Upload
daksh-aryan
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
1/33
Page | 1
Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State of Criminals (The Evolution of
Criminal Psychology)
Psychology as we know it didn't suddenly appear on the intellectual scene. It is
impossible to say just when it began, or who was responsible for it. Instead, we
can only point to a number of currents that take us from philosophy and the
natural sciences into something recognizably psychological. This chapter looks at
two of these "primordial" currents -- associationism as the beginnings of a
cognitive theory, and the introduction of quantification in the forms of
psychophysics and intelligence testing.
Aristotles Associationism
Associationism is the theory that the mind is composed of elements -- usually
referred to as sensations and ideas -- which are organized by means of various
associations. Although the original idea can be found in Plato, it is Aristotle who
gets the credit for elaborating on it. Aristotle counted four laws of association
when he examined the processes of remembrance and recall:
1. The law of contiguity. Things or events that occur close to each other inspace or time tend to get linked together in the mind. If you think of a
cup, you may think of a saucer; if you think of making coffee, you may
then think of drinking that coffee.
2. The law of frequency. The more often two things or events are linked, themore powerful will be that association. If you have an eclair with your
coffee every day, and have done so for the last twenty years, the
association will be strong indeed -- and you will be fat.
3. The law of similarity. If two things are similar, the thought of one willtend to trigger the thought of the other. If you think of one twin, it is hard
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
2/33
Page | 2
not to think of the other. If you recollect one birthday, you may find
yourself thinking about others as well.
4. The law of contrast. On the other hand, seeing or recalling something mayalso trigger the recollection of something completely opposite. If you
think of the tallest person you know, you may suddenly recall the shortest
one as well. If you are thinking about birthdays, the one that was totally
different from all the rest is quite likely to come up.
Association, according to Aristotle, took place in the "common sense." It was in
the common sense that the look, the feel, the smell, the taste of an apple, for
example, came together to become the idea of an apple.
For 2000 years, these four laws were assumed to hold true. St. Thomas pretty
much accepted it lock, stock, and barrel. No one, however, cared that much about
association. It was seen as just a simple description of a commonplace
occurrence. It was seen as the activity of passive reason, whereas the abstraction
of principles or essences -- far more significant to philosophers -- was the domain
of active reason.
During the enlightenment, philosophers began to become interested in the idea
again, as a part of their studies of vision as well as their interest in epistemology.
Hobbes understood complex experiences as being associations of simple
experiences, which in turn were associations of sensations. The basic means of
association, according to Hobbes, was coherence (contiguity), and the basic
strength factor was repetition (frequency).
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
3/33
Page | 3
M'Naghten Rules
The M'Naghten Rules (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) were
the first serious attempt to rationalize the attitude of the criminal law towards
mentally incompetent defendants. They arise from the attempted assassination of
the British Prime Minister, Robert Peel, in 1843 by Daniel M'Naghten. In fact,
M'Naghten fired a pistol at the back of Peel's secretary, Edward Drummond, who
died five days later. The House of Lords asked a panel of judges, presided over by
Sir Nicolas Conyngham Tindal, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to set down
guidance for juries in considering cases where a defendant pleads insanity.[1][2]
The rules so formulated as M'Naghten's Case 1843 10 C & F 200[3] have been a
standard test for criminal liability in relation to mentally disordered defendants in
common law jurisdictions ever since, with some minor adjustments. When the
tests set out by the Rules are satisfied, the accused may be adjudged "not guilty by
reason of insanity" and the sentence may be a mandatory or discretionary (but
usually indeterminate) period of treatment in a secure hospital facility, or
otherwise at the discretion of the court (depending on the country and the offence
charged) instead of a punitive disposal.
The insanity defence is recognized in Australia, Canada, England and Wales,
Hong Kong, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, India and most U.S. states
with the exception of Montana, Kansas, Idaho, and Utah. Not all of these
jurisdictions still use the M'Naghten Rules.
Historical Development
Today, mental incapacity as a defence, when successfully raised, absolves a
defendant in a criminal trial from liability, that is to say it applies public policies
in relation to criminal responsibility by applying a rationale of compassion,
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
4/33
Page | 4
accepting that it is morally wrong to subject a person to punishment if that person
is deprived permanently or temporarily of the capacity to form a necessary mental
intent that the definition of a crime requires. Indeed, punishment of the obviously
mentally ill by the state may act so as to undermine public confidence in the penal
system. Thus, in such cases, a utilitarian and humanitarian approach suggests that
the interests of society are better served by treatment of the illness rather than
punishment of the individual.
