Criminal Behavior
Lorenzo Reid
Virginia College Online

Abstract
The following paper will address the different areas of the Psychological and Psychiatric Foundations of Criminal Behavior. Within this paper, every aspect from theories to what the law states when it comes to this state will be addressed.

Criminal Behavior
Doctor Leon Eisenberg once stated, "...persons who are seriously mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violence than its initiators." (Campbell) Yet how true is that? When it comes to mental illness, there have been several violent crimes that have been committed, and been blamed on mental illness. There are several shows for entertainment such as the show “Criminal Minds”, that attempts to bring a reality and understanding to mental illness and criminal behavior. This show gives a reality to the fact that people can be simply mentally ill and not simply criminals. In early society times, people simply did not take mental illness into account. It was thought that people, regardless of their mental state, should be accountable for their actions. Yet, in today’s society, this is not the case. Due to research and a better developed country, citizens are given an opportunity to show that their mental state was not steady when they committed a crime. So, what is it then, which motivated a person to kill or maim another? How can a person kill someone else, or a numerous amount of people, with no remorse? These questions and several others are ones that through time psychologists have attempted to answer within the ideas of behaviorism. Yet, how does this affect the legal system? How has this affected the legal system? It is as simple as Psychology. The following paper will address the different areas of the Psychological and Psychiatric Foundations of Criminal Behavior. Within this paper, every aspect from theories to what the law states when it comes to this state will be addressed. Before addressing the different foundations, it must be addressed how it was discovered and or created what the type individuals that fall within this section of mentality actually are classified as. The psychological and criminology word Psychopath must be addressed. First and foremost, what is a Psychopath? For several years, this one word has been so complex, that its meaning has been reevaluated several times. This is one word is thought to have such a wide array of meanings that many psychologists despise addressing or defining it. Psychopath has been explained to be a word that, no matter how high the education simply is too complex to define in a simple fashion. Simply put, several of these intelligent individuals have found the true meaning of this type of personality “disorder to be one of the difficulties of all existence”. (Hare, 1970) It has been stated that “the psychopath is one of the greatest captivating and upsetting difficulties of humanoid occurrence”. (Hare) To define this sickness in the best way possible, psychologists have found it easier to simply provide the characteristics of this disease, rather than attempting to define it. There are several characteristics to a true psychopath. They include put are not limited to such aspects as, a person with psychopathic tendencies is not a person that is known to commit. Their standard of living is one that is very predacious. They feel minute or no remorse, and little or no guilt. (It should be remembered that this is only the fact until they are caught. Once they are caught, sympathy is then felt.) They crave correlations, but see populaces as hindrances to overwhelmed and be exterminated. If not, they see persons in conditions of how they can be exploited. They use people for motivation, to build their self-esteem and they always value people in terms of their physical value. The scariest characteristic that a psychopath possesses is the fact that they are extremely intelligent. (Hare, 1991) This final character trait is the one that makes the psychopath extremely dangerous. There, the psychopath’s intelligence is what makes it easy for them to fool or trick their victims. This is, again, what makes them threatening.
There is another characteristic that the psychopath is said to have that could possibly make them beyond threatening. It has been researched that most psychopaths, about 80-85 percent to be exact, are known to have a specific disorder. A disorder that alone, is scary. This disorder is known as the Antisocial Personality Disorder. The Antisocial Personality Disorder is defined as an “ailment described by continual disdain for, and infringement of, the privileges of others that starts in childhood or early youth and persists into maturity”. (Psych Central Staff) There are several characteristics of this ailment. Dishonesty and falsification are dominant characteristics of this ailment. It is not easy to diagnosis this disorder. There are several factors that must be recognized before a person can have the proper diagnosis of this disorder. First and foremost, the person must be at least eighteen years of age. The other factor is that there must have had some indications of Behavior Condition before age fifteen. This disorder is only diagnosed when these actions become continuing and very immobilizing or upsetting. (Alterman, 1991) As with all mental disorders, this disorder can be both easy and hard to diagnosis.
