Saturday, December 13, 2014

Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton Samenow

Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton Samenow, seeks to take the reader inside the mind of a criminal, explaining how they do (and do not) think. In it, he overturns many stereotypes that our society holds about criminals.
The book argues that poverty does not cause good, rational people to turn into criminals. There are those who are wealthy that are criminals and there are those who are impoverished that are criminals. Statistics show that, in times of financial distress for the country, crime rates actually tend to go down. As a result, it cannot be argued that criminals are a result of poverty.
The author makes the claim that parents do not turn their children into criminals. Instead, children are born with a type of personality and, while they can be taught to make better choices of how to handle that personality, sometimes they resist all attempts at management by others. It is often thought that criminals result from households that are too strict, abusive, or too lenient. However, the author relates that, in his experience, how children respond to certain situations depends on their choices. Most of the abused do not turn into abusers. While abuse an neglect can harm one's development, if a person is abused and turns into an abuser, it is because that person chose to abuse others. For every criminal who was abused, there is at least one law-abiding citizen that was abused, as well. He cites several examples of parents who reached out to him for help, after they tried everything to rein in their children, to no avail. Often, children with criminal personality will lie to manipulate their families, flat out refuse to accept punishments, and make everyone around them miserable. When questioned about their choices, they will blame everyone but themselves.
In dealing with the stereotype that crime is a result of peer pressure, Sameow points out that those who are honest, law-abiding people tend to avoid hanging out with delinquents and, should they fall in with the wrong crowd, sooner or later extricate themselves from the situation. He points out that many criminals, when questioned, are critical of the habits of law-abiding citizens, and would rather have friends who are criminals than hang out with the right crowd.
Schools and trouble getting a job are not at fault because criminals often reject these things. Students with criminal minds are often disruptive in class, drop out, and/or simply don't apply themselves. Criminals with jobs often don't show up for work, demonstrate hostility towards coworkers, steal from their employers, and behave in other ways that jeopardize their employment.
Samenow then goes into detail about how criminals do think. He claims that criminals blame everyone and everything but themselves for their crimes. They view others as either useful to them or getting in their way. They commit crimes for their own benefit and without empathy for or thought of anyone else.
The author tackles the issue of rehabilitation by claiming that, in order to rehabilitate a criminal, one needs to teach them empathy, guilt, selflessness, and dedication, skills that they did not have in the first place. He cites high recidivism rates and points out that, just because a criminal is not rearrested, does not necessarily mean that he/she has reformed, as it is possible that he/she just got better at getting away with their crimes. He does believe habilitation is possible, but that it requires a complete change in the way a criminal thinks and that current rehabilitation practices do not ensure that this takes place. Instead, he argues that habilitation can be done by criminals becoming responsible in every aspect of their lives, challenging decisions and thinking patterns that they used to have, and having a zero-tolerance policy for slipping up.
This book is well-written, provides several examples, and is written by a man who has studied and worked with criminals. It provides credible assertions and backs them up. However, I feel as if it talks more about a specific type of criminal than all criminals. Certainly his conclusions can be applied to most criminals in developed countries, where the majority of the population is not in constant danger of starvation and homelessness. However, I do believe that there are cases where people are pushed to crime by poverty and circumstance beyond their control. Yes, they do have to make a choice and yes, many face similar situations and choose to follow the law. However, I think that there are millions of people in the world that go hungry and do not have adequate shelter (some even in developed nations). Samenow does state that the average person can be put in situations where they may commit crimes but that they will extricate themselves from the situation as soon as possible. I cannot help but think, though, that this statement makes the assumption that situations always end. What about the people who face hunger and homelessness day in and day out with no foreseeable end? Who live their whole lives without the option to extricate themselves from the situation? I remember reading a case where reporters spent a day interviewing a boy in one third world nation and, upon realizing that they had kept him from his job (rummaging in a trash heap for items that his family could use or sell), they offered to take him shopping. He asked them what shopping was. I don't know many criminals and certainly not many people who live in abject poverty. However, knowing that the drive to survive is the strongest drive humans have, I cannot help but feel that there are many people in these situations who might not want to steal, but who may resort to crime in order to survive. I'd imagine that these people are very different from the criminal described by Samenow and that, while they do make choices, it is not out of a lack of empathy or out of lack of morals, but out of a need to survive. Perhaps if I traveled the world and studied different types of criminals, I'd change my mind. However, as it is, I cannot help but partially disagree with Samenow. As a result, I give this book a four out of five.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.






No comments:

Post a Comment