Historically, insanity was not seen as a defence in itself but a special circumstance
in which there was no acquittal, but the jury could deliver a special verdict and the
King would issue a pardon[4]
...eo quod sensu carent et ratione, non magis quam brutum animal iniuriam facere
possunt nec feloniam, cum non multum distent a brutis, secundum quod videri
poterit in minore, qui si alium interficeret in minori tate, iudicium non sustineret.
...since they are without sense and reason and can no more commit a tort or a
felony than a brute animal, since they are not far removed from brutes, as is
evident in the case of a minor, for if he should kill another while under age he
would not suffer judgment.[5]
The next major advance occurred in Hadfield's Trial 1800 27 How St. Tr. 765 in
which the court decided that a crime committed under some delusion would only
be excused if it would have been excusable had the delusion been true.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
5/33
Page | 5
The Rules
The House of Lords, having deliberated, delivered the following exposition of the
Rules:
the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and
to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the
contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the
ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of
the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from
disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing;
or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
The central issue of this definition may be stated as "did the defendant know what
he was doing, or, if so, that it was wrong?", and the issues raised have been
analysed in subsequent appellate decisions:
Presumption of sanity and burden of proof
Sanity is a rebuttable presumption and the burden of proof is on the party
relying upon it; the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, that
is to say that mental incapacity is more likely than unlikely. If this burden
is successfully discharged, the party relying upon it is entitled to succeed.
In Lord Denning's judgement in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern
Ireland 1963 AC 386, whenever the defendant makes an issue of his state
of mind, the prosecution can adduce evidence of insanity. However, this
will normally only arise to negate the defence case when automatism or
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
6/33
Page | 6
diminished responsibility is in issue. In practical terms, the defence will be
more likely to raise the issue of mental incapacity to negate or minimise
criminal liability.
Disease of the mind
Whether a particular condition amounts to a disease of the mind within the
Rules is not a medical but a legal question to be decided in accordance
with the ordinary rules of interpretation. It seems that any disease which
produces a malfunctioning of the mind is a disease of the mind and need
not be a disease of the brain itself. The term has been held to cover
numerous conditions:
R v Kemp 1957 1 QB 399: arteriosclerosis or a hardening of the
arteries caused loss of control during which the defendant attacked his
wife with a hammer. This was an internal condition and a disease of the
mind.
R v Sullivan 1984) AC 156 during an epileptic episode, the
defendant caused grievous bodily harm: epilepsy was an internal condition
and a disease of the mind, and the fact that the state was transitory was
irrelevant.
Nature and quality of the act
This phrase refers to the physical nature and quality of the act, rather than
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
7/33
Page | 7
the moral quality. It covers the situation where the defendant does not
know what he is physically doing. Two common examples used are:
The defendant cuts a woman's throat under the delusion that he is
cutting a loaf of bread,
The defendant chops off a sleeping man's head because he has the
deluded idea that it would be great fun to see the man looking for it when
he wakes up.
In R v Bell 1984 Crim. LR 685 the defendant smashed a van through the
entrance gates of a holiday camp because, "It was like a secret society in
there, I wanted to do my bit against it" as instructed by God. It was held
that, as the defendant had been aware of his actions, he could neither have
been in a state of automatism nor insane, and the fact that he believed that
God had told him to do this merely provided an explanation of his motive
and did not prevent him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong
in the legal sense.
Knowledge that the act was wrong
"Wrong" here means legally rather than morally wrong. The defendant
must be functionally unaware that his actions are legally wrong at the time
of the offence to satisfy this requirement. In Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952
2 All ER 1 246, the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin;
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
8/33
Page | 8
he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose I'll hang for this." It was held
that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering
from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the
defence was not allowed.
Crimes without specific intent
In DPP v Harper (1997) it was held that insanity is not generally a defence
to strict liability offences. In this instance, the accused was driving with
excess alcohol. By definition, the accused is sufficiently aware of the
nature of the activity to commit the actus reus of driving and presumably
knows that driving while drunk is legally wrong. Any other feature of the
accused's knowledge is irrelevant.
Criticism
There have been five major criticisms of the law as it currently stands:
Medical Irrelevance
The legal definition of insanity has not advanced significantly since 1843;
in 1953 evidence was given to the Royal Commission on Capital
Punishment that doctors even then regarded the legal definition to be
obsolete and misleading.
