Teddy Talk

“Book review:  Inside the Criminal Mind

By: Stanton Samenow, Ph.D.”

By:  Ken O’Donnell

 

In early 2003, Skip Gochenour gave lectures on studies into the behavior of Violent Criminal Actors (VCA).  I point you to his lecture outline notes, and begin this review with them: 

 

Little Big Horn Fight

For thirty years after the fights the books written assumed there were no eye witnesses to the battle.  What was known of the battle was the result of scene reconstruction by those sent to do the investigation of the destruction of Custer’s Command.  Eventually, there were a few books written that were the product of interviews with the Indians who were there.  Prejudice of the times discounted the views of the Indians of what happened and how.

 

Indians were regarded as killers with no useful input.  Dehumanizing terms were used to describe Indians.  They were “savages”.  Today, VCA are regarded in the same fashion - savage killers.  They are dehumanized by terms used to describe them: evil; other than human; and various other less descriptive, though vile names.

 

Their value as contributors of information about the sequence of events that lead to the killing of people is derided and disregarded.  Some of this view is the product of the behavioral science approach to their actions that came out of the 60’s approach to crime prevention that saw criminals as “victims” of society.  That approach attributed their conduct to their inability to participate in society.  It made excuses for them and postulated they were compelled by outside forces to engage in their acts.  It was an approach that substantially rejected the role of individual responsibility and personal decision making.

 

Much of what is known of killing incidents today comes from the reconstruction of crime scenes.  This approach is valid and revealing.  Still, there is value to getting the input from killers to flesh out what happened, why and if there were circumstances that would have caused them to form “restraining judgments” before engaging in the attack.  It also helps the Practitioner understand when to use the various techniques and tactics they learn in our serious study.

 

 

If we take what killers tell us about their motives and strategy, we can learn to more effectively address them when they bring violence our way.

 

-          Skip Gochenour

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2005/03_StudyDay.htm

 

 

Dr. Samenow began work in 1968 as a clinical psychologist, believing along with much of his peers that criminals were victims of their circumstances and station in life.  In 1970 he took a position at Washington D.C.’s Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital under Dr. Samuel Yochelson.  It was there that his view of the criminal mind was challenged, and those observations became the subject of this book.

 

Far from a stodgy, academic book, Inside the Criminal Mind talks to the average reader, in terms he understands, of a worldview he can barely grasp. The motivations, mindset, and moral code of the criminal are revealed to us.  Learning the thought processes of the criminal element in our society can help guide us when one interjects himself into our life.

 

The work of Yochelson and Samenow challenged the prevalent notions, rejected them, and offered their own interpretations.  Chiefly: Criminals choose to commit crimes.  They also experienced success working with criminals to change their lives by confronting the VCA directly with his choices.  They did not allow the criminals they rehabilitated to obfuscate, dismiss, or deflect their personal responsibility for their choices.

 

The relevant chapters in this book begin by detailing for us the development of the criminal from childhood.  As early as 4 years of age, similar patterns of behavior were commonly identified throughout the patient studies they conducted.  From childhood to adolescence, remarkably consistent social interactions and thought processes were identified: 

  • Lying was used, not to conceal embarrassment, but as a weapon.

  • They believed themselves smarter, more cunning, and better than their peers who “followed the system”.

  • They first learned to manipulate those who trusted them and loved them.

  • Later all people, including the other delinquents they formed friendships with, were seen as pawns.  They also manipulated others within their own social structure as an exercise in control.

  • They learned around the age of 10 how to be charming, as overt deviousness served to only get them caught, or bring unwanted attention.

  • They chose to associate themselves with older children and teenagers seen as “daring, risk-takers” rather than those their own age.

  • Some are attracted to competition, determined to outshine everyone else.  They take any loss or failure as a self-image crisis.  “They are impossibly arrogant winners or else revenge seeking losers.”

  • As a youth, he must convey an image of himself to others as unflappable and invincible.

 

Again, these behaviors are all learned at a young age, and perfected by the time his peers are in their final years of high school.

 

Dr. Samenow suggests the criminal is often fascinated by the Police.  Even at a young age they respect the Officer, and are awed by his power and influence over others.  This often continues into adulthood.  The contempt for the Officer and the law only goes so far as when they pose an immediate threat to him.  They understand society’s rules, and even expect obedience to them of “society”.  A criminal who makes his living mugging old ladies sees it as “just something I do to get by in life.”  At the same time, he would viciously attack a mugger who stole his mother’s purse.  Society’s laws must be obeyed by all but him.

 

Criminals refuse to recognize themselves as “bad men”.  They may be thieves, rapists, or murderers, but they refuse to define themselves by their acts.  He simply decides that, at any particular time, he can make exceptions for himself to commit criminal acts because it suits him at that time.  The rest of his life he sees himself as basically a good person, and compartmentalizes his criminal acts. 

 

“Although the criminal may not accept what others consider moral standards, he claims to have his own set of morals.  Other people are liars, perverts, scoundrels, and criminals, not he . . . even in prison an inmate is not likely to see himself as a ‘real criminal’.  It is the other inmates whom he views as the ‘real ones’.  He looks down on them as depraved because they do things that he would not.  Specific crimes are wrong and thus off limits for him simply because he personally finds them offensive.”                                             

                                                                             Page 161

 

     The criminal will even blame his victims.  Embezzlers will blame company officers for being foolish with their money.  Thieves and muggers will suggest their victims “should have known better to walk through my neighborhood.”  Rapists will blame a woman for wearing an outfit so salacious, even suggesting “she begged for me to take her”.  Murderers will proclaim, “He should have known better than to do such and such.  What the hell did he think I was going to do when he did that?  Ignore it?”

 

    

     So, what does this book have to offer us as Practitioners?  Why should we concern ourselves with becoming acquainted with the thought processes of “The Criminal Mind?”  Because the knowledge of how criminals operate will help us to avoid becoming a victim.  An early recognition of their behavior might help us deescalate a violent interaction when we see it unfolding. 

 

     The way criminals think are entirely foreign to the life experiences of most decent men.  We have generally no experience setting up a con; or putting together a street robbery; or any of the other many types of violence we can find ourselves presented.  When we simply “write them off as savages” we loose opportunities we never see, and are too slow to recognize the fight.