Criminal psychopathology: definition and characteristics

Criminal Psychopathology

Psychopathology is the science or study of mental disorders or pathological deviation from normal or official behavior (Lexico Publishing Group LLC 2006). Criminal psychopathology thus refers to the study of deviant behavior of a criminal or offender, aimed at establishing his or her profile, which can lead to his or her arrest. This process of using available information about the crime and the crime scene in forming a psychological picture of the unknown perpetrator is called criminal profiling (Muller 2000). The investigator, called a criminal profiler, obtains the information from the scene of the crime, accounts taken about the state of the crime scene, weapons used, and what was done or said to the victim or victims. Other valuable information includes the geographic pattern of the crime, how the offender got into and from the scene of the crime and where he or she lives. The three major paradigms or approaches in current use for criminal profiling are diagnostic evaluation, crime scene analysis and investigative psychology. All three approaches share a common aim of deducing enough information on the behavioral, personality and physical characteristics of the perpetrator in order to catch him or her (Muller). Profiling involves a psychology-trained expert to contribute his or her knowledge in human behavior, motivation and patterns of pathology as part of a multidimensional report (Court TV 2006). Criminal profiling is guided by the belief that a crime or offense is committed according to the offender's individual psychology. He will inevitably leave clues inherent to his personality or psychology. These clues can reveal if the offender is male or female, if he or she lives within the area or a transient in the location of the crime, and if he has an impulsive or compulsive personality pattern, as crime scene information reveals. Other helpful details include the use of a vehicle, sophistication in committing the offense or crime, and addiction to some sexual fantasy. Evidence of psychopathology includes sadistic torture, postmortem mutilation and pedophilia. Some killers leave a distinct "signature" of their personality. It is a behavioral manifestation of his personality setup, like exposing the dead victim's body in a humiliating fashion and tying the corpse's ligature to a bow. From these details, the profiler can assume a serial rapist, bomber, arsonist or murderer behind the crime. The details can also construct a pattern of future attacks in probable sites or victim types. Profiling is more than personality assessment. It establishes the offender's age or age range, race, sex, occupation, educational level, social support system, employment, modus operandi, and other sociological factors. All these are important evidence of a personality disorder (Court TV). Most profiles look like typical psychological reports (Hayden 2006).The standard criminal profiles contain a suspect's personal and demographic information, education achievement and estimated intellectual ability, history of arrests, military background, family characteristics, social interests and habits, residence in connection with the crime scene, vehicle information, and personality characteristics and possible psychological disorders (Hayden).

The first approach in criminal profiling, diagnostic evaluation, adapts a psychotherapeutic theory on crime by the individual investigators (Muller 2000). This approach relies mainly on clinical judgment and the investigators' individual assumptions and assessment. The second approach, crime scene analysis, or CSA, was developed by the Behavioral Science Unit of the American Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI. And the third, called investigative psychology, was evolved by British environmental psychologist, David Canter. The CSA is mostly applicable to serial murderers. Recently, the FBI broadly categorized offenders into disorganized and organized (Muller).

The disorganized offender usually has low intelligence, severe psychiatric disturbance and most likely has mental health records (Muller 2000). He has few satisfying interpersonal relationships outside his immediate family, sexually incompetent or without sexual experience. The crime scene often reveals little or no premeditation and a weapon randomly chosen and usually left behind. The victim is quickly prevailed upon and killed. The victim's face is often badly battered in an attempt by the offender to dehumanize her. The victim may be blindfolded or forced to wear a mask. If she is sexually attacked, this is done after she is killed. Her face, genitals and breasts are often mutilated. Her body is left in the crime scene (Muller).

The organized offender is reasonably intelligent, but often an underachiever with interrupted education and employment history (Muller 2000). He is married, socially adept but has a hidden antisocial or psychopathic personality. The crime scene yields signs of planning and control. He brings and uses his own weapons and then takes them back with him. The victim is a targeted stranger. The offender may seek out a particular victim or chooses one out of convenience. She is often raped and the offender threatens her to control her. He often also tortures before killing her, often in a slow and painful way he has intended or fantasized doing beforehand. He hides the body in some other place or dismembers it to delay identification by authorities (Muller).

