Reasons for Criminal Behavior?

[suzanne1020U.S.]

Here's my theory: THEY'RE NUTS!

[kels]

There are all sorta of theories on what causes crime.

But, from a street level, 90%+ of my property crimes
are committed by meth users here. Meth causes more
problems than anything I have seen.

From the average theft, to the tweeker pointing a
gun at someone for waving as they drove by, it is
just crazy out there.

[ruby0711]

I don't see how diagnosing a disorder plays into the left wing's hands as long as the person still has to suffer the consequences of their actions. .

Ah, you see, that is the point, people are NOT suffering the consequences of thier actions BECAUSE of the excuse of a real mental illness. THAT is where the liberal crap comes in. That is something I can not stand for. There is a cop in CT trying to get off on charges because he states he suffers from PTSD, that is his defense, and he expects to be excused from jail time because of it.

A mental illness (most mental illness) is NOT a reason to commit a crime.

If it's used as an excuse, yeah, but the diagnosing might be a tiny step into doing something about it down the road. I see nothing wrong with attempting psychological help as long as it's done in conjunction with punishment and not as an alternative. And there needs to be some proof that it works before much money is spent on it. But it shouldn't be dismissed as political. If that person is going to be released down into society down the road, I think it behooves us to at least attempt to change behavior. The key is to quit using methods when they are proven not to work and that's the problem with many government programs. But we should keep trying for the sake of possible future victims if nothing else. .

100% agreed. However, sadly, many mental help professionals...many of which work for the state prison system are lazy, they do not keep up on quality research and new methods...they simply keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

I don't think it's a secret though that the percentage of criminals that grew up under lousy circumstances is higher than law abiding citizens. Did that author talk about percentages of law abiding citizens suffering trauma or just numbers? Quoting just numbers is BS, there are a hell of a lot more law abiding citizens than crooks. And he/she talking about one time trauma or continuing? How about the age the person suffers it? Stats are skewed daily to show anything the author wants. Look at both sides of the gun control issue. Some of the "research" by either side has cracked me up when I read it. (I'm anti gun control to the max, so don't even go there.:D) But just because I agree with a stance doesn't mean I have to buy everything they sell. It's pretty common to leave out pertinent factors from a study so the point the author is making isn't "clouded" when they try to sell their book..

Ah, the thing about McNally, is he is THE TOP researcher, and sat on the board of the PTSD DX for the DSM-4, DSM-TR and the new one coming out soon DSM-5. His research methods are impecable. AND, he is very fair. The one book he wrote, was written for researchers and clinicians to take a real and FAIR look at PTSD and what it is.

To ignore the fact that most criminals come from poverty or abusive backgrounds and then say it's all choice and not environmental is fraudulent and self serving. To say they made a choice, yeah they did, but to stop there makes no sense unless you have an agenda. Sort of like the "debate" on alcoholism. The AMA declared it a disease in 1955, but some still think it's a matter of weak will. Those people believing that are naturally not alcoholic and have no idea what it's like to be one.:rolleyes:

As long as government grants are available, there will always be "studies" and usually the money is spent to prove what the researcher already believes. When I was working on my masters, most of the ideas by professors postulated came from bouncing ideas off each other and using someone else's stats. My thesis was on poverty in the African American community. I wanted to research how government welfare had contributed to the mindset and my professors went ballistic. Most were deathly afraid of poor black people and would never venture down to talk to them, but they knew it all.:rolleyes:

I have never..ever worked with a researcher who was not open to other possibilities and theory's....ever. As a matter of fact, the researchers that I have had the honor of working with are just the opposite, if a new theory comes out of the body of research they were working on, they are ThRILLED. NO credible researcher worth his-her weight would hide the real outcome of their research.