This distinction has led to absurdities such as
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
9/33
Page | 9
(a) even though a legal definition suffices, mandatory hospitalisation can
be ordered in cases of murder; if the defendant is not medically insane,
there is little point in requiring medical treatment.
(b) diabetes has been held to facilitate a defence of insanity when it causes
hyperglycaemia, but not when it causes hypoglycaemia.
(c) Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, imported into
English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that a person of
unsound mind may only be detained where proper account of objective
medical expertise has been taken. As yet, no cases have occurred in which
this point has been argued.
Burden of Proof
The shift of burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence in cases
where insanity may be in issue conflicts with the Woolmington v. DPP
principle that the burden is always on the prosecution.
Ineffectiveness
The rules currently do not distinguish between defendants who represent a
public danger and those who do not. Illnesses such as diabetes and
epilepsy can be controlled by medication such that sufferers are less likely
to have temporary aberrations of mental capacity, but the law does not
recognise this.
Sentencing for Murder
A finding of insanity may well result in indefinite confinement in a
hospital, whereas a conviction for murder may well result in a determinate
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
10/33
Page | 10
sentence of between ten and fifteen years; faced with this choice, it may be
that most defendants would prefer the certainty of the latter option. The
defence of diminished responsibility in section 2(1) of the homicide act
would reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter with more
discretion on the part of the judge in regards to sentencing.
Scope
A practical issue is whether the fact that an accused is labouring under a
"mental disability" should be a necessary but not sufficient condition for
negating responsibility i.e. whether the test should also require an
incapacity to understand what is being done, to know that what one is
doing is wrong, or to control an impulse to do something and so
demonstrate a causal link between the disability and the potentially
criminal acts and omissions. For example, the Irish insanity defence
comprises the M'Naghten Rules and a control test which asks whether the
accused was debarred from refraining from committing the act because of
a defect of reason due to mental illness (see Doyle v Wicklow County
Council 1974) 55 IR 71. But the Butler Committee recommended that
proof of severe mental disorder should be sufficient to negate
responsibility, in effect creating an irrefutable presumption of
irresponsibility arising from proof of a severe mental disorder. This has
been criticized as it assumes a lack of criminal responsibility simply
because there is evidence of some sort of mental dysfunction, rather than
establishing a standard of criminal responsibility. According to this view,
the law should be geared to culpability not mere psychiatric diagnosis.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
11/33
Page | 11
Notes
1. ^ Carl Elliott, The rules of insanity: moral responsibility and thementally ill offender, SUNY Press, 1996, ISBN 0791429512, p.10
2. ^ Michael T. Molan, Mike Molan, Duncan Bloy, Denis Lanser,Modern criminal law (5 ed), Routledge Cavendish, 2003, ISBN
1859418074, p.352
3. ^ M'Naghten's Case4. ^ Stephen, History of Criminal Law, 151; 2 Pollock & Maitland,
History of English Law, 480
5. ^ Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England II.424.24-27(1210)
Bibliography
Boland, F. (1996). "Insanity, the Irish Constitution and theEuropean Convention on Human Rights". 47 Northern Ireland
Legal Quarterly 260.
Bucknill, J. C. (1881). "The Late Lord Chief Justice of England onLunacy". Brain 4: 126. doi:10.1093/brain/4.1.1.
Butler Committee. (1975). The Butler Committee on MentallyAbnormal Offenders, London: HMSO, Cmnd 6244
Dalby, J.T. (2006). "The Case of Daniel McNaughton: Let's get thestory straight". American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 27: 17
32.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
12/33
Page | 12
Ellis, J. W. (1986). "The Consequences of the Insanity Defense:Proposals to reform post-acquittal commitment laws". Catholic
University Law Review 35: 961.
Gostin, L. (1982). "Human Rights, Judicial Review and theMentally Disordered Offender". (1982) Crim. LR 779.
The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. The CriminalProcess and Persons Suffering from Mental Disorder, Project No.
69, August 1991. [1]
Elliott, Catherine; Quinn, Frances (2000). Criminal Law (Thirded.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. pp. 241248. ISBN
ISBN 0-582-42352-X.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
13/33
Page | 13
Cesare Lombroso: The Father of Modern Criminology
Cesare Lombroso was famous in the nineteenth century because he claimed to
have discovered the cause of crime. His principal work, LUomo delinquente or
The Criminal Man, was published in 1876. He wrote a good deal more including,
in French, Le Crime, Causes et Remdes.
