Customer Reviews

Inside the Criminal Mind

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

Dr. Samenow clearly describes HOW a criminal thinks and behaves. This uncompromising look at antisocial behavior is very valuable to the psychiatrist, social worker and anyone involved in the criminal justice system. Many of those involved in deciding the fate of offenders lack the ability to understand that criminals, especially psychopthic ones, are not even playing on the same gameboard as the rest of society. Samenow's experience clearly shows the care one must take in analyzing the ability of offenders to function noncriminally in the world outside of an institutional setting. Samenow's theory on how the offender develops his peculiar viewpoint of the world is, however, seriously deficient. He simply accuses the criminal of having developed his narcissistic personality from the moment of birth unaided in any manner by family or society. On the other hand, his treatment of the offender relies strictly on behavior modification and his prevention of the development of criminal minds also stresses good parenting skills and a more responsive society. He contradicts himself in his confusion of nuture versus nature versus individual responsibility. None of us has the exact answer in this matter and Samenow would be better off not trying to make any conclusions in an area in which he lacks a comfortable argument. Regardless of this downside to the book, the work is an extremely good resource for understanding the working of the psychopathic mind. Pat Brown, Director/Investigative Criminal Profiler, The Sexual Homicide Exchange of Washington DC and Vicinity

As a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner with over 10 years experience, the last four in corrections I found Samenow's text to be mostly accurate and reinforced my own observations. What I find amazing reading other reviews is how much "Reagan" or the "evil" right is blamed for our criminal justice system. In fact as Samenow explores, everyone and everything is held responsible for crime. The economy, environment, parenting, abuse history, poverty, ethnic background, opportunity, or lack there of! Everything and everyone but the Criminal!
There are several things I have learned about criminals, one is that regardless what most person's would like to believe the average criminal weighs his options. Risk verses Gain. If the potential gain out weighs the risk, they'll do it. This is where rehabilitation plays havoc! Criminals do not SEE REHABILITATION as something that can help them. They SEE it as a reduction in risk. "If I'm caught, I'll beg for drug treatment, or mental health court, or probation, or early release. The criminal see's the concept of rehabilitation as an "out". I have personally spoke with hundreds of I/M's who tell me (often with sincerety) they "need" help with their "drug addiction", or if they just had the right opportunity.
Two TRUTHS: Not all Drug users are criminals, but almost ALL Criminals are drug users! A big misconception is if we treat the drug user, we'll "cure" the criminal, and nothing could be farther from the truth. Criminals seek out drugs for an altered experience, profitability, and a general apathy regarding life.
Samenow is correct, "a criminal will NOT change, until there is NO OTHER OPTION left him/her. "Programs, and rehabilitation simply delay this! If you want to reduce crime, and change criminal behavior, you must make the alternative so overwhelming painful and unacceptable they have no choice. Such as manditory sentences, elimination of plea bargining, and parole boards. Simplfy our laws. Create a criminal code that a 5th grader can comprehend and live by and you will reduce crime.
Samenows views are often not popular because they essentially says, "These people can't really be helped!" An he's correct, at least for a long time in many instances. Because until the criminal has reached the point in his/her life where it's either change or die (die from lack of love, peace, fulfillment, etc) they will not change.

Dr. Stanton Samenow doesn't discuss WHY criminals are what they are because, he admits, we don't know and because, more importantly, who cares? WHY isn't the issue, nor was it his objective in writing. What's important is that we recognize the criminal mind & what might be done to fix it, both of which he addresses excellently. (It similarly is of little importance WHY a person has cancer or why they are an addict--what's pressing to them is being cured or having their addiction arrested). ... I spent 17 months visiting and corresponding with a young convicted murderer for a non-fiction book. I hadn't read Samenow's book beforehand, so I had no preconceptions from his work. Reading it afterwards, I find his description of the criminal stunningly accurate, down to fine details. ... Samenow's book isn't bogged down with a lot of attribution & statistics because he's speaking with the authority of being partner with Dr. Samuel Yochelson, the three volumes they wrote together, the work at St. Elizabeths (for more in depth, read their work, "The Criminal Personality.") ... Meanwhile, this book is a very accessible, understandable, accurate, well-written description designed for a much wider audience that really cuts away all the myths & challenges the reader to be compassionate not by excusing the criminal but by asking him to accept responsibility, the first step to a cure. ... If Samenow's solution sounds a lot like a 12 Step program without overt spirituality, that's not a criticism--12 Step programs have proven to be the most effective way to approach alcoholism and other addictions. No approach to alcoholism has ever been more successful than Alcoholics Anonymous, which is now more than 60 years old. All approaches have very high failure rates, just as attempts to cure cancers have high failure rates (& crime and addiction are as serious to the individual & to society as cancer). Comparing Samenow's ideas to AA's 12 Steps is, thus, hardly a criticism. ... Samenow's basic message is 1. the criminal thinks differently from the responsible person, 2. the criminal chooses crime, 3. the criminal's only possible outcomes are to continue their behavior, to commit suicide or to change, 4. many of the excuses we make for criminals are wrong and also not truly empathetic or compassionate and even sometimes covertly racist, 5. what criminals say after the fact is unimportant, it's their antecedent patterns of thought and action that matter, 6. only a change in thought patterns can help a criminal. ... He makes the excellent point that rehabilitation is sort of an odd concept since the word implies a return to a previous state of being, yet most lifelong criminals have never known anything other than what they are so how could they be rehabilitated? This is similar to the idea of recovery for the addict--recovery to what? I was always an addict: I'm not REcovering (God forbid!), I'm changing my entire approach to life, which is also the only way out for the criminal. ... This is an outstanding book whose wide audience should include criminal justice professionals, true crime enthusiasts, members of the media, corrections officials, criminals & their loved ones & anyone concerned with crime.