Criminal profiling uses either the inductive or deductive method (Turvey 2002). An inductive criminal profile comes up with the picture of an individual criminal from his initial behavior and demographic characteristics, which he may share with previously studied criminals. It is a product of an incomplete statistical analysis and generalizations. It is resorted to because it is easy to use, does not require much education in forensics and can be prepared in a relatively short period of time. In contrast, the deductive criminal profiling method interprets forensic evidence and a single offender's behavior reconstruction from the crime scene. Forensic evidence comes from crime scene photographs, autopsy reports, the offender's history, behavior patterns, demographics, emotions and motive. From these combined details, a profile of the offender's characteristics is drawn. Meaning is deduced from his emotion during the offense, his pattern of offending behavior and offender personality characteristics (Turvey).

Investigative psychology is more of a collection of related theories and hypotheses than a methodology (Muller 2000). Its creator, David Canter, believed that psychology is directly applicable to crime in that crime is an interpersonal transaction to the criminal or offender. Psychological interaction methods are drawn from his personality. His reasons or motives for the crime evolve from or are consistent with the way they behave under more normal circumstances. Canter proposed ways of profiling offenders through interpersonal coherence, significance of place and time, criminal characteristics, criminal career, and forensic awareness (Muller).

The first approach on interpersonal coherence states that criminal action makes sense in the criminal's psychology. He chooses victims who possess similar important characteristics of people who are important to the offender. Serial killers, for example, attach only those of their own ethnicity in the U.S. The psychologist determines something about the offender from the victim herself and the way he interacts with her. The second approach on the significance of place and time The place where the offender chooses to commit the offense or crime has some significance to him. For example, he is unlikely to commit rape or murder in unfamiliar places or places where he asserts no complete control. If this is true, all crimes committed in a particular geographic location indicate that the offender lives or works in that area. The third approach focuses on criminal characteristics. It classifies the offender according to the differences of behavioral characteristics and endeavors to explain them according to a strictly psychological approach. Canter believed that the FBIs categorization of offenders into organized or disorganized leads to an overlap as it has no theoretical backing. The fourth approach on criminal career proposes that a criminal does not change the way he commits crimes through his criminal career, even if his crimes escalate. This is why investigators can refer to his earlier crimes to track him down as evidence becomes available. And the fifth and last approach is forensic awareness. An offender, who does something to the victim or the crime scene to cover his tracks, unwittingly provides hints that he has previous contact with the police. This should lead investigators to narrow down their search to those with police or criminal records for certain prior offenses (Muller).

Canter suggested that criminals, like all people, act in a consistent way (Hayden 2006). All actions are linked no matter what the setting is. An analysis of criminal behavior will therefore turn out clues on the offender's lifestyle during non-offending times. This helps in his possible detection. People live in a social context where the relationship between offender and victim is established. This offers clues to the offender's life and personality for the investigators' information. Witnesses' testimony and statement can reveal further clues, such as speech patterns, interests, obsessions and normal behavior in his normal and non-offending life. Canter believed that using sets of data on the correlation between things like time and location, choice of victim and analysis of speech can help investigators come upon the offender. From this correction, trends and patterns can be developed. He claimed that his method is more valid than sensational interviews conducted under traditional approaches in criminal psychopathology investigation. He suggested the British model of profiling instead, based on the "bottom up" type of processing, which analyzes existing evidence of specific similarities between offense and offender characteristics. The CSA uses the reverse, the "top down" processing, which relies on subjective conclusions derived from investigative experience of crimes and criminal interviews by the police and investigators (Hayden).

Motive is the reason behind the commission of a crime (Zandt 2006). It is not an element of a crime, which needs to be proven in court. But some utterly heinous or unnatural crime may require it for the jury to understand and appreciate why it is committed. An example is the killing of one's own spouse or child. Prosecutors must clearly establish the motive, which is the offender's reason for committing what is considered unreasonable, heinous or unnatural. The prosecution must prove and convince the jury, explain and show how anyone can commit that offense or crime. The questions asked when investigating are who, what, when, where, why and how in order to solve a crime. Who is the victim, the crime, when it is committed, where and how it is committed. Of these questions, the less obvious or evident "why" is the hardest to understand and establish. It is not just about needing money, frustration, anger, rage of stupidity. Some lawyers do not ascribe much importance to motive. Motive may not be a legal element in a crime. But it provides the purpose for the performance of an act or commission of an offense, which is forbidden by law. It thus becomes a legitimate element of a crime. It is the reason and the why the decision to commit a crime evolved from the human mind (Zandt).