criminal are boundless egoism

and strong destructive impulse. The id and criminal

behavior throughout life constantly seek expression of a

social drive. The view-point that we are all potential

criminal is not peculiar to psychoanalysis. So to speak,

2


3/40

in similar view when he said, there is no crime if I do

not deem myself capable

On the other hand, Dostoyevsky gave dramatic

expressions to some of them. Nobody in the world can be

the dredge of the criminal before he has realized that he

himself is one who confronts him, and again, everyone

pretends to have evil, but deep down they all like it,

all of them.

The ego mediates between the social drive of the id,

the control from the super ego and the social pressure

within the community. Expression of social tendencies is

more likely to occur when the id is a basic weaver of the

ego or when the ego functions impaired by fatigue,

physical illness, intoxication psychological conflicts or

other causes.

The super ego and criminal behavior which are the

internal restraints against criminal behavior imposed by

the super ego are of particular importance. Failure of

the super ego to overact in criminal or anti-social act

may lessen the resistance of the individual against

temptation which invites him to commit an offense.

Separation from the mother in early life are shown

in Bowlbys study of forty four juvenile thieves, suggest

that a prolonged separation of child from his mother in

3


4/40

early years commonly leads to his becoming a persistent

thief and affectionless character, aggressive impulses

are excessively stimulated by the frustration of

separation. This libidinal calling commonly takes an oral

form sometimes of a very primitive kind. Again, one form

is that of stealing for libidinal factors are driving

children to steal. Revenge is unquestionably a very

powerful driving force towards stealing. If one has

suffered great deprivation of oneself, one will be

inclined to feel equal suffering from ourselves.

APPROACHES TO THE EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Subjective Approach

This approach derived mainly from the biological,

has sought for the explanation of crime in terms of

abnormalities or aberration that primarily exist within

the criminal. It has perpetuated an image of the offender

as who deviates from the standard of presumed psych-

physical normality in ways adversely affecting his

capacity to conform to acceptable standards of conduct.

It has gone as far as the study of individual

offender and it also discover the ultimate causes of

criminal behavior to lie in the genetic congenital or

developmental condition.

4


5/40

1. Anthropological Approach. This approach had tried

to compare the physical characteristics of the individual

offender to non-offenders and it was found out later as

based on the facts and circumstances that individual

offenders have great differences compared to non-

offenders with regard to physical characteristics. It has

also examined the effects of physical traits upon

behavior.

2. The Medical Approach. It explains the role of

physical mental conditions of the individual prior or

after the commission of the criminal acts. It explains

that if even an individual commits an offense, proper

medical examinations will show that the offender was

mentally ill at the time of the commission of the

offense.

This approach suggests that this particular

individual shall not be held accountable for his act.

Furthermore, it explains that any individual who acted

without discernment shall be exempted from criminal

liability.

3. Biological Approach. Taft cited in his book that

heredity is one of the causes of criminal behavior. But

contrary to it, West also explains in his book that

heredity has nothing to do with criminal behavior because

5


6/40

according to him no one is born a skilled safe breaker.

He further explained that criminal behavior is produced

by faulty child rearing rather than inheritance.

4. Physiological Approach. This approach to human

behavior explains that instinctively, it is the nature of

human being to acquire all the physical needs in order to

satisfy all his wants. In the sense that human being is a

living organism, he behaves, grows, and develops, sees,

feels, hears, gets exited, thinks, cooperates, competes,

aspires and anticipates. In short, every human being

possesses integrity and whenever we lose sight of a human

as a whole, we violate that integrity.

As a system every human being is productive. If we

provide him with food, he converts it into energy and he

gives out with energy in the form of behavior. Thus, we

may properly speak that every human being is an energy

system in which the raw materials are food and

stimulation, and in which the behavior is one of the

products. As it was viewed in the preceding paragraph,

every human possesses integrity at the very start of his

life, and behaves in accordance with normal conduct. But

it is possible that once the parents neglect their

responsibility toward their child plus the environment

6


7/40

that tends to lead the child to frustration in life, he

will later become a hardened criminal.

5. The Psychological Approach. Psychological

research has chiefly contributed facts concerning

deprivation in human needs, desire and individual

deviation in personality. Intelligence, emotion and

education of an individual must be taken into

consideration in relation to the wrongful act he has

committed. Research showed that once the community and

its members deprive the individual of his natural needs,

crime will arise as a usual result of frustration.

