Psychological theories of crime look at individual factors, such as inadequate

socialisation and negative early childhood experiences, that can result in criminal
thinking patterns. The following examples are some of the most common
theoretical frameworks within criminology.

When examining psychological theories of crime, one must be cognisant of the three
major theories. The first is psychodynamic theory, which is centred on the notion
that an individual’s early childhood experience influences his or her likelihood for
committing future crimes. The second is behavioural theory. Behavioural theorists
have expanded the work of Gabriel Tarde through behaviour modelling and social
learning. The third is cognitive theory, the major premise of which suggests that
an individual’s perception and how it is manifested (Jacoby, 2004) affect his or her
potential to commit crime. In other words, behavioural theory focuses on how an
individual’s perception of the world influences his or her behaviour.

Also relevant to psychological theories are personality and intelligence. Combined,

these five theories or characteristics (i.e., psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioural,
personality, and intelligence) offer appealing perceptions into why an individual
may commit a crime (Schmalleger, 2008). Nonetheless, one should not assume that
there is only one reason why a person commits crime.

Psychological Theories of Crime

SOME FAMOUS PSYCHOLOGISTS & THEIR THEORIES
Ainsworth, Mary and Bowlby, John - Attachment Theory
Bandura, Albert - Social Learning Theory
Erikson, Erik - Theory of Psychosocial Development
Freud, Sigmund – Psychoanalysis
Kohlberg, Lawrence - Moral Development
Pavlov, Ivan – Conditioned/unconditioned response
Piaget, Jean – Cognitive Development
Skinner, B. F. - Operant Conditioning
Thorndike, Edward - Operant Conditioning within Behaviourism
Watson, John – Classical Conditioning within Behaviourism
Psychodynamic Theory
Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic theory is based in the work of Sigmund Freud
(1856–1939), who believed that three central forces shape an individual’s
personality: the id represents instinctual needs, the ego represents understood
social norms and the superego is learned moral reasoning.

Delinquent behaviour is caused by imbalances between the id, ego and superego.
Conflict between the three personality components forces an individual to foster
defence mechanisms to cope with the conflict. As a result, problematic behaviour
and delinquency can result. Erik Erikson expanded on Freud’s theory, explaining
delinquency as an “identity crisis” that is created by inner disorder.

 One can think of the id is as the primitive part of a person’s mental makeup
that is present at birth. Freud (1933) believed the id represents the
unconscious biological drives for food, sex, and other necessities over the
life time. Most significant is the idea that the id is involved with instant
pleasure or gratification while ignoring concern for others. This is known as
the pleasure principle, and it is often paramount when discussing criminal
behaviour. All too often, one sees news stories and studies about criminal
offenders who have no concern for anyone but themselves. Is it possible that
these male and female offenders are driven by instant gratification?
 The second element of the human personality is the ego, which is thought to
develop early in a person’s life. For example, when children learn that their
wishes cannot be gratified instantaneously, they often throw a tantrum.
Freud (1933) suggested that the ego compensates for the demands of the id
by guiding an individual’s actions or behaviours to keep him or her within
the boundaries of society. The ego is guided by the reality principle.
 The third element of personality, the superego, develops as a person
integrates the moral standards and values of the community; parents; and
significant others, such as friends and clergy members. The focus of the
superego is morality. The superego serves to pass judgment on the behaviour
and actions of individuals (Freud, 1933). The ego mediates between the id’s
desire for instant gratification and the strict morality of the superego. One
can assume that young adults as well as adults understand right from wrong.
However, when a crime is committed, supporters of psychodynamic theory
would suggest that an individual committed a crime because he or she has an
underdeveloped superego.
Critics of psychodynamic theory point to how it is difficult to test empirically.
Some critics note the “circular nature” of this theory — “unconscious
manifestations of pathology are ‘inferred from behaviour’ and that behaviour is
interpreted as a symptom of the pathology,” the Journal of Human Behaviour in
the Social Environment states.

