THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MURDER

Abstract:
    Since the beginning of time people have killed one another. Scientists, philosophers, as well as psychologists have all pondered the same age old question, why do people murder. Is it a born trait which is destined to always exist?  Or is there a good and evil force which exists in an ideal form throughout the universe?  More contemporary thought on this subject by psychologists would suggest not, however their work does lend itself to an open interpretation of human nature, which can easily be observed through both science and philosophy.

    Murder is as old as time itself. Ever since the cave man crawled out of their caves, people have been cracking each other over the head with whatever they could find to kill each other with. Whether it be to achieve the human's basic needs for food, shelter, and sex. Or rather because of of a higher human drive such as ego or self-awareness, we have been very busy beating the crap out of each other, as well as even murdering one another.  The struggle for survival has lent itself to much madness over the ages.  Many despots, tyrants, and genuine evil-doers have roamed the landscapes of this world devising every known conceivable way to kill a person.  People say that killing is not an inborn trait. I beg to differ.  If survival is an inborn trait, so is killing.  Moreover, if war is the answer to all of society's disputes, then the act of murdering another must be the social norm.  One can easily see that the issue of murder is very broad and easily borders the philosophical.  so the question becomes once again, why do people murder?  Let's examine this issue from all three angles: the scientific, philosophical, and the psychological, in hopes of coming to some conclusions.

Literature Review

    After reviewing the book, the Politics of Punishment; a central analysis of prisons in America, a few statistics arise that I found to be quite surprising. The author stated that more than two million burglaries, three hundred thousand robberies and fifteen hundred murders are committed each year in the United States. The author stated as to the reasons these high crime rates exist was largely due to economic issues. He reasoned that people in a quest to acquire such things as food, clothing, and shelter within our capitalistic society the ends to these material goods justifies the means. The author contends that most crime is associated with economic difficulties people face in their lives.

    Although I agree with some of this reasoning that crime has roots with economic difficulties in peoples lives, I find the roots of crime to be more socially oriented. I feel that one’s upbringing, or family life experience, constitutes much of how a person conducts himself as well as how a person goes about setting goals to achieve a successful lifestyle. Within our capitalistic society everyone is given an opportunity to be educated within the United States public school system. Furthermore, it is up to the parents to encourage their children no matter what their socio-econonic status, they can achieve a lifestyle as well as a career field which is productive enough to keep them out of the criminal gang. To blame the rich for the poor being predestined to be criminals is at best a cop out. However, as I have stated before, there is some truth to the dilemma concerning the have’s and the have not’s and who is involved in committing crime.

    Another work which I reviewed concerning this issue of unemployed persons and crime was the book Crime and Punishment in Revolutionary Paris. The author here suggests that in Paris in the Eighteen Century many unemployed workers came from other provinces. Most of these unemployed workers, of course, came to Paris after the revolution to find employment. However, most failed to find employment and stayed in the city and turned into criminals. France believed that Paris in the early Eighteen century had what could be known as a criminal subculture in which family units trained their children the arts of begging, stealing and all other crimes as a means of survival.
I find this interesting because in order to understand crime, which in my case I am trying trace back the roots of why people murder. It is important to have an understanding of where crime comes from and why it exists. In this work Crimes and Punishment in Revolutionary Paris, the author is giving some insight on crime as somewhat of a hereditary function. I don’t completely disagree with this however, I believe that crime is a combination of many things; biological, psychological, as well as sociological components which come together with other issues in society to make a perfect criminal.

    The author of the book, The Criminal Justice of the USSR, noted some causes of crime within the USSR. Not surprising some of the same causes which are found here in the United States as being linked to criminal behavior can be found in Russia as well. The author notes as some of the causes of crime within Russia are alcoholism, insufficient material well-being as well as bad family environments as some of the more main problems within the Russian society He also notes in this work that a major problem within Russia is the inadequacies of the educational institutions. He states that sociological studies show that an inadequate, inflexible general system of basic education, professional training, or university education leads to such social expenses as school drop-outs, disadvantages in employment, and physiological difficulties. The totality of such factors he concludes have a direct effect on the crime rate. (Bassionni, M.C., Savitski, V. M. (1979). The criminal justice system of USSR. Illinois: Thomas Books. Pg 164.)