6. The Psychiatric Approach. As originally

specialized in the diagnosis of mental disease, the

psychiatrists have extended their activities into the

analysis of all degrees of personality deviation and even

of normal behavior. It further explains that the cause of

behavior difficulties is to be found in emotional tension

originating early in life conflict with the family.

Moreover, behavioral patterns will be established which

later became permanent and fixed, and it is hard for any

correctional institution to change this attitude if he is

ever caught of violation of law and ordinance.

7. The Psycho-Analytical Approach. This is based

upon the Freudian theory which traces behavior as

7


8/40

deviation to the repression of basic drives. This

repression is occasioned by the mores of demands of

civilized life ad produces a conflict between the super

ego or conscience and the basic drives such as sex and

hunger. Another conflict is between the desire for

success and the limited life opportunities which are

unknown to the victim. Either early deprivation or long

indulgences has reduced his resistance to the tension

arising out of repressed tendencies. He seeks release

from conflict either by some mental substitute, such as

day-dreaming and some other flight from reality or by

avert compensatory behavior which maybe criminalistic in

nature. Crime thus is seen as an unconscious effort to

solve an emotional problem.

Objective Approach

The objective approach derived from the social

sciences, has assumed at least tacitly, that offenders

are normal beings upon whom have played the external

criminogenic forces. It deals with the study of groups,

social processes and institutions as productive of

deviant behavior.

1. Geographic Approach. The geographical approach

considers climate as one of the factors that lead

individuals to do a criminal act. Examples are

8


9/40

temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, changes in

weather and others. Topography, natural resources and

geographical location are other factors of crime and such

factors are largely beyond human control. Quetelet

discovered through proper research that crime against

persons increased during summer and winter. Geographical

factors of course, consider the economic problems like

poverty and unemployment as the primary causes of crime

against property. Regardless of the cultural background

of an individual, especially if he is in great need and

seems that nobody is kind enough to lend their support,

this individual will commit a crime. If the first offense

is accomplished without any deterrent of danger on his

part, such act will be repeated, becomes a habit and

later made as a means of support for his family life.

2. The Ecological Approach. This approach concerns

itself with the biotic grouping of men thus, resulting

from migration competition and division of labor.

Migration is a conduct from one place to another which

sometimes creates conflict between the immigrant and the

inhabitants of such place thus leading to social

discrimination. Immigrants are not used to the customs

and traditions of the place where they have immigrated.

Therefore, it is hard for them to adopt or adjust

9


10/40

themselves to the conduct of the inhabitants of such

place.

Competition sometimes drives people against

restriction. Every individual wishes to acquire wealth as

much as he could. The other individual wishes too. The

first one wants to acquire it as early as he could and

the other wishes the same. So both of them begin to think

of all possible ways or patterns on how they could

acquire such wealth. The first individual may find ways

which will counteract the operations of the other and

because of this conflict arises.

3. The Economic Approach. Financial hardship is one

of the primary causes of criminality, therefore, it is

necessary for every human being to complement or consider

with deep regret and compassion the strong temptation

which has frequently prevailed for so many years from

want of the necessaries to support life. This does not

frequently happen than man who committed so many offenses

live upon the wide world without any alternative but to

plunder and starve. So to commit such a crime is the only

means for them in order to survive. Unjust utilization of

economic resources sometimes creates resentment among

individuals which often lead them to frustrations and

10


11/40

develop a feeling of hatred so that provocated criminal

conduct will result.

4. The Sociological and Cultural Approach. The

social approach in its general sense includes assessment

of those forces resulting from mans collective survival

effort with emphasis upon his institution, economic,

financial, educational, political, religious as well as

recreational.

The sociological approach is concerned with the

influences on behavior of group life, including rules and

statutes, social classes and social mobility, subculture,

cliques and social changes. By culture is meant social

attitudes, values and norms characteristics of several

groups and states within the society. The term is

sometimes used to include as well as the arts skills,

language and philosophies, the material aspects of social

existence or survival. When material things are scarce

and when the situation demands immediate need for such

things, the criminal behavior cannot be avoided. To

commit slight offenses due to necessity is sometimes not

punishable because in the case of husband who stole

because he has no other means to provide bread for his

children and to buy medicine for his sick wife. In this

case, none could file criminal proceedings. Instead, he

11


12/40

must be given assistance to find ways and means to look

for money in order that he could support his family in a

lawful way.