In sum, psychodynamic theory suggests that criminal offenders are frustrated and
aggravated. They are continually dragged to past events that happened in their
early childhood. Because of a negligent, unhappy, or miserable childhood, which is
most often characterised by a lack of love and/or nurturing, a criminal offender has
a weak (or absent) ego. Most important, research suggests that having a weak ego
is linked with poor or absence of social etiquette, immaturity, and dependence on
others. Research further suggests that individuals with weak egos may be more
likely to engage in drug abuse.

Behavioural Theory
Behavioural theory argues that behaviour is learned. Also referred to as social
learning theory, behavioural theory supports that actions are determined largely by
life experiences.

A fundamental concept to behavioural theory is conditioning, which refers to a

form of learning that involves stimuli and rewards. When a person’s actions are
reinforced through conditioning, the behaviour is learned. Environment is also a
major factor in the development of behaviours.

Edwin Sutherland’s revolutionary work, Principles of Criminology, introduced the

theory that criminal behaviour occurs in a cultural conflict where association with
criminals increases criminal behaviour. The differential association theory was
later expanded to include how differential reinforcement of deviant behaviours is
also required to explain criminal behaviour.

The trademark of behavioural theory is the conception that people alter or change
their behaviour according to the reactions this behaviour stimulates other people
(Bandura, 1978). In an ideal situation, behaviour is supported by rewards and
extinguished by negative reactions or punishments. Behaviourists view crimes as
learned responses to life’s situations. Social learning theory, which is a branch of
behaviour theory, is the most relevant to criminology. The most prominent social
learning theorist is Albert Bandura (1978). Bandura maintains that individuals are
not born with an innate ability to act violently. He suggested that, in contrast,
violence and aggression are learned through a process of behaviour modelling
(Bandura, 1977). In other words, children learn violence through the observation of
others. Aggressive acts are modelled after three primary sources: (1) family
interaction, (2) environmental experiences, and (3) the mass media. Research on
family interaction demonstrates that children who are aggressive are more likely to
have been brought up by parents or caretakers who are aggressive (Jacoby, 2004).

The second source of behavioural problems, environmental experiences, suggests

that individuals who reside in areas that are crime prone are more likely to display
aggressive behaviour than those who reside in low-crime areas (Shelden, 2006). One
could argue that high-crime areas are without norms, rules, and customs (Bohm,
2001). Furthermore, there is an absence of conventional behaviour. Manifestations
of unconventional behaviour include the inability to gain employment; drug or
alcohol abuse; and failure to obey the local, state, and federal laws. Most important,
individuals who adhere to conventional behaviour are invested in society and
committed to a goal or belief system. They are involved in schools or extracurricular
activities, such as football, baseball, or Girl Scouts, and often they have an
attachment to family (Kraska, 2004).

The third source of behavioural problems are the mass media. It is difficult to discern
the ultimate role of the media in regard to crime. Scholars have suggested that films,
video games, and television shows that depict violence are harmful to children.
Ultimately, social learning theories beckon us to accept the fact that the mass media
are responsible for a great deal of the violence in our society. They hypothesize that
children who play violent video games and later inflict physical or psychological
damage to someone at school did so because of the influence of the video game.
Important to note that in the above-mentioned media outlets (e.g., video games),
violence is often acceptable and even celebrated. Moreover, there are no
consequences for the actions of the major players. Professional athletes provide an
interesting example of misbehaviour without significant consequences. Over the last
50 years, there have been many documented cases of professional athletes who
engaged in inappropriate behaviour on and off the field. These cases have important
implications for the children who observe this behaviour. Thus, when a 10-year-old
amateur athlete imitates behaviour that he has learned by observing professional
sports figures, whom does society blame or punish? Substantiating the relationship
between the media and violence is the fact that many studies suggest that media
violence enables or allows aggressive children or adolescents to justify or rationalize
their behaviour. Furthermore, consistent media violence desensitizes children and
adolescents. A person could argue that viewing 10,000 homicides on television over
 a 10-year period prevents (i.e., desensitizes) an individual from adjusting to the
appropriate psychological response. Thus, when the local news reports about a
homicide, does the child or adolescent respond with sorrow or indifference (Jacoby,
2004)? When searching for stimuli that foster violent acts, social learning theorists
suggest that an individual is likely to inflict harm when he or she is subject to a
violent assault, verbal heckling or insults, disparagement, and the inability to achieve
his or her goals and aspirations (Siegel, 2009).

