Criminal Thinking

All criminal acts, including those that involve violence, aim to achieve a goal. In some cases, the goal is tangible, such as stealing a wallet, in others it may be social, emotional and/or psychological etc., such as an individual selecting a person to victimize in order to maintain some “badass” image they have created for themselves etc. Such criminal behavior(s) is the result of criminal thinking and thought processes; and both are interrelated. Although the initial act of committing a crime may be the result of an idea or thought, it is the continuation of such behavior, which starts to influence the way the offender thinks and starts to view the world e.g., somebody who offends occasionally, when opportunities present themselves will develop a different process of thinking than those who actively and perpetually offend. In 1976, Yochelson and Samenow, found that there were 52 common thinking errors, that they believed characterized the “criminal personality”. Whilst there were many problems with their study e.g., their study sample was a group of prisoners who had been judged not guilty by reason of insanity, and several of the “thinking errors” they defined were better classified as emotions or behaviors etc., their study awoke an interest in the ways those who commit crimes think. Any decision/thinking is based on “thought processes” and “thought content”. Content contains the “what”, and processes reflect the “how” of thinking. Both interact and work together. An example of a thought process may be, “How do I improve my status in a criminal network?”, whilst a thought content might be, “The network I belong to respects individuals who win fights”. This would lead to the criminal thinking that the way to attain greater status is through engaging in fights. Whilst Yochelson and Samenow were looking at very specific types of criminal thinking, forensic psychologist Glenn D. Walters in a study of 450 inmates found that there were eight general thinking styles that inmates shared. In this article I want to take a brief look at these, as when we better identify and understand the “style” in which someone thinks we will be better able to communicate with them, and direct their behaviors and actions.

The first thinking pattern identified was one of “Mollification”. This involves rationalizing and justifying offending based upon some perceived injustice, whilst also downplaying the significance of each offense e.g., they were asking for it/I didn’t hurt them that much, it’s not fair that they get to be rich, and I don’t/they’re not going to miss the money I stole from them etc. In the “Cutoff” style the offender is able to quickly overcome the fear and anxiety that most of us would have to overcome in order to commit an offense; these offenders are quick to seize any opportunity to offend without considering the potential consequences of their action. Whilst risk is often found to be the least important factor for seasoned offenders, with ease of opportunity, and the degree of reward being the most important factors in an offender’s decision making, for these individuals their speed at overcoming such anxieties differed from other inmates in the study. In the “Entitlement” style of thinking, the offender has created a worldview where objects and people are there for them to use. Whilst all of us may want to have more money, someone thinking in this fashion will define it as a need that must be met, and is something that they are entitled to, even if it requires the use of force/violence to meet it. With the “Power Orientation” style of thinking the offender recognizes the need to maintain and achieve status amongst their peers, and therefore attempts to exert and demonstrate control over them. This was the style of thinking that came through in ethnographer Elijah Anderson’s study of inner-city life, in Philadelphia, where he came across a, “Code of the Street”, which was basically a set of rules that had to be adhered to in order to command respect.

Some offenders in Walter’s study expressed a degree of “Sentimentality” in their thinking. At times they would feel the need to atone, or do some good deed in order to balance out their offending e.g., one right will cancel out two wrongs etc. Such offenders may give away some of the money they stole and/or buy groceries for an elderly neighbor etc. Cleckley, describes psychopaths, as wearing “a mask of sanity”, to hide their underlying personality disorder, and whilst others such as Narcissists also engage in the creation and wearing of masks, we all do it to some degree i.e., we project an image of ourselves that we want other to see, and to help us convince ourselves that we are the “good guy”. Few offenders will class themselves as bad e.g., they behave the way they do due to social injustice, or because they need to in order to survive the culture in which they live etc. But some tend to sentimentalize their lifestyle and thinking in order to see themselves as one of the good guys. Walters also identified a “Superoptimism” style of thinking, where the offender believes that because of their innate abilities and qualities there is no chance that they will get caught e.g., criminals are clever, and cops are dumb etc. Another style of thinking is referred to as “Cognitive Indolence”, where the offender doesn’t even bother to consider the risk(s) of their endeavor. This is often the thinking pattern that leads to initially successful offenders being caught i.e., they start off cautiously, considering the risks involved when they first begin offending, but after awhile without getting stopped/caught, they become lazy in their thinking. Related to this is the “Discontinuity” style of thinking. Like those with a “Cognitive Indolence” style, these individuals also fail to plan, however there is less of a degree of premeditation, and these offenders want to do the right thing but lack the self-discipline to do so.

Whilst these eight different styles of “criminal thinking” may be classified as distinct, it is likely that many offenders will share traits from other styles than the one that they gravitate towards, and their style may change somewhat over time e.g., the meticulous planner may at some point become lazy etc., however understanding the different styles in which offenders think and process opportunities, information etc., should give us a better idea of both what and what not to do when we find ourselves interacting with them.