© Myles Cook, 2006
The Rage Within
Applying Theory to True-Life Killers
By Myles Cook
General Introduction
What is it that drives someone to take another’s life? Are killers born or are
they made? These are the questions that have been asked for years in an
attempt to understand the killer instinct that overwhelms some individuals but
that at some level we all share.
The primitive instinct for survival lives within all of us and with that
instinct comes the animal urge to kill to protect ourselves. Most individuals
manage to keep the primitive part of themselves locked away inside, caging
the raging beast by sheer force of will or overwhelming sense of morality and
the shared bond of humanity, however, there are some, whose better self is
not strong enough to keep the beast within caged.
In the search for understanding the source of criminal behaviour,
researchers find themselves drawn to one of a variety of perspectives: the
biological/genetic, the social and the personality developmental. In this paper
we shall look at each perspective and some of their constituent theories,
examining the strengths and weaknesses of each theory before applying the
appropriate theories to a real-life killer. Each perspective will be examined in
isolation before combining all of the perspectives in a final examination of our
example killer.
The Biological/Genetic Approach to Criminal Behaviour
Introduction
This perspective takes the view that criminals are born rather than made and
as such are in the ‘nature’ corner of the nature/nurture debate. Physical
attributes and the genetic makeup of an individual are the areas of interest for
the researchers in this perspective although as we shall see there are
weaknesses to this research which, although do not entirely invalidate this
approach, do give one cause to question its conclusions.
In this section, we shall be looking at the theories of Lombroso and
Sheldon and at the role of genetic transmission and chromosomes.
Guilt written all over your face
In 1876, Cesare Lombroso published his belief that you could tell a criminal
just by looking at their face because they were different from non-criminals.
Lombroso was of the opinion that criminals were at a lower point on the scale
of evolution than other humans and that this resulted in criminals having a
rather more ‘primitive’ or atavistic look to their face. This ‘simian’ appearance
is characterised by a heavy-set jaw, an abnormally constructed cranium with
projecting ears and eye ridges and possibly a flattened nose. Lombroso also
found that criminals demonstrated a high occurrence of left-handedness and
were prone to colour blindness.
1
© Myles Cook, 2006
Lombroso’s theory is an interesting one but suffers from a number of
problems stemming from his flawed research methods. Rather
unscientifically, Lombroso failed to use proper control groups in his study
skewing his results by the use of groups of soldiers rather than a
representative sample from the general population and of those criminal
subjects he used, a large proportion suffered from some kind of mental
disturbance. This theory has also been accused of political incorrectness due
to Lombroso’s assertion that female criminals tend to look, biologically, more
like men, but a degree of political incorrectness is understandable due to the
era in which his research took place, however, there may be some truth to his
conclusion as can be seen in the pictures of Myra Hindley taken at the time of
her arrest.
Myra Hindley © Associated Press/Topham
Another of the criticisms that can be ranged against this theory is that
Lombroso fails to take into account that people with these atavistic facial
features may have no other option than to undertake a life of crime due to
their rejection by the rest of society. The truth of the matter is that Lombroso’s
theory has been rejected by many despite having some evidence in his
favour.
A body that is ‘built’ for crime
In 1942, Sheldon proposed that body type could be an indicator for
discovering the criminals in society. The somatotypes (body types) sub-divide
humans into one of three personality types depending on the shape of their
frame – the thin ectomorph, the rotund endomorph and the muscular
mesomorph.
The ectomorphic somatotype is characterised by a youthful
appearance and a tall, thin, delicate build with an introverted, socially anxious
but artistic personality whereas the endomorphic somatotype is depicted as
having a round shape to their frame with weak muscle tone and overdeveloped digestive system with a love of food and a good-humoured
2
© Myles Cook, 2006
sociable nature. Sheldon believed, however, that the criminal type was the
mesomorph with a muscular and quite rectangular shaped body with an
adventurous and assertive personality.
Sheldon spent eight years collecting data in his study but like
Lombroso’s study, there are flaws in his methodology such as the fact that he
alone rated the body types of the subjects in his study possibly allowing an
unconscious bias to intrude into his findings. There also appears to be a
certain amount of stereotyping of the personality traits he associated with the
particular body types – not all rotund individuals are the sociable lovers of
food that Sheldon believes they are.
Other researchers have provided supportive evidence for Sheldon such
as the study of body types in groups of delinquents by Glueck and Glueck
(1956) in which it was found that 60% of the sample group of delinquents had
the mesomorphic somatotypes compared with only 13% of the non-delinquent
sample.
Similarly to Lombroso, the era in which the study took place has a
great bearing on the conclusions reached and it’s fairly certain that the type of
crime that was prevalent during the 1940s would be of the more physical type
and would therefore require the criminal to have the appropriate body type to
carry out those crimes. Sheldon’s theory may still be applicable to offenders
of this type of criminal activity, however, as technology has changed our lives
it has also opened up new avenues of crime for the other somatotypes.
It is also interesting to note that Issei Sagawa, the so-called Japanese
Cannibal, would be considered as having an ectomorphic body type and
would therefore be considered by Sheldon as less likely to be a criminal! This
exception does not disprove Sheldon’s theory but does indicate that caution
should be used before applying the theory.