In these books, Lombroso claimed that anatomical investigations of the post
mortem bodies of criminals revealed that they were physically different from
normal people. He maintained that criminals have stigmata (signs), and that these
stigmata consist of abnormal dimensions of the skull and jaw. Lombroso even
claimed that different criminals have different physical characteristics which he
could discern. His book, The Criminal Man, achieved six editions.
In time, and under the influence of his son-in-law, Guglielmo Ferrero, Lombroso
included the view that social factors were also involved in the causation of crime
and that all criminality is not inborn.
The concept of atavism
If one term is associated with Lombroso it is "atavism." This was the term he used
for persons who were not fully evolved. He considered these people "throwbacks"
to earlier forms of man or primates. He based this idea on his findings that in the
skulls, brains, and other parts of the skeletons, muscles, and viscera of criminals
there were anatomical peculiarities.
The central idea of Lombroso's work came to him as he autopsied the body of a
notorious Italian criminal named Giuseppe Villela. As he contemplated Villela's
skull, he noted that certain characteristics (specifically, a depression on the
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
14/33
Page | 14
occiput that he named the median occipital fossa) reminded him of the skulls of
"inferior races" and "the lower types of apes, rodents, and birds." He concluded
that the principle cause of criminal tendencies was organic in natureheredity
was the key cause of deviance. The term Lombrosos used to describe the
appearance of those resembling ancestral, prehuman forms of life was "atavism."
"Born criminals" were thus viewed by Lombroso in his earliest writings as a form
of human sub-species. In his later writings, however, he began to regard them less
as evolutionary throwbacks and more in terms of arrested development and
degeneracy.
Criminology
Lombroso popularized the notion of a "born criminal" through biological
determinism: criminals have particular physiognomic attributes or deformities.
Physiognomy attempts to estimate character and personality traits from physical
features of the face or the body. In Lombroso's view, whereas most individuals
evolve, the violent criminal had devolved, and therefore constituted a societal or
evolutionary regression.
If criminality was inherited, then Lombroso proposed that the "born criminal"
could be distinguished by physical atavistic stigmata, such as:
large jaws, forward projection of jaw,
low sloping forehead,
high cheekbones,
flattened or upturned nose,
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
15/33
Page | 15
handle-shaped ears,
hawk-like noses or fleshy lips,
hard shifty eyes,
scanty beard or baldness,
insensitivity to pain,
long arms relative to lower limbs.
Lombroso concentrated on a purported scientific methodology in order to identify
criminal behavior and isolate individuals capable of the most violent types of
crime. He advocated the study of individuals using measurements and statistical
methods in compiling anthropological, social, and economic data.
With successive research and more thorough statistical analysis, Lombroso
modified his theories. He continued to define atavistic stigmata, and in addition,
he identified two other types of criminal: the insane criminal, and the
"criminaloid." Although insane criminals bore some stigmata, they were not born
criminals; rather they became criminal as a result "of an alteration of the brain,
which completely upsets their moral nature." Among the ranks of insane criminals
were kleptomaniacs and child molesters. Criminaloids had none of the physical
peculiarities of the born or insane criminal and became involved in crime later in
life, and tended to commit less serious crimes. Criminaloids were further
categorized as habitual criminals, who became so by contact with other criminals,
the abuse of alcohol, or other "distressing circumstances."
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
16/33
Page | 16
Lombroso was an advocate for humane treatment of criminals, arguing for the
removal of atavistic, born criminals from society for their own and society's
protection, for rehabilitation for those not born criminal, and against capital
punishment.
Female Criminality
Lombroso's studies of female criminality began with measurements of female
skulls and photographs, searching for atavism. He concluded, however, that
female criminals were rare and showed few signs of degeneration because they
had evolved less than men due to the inactive nature of their lives.
Lombroso argued it was females' natural passivity that withheld them from
breaking the law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal
(Lombroso 1980).
Cortical Dysplasia and Epilepsy
Lombroso supported a common origin of criminality, genius, and epilepsy as
caused by factors impairing the embryonic development of the central nervous
system (CNS), mainly affecting the hierarchically superior neural centers. In
1896, together with his coworkers, Lombroso was the first to describe the
observations of cortical dysplasia in patients with epilepsy.
To confirm his theories, Lombroso emphasized the need for the direct observation
of the patient, using anthropological, social, neurophysiological, economic, and
pathological data. With the collaboration of his student, Luigi Roncoroni,
Lombroso described a prevalence of giant pyramidal neurons and polymorphous
cells through the gray matter of the frontal cortex in 13 patients with epilepsy.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
17/33
Page | 17
Most of the large pyramidal neurons were haphazardly arranged, presenting also
an abnormal orientation of their apical dendrites. The number of nerve cells was
noticeably reduced, with the presence of abundant gliosis. Moreover, the granular
layers were dramatically reduced or absent in most patients, and numerous nerve
cells were present in the subcortical white matter. This particular finding had
never been observed in specimens from criminal and healthy control subjects.
