Evil - Is it born or learned?

[grneyes]

Many of us consider killers, rapist, and torturers evil. (Ramirez, Dahmer, Bernardo, etc...)

Do you think they learn this behavior or is it born into them? If it's born into them do you think it can be hereditary? Are there signs at an early age? (Like Dahmer's enjoyment of killing pets.)

What are your thoughts?

[CindyB]

Interesting topic!!

I think it can be any of the above, except hereditary! I do believe that some people are simply born with an evil side, and that usually there are signs at an early age.
I also believe that some learn the behavior.

I wish I'd have ran across this post earlier, cuz I'd love to elaborate a little more. But I'm soooo sleepy tonight.

I'm hoping for some interesting replys and continueing discussion on this topic.

[Drumbum]

Tough call. Environment is a big influence,but I believe that it's possible to be born that way.

[grneyes]

Originally Posted by CindyB

Interesting topic!!

I think it can be any of the above, except hereditary! I do believe that some people are simply born with an evil side, and that usually there are signs at an early age.
I also believe that some learn the behavior.

I wish I'd have ran across this post earlier, cuz I'd love to elaborate a little more. But I'm soooo sleepy tonight.

I'm hoping for some interesting replys and continueing discussion on this topic.

I also believe that it can be learned behavior or born into them. Sometime you can look at someone and just feel the hatred (evil) emanate from them. Manson is a good example of this as is Ramirez. It's especially chilling to get that feeling from a young child.

For the ones that seem to be born that way, I can't help but think there is a possibility that whatever gene makes a person like that can or could be passed on assuming it is a gene that causes it. Traits are passed on all the time by the gene pool so it just seems it (evil) might be also.

jmo

[SaraSidle]

Originally Posted by grneyes

I also believe that it can be learned behavior or born into them. Sometime you can look at someone and just feel the hatred (evil) emanate from them. Manson is a good example of this as is Ramirez. It's especially chilling to get that feeling from a young child.

For the ones that seem to be born that way, I can't help but think there is a possibility that whatever gene makes a person like that can or could be passed on assuming it is a gene that causes it. Traits are passed on all the time by the gene pool so it just seems it (evil) might be also.

jmo

I honestly think it can be both!!!!!!!!!!!! You gave some good examples.

[The R]

I agree this is an interesting topic and I agree it 'could' be both or maybe something else? A combination of both?

I do think that the VAST majority of deviant behavior is learned or environmental as opposed to biological from birth.

Has anyone done any research? I'm currently reading a book Ghosts From the Nursery which so far is pretty interesting.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Originally Posted by CindyB

Interesting topic!!

I think it can be any of the above, except hereditary! I do believe that some people are simply born with an evil side, and that usually there are signs at an early age.
I also believe that some learn the behavior.

I wish I'd have ran across this post earlier, cuz I'd love to elaborate a little more. But I'm soooo sleepy tonight.

I'm hoping for some interesting replys and continueing discussion on this topic.

Hi Cindy B!

I'm perplexed by your statement that some are born that way but that it's not hereditary? Can you explain?

Thanks!
R

[grneyes]

I haven't done any research on it. It was just something I've personally been curious about because of a few people I've known in real life over the years and because of information I've read on killers, rapist and such. Especially the serial ones.

Considering that many of them came from nice families, were well taken care of, not abused, and then they still do these things, it can't be learned behavior.

Or you may have a child that maybe never even met one of it's parents who might be a deviant type of person, and then you see traits of that come out in the child as they age. This obviously would not be learned either so if the parent had been this way is it not possible it was inherited by the child?

I hope that made sense as it's been a busy morning and I am sort of brain dead at the moment. *lol*

[lynn]

I think you are born Evil and its how you are brought up, environment, schooling and role models you encounter along the way which determines whether you act on the feelings, If a parent couldn't care less then you would tend not to either, or then maybe you may want to be different and not go down that road. It is all about Choice. I work with children and you see a child and think to your self "I am going to see him/her on a wanted poster in a few years"

[The R]

Originally Posted by grneyes

I haven't done any research on it. It was just something I've personally been curious about because of a few people I've known in real life over the years and because of information I've read on killers, rapist and such. Especially the serial ones.