Issei Sagawa © Issei Sagawa
3
© Myles Cook, 2006
Is it really possible to suppose that the body type preceded the criminal
behaviour or does the criminal impulse shape the body of the criminal?
XX = Eve, XY = Adam, XYY = violent offender
As more modern techniques have become available, it has become possible
to look closer at the genetic make-up of an individual and identify abnormal
chromosomal structures which some researchers believe may be responsible
for aggression and violent behaviour.
It is a widely known fact that chromosomes are the basis upon which
an individual’s gender is determined - the X chromosome is the feminine part
of the chromosomal structure whereas the Y chromosome is the aggressive,
masculine part. A woman is the combination of two X chromosomes as
opposed to the male combination of an X and a Y chromosome, however,
what effect would the introduction of an extra Y chromosome do to a man?
There is some opportunity to answer this question due to the fact that some
individuals have been found to suffer from such a condition, known as
Klinefelter’s Syndrome. It has been believed that the extra Y chromosome
would lead to a more aggressive individual, however, during his study of male
prisoners, Epps (1995) discovered that, although there was a large amount of
XYY males among the prisoners, they were not particularly involved in violent
crimes. Epps’ study would seem to disprove the theory that XYY males are
more aggressive and violent, however, the case of Arthur Shawcross provides
us with evidence to support the XYY aggression theory, being as he was an
extremely violent murderer.
As we have seen there is evidence that both supports the theory that
XYY males are more aggressive but what would happen if an individual had
the rarer XXYY chromosomal structure? Would the extra X chromosome
‘cancel out’ the extra Y chromosome leaving the individual ‘normal’? Logic
would suggest that it would, however, life rarely follows logic in the real world
and, in 1995, Epps discovered the case of a XXYY adolescent boy who
sexually abused children.
It seems that the chromosomal theory of criminal behaviour may have
some validity but is far from giving definite proof of causation. Could it be that
there is more to making a criminal than just their chromosomes?
Like father, like son?
Can you really study an individual’s family tree to discover some kind of
criminal genetic inheritance? Is there any evidence that could provide any
answers?
The study of someone’s family tree is a hard proposition even when
you are just trying to build up his or her genealogy for recreational purposes,
however, for the purposes of providing evidence of genetic transmission it is
almost impossible for the individuals who would provide evidence of the
transmission of criminality at a genetic level are usually the ‘black sheep’ of
the family and to a large extent ignored by the family involved.
The study into genetic transmission performed by Osborn and West
(1979) looked at criminal fathers and the criminal records, or lack thereof, of
their sons compared to criminal sons who were born to non-criminal fathers.
The results of this study suggested that there may be some truth in the
genetic transmission theory but it is hardly conclusive with only a fairly low
4
© Myles Cook, 2006
40% of criminal fathers producing an equally criminal son whereas an
extremely low 13% of criminal sons were produced by non-criminal fathers.
Obviously, there are other factors needed to account for the amount of
criminal behaviour…
A better way of studying the genetic factor is through the study of twins,
both monozygotic (formed from a mutual zygote, i.e. identical) and dizygotic
(formed from separate zygotes, i.e. non-identical). The concordance rate (the
rate of similarity) of dizygotic twins is appreciably lower – around 50%, similar
to an ordinary sibling - than that of monozygotic twins who share a very high
concordance rate – up to 100% and it is this disparity in concordance rate
between the monozygotic and dizygotic twins that makes the study of twins
helpful in providing evidence of genetic transmission. In his study of twins,
Christiansen (1977) found that monozygotic twins seemed to share criminal
traits at a greater rate than that of their dizygotic counterparts, of course this
may be because of their greater amount of shared genetic material than that
of the dizygotic twins used in the study and the corresponding lack of data
due to the small amount of identical twins who engage in criminal activity.
Like all theories in this approach, social factors are largely ignored as
irrelevant.
A final way of proving or disproving the genetic transmission theory is
looking at adoption studies. Theoretically, if a child born to criminal parents
were adopted by non-criminal parents but subsequently, in later life, turns to
crime like their biological parents then genetic transmission would be proven.
The figures regarding criminal convictions in adopted children, however, are
still too low to prove the theory as indisputable (as the table below shows). It
would be safe to assume that there would have been some lack of evidence
involving criminal adoptive parents in this study, however, as it would be
highly unlikely that individuals with criminal records would be allowed to adopt
children although there may be a case of adoptive parents having to turn to
crime for some reason after they have adopted children. Again, other factors
must be at work.
Criminal convictions in adopted children
Criminal biological
parents
Non-criminal biological
parents
Criminal adoptive
parents
Non-criminal adoptive
parents
40%
12%
7%
3%
Organic matters
Moving from the path of the nature/nurture debate for a moment, it is possible
that criminal behaviour could have a purely organic cause that may arise later
in life and to cover this approach fully we must look at some of the evidence.