PSYCHOPATHY AND CRIME

The Lombrosian theory states that a criminal who

constitute a distinct physical type has continued in

America as the Neo-Lombrosian theory which maintains the

same logic, constitute psychological type for physical

type. This Neo-Lombrosian theory declares that a criminal

is a psychopath. Some psychiatrists have found the

explanation of crime in mental defectiveness; other in

schizophrenic; some in psychopathic personalities and

still others in composite group of psychiatrists.

However, psychiatrists differ as to the other importance

of these pathological traits. Some assert that

practically all criminals are psychopathic. The mental

pathologies have been classified in many ways. One of the

simple classifications includes three groups: namely,

mental defect or feeblemindedness, psychosis or insanity,

and mesopathic condition, which include epilepsy, post

encephalitic personality, psychopathic personality and

the psychoneuroses.

12


13/40

Mental Defect

Mental defect has been used by a few authors as the

specific explanation of criminal behavior. Their theory

includes the following propositions. First, all criminals

are feebleminded; second feebleminded persons commit

crimes in the absence of inhibiting conditions, because

they do not have sufficient intelligence to appreciate

the reasons for laws and consequence of their violations

of the law, third feeblemindedness is inherited as a unit

of character in accordance with Mendels Law of Heredity;

fourth, a policy of sterilization as a means of

segregating feebleminded is the only effective method of

preventing crimes and of dealing with criminals. Henry H.

Goddard, who was in the early period the most extreme

adherent of this theory stated in 1919 that every

investigation of the criminals, misdemeanants,

delinquents and other anti-social groups have proven

beyond doubt the possibility of contradiction that nearly

all persons in these classes and in some cases are all of

low mentality. He further added that it could no longer

be denied that the greatest single cause of delinquency

and crime is low grade mentality which is within the

limits of feebleminded.

13


14/40

The most extensive survey of the literature on the

general relation between morality and intellect is made

by Miss Chassel. Her conclusion is that the relation is

positive but low, with correlation usually between 0.10

and 0.39 the only significant point of difference from

the survey described above is on the fourth point, for

the report that feebleminded group in the community have

usually large number of delinquents. Further support of

evidence for this point was made by Kennedy, who compared

256 morons and a match control group of 129 non-morons

and concluded that morons had higher rate of arrests and

recidivism than the non-morons.

The difficulty, however, with this study is that the

parents of and other family members of the morons, also

had a higher arrest rate than the family members of non-

morons. Thus, the control group was not matched with non-

moron group in certain essential respect and the higher

arrest rate of non-morons may be due to their family

association rather than to their I.Q.

The proposition that feeblemindedness is inherited

as a unit characteristic has been generally abandoned.

Intelligence as measured by tests has been proven to be

modifiable as is shown both by retesting of identical

14


15/40

individuals and by comparisons of foster children reared

in different environments.

Popular opinion, based on psychological findings,

has it that the great majority of inmates of penal

institutions are mentally defective individuals who are

specially proven to have criminalistic behavior. Indeed

one of the major reasons why institutionalization was

first recommended for mental defective persons was to

protect societies from his supposed criminal

propensities. More recent psychological evidence has

conclusively demonstrated, however, that inferior

mentality is neither the specific cause nor the

outstanding factor in criminal behavior and delinquency.

Although the higher percentage of delinquent

children came from the ranks of the mentally defective,

particularly from those of borderline intelligence, it is

not the mental deficiencyperse but the inability of the

child to make adequate school or social adjustment that

usually result in his delinquent act.

Psychosis

Disagreement still prevail regarding definitions,

classifications, causes methods of diagnosis, therapy,

extent in general population and frequency in the

criminal populating unit with regard to the study of

15


16/40

mental disease generation. Faris and Dunham tried to

study the residence of so many psychotic patient and they

found out that all psychosis did not follow the same

pattern of distribution that one type of social

organization tended to produce schizophrenia, another

type to produce manic-depressive disorders. Another

investigator has emphasized that delusion ideas and

abnormal reaction patterns are transferred from one

person to another and that this phenomenon is found among

persons in close of prolonged personal contact even when

there is no blood relationship.

The major paragraph which psychotics have in common

is complete breakdown or severe impairment of the means

of the communication facilities and the loss of contact,

with reality. They sometimes are completely isolated from

the values of their social groups. Naturally, many

psychotics do not manage their lives in a way considered

satisfactory by most persons and they sometimes get into

trouble with the law. They may produce social harm in

various ways. A hallucinatory voice may repeat to command

to kill and the voice may finally be obeyed. An innocent

person may be attacked as a means of revenge for or

defense against an ordinary misdeed. Psychiatric

examination of criminal on admission to prisons generally

16


17/40

show not more than five percent to be psychotic, and in

any institution less than one percent. This variation is

affected by both the pre-conception of the psychiatric

and by various in the manner of handling defendants who

plead that they are insane not criminals. In one clinic,

no delinquent was diagnosed as normal on the strange

ground that normality is a vague concept because everyday

simply project his own idea of perception into it.