Later I saw this phenomena regarding ritual abuse of children. In the early 90's, lotsa rumors were out there about cults who were ritually sexually abusing kids. One so called expert on it was a captain in a neighboring dept. I had a report of it so I called her to pick her brain. She gave me all sorts of info, but when I asked if she'd ever interviewed a victim or even known anyone who worked a case, she didn't. These so called experts all sat around and discussed it and hypothesized rather than have any real experience. But they were recognized experts on the issue! That was awfully familiar to what I ran into in college. Which is why I hold a lot more stock in my decades of experience in working with criminals, both rich and poor than I do with some guy who's trying to make a living writing books.

There has never been any proof that the ritual abuse of children conducted by cults ever happened. The sad thing is, many clinicians are not up to date on that research. THAT is another thing Mcnally came out with...it simple, did, not, happen. There was a bug story in The New Yorker about a cop in Washington State who was accused...along with the department he belonged to...it was a mess....\
But, it simply did not happen....hysteria caused by one imaginative story that took on a life of it's own.

Forgive me if I sound arrogant, but I've sat in too many college classrooms and listened to too many "experts" who had no practical knowledge. I have to shake my head at the researchers who get their data from interviews with men in prison. They really believe these guys are going to tell them the truth! I can tell you that a man in prison has a role he has to play everyday to survive and the responses you get from him are not going to be the same as they were before and just after he was arrested. .

I do not find you arrogant at all....in fact, if you really read...I agree with you. Things have changed though, and you have to recognize that.

As far as nurture vs nature, it's a waste of time. Both come into play. There are some vicious criminals out there who grew up in good homes. They're a fairly small percentage, but they are definitely out there. I arrested the son of a local rich family for murder. To the family's credit, they didn't use the usual, "my son couldn't do that", but were candid about how he'd always been violent and they weren't surprised. But you really have to ignore reality to say past experiences don't play a part in human behavior. If it doesn't, then psychologists better start looking for another way to make a living.

Never did I say or write that I believed one or the other, I simply stated;

The nature v. nurture argument has been around since the first philosopher looked at the stars and pondered the meaning of life.

A true researcher has no agenda when they start with a project...they may have a hypothesis....but, a good researcher is pliable and able to accept when they are wrong.
I do not count college professors as researchers or clinicians...most of the have been out of touch with reality and are teaching theory's that are YEARS old. But where I go to school....research is taken very seriously. That is why I chose to not go to any grad school in CT, I never met a professor who was open to new theory's...that is not what I believe in...nor will it ever be.

[Jennifer]

I'm glad to see that this conversation isn't dead. Ruby you bring excellant points to the table.

Ah, you see, that is the point, people are NOT suffering the consequences of thier actions BECAUSE of the excuse of a real mental illness. THAT is where the liberal crap comes in. That is something I can not stand for. There is a cop in CT trying to get off on charges because he states he suffers from PTSD, that is his defense, and he expects to be excused from jail time because of it.

Well, maybe I will be able to shed light on this in a few months. I just started my internship at Whiting Forensics’ Competency Restoration Unit. I will be working with people who have been deemed incompetent to stand trial for their crimes and have been ordered by a judge to be restored to competency. So, for the next 30-60 days they come to my unit to be "restored." Once, they have been found able to simply understand the charges brought against then and work with their public defender (this is not guilty by reason of insanity, which is the outcome of a trail) they can go to trial.
However, these people are impaired and do require medications for stability.
Here is an interesting thing though:
There are 3 outcomes:
1: competent to stand trail (good for state attorney to who can now prosecute to the fullest extent).
2. incompetent but restorable (ehhh, for state since this means, they will be lounging in a criminal mental inst. until it is decided they are competent. Good for defense.
3. M3 I wish I knew what the acronym meant but this (in CT) indicates the person is not competent to stand trail and never will be therefore CHARGES ARE DROPPED. However, the prosecutor can still choose to prosecute, but this will depend on the severity of the crime and who the victims are or he can drop charges but you can't just let someone walk away scott free so they will need to be placed somewhere (there's the problem). They prosecutor can also have charges kept with prejudice or what the defense will want, charges dropped without prejudice.
Anyway, I don't nec. agree with that.