    Taking this knowledge a step further and applying it to murder, one of the major observations which has emerged from research on homicide, is that homicide is not commonly an event involving people who are unknown to each other. In a 1958 Philadelphia study, for example, only 12% of homicides involved people who were strangers to each other. (Polk, Kenneth. (1994). When Men Kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. Hong Kong, Cambridge University Press. Pg. 3-4) Within this work, the author presents a definition of homicide in the modern day meaning of the word. He defines homicides as those interpersonal assaults and other acts directed against another person. (For example: poisonings) that occur outside the context of warfare and that prove fatal. (Polk Pg. 9).

    In drawing correlation’s between general crime and murder, one can easily see that basic crimes such as burglary, assaults, etc. and murder all seem to have a correlation as being committed by people who generally know you. I agree with this reasoning because it would make sense that persons who commit crimes against other people would have some knowledge of their comings and goings or daily routine. However, if one is to agree with the idea that unemployment or social economic factors cause crime, it would seem that more crime would be of opportunity within the motions of daily life. In most inner cities, people come and go in the millions and crimes of opportunity don’t happen in my opinion by those who are acquainted with one another as much as statistics would suggest.

    Within the work America’s Growing Menace: Mass murder, the author Jack Levine suggests that thirty-five mass murderers are currently on the loose nationwide. He attributes this phenomena of serial killers to the extensive news coverage which is given to these mass killings. He suggests that because of this extensive news coverage the serial killers are encouraged to commit murder. This theme of the media having the greatest influence on society at large is one which comes up quite often. Once again, people look to other factors besides the family unit as reasons for criminal behavior. However, Levine does suggest that genetics does play a part in explaining this phenomena.

    The work The Tragedy of Lynching written in 1933 explores the phenomenon of lynching in the United States after reconstruction. The author here notes that the majority of persons known to have taken an active part in lynching were unattached and irresponsible youths of 25 or less, many of them not yet out of their teens. Among them were older men who encouraged the youngsters. The author also notes that drinking was in evidence in most of the mobs. A further note on the lynching phenomena states as to the ownership of property, the known act of lynchers were generally propertyless. In the majority of cases, they were unemployed, rambling, irresponsible people, many of them with court records. (Raper, A. F. (1933) The Tragedy of Lynching. Chapel Hill: The UNC Press. Pg. 11) The author fails to note that during reconstruction in the south most of the southerners were stripped of their property by the government. The fact that unemployed mobs were involved in lynching was an unfortunate circumstance of reconstruction policy. However, I find it intriguing that the author fails to note or make a relationship between reconstruction policy and the unemployment rate of youths. Even in present day America, the south suffers an unemployment rate which is higher than that of the rest of the nation. This theme of unemployment and crime is a reoccurring one which has been noted in many works throughout the centuries. However, here, the author somehow suggests that the people involved in lynching were just unemployed youngsters with nothing better to do. The theme of reconstruction policies within the south and their disenfranchising nature is suspiciously missing. I find this to be somewhat suspicious in creating an argument about lynching in the south and leaving out this correlation.

    Within the book, Myths that Cause Crime, the author states that there is no coincidence that the levels of unemployment correspond to levels of crime. He goes on to state that to deal with both crime and unemployment, the solutions lies in the direction of government investment in creating worker-owned enterprises throughout society and employing technology that ordinary citizens can control themselves. (Pepinsky, H.E., Jesilow, P. (1984). Myths that Cause Crime. Washington D. C.: Seven Locks Press. (Pg. 19). I am assuming after reviewing this statement that what the author is suggesting is that the United States should indoctrinate socialism within the ranking file of US citizens. The catch phrase “government involvement” as well as “worker-owned” enterprises leads me to that assumption. I am under the impression that indoctrinating socialism within the American ideals of capitalism is not the solution. I am furthermore a little bit fuzzy on what is meant by the ordinary citizen. I am assuming here that the author is referring to the taxpayer. In my opinion, socialism equals government involvement and government equals the ordinary citizen having his pockets emptied out. The answers to both unemployment and crime in my opinion are not found in any answer which socialism can give. Instead of using government involvement in creating worker-owned enterprises, let’s try to educate the youth and show them how obtaining knowledge and education helps find better jobs within our already developed capitalistic society.

