Do psychoanalytical theories offer a satisfactory expalnation of crime

Do psychoanalytical theories offer a satisfactory explanation of crime?

Within criminal psychology there is no one particular theory of crime but there are many psychological accounts. Psychoanalytical theories examine the significance of unconscious and irrational motivations in criminal behaviour. Crime is explained as an expression of unconscious pathological processes. There are many other plausible explanations of crime including learning theories and cognitive psychology. In this short piece I will examine these three areas of psychology to explain that no one theory can offer a satisfactory explanation of criminal behaviour.

Sigmund Freud developed psychoanalytical theory however he did not give an explanation for crime but other psychologists later applied his ideas to criminal behaviour. Freud stated that the personality consists of a tripartite structure, the id, ego and superego. The id embodies natural drives and urges that are pleasure seeking and anti-social such as sexual or aggressive urges. The ego is that part of the id which had been modified by the direct influence of the external world through the medium of conscious perception. (Freud 1923 as citied in Gross 1992:592) The ego can be described as the rational, logical part of us that enables us to distinguish reality. The superego embodies the moral rules that a person acquires through socialisation within the family, society and includes the conscience. Crime is explained as a result of unconscious conflict within these parts of the personality originating in childhood. In a well-adjusted person the ego is able to act in a way that satisfies the id’s demands for self-gratification but in a way that is morally acceptable to the superego. (Putwain & Sammons 2002:44)

From this viewpoint anti social behaviour can be caused in three main ways. The superego can be too weak, too harsh or deviant. A weak superego has difficulty controlling the urges of the id, as there is no moral reasoning, sense of guilt or anxiety over actions. This could be because societal rules were not learnt at an early age or be caused by unloving or absent parents. Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation theorises that a lack of attachment between a child and caregiver under the age of five could cause a child to be fearful and anxious. The anxiousness would be repressed and this would cause the superego to be weak. Pyromania could be explained by a weak superego, as the urge to set a fire has no rational explanation. Parents who are too strict or harsh could produce a person with a harsh superego, which could cause an individual to commit anti social and criminal behaviour in order to be punished for it by the state. The desire too be punished is related to guilt over unconscious infantile desires. (Putwain & Sammons 2002:44) A deviant superego could be caused by a criminal but loving parent. A child could internalise his parent’s values in his development and so the superego would not react to thoughts of criminal activity.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In evaluating psychoanalytical theory there are many criticisms. The theory has been seen as unscientific. The existence of the id, ego and superego can be questioned. The theory explains moral development as beginning from the age of five or six but it is seen as a continuous process from birth to adulthood. The theory is based on assumptions firstly that socialisation is dependant on childhood experiences and secondly that poor child parent interaction is related to later delinquency. These two assumptions are also shared by other theories. The third assumption sees crime as the product of unconscious conflict, which is the most important, but the hardest to gather evidence for. According to Freud women have a weak superego, this would not explain the fact that they commit less crime however Freud explains this as women become narcissistic instead of criminal. Psychoanalytic theories can explain some forms of irrational crime but do not claim to be able to explain all crime.

Another set of theories that attempt to explain crime is learning theory, which is based upon behavioural psychology. Behaviourists believe external forces not internal determine crime. Differential association theory was created by Sutherland (1939) and suggests that criminal behaviour is learnt through association with others either within the family or through peer groups who hold positive definitions towards crime. Sutherland saw crime as an expression of needs and values. There may be a need for money but this does not explain criminal behaviour, which is learnt. Within social groups an individual will be exposed to values and attitudes to crime. If a person has more favourable attitudes towards crime than against it they could become criminal. Specific techniques can be learnt from association with criminals but the favourable attitude does not have to come from the criminals but could come from law-abiding parents. (Putwain & Sammons 2002:47)

There are problems with the theory in that it is seen to be unclear in its definitions and does not explain how some individuals in comparable circumstances do not turn to crime. It also does not state how attitudes can be measured and how many unfavourable attitudes are needed for someone to become criminal. Whilst this theory explains how individuals could acquire criminal tendencies it does not explain why, if you can learn crime what makes you actually commit it. (Blackburn as citied in Putwain & Sammons 2002:48)