If the harm committed is not serious, the court is

not likely to declare a dependant insane and commit him

to the act role of psychosis in crime is complicated by

the fact that the person who is insane at the time he

commits a legally forbidden harm does not commit a crime.

A person charged with a crime may defend himself in court

by showing that he was insane at the time the act

occurred, just as another person may plead that his act

was done in self defense. This means that once an insane

kills another, he committed no crime. He is committed to

a hospital for treatment rather to a prison for

punishment. Hence, if the legal concept of insanity were

synonymous with psychiatric term of psychosis in

criminality, the person would either be a psychotic or a

criminal. In current medico-legal situations, however,

insanity differ from what many psychiatrists have in mind

17


18/40

when they speak of verbal, and they have suggested that

many other delinquents may have become disorganized as a

result of the disease though the result was not

recognized as such. This disease is regarded as very

significant, because it is taken as evidence that

injuries to the neutral system produce delinquency. As a

matter of fact, however, the explanation is not simple.

There is the direct physiological theory that the lesion

in the central nervous system produces irritability and

reduces efficiency and inhibition and consequently the

child acts impulsively. This persists beyond the acute

state of the diseases because of habit formation. Second

is that the inferiority resulting from lesion in the

central nervous system lowers the status of the child,

and criticism of parents and teachers when the child does

not do, as well as before, drives the child to be

desperate. When the child is place in the group of other

post encephalitic children, from whom less is expected,

the feeling of inferiority is overcome and the behavior

improves.

Psychopathic Personality

The term psychopathic personality and

constitutional psychopathic inferior are used with

little or no differentiation to refer to persons who are

18


19/40

regarded as emotionally abnormal but who does not

manifest the break with reality that characterize

psychotic. Some psychiatrists have classified psychotic

personality in three groups: (1) the egocentric, (2) the

inadequate, and (3) the vagabond. Many descriptive terms

have been applied to each category. Others classified

them in schizoid types, paranoid types, cyclothinic

types, sexual deviants, alcoholics and drug addicts. The

method of diagnosing psychopathic personality is not all

standardized or objective; consequently, a person maybe

psychopathic or not depending upon the preconception of

the person making the examination.

Investigators who are convinced that all, or almost

all criminals must have bad personalities, can

attribute the criminality of persons showing no ordinary

psychosis or neurosis to psychopathic personality. The

concept is often designated a waste basket category into

which not otherwise explicable criminal behavior is

tossed. Pree has made the following statement regarding

the concept. The term psychopathic personality, as

commonly understood, is useless in psychiatric research.

It is a diagnoses of convenience arrived at by a process

of exclusions. It does not refer to a specific behavioral

entity. It serves as a scrap basket to which is regarded

19


20/40

a group of unclassified personality disorders and

problems.

The most careful investigation of psychopathic

personalities among criminals has been made by Cason. In

reviewing the literature of different inmates in prison

by digging up the records of different result of the

examination of psychiatrists to those suspected

psychopathic offenders, he counted fifty five traits or

characteristics which are generally held to be present

among psychopaths and thirty behaviors which are

frequently characterized as form o psychopathic behavior.

A study of the inmates held at the psychopathic unit of

the federal medical clinic disclosed that some inmates

exhibited many of the thirty different forms of

psychopathic behavior and some have few of the behavior.

Other Personality Deviation

Emotional instability and other traits of

personality have been studied by psychologists and

psychiatrists independent of the concept of psychopathic

personality and delinquent behavior is frequently

attributed to one or more traits. One of the principal

research procedures of psychologist has been to give

tests to a group of delinquents and then to compare their

scores with the scores of a control group composed of

20


21/40

non-criminals. Dozens of test, rating scales, and other

devices for measuring these traits have been used.