Considering that many of them came from nice families, were well taken care of, not abused, and then they still do these things, it can't be learned behavior.
Or you may have a child that maybe never even met one of it's parents who might be a deviant type of person, and then you see traits of that come out in the child as they age. This obviously would not be learned either so if the parent had been this way is it not possible it was inherited by the child?

I hope that made sense as it's been a busy morning and I am sort of brain dead at the moment. *lol*

Hi Grneyes!

The part I have bolded.....from what i know and have read about, a person can have all these things you mention but still become detached emotionally due to various environmental factors (some say neglect of affection or a lack of touching the first 2-3 yrs of life). Some of these people become sociopathic and have no conscious, etc. even coming from a 'good' family.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Originally Posted by lynn

I think you are born Evil and its how you are brought up, environment, schooling and role models you encounter along the way which determines whether you act on the feelings, If a parent couldn't care less then you would tend not to either, or then maybe you may want to be different and not go down that road. It is all about Choice. I work with children and you see a child and think to your self "I am going to see him/her on a wanted poster in a few years"

Sorry Lynn, but are you saying people are born evil or that they are born with the potential to do evil?

Thanks
R

[The R]

BTW grneyes!

Thanks for starting the thread!

I have interest because within the past year or so I had the opportunity to take an undergraduate course in Criminology in which we discussed some topics similar to this one. I may be able to cite a few of the theories from the text if anyone is interested. There is one theory/discipline called biosocial criminology that is pretty interesting.

ALLMO,
R

[grneyes]

Your welcome R.

I was very interested to hear others opinions on this and I would love to hear about the theories. I'm sure there are others here that would find them interesting also.

[Evening2]

First of all, hello Lynn. I've been messing with my computer off and on throughout the day and sometimes it "works" and sometimes it doesn't, so I didn't "see" you arrive. Welcome to a great place to read and post. BTW, I DO like the name "lynnwater". I tried reversing it to "waterlynn", but then I kept singing, "Waterloo, Waterloo, oh where are you, my Waterloo?" so I didn't think that was a good choice.

Thanks, greyes for starting this thread. It's a fascinating subject for discussion with posters who share many interests in crime.

The R, I would truly love to hear about biosocial criminology (?), did I get that right? Can't go back to look. But whatever you have time to post and share would be much appreciated.

Here's what my initial thoughts are on the subject. I truly believe babies are born innocent, without a doubt. To that I say, thank goodness. I believe the environment in which they are raised and grow in determines the type of person they will grow up to be. I think any child who is raised in a loving, SECURE home, no matter if they have two parents, one, or whatever gender those "parents" may be, will grow up to be a kind, considerate, and loving person. And that's really all they need. With those three traits making up WHO they are, I don't think there's much of a chance for them to EVER become evil. Yes, they will experiment with some "temporary" evil paths along the way, but with WHO they REALLY are already identified, they will always return to the right path because of the goodness within them.

[lynn]

Originally Posted by The R

Sorry Lynn, but are you saying people are born evil or that they are born with the potential to do evil?

Thanks
R

Hi R, Yes I am saying that I believe that people have the potential to be evil, I realised after i posted my original comment that i was not clear, i confused myself lol

[lynn]

Hi Evening2, Thankyou, for the welcome. After reading your comment I could not get waterloo out of my head, Thanks LOL I think i shall either use lynn or lynnwater whatever mood i am in that day.

[The R]

Ok thanks everyone,

I'll do my best to provide a few basics (where is FW when you need her?). Just be sure to keep in mind a few things while you read.

1. I'm not an expert in Criminology and have had basically just undergraduate level courses.

2. Criminology is a very inexact science and is constantly - like many other scientific disciplines - evolving.

3. Criminology is basically the scientific study of the causes of criminal behavior in a society.

4. There are MANY theories and the subject can be confusing. The discussion of theories can sometimes give the framework for discussion but doesn't always offer the 'meat' part of the reasons or the practical explanations.