Cognitive Theory
Cognitive theory is based on the idea that cognitive progressions are at the centre
of behaviours, thoughts and emotions. It is predominantly constructed on the work
of Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck, which emphasises what people think instead of
what they do.

Cognitive theorists have proposed stages of cognitive development that can help
explain crime and delinquency. Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) came up with
three levels of moral development.

 The pre-conventional level is common in children and focuses on external

consequences that actions may have.
 The conventional level is common in adolescents and young adults and focuses on
society’s views and expectations.
 The post-conventional level is common in adults over the age of 20 and focuses on
the critical examination of human rights and moral principles.

Most important to criminal justice and criminology is the notion that laws are valid
only if they are based on or grounded in justice. It is important to recognize that
justice is subjective. Thus, Kohlberg argued that the quest for justice would
ultimately call for disobeying unjust laws. He suggested that individuals could
progress through the six stages in a chronological fashion. Important for criminology
is that Kohlberg suggested that criminals are significantly lower in their moral
judgment development.

Theorists argue that offenders have failed to develop their moral judgment capacity
beyond a pre-conventional level. Other cognitive theories examine delinquency
and crime from a life development perspective. Evidence varies for each theory
within the cognitive model, and the Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social
Environment says that more research is needed to evaluate these theories.

Two sub disciplines of cognitive theory are worthy of discussion. The first sub
discipline is the moral development branch, the focus of which is understanding how
people morally represent and reason about the world. The second sub discipline is
information processing. Here, researchers focus on the way people acquire, retain,
and retrieve information (Siegel, 2009). Ultimately, scholars are concerned with the
process of those three stages (i.e., acquisition, retention, and retrieval). One theory
within the cognitive framework focuses on moral and intellectual development. Jean
Piaget (1896–1980) hypothesised that the individual reasoning process is developed
in an orderly fashion. Thus, from birth onward an individual will continue to
develop.

The next sub discipline is the information-processing branch. This area is predicated
on the notion that people use information to understand their environment. When an
individual makes a decision, he or she engages in a sequence of cognitive thought
processes. To illustrate, individuals experience an event and encode or store the
relevant information so it can be retrieved and interpreted at a later date (Conklin,
2007). Second, these individuals search for the appropriate response, and then they
determine the appropriate action. Last, they must act on their decision. There are
some vital findings regarding this process. First, individuals who use information
properly are more likely to avoid delinquent or criminal behaviour (Shelden, 2006).
Second, those who are conditioned to make reasoned judgments when faced with
emotional events are more likely to avoid antisocial behavioural decisions (Siegel,
2008). Interestingly, an explanation for flawed reasoning is that the individual may
be relying on a faulty cognitive process; specifically, he or she may be following a
mental script that was learned in childhood (Jacoby, 2004). A second reason that
may account for flawed reasoning is persistent exposure to violence. A third
possibility of flawed reasoning is oversensitivity or rejection by parents or peers.
Contemplating the consequences of long-lasting rejection or dismissal is likely to
produce damage to an individual’s self-esteem. Research has demonstrated that
individuals who use violence as a coping mechanism are substantially more likely
to exhibit other problems, such as alcohol and drug dependency (Pique & Mazarolle,
2001).
Mental Disorders and Crime

Within the psychodynamic theory of crime are mood disorders. Criminal offenders
may have a number of mood disorders that are ultimately manifested as depression,
rage, narcissism, and social isolation. One example of a disorder found in children
is conduct disorder. Children with conduct disorder have difficulty following rules
and behaving in socially acceptable ways (Boccaccini, Murrie, Clark, & Comell,
2008). Conduct disorders are ultimately manifested as a group of behavioural and
emotional problems in young adults. It is important to note that children diagnosed
with conduct disorder are viewed by adults, other children, and agencies of the state
as “trouble,” “bad,” “delinquent,” or even “mentally ill.” It is important to inquire as
to why some children develop conduct disorder and others do not. There are many
possible explanations; some of the most prominent include child abuse, brain
damage, genetics, poor school performance, and a traumatic event.

