Criminal psychology and motivation

¶ … Criminal Pathology

Extreme pathologically antisocial and criminal behavior is so shocking that those who study human behavior and deviance have always theorized about plausible explanations for how the human mind can become so dangerously warped. Many early theorists believed that some individuals are biologically predisposed to deviant and violent pathological behavior and that their minds differ fundamentally from those of ordinary human beings. The other earliest explanation of criminal deviance was that it is substantially attributable to the influence of psychologically relevant early experiences and the socialization process more generally. Finally, the classical approach to criminology has been various rationale choice versions of the concepts first introduced by theorists such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The modern explanation of pathological criminal deviance does not refute any of those prior explanations; rather, it draws elements of analysis from all of those perspectives to conceptualize contributing factors and circumstances in relation to their relative importance. .

The Argument for Biological Predisposition

Before the era of modern neuroscience, endocrinology, and medicine, more generally, criminologists imagined crude anatomical differences among individuals that were recognizable by visual inspection, such as in the case of phrenology, popular in Europe in the 19th and early 20th century (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008). Texts of the time provided diagrams of external facial and cranial features and associated specific physical traits with deviant behavior. That view was definitively disproved in the middle of the 20th century but resurrected in a much more empirically valid format in the last two decades before the turn of the century in connection with advances in the scientific understanding of neurology and endocrinology. The field of psychobiology that emerged provided very useful methodologies for identifying anatomical structures and physiological differences known to be associated with specific behavioral tendencies. (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008).

In that regard, early anecdotal observational experiences such as in connection of Phineas Gage clearly demonstrate that difference in anatomical brain structure can produce characteristic personality changes (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008). Whereas that example was precipitated by traumatic accident, more sophisticated use of modern neural mapping and brain imaging diagnostic technologies illustrate the precise areas of the human brain that are responsible for various perceptions, emotions, and responses to stimuli. Likewise, modern endocrine science outlines predictable relationships between various relative activity levels in hormone-producing processes that correspond to differences in external behavior (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008).

The Argument for Environmental Influence

The modern fields of criminology and sociology have also established significant direct connections between the external environment and the behavior that develops in the individual (Schmalleger, 2008). Regardless of the effects of physiology and biological processes, there is undoubtedly a tremendous influence in the experiences, formative relationships, and role models to which the individual is exposed (Schmalleger, 2008). Many forms of modern crime are largely products of the influence of social circumstances and the norms that prevail in local communities (Pinizzotto, Davis, & Miller, 2007). With respect to criminally deviant individuals such as serial killers, there are specific types and patterns of formative experiences and psychological trauma that are known to be associated with those types of criminal deviance (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008; Innes, 2007),

The Argument for the Rational Choice Theory

The modern approach to understanding criminal deviance also recognizes the importance of elements of the classical rational choice theories, such as those of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham (Schmalleger, 2008). In principle, rational choice suggests that most criminal deviance is the product of autonomous volitional choices made by individuals; it considers those choices to be functions of risk-benefit or pleasure-pain dynamics. Moreover, rational choice theorists consider the prevention of deviant behavior to be one of the responsibilities of modern government through effective deterrence and punishment. In theory, appropriately harsh penalties imposed for criminal choices can prevent those instances of criminal choices that do reflect rational choice volitional decisions (Schmalleger, 2008).