There are also schools of thought on Criminology; these are philosophical and are basically as follows:

Classical - older school which states people choose rationally whether or not to commit crime based on the amounts of deterrance and punishment.
Positivist - later thought that says outside influences (biology, social, etc.) cause people to commit crime.
Chicago - claims that it is the breakdown of social structure that causes crime.

Each school of thought is further reduced into theories which seek to explain the reason people commit crime.

The theory I mentioned in a previous post - Biosocial - is called a trait theory because it includes the thought that genetics play a part in the process. Biosocial is a pretty modern theory and is kind of 'eclectic' in its approach. It pretty much clams that biological factors combined with environmental and social factors all equally play a part. Researchers look at things like hormones, toxic lead levels, the effect of a high consumption of sugar on aggressive behavior, vitamin defeciency, etc. and seek to determine how they all interact to cause criminal behavior. I would have to think that genetic mutation and its effect on behavior would also be a subject of study.

An equally compelling theory IMO is one of the control theories. One of my favs is Hirshi's social control theory. It looks at why people DON'T commit crime and tries to give reasons. The reasons given by Hirshi include "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities". If you look deeply into these ideas, you'll see the power in them.

Hirshi's ideas, even though modern have already been altered and amended due to research.

One problem with Criminology is that it sometimes doesn't helpfully explain reasons for crime in terms that are easily digested, so I'd recommend anyone that has the inclination to do so to go to Wikipedia and reference this info. It is where I got some of this previous stuff and has more detailed data available. I'll also try to find my class text and will post more if anyone is interested. That is if you're not already bored to tears!


R

[Evening2]

Originally Posted by The R

Ok thanks everyone,

I'll do my best to provide a few basics (where is FW when you need her?). Just be sure to keep in mind a few things while you read.

1. I'm not an expert in Criminology and have had basically just undergraduate level courses.

2. Criminology is a very inexact science and is constantly - like many other scientific disciplines - evolving.

3. Criminology is basically the scientific study of the causes of criminal behavior in a society.

4. There are MANY theories and the subject can be confusing. The discussion of theories can sometimes give the framework for discussion but doesn't always offer the 'meat' part of the reasons or the practical explanations.

There are also schools of thought on Criminology; these are philosophical and are basically as follows:

Classical - older school which states people choose rationally whether or not to commit crime based on the amounts of deterrance and punishment.
Positivist - later thought that says outside influences (biology, social, etc.) cause people to commit crime.
Chicago - claims that it is the breakdown of social structure that causes crime.

Each school of thought is further reduced into theories which seek to explain the reason people commit crime.

The theory I mentioned in a previous post - Biosocial - is called a trait theory because it includes the thought that genetics play a part in the process. Biosocial is a pretty modern theory and is kind of 'eclectic' in its approach. It pretty much clams that biological factors combined with environmental and social factors all equally play a part. Researchers look at things like hormones, toxic lead levels, the effect of a high consumption of sugar on aggressive behavior, vitamin defeciency, etc. and seek to determine how they all interact to cause criminal behavior. I would have to think that genetic mutation and its effect on behavior would also be a subject of study.

An equally compelling theory IMO is one of the control theories. One of my favs is Hirshi's social control theory. It looks at why people DON'T commit crime and tries to give reasons. The reasons given by Hirshi include "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities". If you look deeply into these ideas, you'll see the power in them.

Hirshi's ideas, even though modern have already been altered and amended due to research.

One problem with Criminology is that it sometimes doesn't helpfully explain reasons for crime in terms that are easily digested, so I'd recommend anyone that has the inclination to do so to go to Wikipedia and reference this info. It is where I got some of this previous stuff and has more detailed data available. I'll also try to find my class text and will post more if anyone is interested. That is if you're not already bored to tears!


R

The R, not bored at ALL, much less to tears. You have me at attention. Proceed with all you've got. Do you have a link for a beginning wiki page as a starting place?

[The R]

Originally Posted by Evening2

The R, not bored at ALL, much less to tears. You have me at attention. Proceed with all you've got. Do you have a link for a beginning wiki page as a starting place?

sure Eve2!

here you are:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology#Trait_theories


try that and let me know if it doesn't work!

