|
|
|
Inside the Criminal Mind By Stanton E. Samenow, Ph.D. My Observations on this book. This book is an attempt by its author to commercialize a rehashed century’s worth of explanation of juvenile deviance without in-depth empirical support. The book is based upon nothing more than the author’s observations of his own particular clientele that has come to him as “criminals”. It has all the sensationalism of a fictional novel; violence, sex and human-interest stories, all directed to keep the interest of the lay reader while trying to prove scientifically the author’s belief that all existing theories as to deviance are wrong. Yet, even to a novice it is easy to see the flaws with Samenow’s theories. After Samenow describes every aspect of juvenile behavior leading to crime (of which many I have exhibited throughout life) he concludes criminals are criminals because they want to be. This line of thought falls under the classical school’s argument of free will. Samenow proposes the only way of correcting this behavior is to re-educate the criminal to participate in non-criminal behavior. Throughout the book two questions keep coming to the forefront of thought: 1) Do all of these described juvenile behaviors indicate a particular child is going to commit crime? And if so, 2) Why isn’t the child re-educated before he commits a crime? Samenow begins his book with a preface stating that his way of thinking about juvenile behavior that he spent a tremendous amount of time learning was all wrong. After becoming associated with Dr. Samuel Yochelson, Samenow put aside his admitted belief that criminal behavior was a symptom of buried conflicts resulting from early traumas and deprivation of one sort or another (1984: xiii). In its place he has now accepted Dr. Yochelson’s finding that “criminals choose to commit crimes. Crimes resides within the person and is caused by the way he thinks, not by his environment.” (1984: xiv). What becomes apparent as the book continues is Samenow never gives a satisfactory explanation as to what processes of the mind, regardless as to what it is doing, either within or outside environmental influences leads a person to chose crime. Samenow spends a great deal of the writing in his book trying to demonstrate how the juvenile’s behavior is a product of the juvenile’s thinking. He concluded, “Everything we do is preceded, accompanied and followed by thinking”. (1984: 6). First, what does the term thinking mean in this statement? Second, I don’t know that I agree with this hypothesis and it must be a hypothesis because Samenow never explained how it is supported with evidence. If the word “and” was changed to “or” in his stated hypothesis, it may become more acceptable as a hypothesis. The lack of evidence to support Samenow’s theories is the more important observation demonstrated by this statement and is found to be to a major problem throughout the book. Samenow makes a profound statement at page 10 that shows his arrogance about what he concludes criminals are really like. He states: “A detailed and lengthy examination of the mind of a criminal (which is seldom made) will reveal that it is anything but sick. The criminal is rational, calculating and deliberate in his actions.” How can a psychologist in 1984 make such a statement? First, he clearly didn’t conduct a literature review on the research into the human mind. Or, if he did so, he grossly fails to disclose to his reading public that for almost as many centuries as man has studied science, the human mind has been the focus as to what makes us different from one another and all other living creatures. Second, while many crimes may be rational, calculated and deliberate such as crimes of specific intent, there are a large number of crimes of general intent. The easiest example of the first is premeditated murder (a specific intent crime), while all lesser homicides demonstrate general intent - the failure of the offender either to be rational, calculating or deliberate. It is at this point that Samenow not only loses his credibility, but also, on behalf of the reading public commits a serious disservice to the understanding of criminal behavior. One of the confusing aspects of the book is the large amount of time spent talking about juvenile behavior. The concern I have is twofold: Samenow explains in the preface how he gained this insight about juveniles by working at Saint Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C., a federal psychiatric facility. (1984: xii). These were adults on whom he was conducting a detailed and lengthy examination. Where is his research on actual juveniles? Second, self-reporting by individuals who are criminals in a psychiatric hospital is not totally unreliable, but they aren’t juveniles. Yet, chapters three through nine are designed to defend his position that all the other institutions that come into contact with a juvenile are not contributing factors to the juvenile’s free will to commit crime. I know the stated objective is to demonstrate how the juvenile manipulates these various institutions in his environment to his advantage and that seems logical. What is hard to accept is that Samenow wants the reader to believe these institutions are incapable of recognizing the deviant behavior of the juvenile and, if they do, they simply do not know how to respond to correct the observed behavior. I do not want to spend a great deal of time on chapters three through nine, but I do want to list what identifies a juvenile criminal according to Samenow. This juvenile will:
