The Criminal Personality Lecture 3

THE CRIMINAL PERSONALITY – LECTURE 4

Characteristics of the individual • Grasmick & Green (1980) – Moral commitment – Perceived threat of legal punishment – Threat of social disapproval • General Theory of Crime - Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) – Low self-control – Opportunity even more simplistic. Once presented with the opportunity to commit crime, it is self control that decides the outcome (low- acts on impulse) Self control theory People pursue short-term interests without considering long-term consequences • High personal self-control-Prevents deviant behaviour • Low personal self-control-Cannot prevent deviant behaviour • Opportunity-People low in self-control cannot resist temptation

• Rational Choice Theory (Seigel 2005-cost-benefit analysis for behaviour), Eysenck’s (1964-biological processes linked with characteristics of personality) Theory of Personality and Crime (Bartol & Bartol 2005),Trait Theory (Schecter 2003),Psychodynamic Trait Theory (Siegel 2005-no empirical evidence),Social Structure Theory (Siegel 2005-group influence),Social Conflict Theory (Farrington & Chertok, 1993) Trait theory –is there a certain personality type for criminals? But where you measure on those different traits. And then all clustered in same type. How useful is it to label someone? Would it be easier to treat them as individuals?  How we divide up the spectrum of behaviours depends on the available evidence and model of personality employed. The number of themes is determined by these considerations - May be few in number, (e.g. Eysenck’s EPQ model) or May be more numerous ( e.g. Cattell’s 16 PF model)  Which model is deemed most appropriate is context-led -The more unusual (less frequent) the criminal act, the more specific are the governing characteristics likely to be In lesser forms, these characteristics may be found in the general population:-insteances of murder have way more in common than shoplifting. PCL – similarities with politicians, business leaders/entrepeneurs, high-ranking Armed Forces officers (how high- ranking?), etc.

 How to differentiate these different characteristics ? Approaches – philosophical bases: • dispositional (personality or temperament) • economic (cost-benefit analysis) Is it better to distinguish between patterns of thinking, rather than the ‘criminal personality’ per se ? Interaction between person and situation ? Gottfredsson & Hirschi – what do they tell us ? Is it valid ?

Colour circle “radix” (Canter, 2000) Profiling: the derivation of inferences about a criminal from aspects of the crime(s)

that he/she has committed (Canter, 2000) What kinds of people carry out what type of actions? (cf: Forensic risk assessment – Actuarial vs Clinical judgement – see Week 9)

-Consistencies or variations? Patterns or differences between types? -Original work (FBI at Quantico) mainly based on personal opinion and anecdote – no consistent ways of measuring/categorising and then applying to new cases.

-Canter (2000) suggests that current research indicates that key distinctions are those that differentiate, within classes of crime, between offences and between offenders. -Canter (2000) introduced concept of the ‘radex’, based on the interior designer’s ‘colour wheel’. -Characteristics may be considered general in the centre of the radex (shared by most or all criminals). Neighbouring colours and colours which are opposite will complement. Criminals vs criminals may be entirely circumstantial. Analysis between criminal and non-criminal may be entirely circumstantial. On what basis should we divide? Better if we think about a gradual merge- trai approach better than type. Characteristics become more unusual, and therefore context- or crime-specific, towards the edge of the radex The division of these characteristics into themes (such as Eysenck’s three-factor model of personality) determines the number of segments within the circle: • Few segments indicates broad-brush distinctions • Many segments indicates more context-specific distinctions, allowing greater differentiation between individuals 1. SALIENCE of behaviours - Are there important/unusual behavioural features of the crime or crime scene? 2. DISTINGUISHING between offenders -How can we identify/describe differences between crimes and between offenders? 3. INFERRING characteristics -What inferences may be drawn that facilitate offender identification? 4. LINKING offences - Are other crimes likely to have been committed by the same offender?

general-specific 1. Criminal vs Non-criminal acts 2. Classes of crime -e.g. against the person, against property 3. Types of crime -e.g. arson, burglary, murder OR victim as object, vehicle, person 4. Patterns of crime -e.g. location 5. Modus operandi -may be shared between offenders, e.g. ‘copycat’ crimes 6. Signature specific to individual offender In the middle (general)– by chance (got caught or not-ex-underage drinking) –differences between people are indistinguishable –criminal acts, not being a criminal (but they’;re the same) So you can’t use this to identify criminals. -towards edges- classes. etc

Space analysis- mapped- victim as person (relationship between victim and murderer)

-victim as object (actions carried out on victim

-victim as vehicle • But this system focuses on the criminal act itself and its associated characteristics • Where’s the personality in that?