Studies have been made of instinct, emotion, moods,

temperaments, moral judgment, ethical discrimination, as

well as of specific tendencies as aggressiveness,

caution, conformity, conscientiousness, deception, self-

assurance, social resistance, suggestibility and many

others. Thomas stated that if these had really measured

the things they were intended to measure, our knowledge

of and control over human nature would be nearly

complete; but that as a matter of fact, the unit are not

adequately defined, the test do not measure the things to

measure and the result validated by reference to other

data. Some psychiatrists who have attempted to avoid the

vagueness of the psychopathic personality concept have

merely substituted personality deviation of various

kinds. For example, of the two thousand five hundred

thirty seven individuals covering before the psychiatric

clinic of the New York City Court of the general sections

in 1948, seventy six percent were found to have

personality deviation such as aggressiveness, emotional

instability, and stifleness. However, no tests were

utilized and the techniques for locating such deviation

is not precisely described. Moreover, there is no

21


22/40

assurance that the deviation found among the criminals

would not also be found among the general population.

Schuessler and Corsey summarized the result of all

the studies in which compared with the scores of control

group. In 113 studies of this kind, the whole range of

traits was included and also the whole range of tests,

including the Rorschach and other projective test. One

conclusion of their analysis is more on the

characteristics of delinquents than of non-delinquents.

The general observation was that the doubtful validity

of many of the obtained differences, as well as the lack

of consistency in the combined results, makes it

impossible to conclude for these data that criminality

and personality elements are associated. Recent studies

using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Test have shown difference between delinquents and non-

delinquents in some instances, but none in others. A

thoughtful study of delinquents from the point of view of

personality has been made by Jenkins and Hewitt, who

found various kind and degrees of inhibitions among

their subjects. The inadequacy of his study from the

point of view of a theory of criminal behavior is that it

is not directed at an explanation of the delinquent

behavior. A similar analysis of non-delinquents would

22


23/40

probably result in same findings over inhibited and under

inhibited persons, and persons inhibited with reference

to groups but to others. Consequently, the study gives no

aid in understanding which person engages in delinquent

behavior; although it should be useful in the efforts to

rehabilitate delinquents and non-delinquents. One of the

concepts which is most frequently used in connection with

the deviation in personality, regardless of whether these

are labeled as psychopathy or not, is frustration. It is

assumed that a person is frustrated and that frustration

is the result of an emotional disturbance which produces

aggression. The belief that aggression has some necessary

connection with delinquency is equally incorrect. If one

were to select the tenth of the population, certainly he

would find an unusual proportion of criminals.

The best generalization of personal traits in

relation to delinquency was made by Healy and Brenner.

This was an analysis of 105 delinquents treated over a

three year period in three clinics in comparison with one

hundred five non-delinquents siblings who lived in the

same homes and neighborhoods which were matched by age

and sex. This study resulted in the findings that ninety

one percent of the delinquents and only 13 percent of

their non-delinquents siblings had deep emotional

23


24/40

disturbances. This difference is striking and has been

regarded by some scholars as final and not debatable

proof that delinquency is due largely to emotional

disturbances. However, this interpretation is not open to

question for the following reasons: first, the difference

between delinquents and their non-delinquents siblings is

probably exaggerated. The staff in this clinic was

composed almost entirely of psychiatrists and psychiatric

social workers who have been predisposed to an

interpretation of delinquency in terms of emotional

disturbances. Since the traits of emotional disturbances

are not standardized, these staff members cannot easily

check on their preconceptions. Also the staff became much

better acquainted with the delinquents since they carried

on a three year treatment program for delinquents and on

that account would be more likely to discover the

emotional disturbances of the delinquents. The inadequacy

of the investigation of non-delinquents of the non-

delinquents is revealed by the report that only twenty

one percent of them were even mildly delinquents, in

childhood. Second, the emotional disturbances even if not

exaggerated, is not demonstrated to be the caused of the

delinquent behavior but may cause the emotional

disturbance. No original effort was made in this study to

24


25/40

determine whether the emotional disturbances preceded the

delinquent behavior. Third, the process by which

emotional disturbance produces delinquent behavior is not

adequately investigated. The argument is: A child is

emotionally disturbed so he commits a delinquent act. The

alternative hypothesis is that, emotional disturbance

produces delinquency when it isolates a person from a law

abiding individual into contact with delinquent groups.

Under the same condition of association, delinquent

behavior results in those who are not emotionally

disturbed.

Alcoholism

Alcoholism is significant in criminology in two

respects: First, it maybe a crime in itself or maybe

directly related to a violation of certain laws such as

those prohibitions in public like intoxication and

drunkenness. Secondly, it may indirectly contribute to

the violation of other laws such as those murder, rape,

assault and robbery, vagrancy, and non-support of

families. Sutherland explains that alcoholism is not

frequently associated with more serious crime but usually

it results in vagrancy and non-support of families.