There are several approaches that are also important to the analysis of criminal behavior. The first is the concept known as Psychiatric Criminology. What is Psychiatric Criminology? Psychiatric criminology is also known as forensic psychiatry. What this concept does is simple. It combines a multilayered set of forces and motivations which function from hidden adjournments innate within the personality to establish conduct. (Schmalleger) Psychiatric Criminology is said to be dominated by psychodynamic tradition. It explains criminal behavior in a way different than the other approaches. It explains this type of behavior in motives and drives. People whose behaviors do not adapt to the standards consented by a civilization are known to perpetrate many severe offenses. (Schmalleger)
The second concept that is used by psychologists to explain criminal behavior is known as Psychological Criminology. This concept is known to be the discipline of conduct and the thinking processes of a criminal. With this explanation, it is thought that both the environmental and personality influences should be considered. This approach also incorporates biology and heredity within its method. (Wortley, 2011)
Within each of these approaches there are specific theories that hold them together. The first is entitled the Frustration-Aggression Theory. Schmallger put it best in stating “Frustration, which can lead to aggression, is a consequence of living and a root cause of crime. Aggressive behavior is a response to frustration”. (Schmalleger) This theory explains the method of displacement. Displacement is when a person targets their frustration on someone who is not the direct source of the irritation. (Miller, 1939) A person’s family history or the way they were raised can explain such frustration. This theory states that such frustration is deep rooted. No one is born with aggression. A child is innocent until they are exposed to such behavior. Aggression is learned not breed. One of the best examples of the Frustration-Aggression theory is an employee continually being chastised by their superior. The frustration of continually being assessed by the superior fosters up in the person until one day they blowup orally and with physical force towards their boss. The blow up itself is from the employee holding in all of their emotions for a long period of time. The frustration will have built up to the form of aggression. (Miller) A criminal example of this theory is the infamous Ted Bundy. His behavior fits the frustration-aggression theory due to the fact that he never suitably dealt with the problems that came to him in his earlier years. His frustration built up to that of aggression. (Miller)
The next theory is the Modeling Theory. This theory can be explained in the three steps. They are one observes a model, the individual imitates the model's actions and they receive a consequence. (Cole & Cole, 1993) Individuals who have intimate contact with each other tend to model each other, such as siblings. This is normal when there are younger siblings that want to be like their older siblings. Newer fashions of crime mimic older crimes. This theory is one that has come to light a whole lot in recent years. The creation of the video game and the violence that children and young adults are exposed to has been proven to be an issue and led to violent activities. In many cases, while the children are playing such video games, the parents are really not paying much attention to what they are playing. The child plays these types of games over and over again. In many cases, everyday, which then leads to aggressive behavior. The aggression is put into the intellect of the child over continuous due to the child’s constant playing of this said game. After playing the game numerous times, the child then takes a gun to school and shots several students. This example shows the modeling theory in that the child models the violence he or she has seen in the game by getting their parent's gun and performing the actions that he or she saw within the video game. (Cole & Cole) Criminal examples of this theory are Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. These children are the two individuals that were responsible for the infamous Columbine High School shooting that took place in the year 1999. There was no definite reasons as to what actually initiated these two teenagers to perform this massive homicide, but it has been found that they were huge video game fanatics and the aggressive composition and the video games combines could have certainly influenced their violent actions.( see case table)