Example with boy - A boy hits another boy? Is it ok? What if teacher says it is permitted? A boy whispers in class. Is it ok? What if teacher says it is permitted? Authority Jurisdiction Protocol -Blair (1999) –rules that there are morality based and social conventions. As young as 3yo, can identify difference.

• Social-conventional transgressions (situational implications) – Violate the arbitrary, but commonly agreed conventions that facilitate a system • Moral transgressions (dispositional implications) – Acts that threaten the rights and welfare of others – Smetana (1985) -Neural path development between prefrontal cortex and limbic system (Blair, 1999) inability to distinguish between moral and social. Prefrontal cortex (consciousness) and limbic system (emotional state) – incomplete path so unable to feel moral emotions: guilt, shame etc. Cause no way to transmit signal. – psychopaths.

Personality Disorder = • The majority of people diagnosed with a personality disorder are not dangerous or violent. • Occasions when violence does occur tend to involve people diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).most often acquired condition – not born unable to feel. – Psychopathy is a concept related to APD. People with a diagnosis of psychopathy may be more likely to be violent. – Childhood trauma may lead to difficulties with emotional regulation, impulsivity and empathy, which may lead to violence or anti-social behaviour and also underlie personality disorder. Psychopathy • The term Psychopathy was originally coined by Cleckley (1941) to describe people who are: – Superficially charming and intelligent but also unable to feel shame or remorse, deceitful, highly manipulative, impulsive and can engage in extreme acts of violence including murder. • Psychopathy is commonly assessed using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) developed by Robert Hare (1991) • The PCL-R measures two major clusters of symptoms: Cluster 1: Emotional detachment and interpersonal traits including incapacity for fear and empathy, superficial charm, shallow emotions and callous attitudes towards others. Cluster 2: Unstable, antisocial and impulsive lifestyle includes behaviours such as being impulsive, having poor self- control, early onset of behavioural problems and a strong need for excitement.

• Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) are related but there are important differences: – Psychopathy describes people who are superficially charming and intelligent but who are also callous, deceitful, unable to feel remorse or empathy for others, impulsive, fearless and lacking in guilt or shame. – The Antisocial Personality designation emphasises observable behaviours such as lying, criminal behaviour and conflicts with authority. • The main distinctions between Psychopathy and ASPD lie in the emotional and interpersonal traits of Cluster 1 which typically define psychopathy. – Cluster 2 traits are more typical of ASPD which emphasises observable behaviours such as chronic lying and repeated criminal behaviour. – Psychopaths also display Cluster 2 traits along with the dominant Cluster 1 traits. – Many extreme psychopaths will also meet the diagnostic criteria for APD but not all people with APD are psychopaths. • Psychopathy is strongly correlated with criminality: – High levels of psychopathy in adolescents is a predictor of risk for violence in early adulthood and later (Gretton, Hare and Catchpole, 2004). – Reviews of the evidence indicate that psychopaths are four times as likely to violently re-offend after release from custody compared with non-psychopath offenders (e.g., Hare et al., 2000, 2003). – Psychopaths who murder are more likely to commit cold-blooded murder for reasons of gain (e.g., premeditated to get money) than non-psychopathic murderers (Woodsworth & Porter, 2002). – Psychopaths minimise the premeditated and instrumental aspects of their crime and portray it as more reactive than indicated by police crime reports. This might reflect attempts to charm and manipulate people (Porter & Woodsworth, 2006). • Traumatic Brain Injury is also associated with criminal behaviour:can destroy the pathway. – Williams, W. H., Mewse, A. J., Tonks, J., Mills, S., Burgess, C. N. W., & Cordan, G. (2010). Traumatic Brain injury in a Prison Population: Prevalence, and Risk for Re- Offending. Brain Injury, 24(10), 1184-8. – Williams, W. H., Cordan, G., Mewse, A. J., Tonks, J., & Burgess, C. N. W. (2011). Traumatic Brain Injury in Young Offenders: A modifiable risk factor for re-offending, poor mental health and violence. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. – Mewse, A. J., Williams, H., Tonks, J., & Mills, S. (in preparation). The relationships between recidivist offending, TBI, PTSD and drug use in a male prison population. J. of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.