Children with conduct disorder are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviours
toward others (Boccaccini et al., 2008), and they may be cruel to animals. Other
manifestations include bullying; intimidation; fear; initiating fights; and using a
weapon, such as a gun, a knife, a box cutter, rocks, a broken bottle, a golf club, or a
baseball bat. Adolescents with conduct disorder could also force someone into
unwanted sexual activity. Property damage may also be a concern; one may observe
these children starting fires with the ultimate intent to destruct property or even kill
someone. Other unacceptable behaviours associated with conduct disorder include
lying and stealing, breaking into an individual’s house or an unoccupied building or
car, lying to obtain desirable goods, avoiding obligations, and taking possessions
from individuals or stores. Last, children with conduct disorder are more likely to
violate curfews despite their parents’ desires. These children also are more likely to
run away from home and to be late for or truant from school. There is no question
that children who exhibit the above-mentioned behaviours must receive a medical
and psychological examination. It is important to note that many children with
conduct disorder could very well have another existing condition, such as anxiety,
posttraumatic stress disorder, drug or alcohol abuse, or attention deficit disorder
(Siegel, 2008). It is important to recognize that children with conduct disorder are
likely to have continuing, long-lasting problems if they do not receive treatment at
the earliest onset. Without treatment, these children will not be able to become
accustomed to the demands of adulthood and will continue to have problems and
issues with a variety of relationships and even with finding and maintaining a job or
occupation. Treatment of children with conduct disorder is often considered
complex and exigent. It is rarely brief, because establishing new attitudes and
behaviour patterns takes time. As mentioned previously, early treatment offers a
child a greater probability for improvement and for ultimately living a productive
and successful life. An important component for the medical doctor or psychological
clinician to consider is convincing the child to develop a good attitude, learn to
cooperate, trust others, and eliminate fear in their lives. Behaviour therapy and
psychotherapy may be necessary to help the child learn how to control and express
anger. Moreover, special education classes may be required for children with
learning disabilities. In some cases, treatment may include prescribed medication,
although medicine would ideally be reserved for children experiencing problems
with depression, attention, or spontaneity/impulsivity. (For more information on
conduct disorder, see http://www.aacap.org/.)

A second example of a disorder found in children is oppositional defiant disorder

(Siegel, 2008). This is most often diagnosed in childhood. Manifestations or
characterizations of oppositional defiant disorder include defiance;
uncooperativeness; irritability; a very negative attitude; a tendency to lose one’s
temper; and exhibiting deliberately annoying behaviours toward peers, parents,
teachers, and other authority figures, such as police officers (Siegel, 2008). There is
no known cause of oppositional defiant disorder; however, there are two primary
theories that attempt to explain its development. One theory suggests that problems
begin in children as early as the toddler years. It is important to note that adolescents
and small children who develop oppositional defiant disorder may have experienced
a difficult time developing independent or autonomous skills and learning to
separate from their primary caretaker or attachment figure. In essence, the bad
attitudes that are characteristic of oppositional defiant disorder are viewed as a
continuation of developmental issues that were not resolved during the early toddler
years.

The second theory to explain oppositional defiant disorder focuses on learning. This
theory suggests the negative characteristics of oppositional defiant disorder are
learned attitudes that demonstrate the effects of negative reinforcement used by
parents or persons in authority (Siegel, 2009). It is important to recognize that the
majority of symptoms observed in adolescents and children with oppositional defiant
disorder also occur, at times, in children without this disorder. Relevant examples
include a child who is hungry, tired, troubled, or disobeys/argues with his or her
parent. It is important to note that adolescents and children with oppositional defiant
disorder often exhibit symptoms that hinder the learning process, lead to poor
adjustment in school, and most likely hurt the child’s relationships with others. Some
of the symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder include frequent temper tantrums,
excessive arguments with adults, refusal to comply with adult requests, questioning
rules, refusing to follow rules, engaging in behaviour intended to annoy or upset
others, blaming others for one’s misbehaviours or mistakes, being easily annoyed by
others, frequently having an angry attitude, speaking harshly or unkindly, and
deliberately behaving in ways that seek revenge.