Two major problems for a theory of criminal behavior

are posed by alcoholic criminals. First, is whether a

25


26/40

person who is under the influence of alcohol will violate

laws which he would not violate if he were not under that

influence. If he does violate the law under such

circumstances, he may be acting under the influence of

differential association. No clear cut research work has

been done on this problem and therefore no definite

answer can be given. However, considerable information

which points the direction of negative answer is

available. It is known that when a person or people in

certain areas become intoxicated, they are almost certain

to start fights and violate some criminal laws. This is

particularly true of the lower socio-economic class. On

the other hand, intoxication may result only in singing,

exchange of dirty stories or crying. Furthermore, it may

be said that even if a person without change in his

association acts differently when under the influence of

alcohol that at other times. This may conceivably be true

because he has learned from association with other

certain ways or persons how acting should be when

intoxicated. He may have learned that when he is becoming

intoxicated, he would act gay and consequently he begins

to sing or may have learned that he should act and

consequently he picks a fight. And he may learn that

intoxication is a good excuse or rationalization for

26


27/40

behavior which would be regarded as inexcusable

otherwise.

The second problem is that whether alcoholism is a

form of psychopathy. Many psychiatrists in making

classifications of psychopathic interpret alcoholism as a

form of wonder deeds of an abnormal method of escaping

from reality. The point of view of this interpretation

was regarded as a general accepted belie of psychiatrist.

As a matter of fact, it has never been demonstrated and

the concept of escape is so vague that it cannot readily

be tested. Moreover, it has been believed that the person

who becomes alcoholic does so because of certain traits

in his personality. An analysis has been made and one

conclusion from this analysis is that the alcoholics have

been given personality test in comparison with non-

alcoholics or with the general population and it was

found out that alcoholics have not been demonstrated to

have any trait or traits which differentiate them from

non-alcoholics. Another conclusion which may be drawn

from the studies is that there is no such thing as a pre-

alcoholic personality, that is, a type of person who is

more likely than other to become an alcoholic.

Psychoanalytic Theory

27


28/40

A large proposition of person working with

delinquents and criminal has one form of psychoanalytic

theory in their explanation of criminality. On the other

hand, the Freudian theory explains that the mind is

composed of three portion or parts, namely: the id, ego,

and the super-ego. The id consists of instincts, original

tendencies or impulses which are possessed at birth. The

id impulses are not adopted to social life and must be

repressed or expressed in socially acceptable ways if one

is to be maintained himself in his social life. Basically

that is a frustration drive common to all men. The super-

ego is the embodiment of the moral code of society and

the idea impulses are directed in view of the super-ego

by the ego. The id is usually tamed but often the

impulses remain in the unconsciousness; the ego represses

or forces them into unconsciousness because they are

painfully in conflict with social conventions. They get

into consciousness only in symbolic form as in dreams or

in over behavior which does not mean what on his face

means. The criminal, therefore, is a person who fails to

tame the impulses sufficiently, or who has failed to

transform them into socially acceptable ways of behaving

criminal behavior can be construed as the direct

expression of instinctual urges. It may be a symbolic

28


29/40

expression of repressed desire, or it may be the result

of an ego which has become maladjusted because of the

conflicting forces exerted on it by the id and the super-

ego to get rid of the guilt feelings. The ego may sick

punishment and since punishment follows crime, a crime

may be committed. The existence of clues to detection and

apprehension such as a fingerprint left at the scene of

crime is interpreted as evidence of this phenomenon.

SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Scientific explanation of criminal behavior may be

stated in terms of the processes, which are operating in

the earlier history of the criminal. In the first case

the explanation may be called the mechanistic,

situational, or dynamic, in the second, historical

or genetic. Both types of explanation are desirable.

The mechanistic type of explanation has been favored by

physical and biological scientists, and it probably could

be more efficient type of explanation of criminal

behavior. However, criminological explanations of the

mechanistic type have thus far been notably unsuccessful,

perhaps largely because they have been formulated in

connection with the attempt to isolate personal and

social pathologies among criminals. Work from this point

of view has, at least, resulted in the conclusion that

29


30/40

the immediate determinants of criminal behavior lie in

the person-situation complex.

