Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton E. Samenow (Times Books, 285 pp., $15.50)
Clinical psychologist Stanton E. Samenow is co-author (with the late Samuel Yochelson) of The Criminal Personality, a highly controversial three-volume critique of the environmentalist theories of criminal behavior that currently dominate orthodox academic thinking. Inside the Criminal Mind is a popular presentation of the same ideas, admirable in its cogent, straightforward approach. According to Inside the Criminal Mind, criminal behavior is solely an abuse of free will: “Crime resides within the person and is ‘caused’ by the way he thinks, not by his environment. Criminals think differently from responsible people. What must change is how the offender views himself and the world. Focusing on forces outside the criminal is futile.” (If you think this is obvious, try it out on a professor of abnormal psychology over lunch.) It was extensive clinical experience that led Yochelson and Samenow to reject as causes of criminal behavior such well-worn factors as peer pressure, parental failure, unfavorable social conditions, and even mental disorder. (“From my clinical observations, I have concluded that ‘kleptomaniacs’ and ‘pyromaniacs’ are simply people who enjoy stealing or setting fires.”) And they developed a rigorous method of “rehabilitation,” which, when applied to thirty hardcore criminals involved in a pilot program, resulted in 13 long-term cures: “These men not only were arrest-free, but they reported having very few desires to commit a crime. They were accountable for how they spent their money and time. Not only did they hold jobs, but they had developed stable work patterns and were advancing. Those who had families were described as accommodating and dependable.” While Inside the Criminal Mind is full of the kind of hard-headed talk conservatives can appreciate, it is not a purposeful political statement; it does, however, provide yet another welcome reminder that the honest, unbiased social scientist whose work is firmly grounded in accurate observation frequently winds up sounding as conservative as George Gilder.
Comments