In regard to analysis, it is often teachers and parents who identify the child or
adolescent with oppositional defiant disorder. However, children must be taken to a
qualified medical doctor and/or mental health professional who will make an official
diagnosis. Doctors will inquire into the history of the child’s behaviour, which
includes the perspective of all interested parties (i.e., parents and teachers) and will
verify the results of any previous clinical observations of the child’s behaviour.
Psychological testing also may assist in assigning a diagnosis. As always, early
detection and treatment are desirable. Actually, early treatment can often prevent
future problems.

Oppositional defiant disorder may exist alongside other mental health problems,
including mood and anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Treatment for children and adolescents with oppositional
defiant disorder will be determined by a physician who considers the child’s age,
overall health, and medical history. The physician also considers the extent or
totality of a child’s symptoms, the child’s tolerance for certain medications or
therapies, expectations for the course of the condition, and the opinion or preference
of the caretaker or parent. Most important, treatment could include psychotherapy
that teaches problem-solving skills, communication skills, impulse control, and
anger management skills. Treatment may also be in the form of family therapy. Here,
the approach is focused on making changes within the family system with the desired
goal of improved family interaction and communication skills. Peer group therapy,
which is focused on developing social skills and interpersonal skills, also is an
option. The last and least desirable treatment option is medication. (For more
information on oppositional defiant disorder, see http://www.aacap.org/.)

Mental Illness and Crime

The most critical forms of personality disturbance will result in mental disorders.
The most serious mental disturbances are referred to as “psychoses” (Siegel, 2008).
Examples of mental health disorders include bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Bipolar disorder is marked by extreme highs and lows; the person alternates between
excited, assertive, and loud behaviour and lethargic, listless, and melancholic
behaviour. A second mental health disturbance is schizophrenia. Schizophrenic
individuals often exhibit illogical and incoherent thought processes, and they often
lack insight into their behaviour and do not understand reality. A person with
paranoid schizophrenia also experiences complex behaviour delusions that involve
wrongdoing or persecution (Jacoby, 2004). Individuals with paranoid schizophrenia
often believe everyone is out to get them. It is important to note that research shows
that female offenders appear to have a higher probability of serious mental health
symptoms than male offenders. These include symptoms of schizophrenia, paranoia,
and obsessive behaviours. At the same time, studies of males accused of murder
have found that three quarters could be classified as having some form of mental
illness. Another interesting fact is that individuals who have been diagnosed with a
mental illness are more likely to be arrested, and they appear in court at a
disproportionate rate. Last, research suggests that delinquent children have a higher
rate of clinical mental disorders compared with adolescents in the general population
(Siegel, 2008).

Personality and Crime

Personality can be defined as something that makes us what we are and also that
which makes us different from others (Clark, Boccaccini, Caillouet, & Chaplin,
2007). Ideally, personality is stable over time. Examinations of the relationship
between personality and crime have often yielded inconsistent results. One of the
most well-known theories of personality used to examine this relationship is the Big
Five model of personality. This model provides a vigorous structure into which most
personality characteristics can be categorized. This model suggests that five domains
account for individual differences in personality: (1) Neuroticism, (2) Extraversion,
(3) Openness, (4) Agreeableness, and (5) Conscientiousness (Clark et al., 2007).
Neuroticism involves emotional stability. Individuals who score high on this domain
often demonstrate anger and sadness and have irrational ideas, uncontrollable
impulses, and anxiety. In contrast, persons who score low on Neuroticism are often
described by others as even tempered, calm, and relaxed.

The second domain, Extraversion, is characterized by sociability, excitement, and

stimulation. Individuals who score high on Extraversion (extraverts) are often very
active, talkative, and assertive. They also are more optimistic toward the future. In
contrast, introverts are often characterized by being reserved, independent, and shy
(Clark et al., 2007).