Samenow does caution parents that this list only reflects “patterns in a minority of children who eventually inflict enormous damage upon society no matter what their parents or others do to deter them.” (1984:48). Thank goodness for I now see that my four children were all potential criminals, they somehow just didn’t live up to their criminal destiny and managed to get their college educations. At the same time, Samenow again creates conflict within his stated theory in that he stated parents should upon seeing the above listed behavior determine whether such behavior is forming a pattern over time that is expanding and intensifying. He argues that parents cannot be let off the hook but generally they are the victims not the victimizers. Samenow continues by saying the home environment has no role in developing criminals, but, juveniles while existing within his home environment will exhibit certain behaviors that identify them as a potential criminal. (1984:49). Regardless, Samenow wants the reader to believe no type of response to these behaviors will curtail the juvenile’s potentially criminal behavior. And again, there is no evidence to support this statement. Chapter Four discusses the juvenile’s role among his peers. Again it must be pointed out that peer pressure is an environmental element in which the juvenile either does or does not participate. In the second paragraph of the chapter, Samenow states: “He chose to associate with risk-taking youngsters who were doing what was forbidden.” (1984: 51), clearly an environmental interaction on the part of the juvenile. Samenow continues the chapter with descriptions as to how the juvenile seeks to bolster his self-image (1984:51), tries to gain status (1984:53), is drawn to those that are nervy and disobedient (1984:55) and picks his associations for competition or to cultivate relationships (1984:56). Enough said to demonstrate the fallacy in Samenow’s theory. There are two other issues as to this chapter that cannot go unnoticed. Samenow has a habit of using the word “some” in quantifying the characteristics of juveniles. The word “some” indicates that there are others that don’t have that particular behavior or they have some other behavior – which is it? More critically, we need to know the number of cases upon which Dr. Samenow makes his generalizations. Second, Samenow acknowledges the theories of E.H. Sutherland and Martin Gold as to differential association. (1984:52). He then argues these theories are wrong because they fail to recognize that children from a very young age chose the company they keep and what status they want to obtain – an environmental issue. Samenow then spends the rest of the book describing the very elements Sutherland and Gold’s theory advocates. A layperson may not recognize this conflict that is so obvious to a social scientist. The greater concern is trying to understand what Samenow is trying to accomplish by not disclosing to his reading public that his work is not unique. Chapter five talks about the role of schools in the development of the juvenile. The conflict seen in the earlier chapters continue here. Samenow continues to demonstrate how the juvenile interacts with other institutions, here the juvenile’s school; how he interacts with other children (1984:68) and his teachers (1984:69-73). A great deal of time is spent on defending the juvenile’s academic performance as being the result of the institution’s definition of the juvenile’s specific academic performance or the intelligence of the juvenile. (1984:77-79). What does either have to do with the juvenile’s free will to commit crime? That is simply overlooked. There is no need to continue with the other institutions discussed by Samenow in his book, they all fall into the same pattern of non-explanation and conflict between free will and environmental contribution. However since sex was mentioned in the opening paragraph, I would point out a quantum statement made by Samenow. Samenow states: “Criminals are often portrayed as having unusually strong sex drives. However, it is the excitement of making a conquest, not a biological urge that provides the impetus for sexual achieving.” (1984: 102) First, is he talking about juveniles or adults? Second, What type of research concludes “criminals” want to make a sexual conquest as opposed to meeting a biological urge? Do individuals who write bad checks have this strong sex drive? And what is the conquest? This is an extreme statement that even logic will not accept. After spending half the book trying to describe how juveniles make independent decisions unaffected by his environment, Samenow concludes “there are times when a criminal is vulnerable, when his life is not working out as he hopes, and he casts about for an alternative.” (1984:210). It is at this juncture that he proposes how to change a criminal. The criminal must make “a 180-degree alteration in his thinking.” (1984:213). This is not a novel idea. For the next 30 pages the reader learns the true-life story of Leroy and how this new way of thinking about Leroy’s life would change him from his life of crime. It adds personal drama, but little scientific persuasion. Before discussing the last chapter of the book, I would comment that Samenow’s proposed theory looks a lot like that of August Aichorn. The book Wayward Youth was written by August Aichorn in German in 1925. It was later translated into English and by 1974 was in its eighth printing. Aichorn proceeded to define the dissocial child as follows: Every child in its developmental period demands direct parental instinctual satisfaction without regard for the world around him; this behavior is appropriate as a child but as he grows older and is a participant in his community, such behavior is not acceptable; a child properly indoctrinated into its society will come out of this dissocial behavior unless there is a disturbance in the libido organization of the child’s thinking. Latent delinquency is the child’s inability to repudiate his childhood instinctual wishes. These latent aspects of his behavior at some point in the future will manifest themselves on provocation and as such will be