Lombroso and Roncoroni explained their finding as evidence of an arrest of CNS
development.
Thus, more than one century ago, Cesare Lombroso and collaborators described
developmental lesions in the frontal cortex of patients with epilepsy,
corresponding to what came to be called Taylor's dysplasia.
Psychiatric art and problem of genius
Lombroso published The Man of Genius (1889) in which he argued that artistic
genius was a form of hereditary insanity. In order to support this assertion, he
began assembling a large collection of psychiatric art. He published an article on
the subject in 1880, in which he isolated thirteen typical features of the "art of the
insane." Although his criteria are generally regarded as outdated today, his work
inspired later writers on the subject, particularly Hans Prinzhorn.
Lombroso's words reveal his true beliefs vis--vis the problem of the genius and
the ordinary man:
The appearance of a single great genius is more than equivalent to the birth of a
hundred mediocrities...Good sense travels on the well-worn paths; genius, never.
And that is why the crowd, not altogether without reason, is so ready to treat great
men as lunatics...Genius is one of the many forms of insanity. (Lombroso 1889)
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
18/33
Page | 18
Problems with some of his tenets
Lombroso's work was always hampered by his Social Darwinist assumptions. In
particular, he held the pre-genetic conception of evolution as "progress" from
"lower life forms" to "higher life forms" together with an assumption that the
more "advanced" human traits would dispose their owners to living peacefully
within a hierarchical, urbanized society far different from the conditions under
which human beings evolved.
In attempting to predict criminality by the shapes of the skulls and other physical
features of criminals, he had in effect created a new pseudoscience of forensic
phrenology. For example, he and his collaborators were the first ever to describe
and explain the form ofepilepsy known now as Taylors dysplasia. However, they
used their observations to support their scientific misconception regarding the
relationship between criminality, epilepsy, and genius.
While Lombroso was a pioneer of scientific criminology, and his work was one of
the bases of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century, his work is no
longer considered as providing an adequate foundation for contemporary
criminology. However, psychiatry and abnormal psychology have retained his
idea of locating crime completely within the individual and utterly divorced from
the surrounding social conditions and structures.
Legacy
Cesare Lombroso was a historical figure in criminology and the founder of the
Italian School of Positivist Criminology, which included Enrico Ferri (1856
1929) and Raffaele Garofalo (18511934). They rejected the concept of free will
and the notion of equality expressed by the classicists, in which any individual
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
19/33
Page | 19
through free choice makes rational decisions to behave as a criminal, replacing
this with an assumption of determinism.
In his later work, Lombroso differentiated the born criminal from those who
turned to crime through circumstance, and the importance of distinguishing these
types with regard to the efficacy of punishment. He is also noted for advocating
humane treatment of criminals and limitations on the use of the death penalty.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
20/33
Page | 20
Bibliography
Gould, Stephen J. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton.ISBN 0393314251
Kurella, Hans. 1911. Cesare lombroso: a Modern Man of Science.Rebman limited.
Rafter, Nicole. 2003. "Rethinking criminological tradition: CesareLombroso and the origins of Criminology" Retrieved February 2,
2008.
Sabbatini, R.M.E. 1997. Cesare Lombroso. A Brief Biography Brainand Mind Magazine. Retrieved February 2, 2008.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
21/33
Page | 21
Psychological Theories of Crime
Psychological theories of crime begin with the view that individual differences in
behaviour may make some people more predisposed to committing criminal acts.
These differences may arise from personality characteristics, biological factors, or
social interactions.
Psychoanalytic Theory
According to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who is credited with the development
of psychoanalytic theory, all humans have natural drives and urges repressed in
the unconscious. Furthermore, all humans have criminal tendencies. Through the
process of socialization, however, these tendencies are curbed by the development
of inner controls that are learned through childhood experience. Freud
hypothesized that the most common element that contributed to criminal
behaviour was faulty identification by a child with her or his parents. The
improperly socialized child may develop a personality disturbance that causes her
or him to direct antisocial impulses inward or outward. The child who directs
them outward becomes a criminal, and the child that directs them inward becomes
a neurotic.