R

[SaraSidle]

Originally Posted by The R

sure Eve2!

here you are:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology#Trait_theories


try that and let me know if it doesn't work!

R

I have a degree in Criminology and your posts are great. Like a refresher course. THank you R

[Evening2]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

I have a degree in Criminology and your posts are great. Like a refresher course. THank you R

Thank you both. I have to run a few errands, but I'll check out the wiki later in the day. I look forward to both of your input on the subject!

[SaraSidle]

Originally Posted by Evening2

Thank you both. I have to run a few errands, but I'll check out the wiki later in the day. I look forward to both of your input on the subject!

I think R will have the most recent information and much more to offer but thank you for the compliment.

[Unknown_000]

I believe it can be either one of these. Some people start their crimes at a very early age, thus leading towards perhaps they were born that way. Then you can have an innocent person who is as sweet as can be, but their parents are abusive and just feed negativity to their child, that leading towards that their evil was learned. It is really hard to say, but evil is evil! No matter if you are born that way or learned it, and I don't believe that just because they start following God that they are now forgiven and go to heaven. I was baptized Catholic, but I don't believe in God and that is why! People can do the unthinkable and just because they become baptized or follow God, they think its ok. That really irritates me, because they did what they did. No one will forget it and neither will they so they need to deal with it and find a more better way to cope with it. I do not think it is hereditary, but it can most certainly make an influence on someone and that person follow up after them.

[grneyes]

Thanks for the information and link R. Can't wait to hear more.

I want to thank everyone else for their opinions and input also.

[CindyB]

Originally Posted by The R

Hi Cindy B!

I'm perplexed by your statement that some are born that way but that it's not hereditary? Can you explain?

Thanks!
R

Hello The R, nice to see you!

I guess I'm a little perplexed at my statement too! LOL I was really tired the night I posted that.
I guess I was thinking like, it's not really a bad gene, just that some humans are simply born evil. They have the devil inside, for lack of better wording.
I really don't know how to explain my thinking on this.

[Evening2]

Originally Posted by Unknown_000

I believe it can be either one of these. Some people start their crimes at a very early age, thus leading towards perhaps they were born that way. Then you can have an innocent person who is as sweet as can be, but their parents are abusive and just feed negativity to their child, that leading towards that their evil was learned. It is really hard to say, but evil is evil! No matter if you are born that way or learned it, and I don't believe that just because they start following God that they are now forgiven and go to heaven. I was baptized Catholic, but I don't believe in God and that is why! People can do the unthinkable and just because they become baptized or follow God, they think its ok. That really irritates me, because they did what they did. No one will forget it and neither will they so they need to deal with it and find a more better way to cope with it. I do not think it is hereditary, but it can most certainly make an influence on someone and that person follow up after them.

That's not the way it is, Unknown_000. It sounds like you've had a bad experience with someone and they "thought" that IF they believed in God then they could do whatever they wanted and all would be okay and they would enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Nope, that's not the way it works. It does sound like you are separating one's belief in God with Christianity?

Now there ARE some belief systems whose followers/practitioners DO believe that whatever they do and whomever they do it to is okay. I guess one could say that to those, evil is a GOOD thing.

Then, of course, there are those who only "pretend" to believe in God but really don't. I wonder who they think they're fooling?

Baptism is only ONE of the sacraments and it protects the innocent who are not yet accountable (small children) but it doesn't protect ANYONE who does the unthinkable. Remember, there IS justice here on earth FIRST!

BTW, thanks for sharing your thoughts and welcome to CL.

[The R]

Hi and thanks everyone for the kind words. Sorry to have not added to the earlier post but was busy over the weekend!

Also am sad to report that I can't find my class text; not sure where it is but will keep searching!