The third domain is Openness, referring to individuals who have an active

imagination, find pleasure in beauty, are attentive to their inner feelings, have a
preference for variety, and are intellectually curious. Individuals who score high on
Openness are willing to entertain unique or novel ideas, maintain unconventional
values, and experience positive and negative emotions more so than individuals who
are closed-minded. In contrast, persons who score low in Openness often prefer the
familiar, behave in conventional manners, and have a conservative viewpoint (Clark
et al., 2007).

The fourth domain is Agreeableness. This domain is related to interpersonal

tendencies. Individuals who score high on this domain are considered warm,
altruistic, soft-hearted, forgiving, sympathetic, and trusting. In contrast, those who
are not agreeable are described as hard-hearted, intolerant, impatient, and
argumentative.

Conscientiousness, the fifth domain, focuses on a person’s ability to control

impulses and exercise self-control. Individuals who score high on Conscientiousness
are described as organized, thorough, efficient, determined, and strong willed. In
addition, those who are conscientious are more likely to achieve high academic and
occupational desires. In contrast, people who score low on this domain are thought
to be careless, lazy, and more likely assign fault to others than to accept blame
themselves (Clark et al., 2007).

One personality study discovered that the personality traits of hostility, impulsivity,
and narcissism are correlated with delinquent and criminal behaviour. Furthermore,
research conducted by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck during the 1930s and 1940s
identified a number of personality traits that were characteristic of antisocial youth
(Schmalleger, 2008). Another important figure who examined the criminal
personality is Hans Eysenck (1916–1997). Eysenck identified two antisocial
personality traits: (1) extraversion and (2) neuroticism. Eysenck suggested that
individuals who score at the ends of either domain of extraversion and neuroticism
are more likely to be self-destructive and criminal (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).
Moreover, neuroticism is associated with self-destructive behaviour (e.g., abusing
drugs and alcohol and committing crimes).

Psychopathic Personality

Antisocial personality, psychopathy, or sociopath are terms used interchangeably

(Siegel, 2009). Sociopaths are often a product of a destructive home environment.
Psychopaths are a product of a defect or aberration within themselves. The antisocial
personality is characterised by low levels of guilt, superficial charm, above-average
intelligence, persistent violations of the rights of others, an incapacity to form
enduring relationships, impulsivity, risk taking, egocentricity, being manipulative,
forcefulness and cold-heartedness, and shallow emotions (Jacoby, 2004). The origin
may include traumatic socialisation, neurological disorder, and brain abnormality
(Siegel, 2008). Interestingly, if an individual suffers from low levels of arousal as
measured by a neurological examination, he or she may engage in thrill seeking or
high-risk behaviours such as crime to offset their low arousal level. Other dynamics
that may contribute to the psychopathic personality is a parent with pathologic
tendencies, childhood traumatic events, or inconsistent discipline. It is important to
note that many chronic offenders are sociopaths. Thus, if personality traits can
predict crime and violence, then one could assume that the root cause of crime is
found in the forces that influence human development at an early stage of life
(Siegel, 2008).

Intelligence and Crime

Charles Goring (1870–1919) discovered a relationship between crime and flawed

intelligence. Goring examined more than 3,000 convicts in England. It is important
to note that Goring found no physical differences between noncriminal and
criminals; however, he did find that criminals are more likely to be insane, to be
unintelligent, and to exhibit poor social behaviour. A second pioneer is Gabriel
Tarde (1843–1904), who maintained that individuals learn from each other and
ultimately imitate one another. Interestingly, Tarde thought that out of 100
individuals, only 1 was creative or inventive and the remainder were prone to
imitation (Jacoby, 2004).

Criminologists have suggested for centuries that there exists a link between
intelligence and crime (Dabney, 2004). Some common beliefs are that criminals and
delinquents possess low intelligence and that this low intelligence causes
criminality. As criminological research has advanced, scholars have continued to
suggest that the Holy Grail is causality. The ability to predict criminals from non-
criminals is the ultimate goal. The ideology or concept of IQ and crime has
crystallized into the nature-versus-nurture debate (Jacoby, 2004).