The objective situation is important to criminality

largely to the extent that it provides an opportunity for

a criminal act. A thief may steal from a fruit stand when

the owner is not in sight by refrain when the owner is in

sight; a bank burglar may attack a bank which is poorly

protected but refrain from a bank protected by a watchmen

and burglars alarm. A corporation which manufactures

automobile seldom or never violates the Food and Drug

Law, but a meat-packing corporation might violates this

law with great frequency. But in another sense, a

psychological or sociological sense, the situation is not

exclusive of the person, for the situation which is

important is the situation defined by the person who is

involved. That is the situation in which a fruit stand

owner is out of sight as a crime-committing situation,

while others do not so define it. Furthermore, the events

in the person-situation complex at the time of the crime

occurs cannot be separated from prior life experiences of

the criminal. This means that the situation is defined by

the person in term of the inclinations and abilities

which the person has acquired up to date. For example,

while a person could define a situation in such a manner

30


31/40

that a criminal behavior would be the inevitable result,

his past experiences would for the most part determine

the way in which he defined the situation. An explanation

of criminal behavior made in terms of these past

experiences is an historical or genetic explanation.

GENETIC EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

The following statement refers to the process by

which a particular person comes to engage in criminal

behavior.

1. Criminal behavior is learned. Negatively, this

means that criminal behavior is not inherited, as such;

also, the person who is not already trained in crime does

not invent criminal behavior, just as a person does not

make mechanical inventions unless he has had training in

mechanics.

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with

other persons in a process of communication. This

communication is verbal in many respects but includes

also the communication of gestures.

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal

behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.

Negatively, this means that the impersonal agencies of

communication, such as movies and newspaper, play a

31


32/40

relatively unimportant part in the genesis of criminal

behavior.

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning

includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which

are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple;

(b) the specific direction of motives, drives,

rationalizations, and attitudes.

5. The specific direction of motives and drives is

learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable

or unfavorable. In some societies an individual is

surrounded by persons who invariably define the legal

codes as rules to be observed, while in others he is

surrounded by person whose definitions are favorable to

the violation of the legal codes. In our society these

definitions are almost always mixed, with the consequence

that we have culture conflict in relation to the legal

codes.

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess

of definitions favorable to violation of law over

definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the

principle of differential association. It refers to both

criminal and anti-criminal associations and has to do

with counteracting forces. When persons become criminal,

they do so because of contacts with criminal patterns and

32


33/40

also because of isolation from anti-criminal patterns.

Any person inevitably assimilates the surrounding culture

unless other patters are in conflict.

7. Differential associations may vary in frequency,

duration, priority, and intensity. This means that

associations with anti-criminal behavior vary in those

respects. Frequency and duration as modalities of

associations are obvious and need no explanation.

Priority is assumed to be important in the sense that

lawful behavior developed in early childhood may persist

throughout life, and also that delinquent behavior

developed in early childhood may persist throughout life.

This tendency, however, has not been adequately

demonstrated, and priority seems to be important

principally through its selective influence. Intensity

is not precisely defined but it has to do with such

things as prestige of the source of a criminal or anti-

criminal pattern and with emotional reactions related to

the associations. In a precise description of the

criminal behavior of a person, these modalities would be

stated in quantitative form and a mathematical ratio be

reached. A formula would be extremely difficult.

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by

association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns

33


34/40

involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any

other learning. Negatively, this means that the learning

of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of

imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns

criminal behavior by association, but this process would

not ordinarily be described as imitation.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of

general needs and values, it is not explained by those

general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is

an expression of the same needs and values. Thieves

generally steal in order to secure money, but likewise

honest laborers work in order to secure money. The

attempts by many scholars to explain criminal behavior by

general drives ad values, such as the happiness

principle, striving for social status, the money, motive,

or frustration, have been and must continue to be futile

since they explain lawful behavior as completely as they

explain criminal behavior. They are similar to

respiration, which is necessary for any behavior but

which does not differentiate criminal from non-criminal

behavior.

It is not necessary, at this level of explanation,

to explain why a person has the associations which he

has; this certainly involves a complex of many things. In

34


35/40

an area where the delinquency rate is high, a boy who is

sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic is very likely

to come in contact with the other boy who is isolated,

introverted, and inert may remain at home, not become

delinquent. In another situation, the sociable, athletic,

aggressive boy may become a member of a scout troop and

not become involve in delinquent behavior. The persons

associations are determined in general context of social

organization. A child is ordinarily reared in a family;

the place of residence of the family is determined

largely by family income; and the delinquency rate is in

many respects related to the rental values of the houses.

Many other aspects of social organization affect the

kinds of associations a person has.

