The Psychology Behind Law-Breaking Behavior

There are many reasons why people break the law, and it's a question that lies at the heart of criminal psychology. Some people break the law out of desperation, others due to bad influences, mental illness, or because of their upbringing and environment. People also break the law because they are impatient and looking for a shortcut. This could be for financial gain, or it could be because they want to rebel against authority. In some cases, people break the law because they don't know it is illegal, or they don't understand the consequences.

Desperation

Similarly, some individuals may break the law out of necessity or due to life circumstances. This could include stealing to meet basic needs when one is impoverished or committing a crime under duress or to escape a harmful situation. Desperation can also be linked to mental illness, where individuals may turn to illegal acts as a result of psychosis, substance abuse, or severe bipolar disorder.

Furthermore, desperation can stem from a person's environment and upbringing. The differential association theory in criminology proposes that individuals learn criminal behaviour through interaction with others. This suggests that one's social circle and life experiences can shape their perception of acceptable behaviour and influence their involvement in illegal activities.

Additionally, desperation can be a result of systemic issues and a lack of opportunities. For instance, poverty and a lack of education or employment options may contribute to higher crime rates. In such cases, individuals may feel that breaking the law is their only path to achieving their goals or improving their situation.

It is important to recognize that people who break the law out of desperation are not inherently bad people. Often, they are driven by a desire to survive, provide for themselves or their loved ones, or escape challenging circumstances. While breaking the law may provide temporary relief or a sense of control, it can also lead to negative consequences, including legal repercussions and a cycle of recidivism.

Bad influences

People are influenced by their surroundings and the people they interact with. This is especially true for adolescents, who are renowned for their psychological reactance to parental restrictions. Peer pressure can be a powerful motivator for young people to break the law. This could be due to a desire to fit in, or a result of being easily influenced by their peers.

Family members can also be a bad influence. For example, if a child grows up in a household where criminal behaviour is normalised, they may be more likely to engage in such behaviour themselves. This could be due to a lack of positive role models or an acceptance of criminal behaviour as a way to provide for the family.

The media can also be a source of bad influence, with songs and other media glamorising criminal behaviour. This can create a culture of death, apathy, anger, and rebellion that attracts vulnerable individuals.

Additionally, individuals who feel they have been treated unfairly by authority figures, such as the police, may be more likely to break the law as a form of rebellion or revenge. This can be a way for them to pay back the system they feel has wronged them.

Mental illness

In the United States, federal and state laws give people with mental illness the right to decide when, where, how, and if they will receive care. While this is important for protecting patient rights, it can also mean that individuals with mental illness can refuse care even when it is in their best interest. Doctors have noted that when patient rights exceed necessary protections, individuals with mental illness can "die with their rights on". In some cases, they may harm others as well.

State laws in the US vary but generally set strict controls regarding involuntary hospitalization. Hospitalization is limited to circumstances where a person is an imminent danger to themselves or others, or likely to become so. State laws also limit involuntary hospital stays to a few days, unless a court orders otherwise based on continued evidence of imminent danger. Another court order is necessary for doctors to treat hospitalized patients against their will.

In addition to involuntary hospitalization, the legal system also grants those with mental illness the right to object to treatment, with some exceptions. For example, if an individual with mental illness has committed a violent act, their right to object to treatment may be overridden.

While great strides have been made since the days of institutions and demonization of the mentally ill, there is still room for improvement in how the legal system treats those with mental illness. For example, police officers in the US are regularly called in response to mental health crises. However, they often lack proper training and may respond in inappropriate or dangerous ways. As a result, mentally ill individuals may be imprisoned or even killed, even when no crime has been committed. Activists are now seeking to shift this responsibility to psychological professionals.

Genetic predisposition

The use of behavioural genetic evidence in criminal trials is increasing. This evidence is based on studies that have found an association between certain genetic variants and impulsive or antisocial behaviour. However, the exact relation between specific genes and antisocial behaviour is far from settled. This article will explore the impact of behavioural genetic evidence on criminal trials and discuss its future role in the legal process.

Effectiveness of Behavioural Genetic Evidence

Behavioural genetic evidence has been introduced in several high-profile cases, with varying outcomes. In Italy, two convicted murderers successfully used such evidence to reduce their prison sentences. In one case, the trial judge reduced the defendant's sentence by three years after learning that he suffered from mental illness, and an appellate court reduced his sentence by an additional year upon discovering that the defendant possessed a low-activity MAOA allele. In another case, a defendant who was convicted of killing her sister, burning the corpse, and attempting to kill her parents had her sentence reduced from life in prison without parole to a term of twenty years, in part because she was found to have a low-activity MAOA gene.