the basis of delinquent behavior.” (Aichorn: 1925). To properly treat this delinquent behavior the child must be re-educated. Aichorn argued there are two fundamental points of view as to the process of re-education. The first is that a child’s development is determined by heredity alone and cannot be changed by education. The second viewpoint is that education can achieve any desired end and can overcome even hereditary difficulty. (Aichorn: 1925). Aichorn was concerned with the theory that many children will grow up within a similar environment and only certain children will become a delinquent within that environment. Aichorn states “this demonstrates a predisposition to delinquency” and this predisposition is inherited. Aichorn does argue psychoanalysis has shown that heredity cannot explain everything. The predisposition to delinquency is not a finished product at birth but is determined by the relationship and how the child acts within his environment. This must be recognized when the child is going through the process of re-education. (Aichorn: 1925). Aichorn recognized the primary drawback in the application of this approach. He stated that social environment; peer groups and the delinquent’s interaction with his parents were all variables that could impact the delinquent’s behavior. Psychoanalysis is not capable of controlling for these different variables. It may be able to identify such variables such as past experiences between the delinquent and his parents. The therapist may then reeducate the child, but, when the delinquent returns to his family and neighborhood, the same delinquent behavior may result. (Aichorn: 1925). I bring Aichorn’s book up for several reasons. It recognizes the conflict Samenow’s book demonstrates repeatedly but does not acknowledge or explain – how a person thinks which leads to crime and how criminal thinking interacts with a person’s environment. Second, since 1925 science has recognized the theory of re-education, teaching the criminal acceptable social behavior. Third, Aichorn strongly felt that re-education would be more successful if applied to youth when discovered, and less successful with adult criminals who were more ingrained with bad criminal behavior. In a few short paragraphs Aichorn presents a more advanced theory as to how re-educating a juvenile criminal might be effective. Fourth, it has got to be that at some point Samenow read this same work since it is directed at juveniles. Several last observations are important. After thirteen chapters of leading the reader all over the place, Samenow admits that the study group for this work was 30 hard-core criminals. Out of that group thirteen were living responsible lives in the community. (1984:251). Next, Samenow stated that this type of program would only lead to change in the individual “when the individual makes a choice to participate in a program similar to Yochelson’s, when he is fed up with himself and consents to expose his thinking to criticism and correction. (1984:251). My last observation is another Dr. Samenow statement that is of public concern. Samenow stated that there are only three paths for a criminal to take – crime, change or suicide. (1984:255). Again, there is no empirical evidence offered to support this statement. Making such a powerful statement that is not substantiated serves no scientific purpose but could lead someone to suicide if they feel there is little hope for them to change from a life of crime. A literature review on Dr. Samenow’s work produced three articles that credited both Yochelson and Samenow’s work in areas other than the one being discussed in this paper. There is one book review on a book by Dr. Samenow very similar to the one under discussion. The book was titled Straight Talk About Criminals by Stanton E. Samenow: Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998. The review was conducted by James Tyler Carpenter in Criminal Justice and Behavior; Thousand Oaks; Sept. 1999. Note: I read this review after I wrote this paper. Mr. Carpenter states: “A significant portion of what makes up his message in inconsistent with sound empirical research and clinical good sense.” (1999:363). By failing to inform his readers of established facts, Dr. Samenow simultaneously precludes serious discussion of the questions he makes the center of his book and paves the way for his partisan and unscientific explanatory construction of free choice.” (1999:364). “The fact that experience and personality dynamics provide criminals with convenient excuses for their behavior does not mean that the variables they defensively invoke are not causative.” (1999:365). Mr. Carpenter was much more professional in his evaluation of Dr. Samenow’s work than me. But, the reason I wanted to read this book and give it some thought is because I was asked to help sponsor Dr. Samenow giving a talk to our criminal justice agencies in Northeast Florida. I told them I would need to read the book first before stating my position. Now having read the book, I would answer in the negative in that although his approach in the need to change the criminal’s behavior is appropriate, how he gets there is misleading and not substantiated by valid empirical research. Second, I feel tax dollars are better spent on crime prevention of juvenile and younger offenders. I am not concerned with how they got to where they are; I am only concerned with their future. Everyone has a theory as to how a person becomes a criminal and those theories are not to be discounted. Yet, I argue that by the time a person becomes a criminal the battle may have already been lost. Evaluating adults as to what their juvenile years were like really does little to help us with juveniles who are not criminals unless we are ready to acknowledge the environment’s role in causing this 180-degree turn Dr. Samenow advocates. |
|
|