    Within the book, The Roots of Evil, the author gives some insight on the origins of crime within the United States. The author states that the systematic transportation of criminals to the American colonies had been initiated by an act of Parliament in 1717. The author also states that for some years before this act of Parliament, the sell of criminals to planters in America and the West Indies had been carried on. As a result of this, the author draws an interest correlation and states that by 1914, nearly half of all convicts in American prisons could be classified as mentally defective. He notes that this figure was nearly twice as much as that found in England (Hibbert, C. (1963) The Roots of Evil. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers. Pg. 139 and Pg 198). An interesting study developed in the early 1900’s within this work. The author states that one difficulty sociologists faced was what precisely was meant mentally defective or feeble minuends. He notes that in a survey of 2058 convicts in Sing it was found, for instance, that the average mental age was that of a 13 year old boy, but when selections of American solders were given similar tests it was found that their average mental age was only just over 131/2. (Hibbert, Pg 199). The sociologist Lombroso looked for a reason as to why the mental aptitudes of criminals and criminal behavior was so closely related to those who didn’t have that much better IQ’s.

    Lombroso found or looked to a correlation between heredity and criminal behavior. He studied the Jukes family, a family of Dutch settlers who had a long history of drunkenness and whoring as well as in family marriages. His studies linked a relationship between heredity and criminal behavior. His ideas on this subject were supported and furthered by such sociologists and Goring and Healy. I agree with some of this. It would make sense that a large proportion of people who colonized America were of a bad sort or as Darwin would contend were on the bottom of the heredity gene pool. This would help to explain the high crime rates within the United States which in fact can’t be found throughout the rest of civilized cultures. As before noted, some 300,000 Americans are murdered each year by other Americans. There has to be a rational explanation and looking to the roots of our American culture can give much insight towards this pheromone

    Within the book, Why Crime Rates Fell, the author suggests that families curb criminal behavior in several ways. Socialization instills values that reduce the chance that children will later break the law. Discipline produces self-control that minimizes the likelihood of committing crimes when opportunities arise, parental supervision directly controls the behavior of children and adolescents. Families also protect they members against victimization (Conklin, J.E. (2003). Why Crime Rates Fell. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Pg. 159-160).

    This shows the crucial role which families play in preventing and reducing criminal behavior and all the results thereof. In my opinion this with the implementation of community policing problems in neighborhoods can be identified and solutions can be developed and implemented to reduce crime by using both the community at large and the family unit without government intervention.

    Within the work Serial Killers: Death and Life in America’s Wound Culture, the author states that the convening of the public around scenes of violence has come to make up a wound culture: the public fascination with torn and open bodies and torn and open psyches has become one of the pre-conditions of our contemporary wound culture. He suggests that the emergence of psychology as public culture is directly linked to a relationship with the serial killer. He goes on to say that as a result of this, Americans have an insatiable public demand - in print media, drama, films, and television - for accessible entertaining information on psychological disturbances and psychiatric experts: “Private Ordeals” become “A matter of great curiosity and intriguing investigation” (Seltzer, Mark. (1998). Serial Killers: Death and Life in America’s Wound Culture. New York: Routledge. Pg. 109-110).

    This phenomena which the author is referring to is no different than that which the Romans used to entertain themselves, that of throwing Christians to the lions. Human beings throughout history have maintained a barbaric nature. I feel that the act of murder is one that comes natural to human beings and over the course of evolution has somehow been suppressed and replaced with our wound culture as noted by the author. To somehow think that human beings have not always been predisposed to a love of violence and gore would be suggesting that everything in the history books was a screen play for a Hollywood movie. Human beings have been killing each other a lot longer than Hollywood have been making movies. The fact that the author fails to link the predisposition of violence within ancient culture as a starting point of serial killers is beyond me. In my opinion, the use of mass media as an outlet for violent behavior should lessen the amount of violence because the average person can experience these fantasies on the big screen and not in real life.

    In reviewing the work Young Killers: The Challenge of Juvenile Homicide, the author suggests that many of today’s youths grew up in families that fostered violent and destructive behaviors. She goes on to say that the study of violent adolescents and young killers repeatedly have found child abuse, neglect and exposure to parental violence in their backgrounds.

    Here, once again, the idea of families interaction with their children and not the mass media create criminal youth. This is not to say that a child who has a bad upbringing and watches violent material on TV or movies is more influenced by the materials presented, but it does suggest that the family’s influence is more important and controversial in how that child turns out. I agree with this idea that family influence the way children turn out and that a violent parental background will more than likely produce a violent child.

    Within the work: The Killers Among US: An examination of serial murder and its investigation, the author concluded that there are three analyses which serial murderers have in common. 1. The basic source of the repetitive homicide pattern are: psychoginic. The serial killers psyche includes norms, values, beliefs, perceptions and propensities that result in the killing. 2. The killing is the expression of the killers desire to kill; in most cases, the motive is not material gain, political power or other external rewards. 3. The serial killer’s homicidal behavior is expressive of the interlocking motives and propensities that predominate in his mind and personality. His behavior is therefore oriented toward psychological gains. Given the killer’s psychological drive to kill, the more murders committed, the greater the buildup of psychological gain. (Edgar, S.A. (2002). The Killers Among Us: An Examination of Serial Murders and its Investigation. New Jersey: Princeton Hall. Pg. 20-21).

