This paper examines the psychology of the criminal mind through a forensic psychology lens. It explores the early development of deviant behavior in children and teenagers, including the role of peer pressure, family environment, and supervision. The paper then addresses the legal concepts of sanity and competency, explaining how forensic psychologists evaluate these distinctions and detect deception. Finally, it considers the challenge of assessing a criminal's likelihood of reoffending when evaluating parole eligibility. Together, these areas illustrate the complexity of understanding criminal motivation and behavior, and the critical role forensic psychology plays in the justice system.
What makes criminals different from "normal" people who do not commit crimes? There is no evidence that the average person never thinks about committing a crime, so it is not the thoughts that cross a person's mind that make the difference between whether he or she will commit a crime or not. However, what the person does with the thought that he or she has acknowledged can be very different. Some people simply ignore the thought; others consider it and then decide that there is too much risk involved. Still other people determine that they can likely get away with the crime, or they decide that they are willing to take the risk even if they know they could get caught. Criminals are all different, just like people who do not commit crimes are all different, and their reasons and motivations can be unique and varied. With that in mind, it is important to look at the psychology of the criminal mind in order to better determine the reasons behind criminal behavior in certain people.
One of the "red flags" for criminal behavior in adults is what those adults did when they were children. Breaking into buildings, setting fire to or killing an animal, and other types of deviant and inappropriate behavior as a child can be precursors to criminal behavior in adulthood (Adler, 2004; Dalby, 1997). Not all children who commit wrongdoing will become career criminals, of course. Many children recognize the consequences of their actions and decide they do not want to get involved in any kind of criminal activity as adults, whether or not they were caught engaging in criminal behavior when young. There are programs that are supposed to "scare someone straight" and ensure that he or she will not do anything criminal in the future, but these programs have limited success with children and teenagers (Duntley & Shackelford, 2006). Some programs are more effective than others, and the same is true of other approaches designed to stop children and teenagers from committing further crimes.
Many young people experiment with activity that could potentially be considered criminal, however, for various reasons. Among the largest and most significant reasons for committing criminal acts is peer pressure. If young people feel as though they must commit a crime in order to be accepted by their friends, they may go ahead and do so even though they know they should not. They may feel conflicted about it, but that does not mean they will not follow through with the criminal activity (Adler, 2004; Duntley & Shackelford, 2006). Once they are caught, two things can happen: they can either side with their peers and continue to commit crimes, or they can recognize the seriousness of the path they are on and decide they would be better off avoiding criminal behavior. The kind of people they are will help make that determination, but it is not the only factor that will come into play. There are many other issues to consider.
Parents who notice that their children are moving toward or getting involved with deviant behavior must address it at the first opportunity (Adler, 2004). Ignoring a problem will not make it go away and can only lead to more serious criminal activity in the future. Unfortunately, many parents are in denial or are unaware of what their children are really doing when unsupervised. Children and teenagers who lack supervision are often the ones most frequently involved in criminal activity, but there are also many children and teens from "good" families who still get involved in criminal behavior (Adler, 2004; Dalby, 1997).
What goes through the minds of young people when they decide to engage in criminal behavior? Sometimes they are trying to please their peers and gain acceptance. Other times they are seeking attention they do not feel they are receiving at home. Some of these children come from broken or single-parent homes, where there are higher rates of alcohol and drug addiction as well as criminal behavior (Dalby, 1997; Duntley & Shackelford, 2006). Still, there are children and young people from two-parent homes who have everything they need and are clearly loved — yet some of them still engage in criminal behavior, seemingly without clear explanation. Understanding why these young people involve themselves in this kind of behavior is one of the core concerns of forensic psychologists, and one of the most important considerations when it comes to whether a child will become or remain a criminal as an adult. Stopping crime before it begins is ideal, but if that cannot be done, it is very important that young offenders learn from their behavior before reaching adulthood.
Another area where it is important to understand the criminal mind involves sanity and competency. For purposes of the law, whether someone is insane is a legal definition and not a medical one (Adler, 2004). People who are deemed legally insane are not able to stand trial because they do not have the mental capacity to do so properly. This does not mean they are mentally disabled, but only that they do not have an understanding of right and wrong comparable to the general population — and therefore cannot be held legally accountable for their crimes. When people are not mentally capable of determining right from wrong, or understanding that what they did was wrong and why, it is not the law's place to try and convict them. They need mental health help, and in some cases they are given medication so that they can be rendered capable of standing trial (Adler, 2004; Dalby, 1997). The evaluation of competency and sanity is highly important to the judicial process and must be undertaken with great care.