The third theory is the Behavior Theory. This theory states that behaviors that are recompensed will persist while actions that are chastised will reduce. It is thought that within this theory the possibility of rewards and punishments may be responsible for desirable and undesirable behavior. (Eysenck, Boston) A former Harvard professor is thought to be the individual that can be thanked for the creation or formation of this theory. The basis of the normal Criminal Justice system is the Behavior Theory. The fact that behaviors performed by an individual that is rewarded will frequently increase; while the behaviors that are punished will decrease is the main conception of this behavior. This theory is sometimes known as the stimulus response approach. This is when it is addressed when it comes to human behavior. Important aspects to this theory are the conditionings that are classical and operant. There is considerable amount of things said within this theory when it comes to the criminal offender and their reformation when it comes to the obligation of punishment. When this theory is considered the thought of what operant behavior is must also be considered. What operant behavior signifies is the fact that there are choices that an individual makes when it comes to their behavior and with those choices, how the person uses them to create consequences for other people. This theory can be broken down into three types of reasoning or approaches. As stated above, the behavior theory is sometimes known as the stimulus response approach. The thoughts of the stimulus response approach, is very similar to the thoughts addressed above when the behavior theory was first addressed. It is said that this with this approach, the fact of when the actions or behaviors have the results in rewards, the behavior will become more frequent. When the behavior or actions result in chastisement the rate of recurrence of the behavior is thought to decrease. The second approach that this theory takes is with the actions of rewards. With it theory it is thought that rewards will increase the appropriate types of behavior. Positive behaviors are said to add something that is more desirable that negative behaviors. The third approach that this theory the fact that unwanted behaviors can be decreased by punishment. Having positive punishments adds something undesirable and having negative punishments remove something desirable. It is a win, win situation. (Eysenck, Boston)
The final theory is the Self-Control Theory. This theory is sometimes known as the General Theory of Crime. The control theorist Travis Hirschi can be created for the creation of this theory. This theory is known to be more of a sociological theory. A more refined approach was taken in the year 1990, when Hirschi teamed up with Michael R. Gottfredson to write “A General Theory of Crime”. With this theory it is said that other theories do not pay the right amount of attention to the facts that revolve around the actual nature of the crime. It states that if they did, they would realize that crimes are not committed to be delinquent, but to simply pursue pleasure and avoids pain. (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1994) This theory, even reinvented and reassessed, is a classical theory. It should be remembered that the concepts of the classical theory and the concept of self-control are extremely comparable. (Hirschi & Gottfredson)
Now that the approaches to criminal behavior have all been addressed, the different perspectives of a psychopath must now be assessed. With this, criminal behavior is seen as a maladaptation. There are two well-known perspectives which are noted when it comes to criminal behavior. The first is the Psychoanalytic Perspective. Sigmund Freud is the founder of this approach. This approach's main focus is one of the unconscious minds. It suggests that there is a full structure when it comes to the mind. This structure includes the id, the superego and the ego. It states within this perspective that each of these struggle with one another for control of the energy of the psyche. Basic pleasure-seeking instincts satisfied is what the id attempts to have. Preventing the Id from expressing itself inappropriately is what the ego works to do. This step is taken a little bit further with the super ego. This is done by making an effort to implement societal, religious and/or parental values about right and wrong. The super ego is very similar to the conscience. This perspective is sometimes criticized due to it not having the ability to be fully studied scientifically. But, when having the ability to understand personality, and in this case, criminal behavior, has psychoanalysis to thank. (Masling & Bornstein, 1996)
The second perspective is the Psychotic Offender. What is a Psychotic offender? The psychotic offender is said to be an aggressive, high impulsive, asocial individual, who feels little to no guilt. They have several like characteristics of a psychopath. When observing the psychotic offender there are several disorders that must be addressed when it comes to this type of offender. The first is Psychosis. Psychosis is “a form of mental illness in which sufferers are said to be out of touch with reality”. (Schmalleger) The person may be impaired from deliriums, illusions, or other breaks with reality. The second is Schizophrenics. Schizophrenics are “a mentally ill individual who is out of touch with reality and who suffers from disjointed thinking”. (Schmalleger) The third and final is Paranoid schizophrenic. Paranoid schizophrenic is” a schizophrenic individual who suffers from delusions and hallucinations”. (Schmalleger) So, knowing that there are offenders that suffer from such dramatic disorders, what does this mean to the legal system? People that are considered a psychotic offender cannot simply be sent to prison around other offenders. They are very dangerous. These types of offender are sent to special mental intuitions to serve out their sentence.