There has never been any proof that the ritual abuse of children conducted by cults ever happened. The sad thing is, many clinicians are not up to date on that research. THAT is another thing Mcnally came out with...it simple, did, not, happen. There was a bug story in The New Yorker about a cop in Washington State who was accused...along with the department he belonged to...it was a mess....
But, it simply did not happen....hysteria caused by one imaginative story that took on a life of it's own

.

Ruby, you are correct, there is Elizabeth Loftus has done lots of work on eye witness testimony and the creation of false memories (esp. in children). What happened in the 80's and 90's in regards to satanic cults and abuse was largely confabulation.

NO credible researcher worth his-her weight would hide the real outcome of their research.

True, however, coming from someone who has worked in research for 4 years, you can tweak your stats to justify your conclusions. And unfortunately, there have been some researchers who have not been truthful. But, like everything else, you need to know the source of the info, the population surveyed, and if possible, the methodology of any research results.

[retdetsgt]

I do not find you arrogant at all....in fact, if you really read...I agree with you. Things have changed though, and you have to recognize that.

What's changed? Human nature hasn't. I seriously doubt research methods have all that much, if at all. If you're referring to my statement about interviewing prisoners, that still goes on. They're a captive group, both literally and figuratively. If you're researching the criminal mind, you sure as hell aren't going to get crooks on the street to give you the time of day. And as I said, once they're in the joint, their mindset has changed quite a bit. But crap is still published based on those interviews.

A true researcher has no agenda when they start with a project...they may have a hypothesis....but, a good researcher is pliable and able to accept when they are wrong.
I do not count college professors as researchers or clinicians...most of the have been out of touch with reality and are teaching theory's that are YEARS old.

But most research comes out of colleges and done by professors and grad students. There is constant competition for federal dollars for it. The dollars are what's important (and getting published). And I have little doubt that there is pressure from the government on how the stats should come out. The last thing a bureaucrat wants to hear is that his/her program is worthless and wasting tax money. You buck them very much and you can watch future research dollars disappear.

If you really want to read some skewed research, look at gun control. Both sides come out with some hilarious "research" based on all sorts of faulty data.

I'm far from an expert on research, but in my job I read quite a number of studies on violent criminals and found it falling short of my experience in working with them on the street. And that includes both the liberal and conservative researchers.

Frankly, I developed a method of interviewing on my own that got me about an 85% admission rate. I say admission rather than confession because often they admitted just enough to get a conviction w/o a full detailed confession of the crime. A lot of hardliners thought it was hooey, but it worked. It's not something I care to talk about though in a public forum. ( I need to edit to add that the 85% didn't include those who invoked their Miranda rights immediately so I couldn't talk to them)

[retdetsgt]

Well, maybe I will be able to shed light on this in a few months. I just started my internship at Whiting Forensics’ Competency Restoration Unit. I will be working with people who have been deemed incompetent to stand trial for their crimes and have been ordered by a judge to be restored to competency.

Interestingly, Oregon is a very liberal state, but it's close to impossible to pull of a guilty by insanity defense here. I think I can probably count on one hand the number of people sent to the state hospital for major crimes from my county and it's by far the largest in the state.

I really don't know what the criteria is and frankly, never cared. Not my job.:D

[Cat_Doc]

What's changed? Human nature hasn't.

Quoted for truth and comprehension.

Human nature has not changed, at all.

The interaction between a crook in a nomad clan and authority figures, or a criminal in a small ancient static village, during the Roman Empire, during the Dark Ages, during Tombstone in 1881, is no different than it was yesterday when I rolled on a domestic violence call, nor is it any different as September 9, 2008.

Whether you believe in it as a religious history or a simple human nature historical document, the Bible speaks of jealousy, deceit and domestic homicide between two "original" brothers. It goes on to speak of thievery, crimes against nature and humanity, immoral behavior based upon society mores, etc., etc., etc.

Nope, basic human nature has NOT changed, not one iota. I respectfully challenge anyone to debate me on this truism. You will not be victorious, of that I am most confident.