    This analysis shows that people who murder have screwed minds. They have no understanding of what society is normal. They have no value structure or beliefs which are supported by family upbringing and their motive to kill is not based on an economic gain. This, in short, shows that people who kill, kill for the enjoyment of killing and nothing more. Crime might have some roots in economic depravation, however, this doesn’t carry over to the world of the serial killer. I am under the impression that anybody who kills another person for any reason economic, social or other basically has a desire to kill somewhere within their psyche.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Total Number of Major Crimes Reported to and Recorded By The Police; Crime Rates and Specific Index Crime Data.  (Table l.l)

United States Population                      

  Crime Index Total                               Number                        Rate/100,000

1.1                              

As seen in table 1.1, the comparisons between violent crimes and property crimes are very vast in their total numbers.  However, it is a surprising statistic that out of the 12,475,634 total crimes  reported in the United States that some 12.3% are violent crimes.  Aggravated assault,  being the most prevalent of the violent crime subsets listed in column 1 of Table 1.1, makes up for 7.8% of these violent crime totals.  Another important observation from Table 1 is the rates of aggravated assault within the violent crime subsets which falls in a range of some 360.5%  Another important note within Table 1.1 is the discrepancies between violent crime and property crime.  Table 1.1 shows that property crime occurs approximately 75% more than violent crimes.

Table 1.2

Personal & Household Crimes, 1998 NCBS Data

Table 1.2

Table 1.2 shows that out of all the 31,307,000 crimes as noted in Column 2 that some 22,895,000 are household crimes.  Of these statistics also noted in Column 2, some 8,412,000 of these are personal crimes.  It is important to note that under the personal crime subset found in Column 1, that some 8,116,000 of these personal crimes are violent crimes which means that most violent crimes are done by someone who probably knows you personally.  Also noted in this chart under the subsets for household crimes, the numbers found in Column 2 between Theft and Auto Theft are extremely  disproportionate.  Theft occurring as noted in Column 3 56.5% of the time whereas auto theft occurs 3.6% of the time.  Another important note is the overall rate between personal crimes and household crimes where household crimes occur at a rate some 18,000 times more often

Table 1.3

Location and Type of Victimization, NCBS 1998 Data

1.3

Rate per 100,000 Population Age 12 and over

Rate per 100,000 Households

Table 1.3 shows the comparison between crimes of violence by region as compared to household property crime by region.  Note that in Column 2’s crimes of violence that most violent crime occurs in the West as well as household property crime.  The Midwest falls second in both categories with the North and the South having similar statistics in both categories.  Urban city areas also show a rate of crime higher than that in either suburban or rural areas.

Table 1.4

Sex of Offenders by Offence Type, UCR, 1998

Table 1.4

Table 1.4 which are statistics from the United States Department of Justice shows the sex of the persons who commit crime in the United States.  In comparing any category of crime listed within Table 1.4’s index, males commit some 90% of all crimes reported in the United States.   Table 1.4 shows that they lead females in every category with the only showing the most equal proportion being that of larceny/theft.  Another important note here is in Column 3’s statistics for females within the subset of total arrests forcible rape category where it shows that some 233 females commit forcible rape each year.

Table 1.5

Estimates Number of Arrests, by Offence Charged in the United States

Table 1.5

Table 1.5 shows the number of arrests for the listed crimes in Column 1 of Table 1.5.  As compared to the earlier chart on total number of major crimes reported within the United States, it is important to note that the arrest rate is much lower than the report rate.  For example out of the 93,103 reported forcible rapes each year, there are only 28,830 arrests as noted in Table 1.5’s Column 2.  Also, out of the 1,531,044 violent crimes reported in Table 1.1, only 635,990 result in arrest as noted in Table 1.5, Column 2.  In short, the rates of arrest for all reported crime whether violent or property is no better than about 50% for all crimes committed. 