Meanwhile, here is some info on what is called latent trait theory, usually considered a 'developmental' theory:

"The 'latent trait' view holds that there is some personal attribute or characteristic present in all people which controls their inclination or propensity to commit crime. The most sophisticated model of this idea can be found in Rowe, Osgood & Nicewander (1990), but there have been a number of efforts since then to identify which trait is the "master" trait. Suspected traits include defective intelligence, impulsive personality, genetic abnormalities, physical-chemical functioning of the brain, and/or environmental influences on brain function. Wilson & Herrstein (1985), for example, attempted to develop a human nature theory of crime which argued that personal traits outweigh the importance of social variables. In a latter work, similar authors (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990) argued that "low self-control" was the "master" trait, the root cause of which was inadequate child-rearing. Gottfredson & Hirschi's ideas in this regard are often treated as a control theory of crime (see Lecture on Control Theories).
A fairly new "latent trait" approach has been that of Mark Colvin (Colvin 2000; Unever et. al. 2004) who argues that chronic criminals emerge from a developmental process characterized by recurring, erratic episodes of coercion. There are two types of coercion: interpersonal (which is direct, involving the use or threat of force from parents, peers, and significant others); and impersonal (which involves pressures beyond individual control). Colvin’s differential coercion theory integrates several existing criminological perspectives, but in brief, attempts to locate the root cause of chronic offending in the fact that such offenders grew up in homes where parents used erratic control and applied it in an erratic and inconsistent fashion.
Also fairly new is Tittle's control balance theory (Tittle 1995), which expands on the notion of personal control as a predisposing element of criminality. Control, as a concept, can refer to either the amount of control one is subject to by others, or it can refer to the amount of control one can exercise over others. Those who have an excess of the first kind of control tend to engage in exploitation, plunder, and decadence. Those who have a deficit of the second kind of control tend to engage in predation, defiance, and submission. All six behaviors are ways to restore a balance."




You can easily reference this material by doing a web search of the authors. You can also see how some of the theories interlap or are intertwined. I mentioned Hirschi's theory of social control or social bonds in an earlier thread. Hirschi (as seen above) himself has added to his theory the thought that low impulse control also attributes to deviant behavior when combined with social bond theory.

When considering biological theories however, it doesn't take long to see what could be the dangers, socially speaking, in totally accepting them. The first that comes to my mind is that if we can find a bad gene that causes criminal activity, what are the implications of trying to correct it? All sorts of ethical issues arise.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

I think R will have the most recent information and much more to offer but thank you for the compliment.

Sara, please DO add to the topic however you can!



R

[grneyes]

The most sophisticated model of this idea can be found in Rowe, Osgood & Nicewander (1990), but there have been a number of efforts since then to identify which trait is the "master" trait. Suspected traits include defective intelligence, impulsive personality, genetic abnormalities, physical-chemical functioning of the brain, and/or environmental influences on brain function.

Could this not mean then, that it is possible for it to be hereditary?

I know a man that not seen his father since he was 2 weeks old. His father was a thief and had no remorse for anything he did and would deny he did it even if you were standing there watching him do it. Didn't care who he stole from including his own mother.

The son is currently in prison serving a 10 yr term for theft, forgery, assault, burglery, and who knows what else. He has spent most of his life since the age of 16 locked up. He also will say he didn't do it even if being watched and shows no remorse for his actions. The main difference is that the son is violent where the father wasn't.

The mother has none of these traits and neither do her other children but, the mothers family (on her fathers side) does have schizophrenia in it. I'm thinking that he possibly has the early signs of schizophrenia and that is where the violence is coming in and that the other traits were indeed inherited from the father. JMO obviously.

Your thoughts?

P.S. Hope I made sense, it is Monday after all. *lol*

[The R]

Originally Posted by grneyes

Could this not mean then, that it is possible for it to be hereditary?

I know a man that not seen his father since he was 2 weeks old. His father was a thief and had no remorse for anything he did and would deny he did it even if you were standing there watching him do it. Didn't care who he stole from including his own mother.

The son is currently in prison serving a 10 yr term for theft, forgery, assault, burglery, and who knows what else. He has spent most of his life since the age of 16 locked up. He also will say he didn't do it even if being watched and shows no remorse for his actions. The main difference is that the son is violent where the father wasn't.