My major problem with Samenow's book is the same problem that my tenth-grade English teacher had with my paper criticizing the line-item veto. "What, exactly," my teacher asked me, "is your thesis?" I ask the same question of Samenow. The book is somewhat disjointed as it jumps from debunking theory after theory, to presenting anecdotes about various criminals, to finally demonstrating how a criminal changed his ways through years of "therapy", although the author might very well deny that the tactics used by his mentor, Dr. Yochelson, are psychological in nature--in fact, Samenow maintains that anyone can be trained to help a criminal change his thinking.

Samenow's theory of criminal behavior is that the criminal simply makes a pattern of choices over his lifetime. He identifies at an early age with dangerous situations and fast crowds, takes joy in manipulating and fooling others, and rejects the "straight" life as boring and rigid. But how does one distinguish between a rambunctious four-year-old, a four-year-old with ADHD, and a four-year-old criminal in the making? Samenow often repeats a warning to the reader that most children and young adults display a disregard for authority, a tendency to lie, and a disrepect for personal property at some point in their lives, but he offers little help for the rest of us to sort it all out, save crawling into the subject's head to determine what he is really thinking.

A previous reviewer likened Samenow's rejection of nurture theories to the tobacco companies' old argument that smoking doesn't cause cancer because not all smokers cause cancer. I think the reviewers is on the right track, but the effects of chemical carcinogens on an organic body are surely different than the effects of an environment on the human mind. The variables are far more numerous to even make a valid analogous comparison. However, while Samenow flat-out rejects the nurture theory, he doesn't exactly present alternatives except for flat-out choice. Choices aren't made in a vacuum, though, and I have to wonder how comfortable Samenow would be defending the position that a three-year-old has simply made the cognitive choice to act in a criminal manner.

Though I would recommend this book as I think that the last few chapters have real practical application, especially if they could be incorporated into the criminal justice system, I would encourage a reading of "Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes as well. Rhodes explains the theories of Lonnie Anthens, another criminologist, who subscribes to the theory of "violentization." While Athens and Rhodes only deal with violent criminals (Samenow deals with ALL criminals and even address how the criminal constructs his own "moral code"), they offer a pattern of environmental events present in the lives of nearly all violent offenders. Athens and Rhodes' theory, like Samenow's, peaks at the moment of choice--the criminal CHOOSES the life they lead. But their version is at least a little more fleshed out than Samenow's. Perhaps Athens and Rhodes' analysis, combined with Samenow's solution, could have some real impact on our justice system.

I first read this book years ago, when it first was published. After working in the field of juvenile justice for many years, I am now in the position to teach new employees in the field how to understand the incarcerated youth we work with. Although not all the youth we work with are criminals (some are really victims of social circumstances), this book was extremely helpful in helping me to understand how some of the youth we work with think, and how and why they truly are different from "ordinary" people. In every chapter I read I recognized at least one of the young people I had worked with over the years. This book gives valuable insight into the criminal mind.

Was the despicable criminal and murder spree on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Tech University by Seung-Hui-Cho because of his gender, race, parental upbringing, psychotic inclinations, or simply by the acts against him by those around him?

None of the above, inclusive and or exclusive of either one of the purported reasons, if you read the theories and analytical presentations author Stanton E. Samenow, Ph.D., enumerates in his book titled "Inside the Criminal Mind."

According to the author, it is a misconception the person inclined to be a criminal is because of his or her parental upbringing, poverty, influential friends, mother, father, family and neighborhood. In his book, "Inside the Criminal Mind," the author states, "Criminals cause crime - not bad neighborhoods, inadequate parents, television, schools, or unemployment. Crime resides in the minds of human beings and is not caused by social conditions."

The author also discounts the theory of a psychotic mind, "...psychological theory, in its current state, is more misleading than illuminating in explaining why people become criminals. Far from being a formless lump of clay, the criminal shapes others more than they do him."

"...criminals come from a wide variety of backgrounds - from the inner city, suburbia, rural areas and small towns and from many religious, racial or ethnic groups. They may grow up in closely knit families, broken homes, or orphanages. They may be grade school dropouts or college graduates, unemployed drifters or corporate executives. In most cases, they have brothers, sisters, and next-door neighbors who grew up under similar circumstances but did not become criminals."
Thus the gestalt of "Inside the Criminal Mind," sets out to show criminals know right from wrong and the criminal is not the product of external sources. Criminal behavior is the product of the individuals' way of thinking.

