Feature

What turns so-called "ordinary" citizens into ruthless killers?

Virginia Brookes

In this feature article, Virginia Brookes explores a topic that continues to engage scientists worlwide. Her essay, below, "The roots of evil: A psychological investigation into the phenomenon of violent crime," won the Keswick Essay Prize this year.  

Prins (1886) stated more than 100 years ago that "criminality proceeds from the very nature of humanity itself". This implies that we as society create the very people whom we regard with such fascination and fear; the phenomenon of violence stems not from the unknown depths of "the criminal mind" (Stones et al, 2003), but is socially constructed and has gained cultural meaning through our own interpretations of it. Hibbert (1963) supports this theory by proposing, "every society has the criminal it deserves", indicating that the human race is active in constructing its own demons. One of the fundamental issues of crime investigation, therefore, is to try and establish what turns so-called "ordinary" citizens into ruthless killers who engage in horrific savagery and cruelty.

In order to achieve such insight into the human mind and its resulting behavioural patterns, humanity has become obsessed with understanding and predicting the actions of others. This has resulted in the evolution of many sciences focused on observing and explaining human behaviour and social interactions, such as those of psychology and sociology (Jeffery, 1979). Fascinatingly, the aspect that most interests scientists in these fields is not so much "normal" behaviour, but rather behaviour that deviates from the conventional and appears to defy the established boundaries of society (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). Such aberrant behavior, being most dramatically evident in the terrifying phenomenon of crime, has lead to the development of its own field of study: "criminology".

This theoretical field of study aims to research the causes of crime, its meaning in terms of the law, and the community reaction to crime. It encompasses many different perspectives, including the more dominant biological and biosocial theories that are rooted in the behavioural sciences (Jeffery, 1979). Since criminal behaviour is condemned by society in general (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985), it is of much interest to understand why some individuals, formed in part by their experiences with these social institutions, nonetheless disobey most of the rules of society and risk punishment. Providing the answer to this question is one of the fundamental goals of criminology (Caldwell, 1965), as well its more recent subsidiary fields of investigative and forensic psychology (Stones et al, 2003).

Investigative psychology (IP) is a growing field in both South Africa and the world in general; its use lies in its involvement in the research, prediction of and intervention into criminal behaviour. The increasing abundance of violent crime in South Africa is related partly to the country's diverse range of ethnic and cultural groups, that present a challenge to police and judicial systems and highlight the need for the activities of IP (Stones et al, 2003). IP, as well as the more legally orientated field of forensic psychology, is thus being increasingly utilised by the country's respective police and judicial systems. Some of the functions it serves include providing an understanding of violence; deriving intervention strategies; assisting victims of violence to recover both psychologically and emotionally; and identifying and enabling insight into the "criminal mind" (Stones et al, 2003). Forensic psychology, being more predominant in the legal environment, assists in the questioning and conviction of apprehended criminals.

Since it is rooted in the behavioural sciences, IP is viewed as being most successful in crimes demonstrating a distinct behavioural pattern, such as serial homicide, rape, and other acts related to extreme physical and/or sexual violence (Holmes and Holmes, 1996). These crimes are typically the work of a psychopath or extremely ritualistic killer, as opposed to more petty crimes such as theft. Criminals who commit these serious offences are commonly known as "organized" offenders, and are generally of high intelligence with a personality that, superficially, is deemed acceptable in the eyes of society. Internally, however, these offenders harbor underlying psychopathic tendencies that lead them to the planning and orchestrating of murder, and cause them to gain considerable pleasure from the suffering of their victim(s).

The careful and controlled actions of the psychopathic killer are in contrast to that of the "disorganized offender", who is usually of a lower intelligence, and possibly possesses a mental illness of some kind. Such people are often classified as psychotic, meaning they are mentally impaired to the point that they are unaware that their actions are wrong (Stones et al, 2003), as opposed to the psychopathic criminal who is fully aware of his actions and gains sadistic pleasure in knowing their effects. Disorganized offenders are characterized by impulsive and uncontrolled behaviour, and consequentially often feel remorse at their actions, as well as empathy for the victim. This often results in the leaving behind of incriminating evidence at the crime scene in an unconscious desire to be apprehended and punished for their actions (Stones et al, 2003), as well as demonstrating a carelessness in their attempts to hide evidence due to their mental impairment and general lack of forensic knowledge.

