ECE English 1011 – Writing Through Literature

Research Paper #1
What Psychological
Factors Could Justify A
Criminal’s Behavior?
November 5, 2018

Michael Smith
Instructor: Mrs. Rivera
 Why do criminals act commit the crimes that they commit? What psychological

factors contribute to their criminal actions and could possibly justify those actions?

Criminology is the study of criminal behavior and there are multiple psychological

factors that are considered within criminological theories: free will, determinism, states

of mind, and demonology (“Why Do People Commit Crime?”). Each one of these

factors have one thing in common – they question how much control a criminal has over

their actions when committing a said crime. If a criminal did not have mental control

over the actions in which he is being charged for, then it is possible for the actions of

that criminal to be justified, deemed reasonable given one’s mental state.

Charles Manson was a cult leader who was responsible for seven counts of first

degree murder. However, he did not actually commit a single murder. Instead, he

started a “family” – The Manson Family. He brainwashed all of the members into

believing his believes, or views, on the world and that he was their ultimate leader. It

was these family members who committed those murders. On his trial day, Manson

stood by his believes and stated that he did nothing wrong. He was quoted saying that

“today is going to be a good day.”

You get up in the morning and go have a cup of coffee because you want to, not

because you are forced or because nature makes you. You listen to the country station

on the radio because you want to, not because you are forced or because nature makes

you. These are basic examples of free will, one’s ability to do what he or she pleases.

Our society, criminal justice system, and modern day criminology studies are based off

of the idea that man has free will. Culpability, responsibility for wrong, is based off of the
ideology that the criminal in question was willing to commit the crime(s) that he or she

has committed (Schafer 482). Thus, the bigger the crime, the more responsibility the

criminal bears – typically meaning a larger fine or sentence.

Everybody’s free will comes with an understanding of right and wrong, which

develops based on what we see and learn growing up (Jeffery 10). Criminals such as

Charles Manson did not have many positive influences growing up – he saw his mother

commit crimes and was sexually assaulted in school. Such experiences contributed to a

crocked sense of right and wrong. Later in life, it is very possible that he acted based on

his understanding of right and wrong. His baseline for his actions was different than

most, but he had a baseline.

Determinism, the opposite of free will, is the theory that all events, including

human action, are predetermined by factors not including will. The Greek philosopher,

Zeno, once caught one of his slaves steeling from him. His original intention was to whip

him. He then changed his mind believing that it was unjust to whip him since it was his

fate to steel. The slave grew up in a culture that was full and theft and deception,

therefore giving him the future of committing theft himself. He did not have the option to

not steal (Andenaes 406).

Unlike free will and the observation of other human actions, determinism states

that we develop based off of nature – settings and culture. When a person develops

their understanding of the world, he or she does not have an option in the way he or she

will act when presented with certain circumstances (Jeffery 10). Charles Manson, for

example, grew up in a culture that was different than most. The constant change of

environment resulted in many shifts in culture throughout his childhood, not all of them
positive. While this baseline, if the sole depended ant of Manson’s actions, is different

than the baseline of free will, he still had a baseline and acted accordingly to his

understanding of the world around him.

Most people think of state of mind as one’s current mental capacity, or mood, at

the present moment. However, when criminals step into a specific frame of mind, it is as

if they are entering a whole new mind, sometimes even a whole new world. When a

children has a tantrum, he or she takes a step away from reality and walks into a

temporary state of madness where he or she will scream, yell, and attack others not out

of anger, but fear and concern. The right way to let the child fully deal with the tantrum

is to just sit tight and let themselves work through it, which provides them an outlet to

get rid of the aggression they are holding in. This represents the mental state of a

criminal when he or she commits a crime of passion (Schmideberg 471).

A boyfriend and girlfriend are hanging out. The boyfriend, who is showing off his

new gun, accidentally shoots the girlfriend. Multiple feelings take over the boyfriend’s

mind at once and he takes that step into a new mind. He is overwhelmed with guilt, fear,

concern, and impulse. He is unable to process and understand what has just happened

and has no control over what happens next – he shoots her again. It is not that the

boyfriend did not love the girlfriend or wanted her dead, it is that the sudden race of

emotions took control of him and acted for him.

A similar “shift of mind” happens for those criminals who commit crimes of guilt.

They get so engulfed in their guilt and concern that they forget about the world around

them. Melitta Schmideberg, a psychologist, once treated a girl who has an issue with

theft. She lacked any feeling and emotion and she did not seem to realize any
wrongdoing that she had done. Schmideberg explains that the idea of theft and guilt had

consumed her. In order to forget the feelings of guilt, she continually stole and lied

about it. This was the only way that she could feel better. The girl was also neglected by

her parents and was not well taken care of, also leading to a feeling of guilt that was

temporarily dissolved after committing theft (Schmideberg 464). The extent of her “stay

in another mind” resulted in her forgetting about certain body parts to the point where

she did not understand the purpose of using the restroom. Her sense of reality was

completely nonexistent as she was in her own world. Criminals who commit crimes of

guilt will likely never understand what or why they did what they did.

Before the development of modern criminology, there was another theory that

explained why criminals committed the acts they committed. That theory was

Demonology. People believed that people engaged in crime because they were evil –

that evil personality being produced by supernatural forces. They believed these forces

would either possess the body or lure people into actions that created temptations to

commit certain crimes. While this started to change in the 1700s when criminology

began to develop, many people, especially those with religious believes, chose to

believe that this could be a factor for some criminals – particularly the monstrous (Lin

29).

The boyfriend discussed earlier could never be excused of the crime that he

committed. However, could his actions be justified? That girl who constantly committed

theft and lied about it could also never be excused. But could her actions also be

justified? Both were in states of mind that did not allow them to think clearly about what

they were doing. They probably never understood what they did, even after they were
arrested and charged. Given Charles Manson’s understanding of right and wrong and

his interpretation of free will, could his actions to be justified? He believed that what he

was doing was right and that the believes he “taught” his family members was the true

way to live. He acted based on his morals. There is no certain answer to any of these

questions. Those who study criminology do their best to evaluate all of the different

psychological factors involved and try to understand what is happening. But, it is a lot

harder than it looks.

 Works Cited

Andenaes, Jos. “Determinism and Criminal Law.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 47, no. 4,

1957, pp. 406–413.

Jeffery, Clarence Ray. “The Historical Development of Criminal Law.” Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, vol. 50, no. 1, 1959, pp. 3–19.

Lin, Jonathan. “The Historical Development of Criminological Thought and Theory as a Series of

Successive Periods.” McGill University, Jonathan Lin, 2012, pp. 28–31.

Schafer, Stephen. “Problem of Free Will in Criminology.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol.

67, no. 4, 1977, pp. 481–485.

Schmideberg, Melitta. “Psychological Factors Underlying Criminal Behavior.” Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, vol. 37, no. 6, 1947, pp. 458–475.

“Why Do People Commit Crime? | LSUA Online.” Louisiana State University of Alexandria Online, LSU of

Alexandria, 12 Jan. 2016, online.lsua.edu/articles/criminal-justice/why-do-people-commit

crime.aspx.