The preceding explanation of criminal behavior

purports to explain the criminal and non-criminal

behavior of individual persons. As indicated earlier, it

is possible to state sociological theories of criminal

behavior which explain the criminality of a community,

nation, or other group. The problem, when thus stated, is

to account for variations in crime rates of a particular

group at different times. The explanation of a crime rate

must be consistent with the explanation of the criminal

behavior of the person, since the crime rate is a summary

35


36/40

statement of the number of persons in the group who

commit crimes and the frequency with which they commit

crimes. One of the best explanations of crime rates from

this point of view is that a high crime rate is due to

social disorganization. The term social disorganization

is not entirely satisfactory and it seems preferable to

substitute for it the term differential social

organization. The postulate on which this theory is

based, regardless of the name, is that crime rooted in

the social organization. A group may be organized for

criminal behavior or for criminal and anti-criminal

behavior and in that sense the crime rate is an

expression of the differential group organization.

Differential group organization as an explanation of

variations in crime rates is consistent with the

differential association theory of the processes by which

persons become criminals.

CONCLUSION

Criminal behavior as presented in this report and as

defined by noted criminologist, Professor John Gillin, is

a bio-psycho-social phenomenon produced by the

combination of the bodily and mental characteristics of

the individual and the environment acting upon that

responding personality. In short, a human being is said

36


37/40

to be a product of his personality and situation in which

he lives. In the same way, criminal behavior is a by

product of the personality, situation, culture, time and

geography.

A human being is never an isolated being. He is

always intimately connected with his environment and can

be understood only on the basis of his environment and

his own character and personality.

A person lives in a socio-psycho-biological field is

influenced by all these three forces. Mans comprehension

of himself and his own situation constitutes the

psychological field. Although he is influenced by his own

judgment of the situation and circumstances, under which

he acts, he is consciously tied to his surroundings. What

has been said for a man in general applies equally to the

specific case of the law breaker. His criminal behavior

is directed according to his psychological make up and

his total situation.

In short, in understanding the birth of criminal or

delinquent act, we must consider the three factors:

criminal tendencies, total situation, and persons mental

and emotional resistance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

37


38/40

In order to comprehend better the criminal behavior

for the prevention of criminal and delinquent act, the

following propositions are hereby postulated.

1. Criminal behavior and delinquency are symptoms of

social and personality disorganization. We must,

therefore, look beyond the acts of crime and delinquency,

attempt to discover the underlying causes, and center our

attack upon these causes.

2. Criminal behavior and delinquency are social

problems as well as individual problems. We must,

therefore, organize our attack not only in terms of

individual, who is unique and who needs individualized

correction, but also in terms of his social relationship

with others.

3. As social problems, criminal behavior and

delinquency are the products of many causes, are

interrelated with all others social problems, and are

relative to time and place. Being products of many

causes, they must be met with a complex attack that

utilizes the resources of all fields of human knowledge

and understanding.

4. The major sources of criminal behavior are to be

found in early development of human beings, and it is

easier to rehabilitate young offenders than hardened

38


39/40

criminals. The attack upon crime and delinquency

therefore, must deal primarily with children and

adolescents.

5. Criminal behavior and delinquency have been with

us for a long time, and there is no indication that we

shall ever completely rid of them. The attack upon these

problems, therefore, must be a continuing one, calculated

to reduce and keep them under control.

6. It is obvious that no attack upon crime and

delinquency can succeed without the support of the public

in whose behalf it is launched. It must be stressed,

therefore, by an educational program that keeps the

people informed regarding the nature and extent of crime

and delinquency and encourages them to participate in

every possible way in the efforts that are directed

against these problems.

39


40/40

REFERENCES

Arthur Evans Wood, 1941. Crime and its Treatment, U.S.A.:

American Book Company

Cirilo M. Tradio, 1990. Fundamentals of Criminology,

Quezon City: Central Lawbook Publishing., Inc.

David Abrahamsen, 1960. The Psychology of Crime, NewYork: Columbia University

Donald Taft and Ralf W. England, Jr., 1964. Criminology,

4th ed., New York: The MacMillan Company

Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, 1968.

Principles of Criminology, 7th ed., Philadelphia:

J.B. Lippincott Company

John McDonald, 1969. The Psychiatry and the Criminal, 2nd

ed., U.S.A.: Charles C. Thomas

Piers Beirne, 1993. Inventing Criminology: Essays on the

Rise of Homo Criminalis, Albany: State University

of New York

40

criminal behavior, an appraisal

Documents