It is this forensic and behavioural evidence that provides insight into the psychological state of the offender and enables the assessment of his/her behaviour to determine the presence of underlying mental disorders. The investigator will usually be able to integrate the evidence in creating an objective psychological profile of the offender, which is a "composite behavioural and psychological sketch of a personality type and not a specific person", according to Horn (1988). This method assists the police in narrowing the list of potential suspects, as it provides them with a more clear idea of the type of person they are looking for (Stones et al, 2003). Profilers also offer advice on how to approach and deal with the individual once he/she is apprehended, based on his/her supposed mental and emotional state. These functions of profiling and crime scene analysis, which fall under the category of IP, essentially aim to identify and explain the criminal's actions.

IP's basis in the behavioural sciences means that it tends to draw on theories from this area in order to explain and rationalize the causes of crime (Einstadter and Henry, 1995). Psychology tries to explain criminal behaviour as being formed from a complex interaction between genetics and social experiences. One of the issues that is fundamental to this viewpoint is the problem of whether or not man is originally good, inherently evil, or born with an infinitely plastic nature that is shaped and changed at will (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). The fact that every known society across the world has experienced crime indicates that regardless of the intrinsic characteristics of the human race, deviant behaviour does inevitably surface and as yet this problem has never been solved. Jeffery (1979) points out that "if there is a special pathology needed to participate in sadistic acts of cruelty, then, like the common cold, in can potentially infect any or all of us".

There has been much debate as to the primary source of criminal behaviour, but one fact that the majority of authors agree on is that adult deviant behaviour stems from and can be traced back to childhood development and experiences (Hibbert, 1963). Karr-Morse and Wiley (1985), in particular, have linked violent behaviour in adulthood to negative experiences in the earliest stages of childhood, even going so far as to find roots of these behaviours in prenatal development. It has been noted, however, that no single biological factor is causal, but rather criminal behaviour in adulthood but must also be viewed in interaction with the upbringing and socioeconomic circumstances of the child (Karr-Morse and Wiley, 1985).

Correspondingly, Farrington and Coid (2003) found that the parents, or guardian figures, play a vital role in the future behaviour and thought patterns of the individual. One study showed that "having a convicted parent at age 10 was the best single predictor of criminal behaviour at age 32" (Farrington and Coid, 2003), although adding that "it is unclear how much of this association is attributable to genetic as opposed to environmental factors present in the child's upbringing". Farrington and Coid (2003) have also identified that when parents or guardians provide attention and affection in the formative years of life, children who possess risk factors for the development of criminal behaviour generally do not develop any behavioural abnormalities.

Despite the evidence for social factors being largely influential in the forming of violent personality types, Halleck (1971) observed that "to the extent our citizens believe that the cause of crime lies within the individual who broke the law, society can avoid confronting its own (criminal) tendencies". This partly explains the reasoning behind the many attempts to link violence to genetics, rather than considering it as being integrated with our response to our surroundings. Gibbons (1979), however, supports the argument that it is not just biological processes but also social circumstances that are fundamental to the developmental process of the criminal. This process includes biological, situational, developmental and adaptive elements (Tierney, 1996). The problem herein is why this naturally occurring developmental process leads to a healthy and functional personality in some, and in others produces the cruel and emotionless mind of a psychopath.

This issue is reflected on by Jeffery (1979), who explores the question of how to determine when "a person engaging in violence (has) crossed the line from normal psychological and physiological functions to clinically aberrant behaviour that is grounded in pathology". Such behaviour, as suggested by Wilson and Herrnstein (1985), is shaped by two kinds of reinforcers: primary and secondary. Primary reinforcers are derived from an innate drive, such as sexual appetite, whereas secondary reinforcers are formed from learning. This theory echoes that of the well-known psychologist, Sigmund Freud (Levine, 2000), who suggested that the human psyche is formed by a delicate balance between our instinctive, primal drives, and our knowledge of social norms and conventions, which serves to inhibit these instinctive urges. All behaviour, even the abnormal and bizarre, responds to reinforcement, although in some people these reinforcers are more likely to lead to criminal behaviour.

In order to fully understand the influence of social reinforcers, one must understand individual differences in both the extent to which people internalize certain legal and moral commands, and the degree to which they anticipate and act on the likely consequences of their actions. These various environmental influences on the individual have been described as the cultivation medium of crime (Hibbert, 1963), and this fact is highlighted by Milovanovich and Schwartz (1999) in their statement, "over the past several years, sociologists and criminologists have advanced the idea that a person's life course of events, or life history, is important in determining behaviour".