Summary and Conclusions

            The purpose of this investigation into the “psychology of  murder,” is to examine murder from generally scientific, philosophical, and psychological points of view. I feel this has been achieved in many respects throughout this paper. However, there are many scholars within the “World of Academia” who would suggest that the roots causes of murder lie more in the realm of sociological research studies. The social ideas of Strain Theory, Conflict Theory, Learning Theory, as well as, Control Theory, have all come to the forefront  as the leading sources of research concerning the general subject of criminal behavior. Moreover, sociologist have tried to facilitate social factors for the general causes of criminal behavior. Most of these sociological approaches in many respects support my general hypothesis, which suggest that humans are just predisposed to murder one another, as a “normal” or “natural” function of society in general. My research goal was to attempt to examine the “psychology of murder,” as a (historical/scientific) approach, which was to be supported by strict psychological research. This task is a difficult one, which in many regards lends itself to strict understandings of sociological structures, both personal and institutional. In fact this task would be nearly impossible without at least mentioning the sociological aspects of criminal behavior as they relate and affect the more specific structures in societies sociological design. The family,  peers, and religious institutions, all play important roles in social development . This is key to all of these sociological theories, Strain, Control, Conflict, as well as Learning theories, all list both family factors and organized institutional discriminations as sources of a person criminal development.       

To start this discussion on the sociological study of criminal behavior, its important to define the meaning of murder from a purely “psychological prospective.” The reason for defining the “psychological prospective” of murder is so we can distinguish the differences between what is the “psychological prospective” of murder as compared to, what is the “sociological prospective” of murder. The psychological framework for this understanding was established by Sigmond Freud . Freud’s psychological studies on human behavior, links most psychological problems humans have to unresolved issues from childhood. These unresolved issues are suppressed in the young child’s unconscious, according to Freud, the child development process takes place in three major stages .The first is the oral stage, which happens from( ages 0-2), this is when a person develops their sense of satisfaction or satiation, of figuring out how much is enough. The second stage is the anal stage, this stage is represented by children (ages 2-3).in this stage is a person develops their sense of orderliness, of figuring out their preferred levels of cleanliness. This stage is best known as toilet training. The third stage is the genital stage(ages 3-4), and is linked to such behaviors as when a person develops their sexuality, of figuring out their sexual preferences and whether they are capable of real love or not. According to Freud, early childhood development centered all conscious and unconscious thoughts and actions into three main properties of a humans conscious. The ID, Ego, and Super Ego. The Id is the part of the unconscious that contains all urges and impulses. An important note to make here is that a person acting criminally from “impulses” is a major component for explaining criminal behavior in the field of sociological studies. We will discuss this in more detail later in this summery. The next part of Freud’s human conscious is the Ego. The Ego is linked to the only conscious part of a humans personality. The Ego is what a person is aware of when they think about themselves as well as what they usually try to project towards others. In the criminal mind this is best summarized as the place in the mind where violence, or moreover violent behavior, manifests itself into physical action. The last part of Frauds conscious mind analogy is the Super Ego. According to Freud this is the part of the human conscious where the voice of conscious (doing what is right) as well as where the source of self criticism exists. Freud felt that this part of the human conscious is where societies reflection of moral values exists to some degree. Although a person is sometimes aware of their own morality and ethics, Freud concluded that the Super Ego acted as an inhibitor to brain messages being sent to the conscious mind. This can cause the criminal mind to get trick into believing false information coming from the conscious mind. This in turn can give the basic guidelines for criminal action in regards to criminal behavior. This distortion of commands, one might expect, could cause serious dysfunction in both a persons personality and action. According to Freud , any of these three parts of the human conscious, if not developed correctly throughout childhood, can cause a person to develop neurotic behavior from suppressed memories, and in some cases these suppressed issues can cause a person to develop a criminal mind. By examining these first attempts at explaining human criminal behavior other viewpoints on this subject of human development  quickly came to the forefront . Psychologist such as Aichorn, Zuckermen, and Healy, became what was to be known as Neo-Freudians, which started the evolution process of what later become the viewpoints of the  sociological studies on criminal behavioral behavior. One doesn’t have to look far to find the general influence of Psychology on Sociology, so this approach to studying both the social aspects of murder along with the psychological one’s makes the most sense when conducting this type of  research study. In short, by having a nice combination of both schools of thought on the subject of murder, hopefully can help society better understand how these factors both mental and social coming together in a persons mind, leads them towards a life of crime, or deviant behavior.