The dark triad of personality • Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy Machiavellianism- using other people to achieve own goals Psychopathy- trait on a continuum. We would all score on the PCL-R (ex. In business- ruthless but not violent so we wouldn’t recognize them as psychopaths).Evolutionary advantage in some circumstances (ex: on a sinking ship-psychopaths will push people off boats and survive).

war crimes- follow orders- is that criminal? Yes- but context- killing is the norm -ww2 – jews- disregard of personal responsibility. They can block out emotional responses through socialization, even though not natural-born psychopaths. – Williams, Nathanson and Paulhus (2010). Identifying and Profiling Scholastic Cheaters: Their Personality, Cognitive Ability, and Motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. – Authors report findings from three studies examining a wide range of personality predictors of self-reported cheating in undergraduate students in British Colombia. – All three studies found that significant predictors included the Dark Triad as well as low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. – Only psychopathy remained significant in a multiple regression. PTSD, schizophrenia – there are tendencies that can create criminals but have to recognize that in extreme circumstances, we could all develop those traits (but any withstand the pressure). • Personality disorders are difficult to treat because they involve deeply rooted patterns of thoughts, feelings and ways of relating to others. – Individuals with a personality disorder are often reluctant to seek help and resistant to therapeutic input. – Some therapists are reluctant to work with individuals with a personality disorder because of resistance to change and resistance to the therapeutic process. – Some severe personality disorders (e.g., psychopathy) remain resistant to treatment. • Some of the milder forms of personality disorders including BPD, OCPD, APD and dependent personality disorder are easier to treat than others. – Some symptoms respond better to treatment than others. Human rights- againsts life sentences -are they treatable- psychiatric institution until no longer considered a threat -untreatable- criminal system- prinson- fixed term- then still released- if never cease to be a threat but couldn’t be treated- whole life sentence. Kunlangeta: the man who repeatedly lies and steals, does not go hunting and, when the other men are out of the village, takes sexual advantage of many women Murphy (1976, p.1020) From: Seidmann and Stein (2000) The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege. Harvard Law Review, 114(2), 430-510 somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody was looking • What kind of data would you collect on personality, temperament and crime to further our understanding of this issue?

READING

1. PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES OF OFFENDERS

1.INTELLIGENCE, ATTAINMENT AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING

Intellectual functioning

-early part of century – 1/3 of offenders were feebleminded but test standardization – figure shrank. – only 1% of prison population but methodology -recent studies suggest that higher intelligence is a protective factor against criminal development in those who are at risk for criminality (developmental reasons). Cambridge study – of those who subsequently became delinquent – 39% had IQ of less than 90 at age 8, compared to 22%m while 57% of recidivists were of below average iQ (West, 1982). -Wechsler scale – verbal ability – men –about 2/3 of delinquents have some deficiency in verbal ability (Quay, 1987) -Caplan & Siebert (1964) – 9% of delinquents had iQs higher than 110.

Learning disabilities and educational attainment -school failure leads to negative self-esteem or hostile attitudes to school –association with other “problem” children and hence greater opportunity for delinquent behaviour. Weaker attachment to the societal values represented by the school (Hindelang, 1977). -effects mediated by temperament factors.