The nature-versus-nurture debate is a psychological argument that is related to

whether the environment or heredity impacts the psychological development of
individuals (Messner & Rosenfield, 2007). Science recognizes that we share our
parents’ DNA. To illustrate, some people have short fingers like their mother and
brown eyes like their father. With respect to the nature side, research on the prison
population has consistently shown that inmates typically score low on IQ tests
(Challenger, 2008). In the early decades of the 20th century, researchers
administered IQ tests to delinquent male children. The results indicated that close to
40% had below-average intelligence (Siegel, 2008). On the basis of these data and
other studies, some scholars argue that the role of nature is prevalent. However, can
researchers assume a priori that heredity determines IQ, which in turn influences an
individual’s criminal behaviour? One criticism of this perspective is the failure to
account for free will. Many individuals in our society believe in the ability to make
choices. Last, there are many individuals who have a low IQ but refrain from
committing crime.

With respect to nurture theory, advocates ground themselves on the premise that
intelligence is not inherited. There is some recognition of the role of heredity;
however, emphasis is placed on the role of society (i.e., environment). To
demonstrate, parents are a major influence on their children’s behaviour. At an early
age, parents read books; play music; and engage their children in art, museum, and
sporting events. Some parents spend no quality time with their children, and these
children are believed to perform poorly on intelligence test. Other groups important
in a child’s nurturing are friends, relatives, and teachers. Ultimately, the child who
has no friends or relatives and drops out of school is destined for difficult times.
Research has demonstrated that the more education a person has, the higher his or
her IQ.

The nature-versus-nurture debate will continue. The debate has peaks and valleys.
For years, the debate subsides, and this is followed by years of scrutiny and a great
deal of attention. One of two major studies that highlighted this debate was
conducted by Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang (1977). These scholars
suggested that low IQ increases the likelihood of criminal behaviour through its
effect on school performance. This argument seems somewhat elementary. Their
argument is that a child with a low IQ will perform poorly in school. In turn, this
school failure is followed by dropping out. Given the poor school performance, a
child is left with very few options (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977). This ultimately leads
to delinquency and adult criminality. Support of this position has been widespread.
Furthermore, it is important to note that U.S. prisons and jails are highly populated
with inmates who only have an average of eighth-grade education. At the same time,
these same inmates at the time of their offense were unemployed.

The second nature-versus-nature study that warrants attention was conducted by

Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray (1994). In their book The Bell Curve, these
scholars suggested individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to commit crime, get
caught, and be sent to prison. Importantly, these authors transport the IQ and crime
link to another level. Specifically, they suggested that prisons and jails are highly
populated with inmates with low IQs; however, what about those criminals who
actions go undetected? Through self-reported data, the researchers discovered that
these individuals have a lower IQ than the general public. Thus, research concludes
those criminal offenders who have been caught and those who have not have an IQ
lower than the general population (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994).

Conclusion

The relationship between psychology and criminal behaviour is significant. In sum,

when citizens and scholars attempt to understand why people commit a crime,
recognition must be given to psychological theories. Not doing so would be a serious
error in judgment.

Cases related to psychological causes of crime

Heriberto Seda was a recluse from birth. In a neighbourhood infested with crime,
his mother tried to safeguard her only son from the dangers that lurked around
every corner. She never let Heriberto have friends over or let him venture too far
from home. Each day, Heriberto would return from school to his apartment where,
in the solitude of his room, he watched television, looked at basketball trading
cards, and developed a fascination with the concept of God.