            “Murder is as old as the time itself.” This was a general statement I made while introducing this paper. If this is true, then the root causes of crime are as old as the basic act of murder itself. It is common knowledge amongst  scientists that pre-modern man or “cave men” were basically organized ,culturally speaking , in small efficient family units. The men became the    hunters, the women the gathers. These small family units were the basic building blocks for what is now modern day society. Therefore the remnants of this basic structure exists to this day. This is interesting to note because its only been in the last half century that man has looked to explain the sociological effects of the family units on the development process of the individuals, and moreover society as a hole. Sociology has tried to establish the family as the main link to understanding the development processes of individuals throughout society. The “Big 3” sociological theories of Strain, Learning and Control, are the leaders on this type of sociological research. Let’s now try to relate these three main sociological theories into the “psychology of murder” analysis, in order to try and facilitate a better understanding of their importance to the field of criminology, and moreover to better understand the influence of social factors on the behaviors of society as a hole.

Learning theory is a good starting point for this research on social influences of the family on the criminal mind and or deviant behavior. Learning theory was developed by Sutherland, however his ideas on this topic have been expanded by many other sociologist. Sutherland did most of his research at the turn of the century, so that would put him at work during the same general time frame as Freud. Sutherland was quoted as saying, “criminal behavior is learned” and that “the learning occurs with the primary groups such as the family and peer groups etc., which are the causes for a person deviant behavior.” Sutherland wrote the first book in the field of criminology, which was the first attempt at linking both family and peers to the causes of social  degeneration. This was important to sociological research for two main reasons 1) it was the first attempt at linking criminal behavior to a person family or primary environment as well as peer influences and 2) it was the first time research on criminal behavior looked to other factors other than psychological ones, when trying to come to a conclusion as to why people become criminals. This theory was expanded by many, and all who study this theory maintain the analogy that criminal behavior is learned. However some acknowledge other factor as having influence on criminal behavior besides family and peers influences.

 Aker’s developed the Differential reinforcement theory, which drops Sutherland’s research all together in favor a more psychological approach which incorporates the psychological principles of operant conditioning into the aspects of Learning theory. Aker’s gives more influence to nonsocial situations (such as the physical effects of drug use) and determined that such use of drugs could reinforce criminal behavior. This departure from Sutherland’s research by Aker’s, to strictly psychological explanations for criminal behavior, was not the norm for most of those who studied Learning theory.The study of both primary family and peer influence, has remained the starting point for all sociologist within the context of understanding Learning theory or any other sociological theory for that matter. However some sociologist such as Matza’s use Sutherland’s basic structure of Learning theory as a building block for understanding the adverse effects of the family and peers, on social learning, and moreover, the basic denial of responsibility associate to the criminal mind. In short, Matza develop the Neutralization theory, which holds that people learn the values, attitudes, and techniques of criminal behavior through subterranean values, which exists side by side with conventional values.The core reasoning behind this theory is that criminals might not be involved in crime all the time, however the mind of the criminal is always in a mode to justify his or her criminal behavior because of a falsely reinforced value system, usually one which is reinforced by both family and peer groups. This falsely reinforced value system causes criminals to deny their responsibility in committing criminal behavior, they justify their criminal action by reasoning that “it’s nor my fault,” or “I didn’t have a choice.” This along with the “denial of injury” analysis of neutralization theory, are key to understanding the cause and effect relationship both family and peers have on social learning, and moreover the evolution of this understanding in the form of sociological research. While doing my literature review part to this paper, the affects of the family on criminal behavior were well documented in almost every source  I found concerning the root causes of murder, as they related to deviant behavior. This is  important to note because this type of reasoning is a great departure from traditional psychological approaches to understanding the root causes of such behavior. Moreover, this type of reasoning is the basic building blocks of the reasoning process of the other two theories within the “Big 3,” sociological theories.

            Another affect that the family and peer groups can have on a individuals social makeup is their influence on an individuals ability to maintain aspirations and achieve goals. Strain theory attempts to explain this issue in some detail. Strain theory assumes that strain is based on assumptions that stress and frustration are the results of a persons failed goals or aspirations. Because of these failures in life people feel the strain of society and therefore resort to deviant or violent behavior. Strain theory was first developed by Emile Durkheim, and was based on his theory of “anomie.” Anomie is the idea that society is in a state of “deregulation.” This simply means that, crime is just a natural function of society, and therefore must be treated as such. In other words crime, maintains a regular cycle in society, because criminal behavior is a “normal” or “natural” function of societies behavior in general. So instead of society trying to eliminate criminal behavior, they should instead try to except it as a regular function of society and therefore except crime for what it is, a natural part of “human the weakness” or a “personality flaw,” which everyone in society is capable of having. This is a vast departure from the psychological prospective we looked at previously in this paper. This sociological approach of Strain Theory relates failure of one aspiration and goals, to be the major cause for deviant behavior. This theory differs from those we have previous look at, in that it totally eliminates any sense of individual accountability or responsibility for ones criminal actions, and therefore explains the root causes for deviant behavior as being strictly from external sources, mainly those found in the realm of “institutionalize” discriminations. In short, most of the sociologist involved in studying “strain,” as a primary cause for deviant behavior, contend that factors or variables such as family, personal relationships, peer groups, teachers, churches, authority figures, and other agents of socialization, play an important role in the development of  deviant behavior within society. Strain theory research finds that these influences way heavy in the development process of individuals, and that these influences act as a gateway to both “stress” and “strain” which can lead people to developing bad behavior, who otherwise might not be predisposed to such bad behavior in general.