The mother has none of these traits and neither do her other children but, the mothers family (on her fathers side) does have schizophrenia in it. I'm thinking that he possibly has the early signs of schizophrenia and that is where the violence is coming in and that the other traits were indeed inherited from the father. JMO obviously.

Your thoughts?

P.S. Hope I made sense, it is Monday after all. *lol*

LOL on the Monday grneyes, that's for sure. Where I'm at it's Tuesday and things haven't changed much!

I would use the term 'master trait' with lots of care. I think most criminologists would tend to discount the 'master trait' view at this point. It was an attempt to explain some sort of base problem (including low impulse control, intelligence, etc.) in people that helps cause or maybe triggers criminal behavior. The problem with it I see is that some people with low intelligence, etc. never commit crime. Actually one problem with trait theory is that it does a really poor job of explaining how or why people who have lived a life of crime change and can afterwards live productive, crime-free lives.

The example you gave is an interesting one and does seem to suggest a trait of some sort. Do you know more about this family? Things like economic status? family support structure? social support such as church membership etc? education levels? do they have successful family members? Did the son know much about the father? Did people tell him of his father's actions?

Thanks!
R

[The R]

Hey grneyes,

Forgot to tell you I'll be starting a class (undergraduate) next week for Summer session that is a little related. The class is called Interpersonal Violence and 2 texts are required.

Those texts are:
Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder (Cox and Levine)
Violence and Non-Violence: Pathways to Understanding (Barak)

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to pass on the gist of what I learn on these subjects, esp. as they relate to the topic of the thread here.

R

[The R]

I'd like to address a different theory and talk about its strengths and weaknesses a little.

One of the first theories we read about in Criminology class was one that struck a chord with me; Conflict theory.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating within society. The criminal justice system and criminal law are thought to be operating on behalf of rich and powerful social elites, with resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor. The criminal justice establishment aims at imposing standards of morality and good behavior created by the powerful on the whole of society. Focus is on separating the powerful from have nots who would steal from others and protecting themselves from physical attacks. In the process the legal rights of poor folks might be ignored. The middle class are also co-opted; they side with the elites rather the poor, thinking they might themselves rise to the top by supporting the status quo.

Thus, street crimes, even minor monetary ones are routinely punished quite severely, while large scale financial and business crimes are treated much more leniently. Theft of a television might receive a longer sentence than stealing millions through illegal business practices. William Chambliss, in a classic essay “The Saints and the Roughnecks,” compared the outcomes for two groups of adolescent misbehavers. The first, a lower class group of boys, was hounded by the local police and labeled by teachers as delinquents and future criminals, while the upper-middle class boys were equally deviant, but their actions were written off as youthful indiscretions and learning experiences.

Radical criminology or critical criminology is a branch of conflict theory, drawing its ideas from a basic Marxist perspective. For Karl Marx (1818-1883), modern capitalist societies were controlled by a wealthy few (bourgeoisie) who controlled the means of production (factories, raw materials, equipment, technology, etc.) while everyone else (the proletariat) was reduced to the lot of being wage laborers. While Marx himself never really addressed in detail the criminal justice system’s specific role in keeping such a system in place, from his writings a radical tradition has emerged. From this perspective, certain types of crime take on a different character. Stealing can be seen as an attempt to take away from the rich. Eric Hobsbawn referred to the like as “social banditry.” Protest-related violence may actually be the start of proto-revolutionary movements, ultimately leading to a workers’ revolt and the establishment of a just society.

At a minimum this perspective aids in the explanation of certain actions; civil rights and antiwar protesters were being locked up in the 1960s because they threatened the established social order. The FBI and the CIA both directed efforts at monitoring such behavior. Thus, the law enforcement community had come down on the wrong side of those seeking social change. Scenes of police officers attacking civil rights protesters with dogs, clubs, and water hoses and police riots such as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago appeared on nightly television news."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any discussion of Marx and his views is usually one that can turn into a political debate, but for the purpose here it seems germane. As a personal note, I grew up in a working class, one parent household and often lived at or below poverty level. I'm not a Marxist by any stretch but some of the theory in the Conflict view can't be totally discounted. I've been exposed enough to the CJ system to know that the axiom about jail being full of poor people is not far from the truth. This could be due to the fact that people with money can afford good representation but even that fact would support Conflict theory. The currrent state of the U.S. ecomony and the impression that people are starting to steal more as a result might even support this theory.