Skinner developed operant learning theory in which behaviour is determined by the environmental consequences it produces for the individual concerned. (Hollin) He suggested that when behaviour produces desirable consequences the behaviour will increase in frequency and is reinforced and if it produces undesirable consequences the behaviour will decrease and be punished. In other words we learn through receiving rewards and punishments. Jeffrey (1965) took both Sutherland’s and Skinner’s theories and refined them to create differential reinforcement theory. It suggests that criminal behaviour is operant behaviour: that is, within the context of associations that an individual experiences, criminal behaviour is acquired and maintained through by its reinforcing consequences. (McLaughlin & Muncie 2001:93) Criminal behaviour will occur when conditions are right and are likely to produce rewards. In order to understand why a person would commit crime it is necessary to take into account their distinctive learning history. This would consist of understanding not only the individual but also the environment the criminal act would occur in.

Bandura (1973) took these theories one-step further in his social learning account. The theory shares the view that criminal behaviour is not only learnt from the environment through reinforcement but also through the process of modelling. Modelling involves learning through the observation of other people (models), which may lead to imitation if the behaviour imitated leads to desirable consequences. This could explain the current debate on violent films and video games and the link to aggression.

Learning theories can be criticised because they do not take into account the internal forces that psychoanalytical theories depend on. They do not take into account the notion of free will or the role of cognition. Some of the studies i.e. Skinners rats, are seen as being unreliable as rats are different to humans. In Bandura’s experiment the children may have felt that they needed to please the researcher and so does not mean that the children will go out and be violent to others. Behaviour does not only depend on observational learning. People’s interpretations of their current situation and their personality are other important factors that need to be taken into account.

Cognitive psychology differs from learning theories in that it gives cognition or thinking a central role in criminal behaviour. The cognitive explanation has become the basis of offender programmes within prisons and rehabilitation and is extremely influential within psychology. Yochelson & Samenows (1976) in their controversial theory of ‘criminal personality’ suggest that criminal behaviour stems from 40 distorted thinking patterns. They claimed that they had found the criminal thinking patterns of criminals. They believe that all behaviour is the result of rational thinking and that criminals due to errors in their cognitive processes arrive at behavioural stages that are objectionable to society. This study has been criticised on the basis that they did not use a non-criminal control group to compare their findings so we do not know if these thinking errors occur in non-criminals. Wulach (1988) also mentioned that the 40 patterns resembled psychoanalytical defence mechanisms. (Putwain & Sammons 2002:53)

There are a number of other theories developed by researchers including Bandura (1986), Beck (1982), Ellis (1976) and Ross and Fabiano (1985) describing cognitive structures or thinking frameworks that lead to troubled or criminal behaviour. These theories suggest that how an individual thinks about an external event, not the event itself, can trigger feelings that lead to criminal behaviour. Cognitive restructuring enables offenders to change their anti-social attitudes and beliefs through a process that focuses on the individuals thinking patterns.

Kohlberg (1978) in the theory of moral development was concerned with the cognitive processes behind moral judgement. He used the work of Piaget (1932) and suggested that moral reasoning advances with age. Offending occurs when there is a delay in moral development and the offender does not have the reasoning to resist temptation from offending. (Hollin as citied in Maguire 2002) This could explain why some criminals are seen to ‘grow out’ of criminality. This theory has been criticised on the basis that Kohlberg was explaining moral reasoning not moral behaviour.

In conclusion psychoanalytical accounts do not offer a satisfactory explanation of crime but neither do any of the other theories on their own. Psychoanalytic theories concentrate on the unconscious, which is a contributing factor in the explanation of crime but the theory cannot explain all types of crime. Learning theories look at the values and beliefs that are learnt through the environment however they do not take into account internal or cognitive factors. Cognitive approaches help us to understand crime but do not explain the causes of crime. Cognitive theories focus on the individual and how the individual can be treated to change. This is why they are in favour with criminal justice at the moment. The theories assume that all offenders are the same however it is only crime itself that can be described in such a uniform way. In order to explain crime all the available theories including sociological theories need to be taken into account. As for psychoanalytical theories “Psychoanalytical theories stress the inner processes and conflicts as determinants of behaviour. However they do not ignore or neglect the environmental or social factors, but they favour the dynamic processes as playing a major role in the development of criminal behaviour”. (Hollin 1989)