            The last of the “Big 3’s” sociological  studies on the root causes of deviant behavior, other than those established by the psychological research already noted, is that which is known as the Control theory of sociology. Control theory is different than the other two sociological studies we have looked at in the “Big 3” in that it doesn’t try to understand the criminal mind set when determining why criminals commit crimes, but moreover control theory tries to ask the question, “why do most people not commit crime.” This seems to be a sensible research question, and as one might assume has develop some interesting results. Reiss was a leader amongst the Control theorist, and he determined in his research that, “delinquents reject societies standards, and therefore drift on an occasional basis, in and out of criminal behavior.” This is best known as “drift theory,” and summarizes that people are “basically unable to resist temptation therefore people uncontrollably commit crime.” This subject of “temptation” was first noted in this paper within the context of Freud’s development of the stages of the conscious mind. The Id, Ego, and Super-Ego, where all before mentioned, as the three components of Freud ‘s psychological analysis of the human conscious. Of these three components of the conscious mind, the “Id” is where Freud determined  “temptation” or “impulses” exists. The two other theories from the “Big 3” don’t come this close to relating deviant behavior to “psychological” or  “mental” predisposition’s of the individuals they study, but instead look for strictly social influences, which cause deviant behavior as the source of criminal behavior. Therefore the mental element which psychologist put most of their influence into while researching criminal behavior, is atleast  acknowledged by one of the major theory’s of sociology, that being Control theory. This is an important step forward  for both psychology and sociology alike, because it combines influences from both the  “mental” aspect of understanding criminal deviant behavior, with the “social” aspects of developing deviant behavior, which can help both fields of study reach logical explanations for understanding why people both turn into criminals, and moreover why people are just predisposed to be deviant in general.

            In conclusion, to understand either approach to determining the root causes of deviant behavior, and moreover how deviant behavior relates to murder, one needs to summarize the basic philosophies of both the “psychology” viewpoint of this research, as well as the “sociological” viewpoints of this research. The psychological viewpoint on this research, is that crime is caused by mental disorders within a human beings realm of consciousness. These disorders can be in the area of instincts, drives, reflexes, as well as a person genetic predisposition’s. Psychology puts a greater influence on the “mental” aspects of criminal behavior. Most psychologist contend that much of a criminals predisposition to commit crime comes from the inner working of the human conscious, most specifically the Id. They contend that a criminals  predisposition to commit crime, is one of the most basic functions of a humans mental capacity. Therefore, the act of  being deviant or criminal, comes as naturally to “mentally” deficient people, as their desire to eat, have sex, or survive. Deviant behavior, is therefore to the psychologist, a natural function of all mentally deficient people and because mental deficiency is common throughout the world, psychologist therefore explain deviants and murder as common occurrences throughout the World. However, the sociological approach of the “Big 3” is a much different approach to understanding criminal or deviant behavior. The sociological approach has historically been geared in the realm of social interactions within a person immediate environment. This includes family, peer groups, spouses, and other institutions such as churches and schools, which can have either a positive affect on the social development process of individuals or moreover a very negative affect on social process of individuals. The idea behind this field of sociological thought is that deviant behavior can be understood by criminologist largely by observing and studying a persons environment. In short the basis for most sociological study within the “Big 3,” is to give some environmental reason found within society structural makeup, to explain a person predisposition to commit crime, or moreover deviant behavior in general.