I think in the end though that even if this theory rings true as far as a cause of theft and social disobedience, it doesn't explain well crimes against persons like murder, etc. IMO that would be a definite weakness of this theory.


ALLMO,
R

[lodfafner]

Hereditary: Some traits that are hereditary turn out evil in some circumstances. For example psychopaths are great COs but they also have the ability to show great evil.

Learned: Example, spoiled brats can show evil behavior just because they havn't learned to take other peoples wishes into account.

Just my two pennies.

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by The R

Hey grneyes,

Forgot to tell you I'll be starting a class (undergraduate) next week for Summer session that is a little related. The class is called Interpersonal Violence and 2 texts are required.

Those texts are:
Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder (Cox and Levine)
Violence and Non-Violence: Pathways to Understanding (Barak)

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to pass on the gist of what I learn on these subjects, esp. as they relate to the topic of the thread here.

R

I'm interested.

[grneyes]

The example you gave is an interesting one and does seem to suggest a trait of some sort. Do you know more about this family? Things like economic status? family support structure? social support such as church membership etc? education levels? do they have successful family members? Did the son know much about the father? Did people tell him of his father's actions?

The family is lower income and none of the children appeared spoiled They seemed to have the basic necessities and occasional luxuries. The mother's family did sometimes help them out financially and were always supportive of them. They were not church goers but I don't consider that a negative thing as I'm not either. Natural fathers education was very sparse.

Mother obtained a college education after her children were born and other than school was a stay at home mom until the boy was a teenager.

There had been a step-father in the picture up until this point also and had been since the boy was a year old. He was involved in the children's lives and treated them all as his own for the 13 years he was married to the mother and even after their divorce.

I'm sure the son over the years, did hear his father mentioned but very rarely. Since the step-father was in the picture, he (natural dad) just wasn't brought up too often as he had no interest in being a part of his son's life.

His siblings: Older brother does landscaping work , Sister is a store manager, younger brother works with disabled kids. None of them show violent tendencies, have only been in very minor trouble (normal teenage stuff) with authorities.

Between juvi, jail, and prison, he has spent 6 or 7 of the past 10 years locked up and he is only 24. I'm not sure of his release date but I think it's 2010. The mother writes to him and sends money when she can but he does not answer her letters. Appears to have a lot of anger towards the mother. Imo he blames her for where he is.

Wow, sorry I rattled on so much.

Thinking about it I can see lots of things that could have caused him to turn out the way he did but that fact that it started at such an early age is a bit unsettling.

[The R]

Originally Posted by grneyes

The family is lower income and none of the children appeared spoiled They seemed to have the basic necessities and occasional luxuries. The mother's family did sometimes help them out financially and were always supportive of them. They were not church goers but I don't consider that a negative thing as I'm not either. Natural fathers education was very sparse.

Mother obtained a college education after her children were born and other than school was a stay at home mom until the boy was a teenager.

There had been a step-father in the picture up until this point also and had been since the boy was a year old. He was involved in the children's lives and treated them all as his own for the 13 years he was married to the mother and even after their divorce.

I'm sure the son over the years, did hear his father mentioned but very rarely. Since the step-father was in the picture, he (natural dad) just wasn't brought up too often as he had no interest in being a part of his son's life.

His siblings: Older brother does landscaping work , Sister is a store manager, younger brother works with disabled kids. None of them show violent tendencies, have only been in very minor trouble (normal teenage stuff) with authorities.

Between juvi, jail, and prison, he has spent 6 or 7 of the past 10 years locked up and he is only 24. I'm not sure of his release date but I think it's 2010. The mother writes to him and sends money when she can but he does not answer her letters. Appears to have a lot of anger towards the mother. Imo he blames her for where he is.

Wow, sorry I rattled on so much.

Thinking about it I can see lots of things that could have caused him to turn out the way he did but that fact that it started at such an early age is a bit unsettling.

