Articles

CRIMINAL EMOTIONS

Criminal Emotions-Before, During and After the Crime!

The question of ethics as these relate to criminal behavior seems to be a subject ill-suited for this bedfellow. The two concepts, in fact, seem so far removed from one another that to discuss them in the same context seems almost vile.

But to understand the moral dilemma faced by many criminals, we need to have this discussion.

There are many assumptions made, about ethical conduct, and the emotional state of a criminal pre, during and post a criminal act, and without a clear understanding of the facts, we will fall prey to that old adage about assumptions.

Before we get into a discussion on the emotional state of criminals at various stages of the crime, let us deal first with a critical assumption made in criminology.

Rational Choice Theory

Cornish and Clarke designed this method to aid with thinking as this pertains to situational crimes. The utilitarian belief adopted by the Rational Choice Theory assumes man to be reasoning, able to weigh means versus end, cost versus benefit, and ultimately make a rational choice.

The above assumption itself is based on many further assumptions:

• That human beings are rational
• That rationality involves the ability to make calculations regarding means and ends
• That people choose how to behave based on their own rationale
• That the maintenance of law is the responsibility of the state, and
• That the severity and swiftness of punishment meted out by the state aids in understanding the ability of the law to control the behavior of human beings

There are other assumptions, but suffice it to say, the above are indicative of the purported effectiveness of the Rational Choice Theory.

Assuming that human beings are rational, the nature versus nurture debate comes into question. This is because, if man is rational, then the influences of nurture should be moot, and nature’s impact will be limited.

Nature Verses Nurture

The criminal mind can be a complex thing, or a remarkably simple one. A debate on the emotional state of criminals before, during and after the act, cannot be had sufficiently without first noting this fact.

There is much debate amongst psychologists and criminologists about whether criminals are born or made. This poses a two-pronged societal problem, one that is difficult to address by a sane, civilized society when all men are believed to be rational thinkers capable of making rational decisions.

Think of the debate on homosexuality, believed not more than 20-years-ago to be a psychological condition. It was then assumed to be a choice. Only recently has it been accepted that one is born gay, with the ability to choose whether or not to act on it.

There are situations where homosexual behavior is forced, such as in prisons, but that is not to say that the perpetrators of this behavior are homosexual in the black and white sense of the word.

There are, too, certain instances that force one into criminal activity. Sometimes it is a life and death situation, sometimes it is just a curiosity. And sometimes the person just has a strong predisposition to criminal behavior, based on external and sometimes internal physiological conditions.

It is safe to say, therefore, that while homosexuality is biological, criminal behavior is mostly psychological. To discuss these two very different concepts side by side like this is just to show the danger of assumption.

David Matza’s Drift Theory suggests that ‘people drift in and out of delinquent behavior, from a neutral premise’. From this assumption, let us now discuss the emotions of the criminal at various stages of the crime!

Before The Act

Premeditation is a critical factor in a courtroom. This is because it speaks to the emotional state of the offender. When rational thought processes have gone into a crime, the criminal could be calm and calculating, excited and exhilarated.

In a random act, when ‘temporary insanity’ is offered up as a defense, then feelings range from bitterness and anger, to jealousy and even apathy. The ambit of emotions that one can experience before a crime is wide, and as a result, it is the most important consideration in a court of law; the mental and emotional state of the offender before they committed the crime.

During The Act

Emotion during the crime depends largely on the presence or absence of intention. Where a crime was carefully planned, constructed in the criminal mind before its execution, the criminal could experience a range of emotions.

They could feel a thrill that they actually are able to carry out the act. They might feel a sense of control that is otherwise absent in their regular, real world existence. Regret during a crime, especially a violent crime, is not uncommon. The perpetrator blames the victim for ‘making them do it,’ and meets out added often unnecessary violence on the victim.

Post Act

Guilt is an expected emotion after you have committed a crime. But, incidentally, it is not always the first emotion to come up. Before they feel guilty, some people feel shame. ‘Guilty’ verdicts in courts of law should be interchangeable with ‘Shameful’ verdicts.

Depending on the nature of the criminal, in the aftermath of a crime they could feel a rush, a thrill, spurring them on to other crimes. If we are to believe Matza’s theory, then, the period in which a person is in a neutral state is very brief.

In Short

It is difficult, unless expressly told so by the offender and a series of professionals, to accurately ascertain mental and emotional states, especially before the commission of a crime. Evidence comes into play then, and crime scene analyses. These inform the many questions that investigators have following a crime.

Studies have been carried out to determine the triggers that have led to some of the most horrific crimes, and some of the most well-thought-out white-collar offences. But all these have shown is that a person is either prompted by external circumstances or internal curiosities, and a million other reasons.

Criminal emotions will, therefore, be a topic that holds interest for some time to come!

References

David Matza, Delinquency and Drift (1964)

Cornish, Derek & Clarke, The Reasoning Criminal (1986)

Becker, Gary, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach (1968)

© 2019 LPS Training Services All Rights Reserved.