Self control and impulsivity –not agreed upon -inadequate control may be manifest both in primary process thinking and unrestrained motor discharge of tension. It may take the form of specific symptoms, such as pyromania, or a generalized impulsive disposition of character disorder. -multifaceted concept. -self report inventories – MMPI. Eyesenck (1980)- male delinquents scored higher than controls Laufer (1981) – drug related offenders were more impulsive than murders. -delay of gratification-> self-imposed delay of reward. (deploy attention- optimal by age of 9 –Mischel, 1989) -preference for immediate reward- low SeS, low achievement needs. –contributes to delinquency -psychomotor impulsitivy - visual maze (Porteus Maze ) –high Q scores in psychopaths, recidivists, -time orientation- “faster internal clock “ , overestimate passage of time.

Attitudes, values, belieft – no established causal relationship -self concept – since the self is generally believed to derive from and mediate social interaction, a deviant self concept may also mediate antisocial behaviour (Wells, 1978). -sometimes- delinquency – self esteem enhancement- delinquenr group enhances self esteem by providing acceptance and approval. -values and beliefs - -neutralisation and attributional processes –denial of responsibility (external factors), denial of the victim (deserves is) , condemnation of the condemners (criminal justice agents), appear to higher loyalties (needs of others). Yochelson and Samenow’s “Criminal Personality” -extensive interviews with 240 male offenders. -characteristics coincide with the DSM criteria for antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic and borderline. And psychopath – but do not define a unique personality type.

2. SOCIOCOGNITIVE AND INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

Role taking, empathy, guilt Role-taking- shift from egocentric perception of the world to a comprehension of the perspective of others. Empathy – involves not only the perspective of others, but also the ability to respond to their feelings -guilt- special case of empathic distress aroused by the causal attribution of responsibility for another’s plight to the self.

Interpersonal problem solving

Social skills Worse -interviewers spoke less when interacting with psychopaths.

3. OFFENDER PROFILING AND CRIMINAL DIFFERENTIATION

=derivation of inferences about a criminal from aspects of the crime(s) he or she has committed. – no basis in empirical research. (not likely to bring up information that is of general interest to investigators). –only 3% profiler helped identify offender. Therefore, more like insurance and reassurance other than investigative tool. -This dimensional approach assumed there were distinct, relatively independent aspects of personality that could be identified.

In order to describe those actions one needs to identify the dominant themes, but not to regard them as independent dimensions or just types.

If all lights of all colours are combined they produce white- this is the centre of the colour circle. As they more away- more specific and more distinctly one colour or another.

-the challenge is to identigy those features that are of most relevance to making inferences about the offender – important to have some knowledge of the base rate of particular cases of crime.

“locus of desired effect” role that offender assigns to victim. Object (something just to be used and controlled through restraint and threat- often alternative gains- theft) , vehicle (for emotional state- anger and frustration- abuse), person .

-Consistency between crimes and non-criminal actions –crime seen as an extreme form of non-criminal activity (Canter, 1999) . -behavioural consistency – similar offending styles. -spatial consistency – themes are consistent – either a commuter or a marauder (Canter, 94).-for the latter, gravitational models can be developed to derive the likely location of the home. Inference- 21- rapists (Davies, 97) - -if they took care not to leave fingerprints, stole from victims, forced entry and had imbibed alcohol- 90% probability prior convictions for burglary.

3. PERSONALITY AND CRIME

Psychoanalytic approach- pleasure principle (id), reality principle (ego). Conflict between ego and superego – not linked to a personality type (Asch, 1974). -difficult to test empirically

Social-cognitive approach -do not always understand the consequences of their actions – act impulsively. -or “rational decision maker” ?

Personality factors and delinquency EPQ- Eyesenck-extraversion(thrill seekers vs no social contact), neuroticism(anxiety), psychoticism + low self esteem, impulsiveness, aggression, hostility.

Evidence-> Furnham, 1991 – found 29 studies which support the idea. And 8 which did not. Supported by study 210 non-delinquent UK adolescents – self-reported delinquency correlated with these traits.

The Big Five -> MMPI – useful to establish subtypes – ex; rape – sociopathic with low impulse control, unstable and hostile, distrustful with poor relationships, severely disturbed.

Recidivism – not being married, prior convictions, admitting to previous offences.

-results explain only a small proportion of variance – but do so reasonably consistently from sample to sample.

DEBATE: THE SEARCH FOR A CRIMINAL PERSONALITY IS OUTDATED