Wow....you're painting a very good picture for a case of genetically influenced criminal behavior IMO. But it would be interesting to know if his folks used his natural father as a bad example saying things like, "you'd better straighten up young man or you'll end up like your sorry father, etc."

Lots of info I guess we wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect you could pull up a lot of reasons for part of his deviance to be caused by environmental factors as well.

Got any idea why he blames his Mom?

Thanks,
R

[The R]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

I'm interested.

Hey Thanks!

As soon as I pick up something good I'll pass it along!

meanwhile........


There is a developmental theory in Criminology called Life Course theory. It was proposed by the Gluecks, a couple from Harvard Law School back in about 1950. It uses research to explore what happens to adolescents to make them become involved in criminal lives and whether or not they continue to be involved in crime later in life. The results are very interesting and more recent researchers like Moffit and Sampson and Laub have built upon the original research by the Gluecks. I'd highly recommend reading about it and have provided a link to an interesting article by Sampson.


Here's a piece of the article followed by a link!


"Stability and change in criminal behavior over the life course. The delinquents and nondelinquents in the Gluecks’ study displayed considerable between-individual stability in crime and many problematic behaviors well
into adulthood. This stability held independent of age, IQ, ethnicity, and neighborhood SES. Indeed, delinquency and other forms of antisocial conduct in childhood were strongly related to troublesome adult behavior across a variety of experiences (e.g., crime, military offenses, economic dependence, and marital discord). But why? One of the mechanisms of continuity that we emphasized was “cumulative disadvantage,” whereby serious delinquency and its nearly inevitable correlates (such as incarceration) undermined later bonds of social control (such as employability), which in turn enhanced the chances of continued offending (see also Sampson and Laub 1997).

At the same time, we found that job stability and marital attachment in adulthood were significantly related to changes in adult crime—the stronger the adult ties to work and family, the less crime and deviance among both delinquents and nondelinquent controls. We even found that strong marital attachment inhibits crime and deviance regardless of that spouse’s own deviant behavior and that job instability fosters crime regardless of heavy drinking. Despite differences in early childhood experiences, adult social bonds to work and family thus had similar consequences for the life-course trajectories of the five hundred delinquents and five hundred nondelinquent controls. These results were consistent for a wide variety
of crime outcome measures, control variables (e.g., childhood antisocial behaviorand individual-difference constructs), and analytical techniques ranging from...."


http://www.aapss.org/uploads/Annals_...mpson_Laub.pdf



ALLMO,
R

[grneyes]

Originally Posted by The R

Wow....you're painting a very good picture for a case of genetically influenced criminal behavior IMO. But it would be interesting to know if his folks used his natural father as a bad example saying things like, "you'd better straighten up young man or you'll end up like your sorry father, etc."

Lots of info I guess we wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect you could pull up a lot of reasons for part of his deviance to be caused by environmental factors as well.

Got any idea why he blames his Mom?

Thanks,
R

I really don't understand why he blames the mother. She stayed home to take care of them as long as she could and he wasn't raised any different than his siblings.

The only one in the family he's been somewhat close to the past 10 years was the sister but even she had to tell him to stay away because he was stealing from her.

He just really seems to have no boundries.

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by The R

Hey grneyes,

Forgot to tell you I'll be starting a class (undergraduate) next week for Summer session that is a little related. The class is called Interpersonal Violence and 2 texts are required.

Those texts are:
Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder (Cox and Levine)
Violence and Non-Violence: Pathways to Understanding (Barak)

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to pass on the gist of what I learn on these subjects, esp. as they relate to the topic of the thread here.

R

I look forward to reading your posts when you do so please continue to do so

[The R]

Originally Posted by grneyes

I really don't understand why he blames the mother. She stayed home to take care of them as long as she could and he wasn't raised any different than his siblings.

The only one in the family he's been somewhat close to the past 10 years was the sister but even she had to tell him to stay away because he was stealing from her.

He just really seems to have no boundries.

Got any idea if the son or father have addiction problems as in narcotics or alcohol?

There could be some sort of genetic predisposition there?


R