Cognitive Development Theory
According to this approach, criminal behaviour results from the way in which
people organize their thoughts about morality and the law. In 1958, Lawrence
Kohlberg, a developmental psychologist, formulated a theory concerning the
development of moral reasoning. He posited that there are three levels of moral
reasoning, each consisting of two stages. During middle childhood, children are at
the first level of moral development. At this level, the pre conventional level,
moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding punishment. The second
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
22/33
Page | 22
level, the conventional level of moral development, is reached at the end of
middle childhood. The moral reasoning of individuals at this level is based on the
expectations that their family and significant others have for them. Kohlberg
found that the transition to the third level, the post conventional level of moral
development, usually occurs during early adulthood. At this level, individuals are
able to go beyond social conventions. They value the laws of the social system;
however, they are open to acting as agents of change to improve the existing law
and order. People who do not progress through the stages may become arrested in
their moral development, and consequently become delinquents.
Learning Theory
Learning theory is based upon the principles of behavioural psychology.
Behavioural psychology posits that a person's behaviour is learned and maintained
by its consequences, or reward value. These consequences may be external
reinforcement that occurs as a direct result of their behaviour (e.g. money, social
status, and goods), vicarious reinforcement that occurs by observing the behaviour
of others (e.g. observing others who are being reinforced as a result of their
behaviour), and self-regulatory mechanisms (e.g. people responding to their
behaviour). According to learning theorists, deviant behaviour can be eliminated
or modified by taking away the reward value of the behaviour. Hans J. Eysenck, a
psychologist that related principles of behavioural psychology to biology,
postulated that by way of classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and
modelling people learn moral preferences. Classical conditioning refers to the
learning process that occurs as a result of pairing a reliable stimulus with a
response. Eysenck believes, for example, that over time a child who is
consistently punished for inappropriate behaviour will develop an unpleasant
physiological and emotional response whenever they consider committing the
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
23/33
Page | 23
inappropriate behaviour. The anxiety and guilt that arise from this conditioning
process result in the development of a conscience. He hypothesizes, however, that
there is wide variability among people in their physiological processes, which
either increase or decrease their susceptibility to conditioning and adequate
socialization.
Intelligence and Crime
James Q. Wilson's and Richard J. Herrnstein's Constitutional-Learning Theory
integrates biology and social learning in order to explain the potential causes of
criminality. They argue that criminal and noncriminal behaviour have gains and
losses. If the gains that result from committing the crime (e.g. money) outweigh
the losses (e.g. being punished), then the person will commit the criminal act.
Additionally, they maintain that time discounting and equity are two other
variables that play an important role in criminality. Time discounting refers to the
immediate rewards that result from committing the crime vis-a-vis the punishment
that may result from committing the crime, or the time that it would take to earn
the reward by noncriminal means. Because people differ in their ability to delay
gratification, some persons may be more prone to committing criminal acts than
others. Moreover, judgments of equity may result in the commission of a criminal
act. The gains associated with committing the crime may help to restore a person's
feelings of being treated unjustly by society. Wilson and Herrnstein hypothesize
that there are certain constitutional factors (such as intelligence and variations is
physiological arousal) that determine how a person weighs the gains and losses
associated with committing a criminal act. According to Wilson and Herrnstein,
physiological arousal determines the ease in which people are classically
conditioned; therefore, people who are unable to associate negative feelings with
committing crime will not be deterred from committing criminal acts. In addition,
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
24/33
Page | 24
they argue that impulsive, poorly socialized children of low intelligence are at the
greatest risk of becoming criminals. However, they have only demonstrated that
low intelligence and crime occur together frequently; they have not demonstrated
that low intelligence is the cause of crime.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
25/33
Page | 25
Bibliography
Freud, S. (1961). The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19).London: Hogarth.
Cole, M. & Cole S. R. (1993). The development of children. New York:W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, Albert (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eysenck, H.J. (1964). Crime and Personality. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (1989) The causes and cures ofcriminality. Contemporary Psychology, 36, 575-577.
Wilson, J.Q. & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime and Human Nature. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.
Wrightsman, L.S., Nietzel, M.T., & Fortune, W.H. (1994). Psychology
and the Legal System. Belmont:Brooks Cole Publishing Company.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
26/33
Page | 26
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behaviour
Criminal behaviour has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age old
debate between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual's
genetic makeup that makes them a criminal or is it the environment in which they
are raised that determines their outcome? Research has been conducted regarding
this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment do
play a role in the criminality of an individual. This evidence has been generated
from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as laboratory
experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more often an
interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behaviour.
Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behaviour does not determine the
actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then
their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behaviour.
Therefore, this paper will examine the different functions that genetics and the
environment play in the criminal behaviour of individuals.
There is a vast amount of evidence that shows our criminal justice system is the
new home for individuals with psychological problems. Although this may seem
like a solution to some, it is creating a dilemma for our society. Once we label
these individuals as criminals it creates a stigma for those who may suffer from
psychological problems. Certain psychological problems have been shown to be
heritable and if given the right circumstances, individuals with those genes could
find themselves engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, should society look
towards limiting the reproductive capabilities of individuals who suffer from
certain psychological problems to better society?
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
27/33
Page | 27
That same question was asked back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries when the role of genetics in crime was widely accepted (Joseph, 2001).
Prominent researchers believed that genes were fully responsible for criminal
activity and that criminals could be identified by their physiological features.
Along with this information and the idea of a eugenics movement during the same
time period, it was not surprising to learn that acts of sterilization took place to rid
society of criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists" (Joseph, 2001, p. 182). This
period was therefore marked with inhumane treatment and the belief that genes
were the sole reason behind criminal behaviour.
Not long after the practices of controlled breeding, there was evidence to support
the idea that the environment also played an important role in crime. Early family
studies were conducted that showed a predisposition for criminal behaviour as a
result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual's characteristics and
personality could still be modified by the environment (Joseph, 2001). Although
these studies were void of high validity and reliability, it still raised the question
of whether the environment can also influence individuals to act in a criminal
manner. The debate between genetics and environment continues today with
much more reliable research and data. Consequently, this paper will examine the
various roles in which both genes and environmental factors influence criminal
behaviour.
Neurochemicals in Criminal and Anti-Social Behaviour
Neurochemicals are responsible for the activation of behavioural patterns and
tendencies in specific areas of the brain (Elliot, 2000). As seen in the Brunner et
al. study, there have been attempts to determine the role of neurochemicals in
influencing criminal or antisocial behaviour. Included in the list of
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
28/33
Page | 28
neurochemicals already cited by researchers are monoamine oxidise (MOA),
epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine.
Monoamine oxidise (MAO) is an enzyme that has been shown to be related to
antisocial behaviour. Specifically, low MAO activity results in disinhibition
which can lead to impulsivity and aggression (Elliot, 2000). The Brunner et al.
study is the only one to report findings of a relationship between a point mutation
in the structural gene for MAOA and aggression, which makes the findings rare.
However, there has been other evidence that points to the conclusion that
deficiencies in MAOA activity may be more common and as a result may
predispose individuals to antisocial or aggressive behaviour (Brunner et al., 1993).
MAO is associated with many of the neurochemicals that already have a link to
antisocial or criminal behaviour. Norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine are
metabolized by both MAOA and MAOB (Elliot, 2000). While, according to
Eysenck (1996), MAO is related to norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine,
which are all related to the personality factor of psychosis.
Serotonin is a neurochemicals that plays an important role in the personality traits
of depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder (Larsen & Buss, 2005). It is also
involved with brain development and a disorder in this system could lead to an
increase in aggressiveness and impulsivity (Morley & Hall, 2003). As Lowenstein
(2003) states, studies point to serotonin as one of the most important central
neuro-transmitters underlying the modulation of impulsive aggression" (p.72).
Low levels of serotonin have been found to be associated with impulsive
behaviour and emotional aggression. In addition, children who suffer from
conduct disorder (which will be discussed later), have also been shown to have
low blood serotonin (Elliot, 2000). Needless to say, there is a great deal of
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
29/33
Page | 29
evidence that shows serotonin is related to aggression, which can be further
associated with antisocial or criminal behaviour.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter in the brain that is associated with pleasure and is
also one of the neurotransmitters that is chiefly associated with aggression.
Activation of both affective (emotionally driven) and predatory aggression is
accomplished by dopamine (Elliot, 2000). Genes in the dopaminergic pathway
have also been found to be involved with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD) (Morley & Hall, 2003). In one study cited by Morley and Hall (2003), a
relationship was found between the genes in the dopaminergic pathway,
impulsivity, ADHD, and violent offenders. Obviously, from this list of
neurochemicals it seems plausible that there is a genetic component to antisocial
or criminal behaviour.