            To end this examination on the “psychology of murder,” a final note on this subject is in order. Crimes of all kinds happen almost every second, of every day, somewhere throughout the World. Studies on crime have been numerous to say the least, many a scholar has tried to develop a “bright line rule” when determining why people act violent or deviant and moreover why people commit crime. However this has been proven impossible to do both by psychologist and sociologist alike. Studies on this subject have, however, tried to combine the many correct aspects on this subject by both fields of study. The combining of psychology with sociology is a step in the right direction. This can only lead to a well balanced scientific understanding of why people act criminally, throughout society. I feel that by combining these two fields of studies together, the field of  Criminology  would benefit greatly and a major result of this would be that all of society would develop a better understanding of why people commit violent deviant behavior. Doing this would help society be better equipped to deal with this type of behavior in the future. Lastly, the “psychology of murder,” is a combination of many factors, these factors can be either psychological in nature or sociological in nature. Some people kill out of instinct, others out of envy, and even some because they just like the way it feels to kill another human being. Murder happens everyday and all of the before mentioned reasons as to why people kill, are widely excepted as explanations for killing. Therefore, murder is a natural function of society  and the aspects of surpressed feeling and memories by those who commit murder, is the most looked at topic by most who develop conclusion on this topic of why people kill. In a Human beings inner-workings of the mind, there are many dark secrets, which I feel society will never truly understand completely. Philosophers such as Plato and Socrates, all acknowledge that people are basically stupid, this would explain the sociological predisposition that crime is a normal part of society. Sociology just fails to mention the “stupid” part of this social demographic, I’m  sure that it was a mere oversight on their part. However, this must be acknowledged when trying to understand the pretext for the “psychology of murder,” because in any respect murder is a stupid act. Therefore, it is almost equally important to note once again that people have been miss treating and killing one another, longer than they have been trying to figure out why they don’t get along. Therefore the answer to this question, can never be truly known. However, I do feel that the answer is somewhere between a person basic display of genuine kindness verses a person  basic display of genuine hatred. Where ever the sources of these two polar opposite feelings of love and hate manifest themselves, is probably where the seed of murder will be found. All great philosophers contend that Good and Evil are ideal “Forms” of universal knowledge. These universal “forms” exist on a plain of consciousness that few people will ever understand. These “forms” are a part of the human conscious and these ideal “forms” exist in a different realm of universal consciousness which Freud probably linked to the Super-Ego. However, the ideal “Forms” of; Love, Beauty, Hate, Jealously, Envoy, and Evil, all qualify as possible reason for why people kill each other, and therefore take on an understanding within the realm of human consciousness few if any will ever truly understand. Most people will never even ponder the question one must asked in order to find a understanding for why people murder one another, and its even less likely anyone ever asks why these “ideals” exist universally. There might be the possible exception of those people who have eaten “magical mushrooms,” or those prople who were on tour with the “Grateful Dead” back in 1988, and meet the “liquid sunshine girl” from Berkley. However, an epiphany of this magnitude to my best knowledge has never happened, and in all due respects probably never will. So in parting I leave you with the ancient words of the late American  philosopher,  Jerry Garcia, “If it ain’t fun, don’t do it!  Murder probably is not a very pleasant feeling, so the “psychology of murder” is don’t be a dumb ass and kill someone for some stupid ass sociological reason. However, if your already crazy, due to drug use, or because of an extremely advanced case of syphilis, I guess murdering someone is O.K. Just don’t kill me!!!!     

References

1. Raper, A. F. (1933) The Tragedy of Lynching. Chapel Hill: UNC Press.
2 Hibbert, C. (1963) The Roots of Evil. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers.
3. Wright, E. O. (1973). The Politics of Punishment: A Critical Analysis of Prisons in America. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
4. Bassiouni, M. C., Savitski, V. M. (1979). The Criminal Justice System of USSR. Illinois: Thomas Books.
5. Wills, Antoinette. (1981). Crime and Punishment in Revolutionary Paris.
Connecticut, London: Greenwood Press.
6. Pepinsky, H. E., Jesilow, P. (1984). Myths that Cause Crime. Washington, D. C.: Seven Locks Press.
7. Levine, Jack. Fox, J. A. (991). America’s Growing Menace: Mass Murder. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
8. Polk, Kenneth. (1994). When Men Kill: Scenarios of Masculine Violence. Hong Kong: Cambridge University Press
9. Seltzer, Mark. (1998). Serial Killers: Death and Life in America’s Wound Culture. New York: Routledge.
10. Heide, K. M. (1999). Young Killers: The Challenge of Juvenile Homicide. London: Sage Publications.
11. Edgar, S. A. (2002). Killers Among Us: An Examination of Serial and its Investigation. New Jersey: Princeton Hall.
12. Conklin, J. E. (2003). Why Crime Rates Fell. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.


Last updated: 11/11/03