Due to the above factor, there have been several occasions where a criminal has simply attempted to use the plea of insanity to attempt to receive a lesser sentence, in a better location. When this was conceived by the justice department, rules were put into place for the sake of insanity. A sane person cannot simply claim to be insane and be given the sentence given by a person that is truthfully insane.
As stated above, there are rules that have been put into place to diagnosis true insanity. Specifically there are seven of these rules in place by the criminal justice system, to provide the courts with proper diagnosis when this is the plea. The first is the M’Naugten Rule. The M’Naugten Rule states that a person is not legally insane unless they are unable to realize their ambiances due to a compelling mental figment of the imagination. (Elliott, 1996) A criminal case where this rule was put into place was the case of R v Sullivan. (See case section) The second is the Irresistible-Impulse Rule. This rule states that the defendant is not criminally responsible for their actions due to the fact that they were not in control of their actions at the time of the crime. (A.H.Garrison, 1998) A famous criminal case that attempted to use this plea was the case of Lorania Bobbitt. (See case section) The third is the Durham rule. The Durham rule states that an accused person cannot not be criminally responsible for his or her actions if these unlawful actions were the profit of either mental disease or defect. (Schmalleger, 2001) Due to the fact that alcoholics and drug addicts used this defense to defeat a variety of crimes, the federal courts have now rejected this form of defense. (See case section) The fourth is Substantial capacity test. It defines insanity as simply not having the true ability to control one’s behavior. The fifth is the Brawner Rule. This rule is more for the state of temporary insanity. (See case section) The sixth is the Guilty but Mentally Ill. With this rule, the person is guilty as charged for whatever crime they have been accused of. Yet, after tests, it has been discovered that they are in fact mentally ill. With this, the person is confined to a mental institution, but not released once they have been cured. They are in most cases, given a sentence that is double the amount if they were given a sentence to prison. (D.Melville & Naimark, December).
Behavior is the way that a person acts. Most people are in control of their own behavior. There are times though, when some people are not. This is the main argument when it comes to Criminal Behavior. There are several theories in place that state a criminal mind is different from a normal mind. Yet, most people are not born criminals. Criminal behavior is learned. Anyone can become a serial killer. There are several aspects of criminal behavior. The above addressed several aspects of this type of behavior.

References
A.H.Garrison. (1998). The history of the M’Naghten insanity defense and the use of posttraumatic stress disorder as a basis of insanity. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16, 39-88.
Alterman, A. (1991). The antisocial personality disorder diagnosis in substance abusers: Problems and issues. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179(7), 401-409.
Campbell, E. The Psychopath and the Definition of 'Mental Disease or Defect' Under the Model Penal Code Test of Insanity: A Question of Psychology or a Question of Law. Nebraska Law Review, 69.
Cole, M., & Cole, S.R. (1993). The development of children. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
D.Melville, J., & Naimark, D. (December). Punishing the Insane: The Verdict of Guilty but Mentally Ill. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 30, 553-555.
Elliott, C. (1996). The rules of insanity: Moral responsibility and the mentally ill offender. SUNY Press.
Eysenck, H.J. (Boston). Crime and Personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hare, R. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and Research.
Hare, R. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1994). The generality of deviance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Masling, J. M., & Bornstein, R. F. (1996). Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Developmental Psychology.
Miller, B. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Psych Central Staff. (n.d.). Antisocial Personality Disorder. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx7.htm
Schmalleger, F. (n.d.). Criminology Today. Prentice Hall.
Schmalleger, F. (2001). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. Prentice Hall.
Wortley, R. (2011). Psychological Criminology: An Integrative Approach. Taylor & Francis.

Case Section
Durham v. United States- http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/214/862/314341/
United States versus Brawner- http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-lafave/mental-disease-and-defect/united-states-v-brawner-2/
John Bobbit versus Lorena Bobbit- alyankovich (2008). Lorena bobbit trial day one. Retrieved from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XnuPOk144c
R versus Sullivan- http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Sullivan.php
Columbine Massacre- http://acolumbinesite.com/report.html
Ted Bundy- http://tedbundy.150m.com/main.html