One of the main concerns with the evaluation of sanity and competency revolves around a criminal's ability to be deceptive. Some criminals will attempt to appear insane so that they do not have to stand trial. By using insanity as a defense, they hope to avoid severe punishment such as the death penalty (Adler, 2004; Duntley & Shackelford, 2006). Of course, there are some criminals who actually do meet the legal definition of insanity, but these are few and far between. Most criminals do not meet that definition because it is very strict and specific — but a number of them will attempt that defense in order to escape expected punishment and avoid prison time for serious crimes. Overall, it falls to the forensic psychologist to determine sanity and competency, which may be related but can also be evaluated separately, depending on the nature of the individual.
For example, some criminals are deemed insane, while others are sane but not competent. The latter can occur because of a mental illness or disability — such as an intellectual disability or another form of cognitive impairment — that does not meet the legal definition of insanity but still affects the individual's ability to make proper decisions and determine whether an act was right or wrong (Adler, 2004; Dalby, 1997). A finding of incompetency to stand trial is still uncommon, but it is more common than an insanity defense that is actually accepted. When people are not competent to stand trial, it is much harder to understand what may have been going through their minds when they committed a crime. Did they know they had committed a crime? Did they understand the potential consequences of their actions? Those are difficult questions to answer and may have different answers for each individual.
Because the criminal mind is difficult to evaluate given the many different reasons people commit crimes, forensic psychologists are often asked to make recommendations regarding whether a person who has committed a crime is competent to stand trial. If the person is not competent, or if he or she is found to be legally insane, the legal process changes substantially and must be handled very differently than it would be for a competent defendant. Savvy criminals will attempt to convince an interviewer that they are incompetent or insane, but this is rarely effective (Duntley & Shackelford, 2006). Usually, the ruse is discovered by a forensic psychologist, or there is simply too much evidence demonstrating that the criminal understood what he or she was doing at the time of the crime (Adler, 2004).
"Parole, rehabilitation assessment, and recidivism risk"
It would simply not be logical for that to happen, and it would be extremely unlikely. However, any criminal evaluated by a forensic psychologist or other professional will provide clues and important information as to whether he or she is genuinely remorseful and rehabilitated, or whether those are simply words spoken in an effort to be released back into society. Not all criminals are trying to fake their way through a parole hearing interview, but there is a large enough number of them for recidivism risk assessment to be a central function of forensic psychology in parole recommendations (Dalby, 1997). Even criminals who appear to be rehabilitated can reoffend, so there is no guarantee it will not occur. There is always the possibility that something will be misinterpreted, or that the outside world will simply become too overwhelming. Some criminals even want to reoffend and return to prison because it is all they know.
When a forensic psychologist considers the likelihood of someone reoffending, he or she must consider not only the criminal's conduct record in prison, but also how long that individual has been incarcerated and the nature of the crime committed. When a person has been imprisoned for a very long period of time, it can be much harder to readjust to life on the outside. It can also be very difficult for former prisoners to find employment or manage other aspects of daily life that many people take for granted (Adler, 2004). Because of this, the likelihood of reoffending is always present to some degree. Criminals who have been in prison for years are familiar with the system and may even feel "safe" there — despite the dangers of prison — because they understand how it works. Removing that structure and requiring them to function in the broader world can be extremely difficult, and early release should generally only be considered for those whom a forensic psychologist believes are likely to adjust successfully and who present a low risk of reoffending, particularly for violent crimes.
There are no guarantees as to who will reoffend and who will not, but there are behavioral indicators that are carefully considered by those who work with criminals and determine whether parole should be granted (Duntley & Shackelford, 2006). Specific behaviors can be very telling. Criminals who are model prisoners and who appear genuinely remorseful — as well as those who are focused on bettering themselves through education or vocational programs — can often be released when eligible for parole, largely because they have demonstrated an understanding of their crime and its consequences and have shown a sincere desire to avoid criminal behavior and become productive members of society.
As the information presented here illustrates, there are many reasons why people commit crimes, and there are many different types of people who engage in criminal activity. Yes, they are all criminals — but what else are they? When that question is answered, it becomes clear that the psychology of the criminal mind is far more complex than simply labeling a person a criminal or assuming that someone will engage in criminal behavior because he or she fits a particular demographic profile. Understanding criminal behavior and the inner workings of the criminal mind is a complex and difficult task. There are certainly people who commit crimes for seemingly logical reasons, such as hunger or anger, but there are many others whose crimes appear to fit no discernible logic or pattern — and it is those individuals who most urgently need to be better understood by the field of forensic psychology.
Adler, J. R. (Ed.). (2004). Forensic Psychology: Concepts, debates and practice. Cullompton: Willan.
Dalby, J. T. (1997). Applications of Psychology in the Law Practice: A guide to relevant issues, practices and theories. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Duntley, J. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Toward an evolutionary forensic psychology. Social Biology, 51, 161–165.
You’re 91% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.