Personality Disorders and Traits
Personality traits and disorders have recently become essential in the diagnosis of
individuals with antisocial or criminal behaviour. These traits and disorders do not
first become evident when an individual is an adult, rather these can be seen in
children. For that reason it seems logical to discuss those personality disorders
that first appear in childhood. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
Conduct Disorder (CD), and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) are three of
the more prominent disorders that have been shown to have a relationship with
later adult behaviour (Holmes, Slaughter, & Kashani, 2001).
ODD is characterized by argumentativeness, noncompliance, and irritability,
which can be found in early childhood (Holmes et al., 2001). When a child with
ODD grows older, the characteristics of their behaviour also change and more
often for the worse. They start to lie and steal, engage in vandalism, substance
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
30/33
Page | 30
abuse, and show aggression towards peers (Holmes et al., 2001). Frequently ODD
is the first disorder that is identified in children and if sustained can lead to the
diagnosis of CD (Morley & Hall, 2003). It is important to note however that not
all children who are diagnosed with ODD will develop CD.
ADHD is associated with hyperactivity-impulsivity and the inability to keep
attention focused on one thing (Morley & Hall, 2003). Holmes et al. (2001) state
that, impulse control dysfunction and the presence of hyperactivity and
inattention are the most highly related predisposing factors for presentation of
antisocial behaviour" (p.184). They also point to the fact that children diagnosed
with ADHD have the inability to analyze and anticipate consequences or learn
from their past behaviour. Children with this disorder are at risk of developing
ODD and CD, unless the child is only diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder
(ADD), in which case their chances of developing ODD or CD are limited. The
future for some children is made worse when ADHD and CD are co-occurring
because they will be more likely to continue their antisocial tendencies into
adulthood (Holmes et al., 2001).
Conduct Disorder is characterized with an individual's violation of societal rules
and norms (Morley & Hall, 2003). As the tendencies or behaviours of those
children who are diagnosed with ODD or ADHD worsen and become more
prevalent, the next logical diagnosis is CD. What is even more significant is the
fact that ODD, ADHD, and CD are risk factors for developing Antisocial
Personality Disorder (ASPD). This disorder can only be diagnosed when an
individual is over the age of eighteen and at which point an individual shows
persistent disregard for the rights of others (Morley & Hall, 2003). ASPD has
been shown to be associated with an increased risk of criminal activity. Therefore,
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
31/33
Page | 31
it is of great importance that these early childhood disorders are correctly
diagnosed and effectively treated to prevent future problems.
Another critical aspect that must be examined regarding antisocial or criminal
behaviour is the personality characteristics of individuals. Two of the most cited
personality traits that can be shown to have an association with antisocial or
criminal behaviour are impulsivity and aggression (Morley & Hall, 2003).
According to the article written by Holmes et al. (2001), antisocial behaviour
between the ages of nine and fifteen can be correlated strongly with impulsivity
and that aggression in early childhood can predict antisocial acts and delinquency.
One statistic shows that between seventy and ninety percent of violent offenders
had been highly aggressive as young children (Holmes et al., 2001). These
personality traits have, in some research, been shown to be heritable.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
32/33
Page | 32
Bibliography
Alper, J. (1995). Biological influences on criminal behaviour: Howgood is the evidence? British Medical Journal, 310, 272-273.
Brunner, H. G., Nelen, M., Breakefield, X. O., Ropers, H. H., & vanOost, B. A. (1993). Abnormal behaviour associated with a point
mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science,
262, 578-580.
Elliot, F. A. (2000). A neurological perspective of violent behaviour. InD. H. Fishbein (Ed.), The science, treatment, and prevention of
antisocial behaviours: Application to the criminal justice system (pp.
19-1 to 19-21). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Eysenck, H. J. (1982). Personality, genetics, and behaviour. NewYork: Praeger.
Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and crime: Where do we stand?Psychology, Crime, & Law, 2, 143-152.
Garnefski, N., & Okma, S. (1996). Addiction-risk andaggressive/criminal behaviour in adolescence: Influence of family,
school, and peers. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 503-512.
Holmes, S. E., Slaughter, J. R., & Kashani, J. (2001). Risk factors inchildhood that lead to the development of conduct disorder and
antisocial personality disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 31, 183-193.
Joseph, J. (2001). Is crime in the genes? A critical review of twin andadoption studies of criminality and antisocial behaviour. The Journal
of Mind and Behaviour, 22, 179-218.
8/3/2019 Criminal Jurisprudence of Mental State
33/33
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Personality psychology: Domainsof knowledge about human nature (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw
Hill.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2003). The genetic aspects of criminality. Journal ofHuman Behaviour in the Social Environment, 8, 63-78.