Since this life history is inevitably immersed in culture and impacted on by social entities, it has been argued that the individual is pressured by society into making a choice between crime and a variety of other alternatives (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). One must thus consider the social institutions that frame these available alternatives, and how an individual's sense of justice influences the way in which he/she evaluates the options (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). Society and its institutions shape man, but human nature sets limits on the kinds of societies we can have. Crime simply exposes the connection between individual disposition and the social order, and does so more dramatically than any other form of behaviour due to the fascination of the media and the public with "the criminal mind" (Stones et al, 2003).

Ironically, it is this very obsession by the media that has some of the greatest effects on society's patterns of violence and incidents of crime (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). Jeffery (1979) proposes that the media serves to heighten awareness of the material and intangible rewards of crime, such as money or emotional and sexual gratification. Studies have shown that television may also increase the incidence of impulsive behaviour used in gratifying our desires (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985), as the evidence of immediate reward often displayed on television incites restlessness and impatience. Most of us, in fact, participate vicariously in criminal acts through their depiction by the media, and it is highly possible that the conveyance of such acts as being "stimulating" or "thrilling" may excite imitation (Jeffery, 1979). It is hard to say, according to Tierney (1996), if any one of us may turn from observer to participant under the proper circumstances.

The media, and its influence on members of the public, thus serves to contribute to the social construction of crime by bringing to attention its cultural meaning (Emmett and Butchart, 2000). Since it is these socially influenced individuals who compose the majority of any community, it is evident that communities are thus an important consideration in the study of crime. Interestingly, communities are relevant to criminology not so much because of the people who constitute them, but because of their geographical influence on social interactions (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). It has been demonstrated that the process of urban growth is consistently determined by the social and economic needs of citizens, with the result being highly segregated cities with a centralized commercial area and interstitial residential areas. Central city areas have been linked to social disorganization and high rates of delinquency among whatever group of people live there, whereas these phenomena gradually decline as one moves away from the city center (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985).

One's area of residence, as well as a multitude of other significant social and environmental factors, can thus be seen as playing a vital role in the development of a criminal. Since such phenomena as social pressure and interaction with influential others are universal, they are to a degree inescapable, and hence we are all influenced by these entities during our lives. The constituents of the psychopathic killer, the arsonist, the serial rapist, and numerous other violent offenders, are thus seen to be those very same constituents that are involved in the development of any "normal" individual. The "roots of evil", as they are referred to by Hibbert (1963), are found in all of us.

Whilst psychological theories offer practical solutions to the problem of crime by classifying criminals as a certain "type" who differs from the norm, it is clear that there is not always a large amount of psychological variation between the "criminal" and conventional society. Jeffery (1979) proposes that psychological theories perhaps try to establish this distinction in order for society to rationalize their oppression of this "criminally minded" minority, and justify their incarceration or rehabilitation of such individuals. Whatever the reasoning, psychology does provide a powerful tool with which to investigate and analyse the mind of the violent criminal.

The science of IP, as well as criminology as a whole, are thus crucial to our modern day society, and are increasingly being viewed as equating the police and judicial systems in terms of their necessity in the field of crime (Tierney, 1996). If we ever hope to decrease, prevent or combat the incidence of violent crime in our own country, and the world as a whole, we should consider it fundamental to enhance our knowledge and skills in the use of psychology for investigating crime.

Sources of information:

Caldwell, R.G. (1965). Criminology. New York: Ronald Press.

Einstadter, W. & Henry, S. (1995). Criminological theory: an analysis of its underlying assumptions. Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Emmett, T. & Butchart, A. (2000). Behind the mask: Getting to grips with crime and violence in South Africa.Pretoria: HSRC Publishers.

Farrington, D.P. & Coid, J.W. (2003). Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbons, D.C. (1979). The criminological enterprise: theories and perspectives. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hibbert, C. (1963). The roots of evil. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson.

Horn, J. (1988). Criminal personality profiling. In J. Reese & J. Horn (Eds.). (1988), Police psychology: Operational assistance (pp. 211-224). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Jeffery, C.R. (1979). Biology and crime. London: Sage publications.

Karr-Morse, R. & Wiley, M.S. (1997). Ghosts from the nursery: Tracing the roots of violence. New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press.

Levine, M.P. (2000). The analytic Freud: philosophy and psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.

Tierney, J. (1996). Criminology: Theory and context. London: Prentice-Hall.

Wilson, J.Q. & Herrnstein, R.J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Science in Africa - Africa's First On-Line Science Magazine

Copyright  2002, Science in Africa, Science magazine for Africa CC. All Rights Reserved

Terms and Conditions