Thoughts, Not Environmental Conditions, Cause Criminal Behaviour

Criminals are neither bon that way nor made that way – they chose to be that way, say Kerry Kirkpatrick in this guest post.

For over forty years, clinical psychologist Stanton Samenow has been interviewing criminal offenders for the courts (1, 2, 3). His conclusion is that criminals are not criminals because of their upbringing or environment, or because of what they see on television or in movies.

Criminals are who they are because of the thoughts they hold, and have held, in their minds from an early age.

When many people walk into a crowded room, they think about who they would enjoy talking to. The criminal first checks escape routes, then looks for items to steal or weak targets to intimidate, swindle, or rob (i.e., pick their pockets). Criminals go to great lengths, sometimes using a considerable intelligence, to plan their crimes.
The criminal mind enjoys, or gets a jolt of excitement, as Samenow puts it, by doing what is wrong and getting away with it. “If rape were legalised today,” said one offender, “I wouldn’t rape. But I would do something else.”

The criminal act has to be illegal, otherwise the criminal would not experience the excitement.

When criminals get caught, they blame themselves for being stupid and careless. When interviewed by the courts and Samenow, they either never admit to their wrongdoing or blame their behaviour on external circumstances, such as upbringing or environment. They insist that they are good human beings and find no contradiction in “praying at ten and robbing at noon.”

Some even express disgust at child abusers, then find no difficulty robbing and murdering someone else who, according to their way of thinking, “deserved it.”

Samenow repeatedly insists, and demonstrates with many examples, that criminals are not victims of family abuse or unpleasant surroundings. Criminals come from all walks of life and include the highly educated and intelligent. They all have siblings and other relatives who grow up in the same family cultures and situations and do not turn out the way they did.

What they have in common is lying as a way of life, and it starts young. A child of five or six may lift a friend’s or sibling’s toy and get a thrill out of it. Denying guilt or blaming someone else—and getting away with the theft—provides another thrill and encourages further, more daring behaviour.

People who follow the rules, according to such a young child, or adult thief, are suckers. Their lives are boring. “My life of crime,” thinks the criminal, “is exciting.” It is these thoughts that drive the criminal mind to plan the next “exciting” caper.

Criminals do not have friends, because they trust no one; they see other people as targets to manipulate. They do nonetheless gravitate to each other so they can share illegal adventures and plan bigger and bigger payoffs. They have nothing in common with the child or adult who lives a quiet, law-abiding life. Criminals envy the nice things in life, such as a home, car, or expensive computer, but they cannot conceive of working to attain these values. They would just rather take them.

Can criminals change? Not easily. Those who try to settle down in a job to make money for a car or home often succumb to their urges for the excitement of crime. Samenow does describe two success stories of criminals who changed, but they both went through long processes of catching the criminal thoughts midstream, challenging them, and struggling to substitute better ones. The process required is not unlike the will power of recovering alcoholics who must repeatedly check their desires for a drink.

In addition to dispelling the myth of environmental determinism as cause of criminal behaviour, Samenow demonstrates that there is no such thing as a “crime of passion,” the so-called out-of-character crime.

The reason, again, is the thoughts the criminal holds. A sudden and gruesome knifing, Samenow reveals, is not so surprising and out of character when one discovers the hostile thoughts, resentments, and perhaps even fantasies of stabbing or killing the target that the criminal has experienced for many months or years.

Samenow (pp. 6-7) states, “ I have found that thinking errors are causal in every case of criminal conduct. . . .The error is a flaw in the thought process that results in behaviour that injures others. The harm done may be minor or extremely serious” (emphasis in original).

Humans are rational beings, guided by thought, which means thought [or the lack of it] causes behaviour, both good and bad.

---

Jerry Kirkpatrick is professor of international business and marketing at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and author of In Defense of Advertising: Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. 
This post first appeared at his blog.

The Triumph of Ethics over Practicality: A Tale of Two Cities

With a hat tip to reader Mark, and a big thank you to writer Jerry Kirkpatrick, here three years after Christchurch’s destruction is a topical Guest Post comparing the progress of two cities one year after devastation by tornado.
The results are as clear as that of any well-set-up laboratory experiment. Which model do you think is being followed in Christchurch ?

My title this month—the triumph of ethics over practicality—is sarcastic because I believe, as Ayn Rand taught, that the moral is the practical. My reference is to the continued unquestioned acceptance and dominance of altruism as the equivalent of ethics. And just as unquestioned, the premise that self-interest is bad.

The two cities are Joplin, Missouri, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama. About a year ago [at time of writing], both were hit with devastating tornadoes. A year later Joplin is thriving, largely revived and rebuilt. Tuscaloosa, on the other hand, still has un-demolished ruins, vacant lots, and businesses awaiting permit approvals to rebuild.*

This is an old story, of course: West vs. East Germany, South vs. North Korea, the US vs. the USSR. Why is the lesson never learned that capitalism works and socialism—central planning of any kind, including urban planning—does not? The answer once again is ethics, especially the primacy of altruism.

A conclusive experiment with a crucial lesson for Christchurch [updated]

Occasionally a situation will appear in the sphere of the social sciences that has all the features of a laboratory experiment. One such “experiment” with direct relevance to Christchurch has just appeared—two American cities torn apart a year ago by tornadoes, one rebuilt by the pursuit of “selfish” profit and the other by planning experts who know what’s best for everyone.

The “experiment” and its results are described by Jerry Kirkpatrick with the help of the Wall Street Journal:

[The first] of these two cities is Tuscaloosa, a “showpiece,” as the city’s recovery plan states, of  “state-of-the-art urban planning,” with “unique neighborhoods that are healthy, safe, accessible, connected, and sustainable,” anchored by “village centers”… The Tuscaloosa plan however (as the WSJ notes) “never mentions protecting property rights.” It’s the monument that counts, the “state-of-the-art” plan.

Sounding familiar? This is exactly what we’ve been hearing from the “experts” in Christchurch, isn’t it—the monuments, the “state-of-the-art” plans, the telling of property owners to go to hell.

[The city of] Joplin, on the other hand, took the free market route by suspending licensing and zoning regulations and allowing home and business owners to make their own decisions as to when and how they were going to rebuild. No monuments were built in Joplin.

This too should be familiar---it’s the Enterprise Zone some of us have been crying out for in Christchurch ever since the first quake.

RESULTS: So with the experiment set up, how did it proceed?

Joplin is thriving, largely revived and rebuilt. Tuscaloosa, on the other hand, still has un-demolished ruins, vacant lots, and businesses awaiting permit approvals to rebuild.

CONCLUSION: The conclusion is dramatic, and is confirmed by the blundering dunderheadedness in Christchurch (which hasn’t even progressed as far as Tuscaloosa—handing a city over to self-declared experts is the best way to kill it. Whereas taking a city off welfare and making it an enterprise zone  allows it to rebuild. And fast.

This is an old story, of course: West vs. East Germany, South vs. North Korea, the US vs. the USSSR. So why is the lesson never learned that capitalism works and socialism—central planning of any kind, including urban planning—does not?

 Kirkpatrick has the answer here too.

UPDATE:  Daniel J. Smith, economics professor at Troy University, studied the rebuilding of Joplin, Missouri in the months following the tornado. Watch as Professor Smith discusses how economic freedom can help areas recover from natural disasters.
"I think one of the key factors in the recovery process in Joplin, from the tornado, is that the government officials allowed the community to start rebuilding itself." -- Daniel J. Smith

[Thanks to reader R.C. for the link]