In 1984, Heriberto was suspended for discharging a starter’s pistol in class. A few
months’ shy of graduation, Heriberto dropped out of Francis K. Lane High School
and took to spreading the word of God on a full-time basis. He roamed the streets
of his neighbourhood to do “the Will of God.” Dressed in black, with his hair
neatly restrained in a ponytail, Heriberto would emerge from his home after dark
and berate the drug dealers that conducted business in the hallways and on the
streets. He preached by night and returned to the seclusion of his home by day.
Here, his previously innocent hobbies had taken a sinister turn––basketball trading
cards were replaced by those of serial murderers from the True Crime Series; the
magazines now had a militaristic twist: Soldier of Fortune and mail-order
catalogues for military supplies; models of boats and ships were replaced by filed-
down zip guns and homemade pipe bombs, with a generous sprinkling of gas
masks, machetes, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

On March 8, 1990, Heriberto embarked on the first of many shootings in his

crusade to eradicate evil––to dispose of the enemies of God. During the course of
the next few years, Heriberto Seda shot eight people, killing three. All his victims
were vulnerable:
- a homeless man asleep on a park bench,
- a crippled factory worker on his way home,
 - a 78-year-old man who turned his back to get his murderer a glass of
water.

Heriberto vowed to shoot and kill a person born under each astrological sign.

After several of the firings, cryptic messages with astrological underpinnings were
located nearby, scrawled on pieces of paper. Similar letters were to 60 Minutes and
the New York Post, declaring him the Zodiac, all sealed with the same trademark
signature: An encircled cross with three 7s. The signature at the end of each
message would prove to be his downfall.

In 1994, Heriberto Seda was arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, but the
charges were dropped a few days later when the weapon was held inoperable for
safety reasons; in no time, Heriberto was back on the streets of New York. On June
18, 1996, he shot his 19-year-old sister Gladys Chachi Reyes in her back, after a
claimed quarrel over her promiscuity. A 3-hour standoff with the police ensued,
ending in his capture.

Down at the police station, Seda gave a signed statement sealed with his
trademark: an encircled cross with three 7s. This evidence, in addition to expert
fingerprint analysis linking him to four of the shootings earlier, sealed the fate of
the Zodiac Killer. In 1998, he was convicted of three murders and one attempted
murder in a Queens, NY, court. He was condemned to 83 years to life in prison. In
July 1999, a Brooklyn, NY, jury convicted him of attempting to murder eight
people, including his 19-year-old sister. The judge added another 152.5 years to his
sentence.

Victims-

Zodiac
Date Victim Status Description
Sign

March Mario Shot in the back. The bullet stayed lodged

Scorpio Survived
8, 1990 Orozco next to his spine.
 March Shot in the left torso of his lower body. The
Jermaine bullet went through his
29, Aries Survived
Montenegro liver.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heriberto_Seda
1990
- cite_note-3and5-5

May Shot in his lower back, hitting his kidney.

Joseph
31, Taurus Died He survived the attack, but died in the
"Joe" Proce
1990 hospital on June 24, 1990

June Shot in the chest. The bullet missed his

Larry
19, Gemini Survived aorta and exited his body through his right
Parham
1990 armpit.

August
Patricia Shot twice and then was stabbed over 100
10, Leo Died
Fonti times.
1992

James
June 4,
"Jim" Gemini Survived Shot in the buttocks.
1993
Weber

July 20, John

Cancer Died Shot in the head at close range.
1993 Diacone

October Diane Shot in the neck. The bullet missed vital

Libra Survived
2, 1993 Ballard arteries but lodged against her spine.

[Source:Wikipedia]
In each instance, the victim's zodiac sign was correct. It was just pure luck that
Seda chose each victim according to astrology sign, not having any pre-knowledge
of their birthdates.
Roshu Kha
Bangladeshi confessed serial killer
 CRIMES-
-Rape and Murder of a 19-year-old woman
-Admitted to killing 11 female garments worker

 PUNISHMENT-
-Hanged to death

 BACKGROUND-

Roshu Kha, 37, hailed from Modna village of Chandpur whose wife was a garment
worker. During an extra marital affair with another garment worker, the girl
betrayed him and beat Roshu Kha up with her lover and hired goons. Enraged,
Roshu Kha then made a pledge to rape 101 women and thus began Roshu Kha’s
spree of rapes and killings. He feigned and acted to trap girls into relationships and
later raped and killed them by bringing them from Savar and Tangi to Chandpur.
He dumped their remains in the water bodies there.
There is not much information on his personal life and family on the internet.
But this man, Roshu Kha, is one of the most infamous criminals to have ever lived
in Bangladesh.