However, more systematic data calls into question the impact of behavioural genetic evidence. A review of American court cases found no discernible overall effect of behavioural genetic evidence on criminal sentencing, with the exception of one case where it seemed to contribute to a jury's decision not to sentence a murder defendant to death. Similarly, an experimental study found that a sample of US state court judges reduced a hypothetical defendant's average prison sentence by less than one year when behavioural genetic evidence was presented to support a diagnosis of psychopathy. On the other hand, a similar study using German judges failed to replicate this finding.

Another research programme, using large, representative samples of the US population, consistently found that behavioural genetic evidence had no effect on perceptions of responsibility or the degree of punishment. However, the studies did find that both the egregiousness of the behaviour and the strength of participants' beliefs in free will increased the magnitude of the punishments they levied.

Explaining the Null Effect

Several factors could explain why behavioural genetic evidence fails to consistently affect culpability judgments and punishment decisions in experimental settings. One possibility is that biogenetic explanations for behaviour induce countervailing beliefs, leading people to perceive individuals as less blameworthy for their actions but also more likely to reoffend. Thus, the net effect of behavioural genetic evidence may be null.

Another possibility is that the lay public does not fully comprehend the intricacies of behavioural genetic evidence and therefore ignores it when rendering decisions about culpability. Alternatively, people may not view genes as the primary determinant of behaviour and, therefore, find evidence of a genetic predisposition to be of little relevance in determining culpability or imposing punishment.

The Future of Behavioural Genetic Evidence in Criminal Trials

Given the doctrinal and empirical challenges to its effective use, the future of behavioural genetic evidence in criminal trials is uncertain. Defendants facing severe penalties have little to lose by mustering every argument that could potentially mitigate their sentence. Additionally, genetic and other neuroscientific evidence is already being used to support claims of incapacity or the presence of mental disorders.

Behavioural genetic evidence is not limited solely to criminal trials. It could also be used in civil cases, such as employers contesting claims of work-related mental disorders or civil litigants rebutting arguments that their behaviour caused a plaintiff's emotional distress. In child custody disputes, behavioural genetic evidence could be introduced to support claims of parental mental instability.

However, unless the introduction of behavioural genetic evidence can be shown to materially affect the outcome of cases, its role in the legal process is likely to diminish. If legal decision-makers are unlikely to be swayed by genetic evidence, there is little reason for courts to fund genetic testing for indigent defendants or overturn convictions or sentences based on ineffective legal counsel for failing to introduce such evidence.

Greater legal impact of genetic explanations of behaviour may depend on elucidating the mechanisms associated with increased risk of antisocial outcomes and demonstrating their relationship to traditional legal standards of rationality and behavioural control. Until then, the wisdom of the general public may prevail: resisting the allure of science may result in fairer outcomes.

Lack of education

A lack of education can be a significant factor in why people break the law. Firstly, it is important to note that a person's level of education can impact their understanding of the law and their rights. Without a basic understanding of the law, individuals may unintentionally break the law, as they are unaware of the legal boundaries. This is particularly relevant in the US, where the law can be complex and difficult to navigate.

Secondly, a lack of education can limit an individual's employment prospects, which may then push them towards criminal behaviour. This is supported by research that suggests a correlation between a person's level of education and their likelihood to engage in criminal activity. Those with lower levels of education often face decreasing employment opportunities due to higher hiring standards. This can create a sense of desperation, leading to criminal behaviour as a means of survival.

Furthermore, a lack of education can make individuals more vulnerable to exploitation and secondary criminal involvement. With limited knowledge and understanding of the world, they may be more easily influenced or manipulated by others, potentially leading them down a criminal path.

Additionally, education plays a crucial role in shaping an individual's values, morality, and social behaviour. Formal education helps develop skills such as mental capacity, moral development, and global understanding. It teaches individuals proper social conduct and provides instruction on how to interact with others effectively. A lack of education can result in a person struggling to understand societal norms and expectations, potentially leading to antisocial or criminal behaviour.

Finally, education can act as a powerful deterrent to criminal behaviour. Research suggests that individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to weigh the future consequences of their actions and make more informed decisions. They are also more likely to have better problem-solving skills, enabling them to find alternative solutions to their problems rather than resorting to criminal activity.

In conclusion, a lack of education can increase the likelihood of an individual engaging in criminal behaviour. Education empowers individuals with knowledge, skills, and understanding, helping them make better choices and lead productive, law-abiding lives.

Frequently asked questions