The author Samenow says, "I shall expose the myths about why criminals commit crimes. I shall draw a picture for you of the personality of the criminal just as the police artist draws a picture of his face from a description. I shall describe how criminals think, how they defend their crimes to others, and how they exploit programs that are developed to help them. I shall discuss what these people are like as children for, with systematic study; it is possible to identify at least some children who are predisposed to criminality."

Looking back and thinking of the video Seung-Hui Cho made which was televised to the world, he did exactly what author Samenow illustrates in his book which was publish way before Seung-Hui Cho came into being. The criminal never takes responsibility for his acts and blames everyone and everything for his shortcomings and worse yet, for his criminal mind. Those of us who saw the video and were not aware how the criminal and his mind thinks, felt a sense of guilt and culpability for the despicable crimes he committed. However, we did not mold him to be or do what he did, but he molded us to think we were the ones responsible for his morally reprehensible and wretched act.

I strongly recommend "Inside the Criminal Mind." Everyone, parents, teachers, administrators, people at large should read it to better understand the mind of a criminal.

Reference the coming of age in the following novel:
The Kids on the Block

With an author who boasts over the fact that he has thirty some years of research, I expected a little more open-mindedness. While the book was a good read, I was troubled with how many times Samenow states that crime is STRICTLY a result of choice. Mental illness plays no part, sociological factors play no part, and so forth. He even uses a story about someone who clearly deceived on an IQ test so that they would appear mentally retarded to discount mental retardation and the ability to choose one's actions. This combined with the fact he worships his "mentor" and mentions him every chance he gets made the short read a little longer at times.
Despite the above, there were many valid arguments in this book, one being that a delinquent child may cause bad parenting instead of bad parenting causing a delinquent child. I think he has a little farther to go with this argument, but in the end he makes a valid point. If you can stomach a book which is clearly biased, I would recommend this one.

This book should be required reading for people dealing with the criminal element. The author tends to get rather simplistic in his conclusions and I tend to think that there might be a better explination than the ones he gives.

But he makes his case in very easy to understand terms. He writes about how some of the myths about criminals and their motivations started and why they continue to this day. Then he details the way that he and his teacher reached the conclusions they did about the motivation of criminals and what is needed to modify their behavior.

Several cherished myths are destroyed in this book. The logic the author uses is hard to dispute. I suspect it would be easier for some folks to just reject things on some flimsy grounds rather than try to look at the case as he sets it out and make their case based on actual facts.

Many people are related or interact with criminals in today's world. Many of those relatives and friends may hold themselves partially to blame for the decisions the criminal has made. I think that anyone in that position needs to read this book to understand just how little they had in shaping the criminal, and how to understand how they are frequently manipulated and used by criminals they know. If you know a person with criminal tendancies, you need to get this book to protect yourself.

I have worked in correctional education and counseling for almost 20 years. I first read the works of Yochelson and Samenow in 1990, and have seen its validity illustrated thousands of times. "Inside the Criminal Mind" is not a work of research, but a general work for a broad audience; in other words, it was written for the lay person. If you want to read the research, find "The Criminal Personality, vol. I, II, & III" (1986). "Inside the Criminal Mind" seems to be a work that is accepted or absolutely hated, and that deals with the reviewers' personal biases more than Samenow's work. Some key facts to remember are: (1) not everyone in prison has a criminal personality, even if a convicted felon, (2) while most criminals are drug users, not all drug users have a criminal personality, and (3)personality disorders, such as the anti-social personality disorder, are all learned, and as such, can be unlearned. The borderline personality disorder, in many ways, is much more 'dangerous' than the anti-social personality disorder, and other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, are not even addressed. People commit crimes for many reasons, but the key factors to consider when dealing with them is to look at the pattern of behavior over time and if there are increases in that behaviors frequency and intensity/severity. This book is only one tool in understanding a very broad and complex field. And for at least two reviewers, I would like to say, buy a new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-IV came out in 1990, and the DSM-IV-TR in 2000; with the DSM-V scheduled for release within in the next five years. To reference the DSM-III is sad, and to claim to be a mental health professional and use the DSM-II is just plain scary.

Love it or hate it, Dr. Samenow hits it on the head when he says that someone with a criminal mindset must learn to accept responsibility for their own actions or they will never be able to lead a truly productive and crime-free life.
I also think that he has it right when he says that criminals, or anyone for that matter, are constantly doing a balancing test. We each do a risk/benefit analysis for our decisions, no matter how small that decision may seem. What makes someone a criminal, is the fact that they make decisions that manipulate and/or harm others for their own benefit. While this is something that everyone does from time to time, criminals seem to do it constantly.
No matter what brought them to this pattern of decision making (poverty, genetics, a lust for excitement, etc.), the way to reverse it is to make them realize that they are responsible to change that pattern.