The most recent research in this field is that performed by Howett in
2002 who concentrated on the role of brain injury and functioning in criminal
behaviour with the use of electroencephalograms and PET scans of criminals
compared to those of non-criminals. Howett found that high EEG readings in
5
© Myles Cook, 2006
the temporal lobe were a fairly common occurrence in the more aggressive
and violent offenders and that criminals seemed to have different types of
blood flow in the brain from those shown in non-criminals. Brain injury in early
or later life appears to have some bearing on criminality as Howett found a
higher rate of head injury among his criminal subjects compared to his noncriminal subjects.
Although there are a number of other organic causes for criminal
behaviour, we do not have the space for a full exploration of all of the possible
causes, however, we shall take a look at one other piece of research involving
testosterone. Paul Bernhardt studied the effects of high levels of testosterone
on aggression and found that it was only when coupled with abnormally low
levels of serotonin (a neuro-inhibitor) that aggression was increased, even to
the point of sadism, when the subject became frustrated. However, like all
biological/genetic theories and its supporting evidence, these findings are
based on convicted and, therefore, unsuccessful criminals – would these
studies hold true for the successful criminal? How would we ever find out?
Fred West – a biological perspective
Frederick Walter Stephen West was born on 29th September 1941 to Walter
and Daisy West (née Hill) in the isolated village of Much Marcle,
Herefordshire. He exhibits some of the atavistic facial features such as a
flattened nose and projecting ears thought by Lombroso to denote a criminal
and has been reported as having a ‘simian’ appearance. As can be seen in
the pictures below, however, West’s nose became more flattened between his
school picture from the 1950s and his later life suggesting that it is possible
that his criminality came before all of his atavistic features.
The two faces of Fred West
School boy © South West News Service – Adult predator © Unknown
A look at his family tree provides us with inferential evidence of a
genetic transmission link with his family. Walter West, Fred’s father, was a
man who had an insatiable lust that he exercised by sexually abusing his own
6
© Myles Cook, 2006
daughters and John West, Fred’s brother, hanged himself in 1996 while he
was on trial for the alleged rape of Anne Marie (his niece) and another girl.
So already we have two generations of the same family exhibiting similar
behaviour which in itself would give some indication that the behaviour was
genetically transmitted, however, if we continue to look we find that Fred Jr,
Fred’s son, was imprisoned for illegal sexual activities with an under-age girl
and Stephen, another of Fred’s sons, has admitted that he has a violent
streak. William Hill, Fred West’s cousin was imprisoned in 1998 following
convictions of one count of rape and three counts of indecent assault which
only serves to cast the genetic net wider. It has to be admitted that this is
completely inferential evidence but it does seem to point to a possible genetic
link although there may be other factors that have had an effect on these
family members.
One of the other factors that could explain Fred West’s criminal
behaviour is that, while aged 17, West became involved in a motorcycling
accident which left him unconscious for a week and a year later, aged18, he
was pushed from a fire escape and hit his head on the concrete floor below.
He was unconscious for 24 hours and his family doctor believed that he might
have suffered some kind of brain damage to the part of the brain responsible
for emotion and aggression. The second injury does not explain, however, all
of his behaviour as he was pushed from the fire escape by a girl he tried to
grope but it goes some way to explaining his later violent behaviour. The
motorcycle accident, however, could explain why he would have tried to grope
her in the first place. We will return to Fred West later to explore other
explanations for his criminal behaviour.
As we have seen, research in biological and genetic factors seems unable to
prove conclusively that these factors alone can account for criminal behaviour
but must form part of a larger picture. Boham (1995) suggests that
researchers should look towards a combination of biological/genetic and
social factors in order to explain criminal behaviour believing that genetic
factors provide an individual with a susceptibility to criminality that is
enhanced by the influence of their social interactions. It is a journey we shall
take, indeed must take, but only after we have explored the social approach in
isolation.
The Social Approach to Criminal Behaviour
Introduction
This approach takes the position that criminal behaviour is formed by social
interaction and societal view rather than laying the cause of such behaviour
with the individual and their genetic attributes. Social approach researchers
are interested in the question of what society deems to be criminal activity and
how that belief is formed as well as how criminals can ‘learn’ the types of
behaviour that lead them into a life of crime. It is the interest in these
questions that positions this approach in the ‘nurture’ camp in the
nature/nurture debate. Can the theories in this approach actually provide us
with indisputable proof in the formation of criminal behaviour or will we find
7
© Myles Cook, 2006
that, like the biological/genetic approach, there are weaknesses to the
theories that leave us with pieces missing from the jigsaw?
In this section, we shall be looking at the theory of social construction
of crime and at Bandura’s social learning theory.
The changing nature of crime
How can crime be ‘socially constructed’? What is meant by the term? It is
easy to be confused by terminology some times but in essence, social
construction means that we as a society or community decide what acts are
considered criminal by a kind of moral consensus. Without society as a whole
deciding what acts are criminal it would be reasonable to say that no act is
criminal, however, there are variations in what is considered criminal or
acceptable behaviour depending on the cultural, religious or moral consensus
of a particular region. For example, in some cultures the taking of tranceinducing drugs is an accepted part of their way of life, however, in countries
such as England, it is a criminal act. It can be argued that social
constructionism means that we decide who the criminals in society are.
There is also an historical factor to social constructionism as acts that
were once considered criminal are now considered quite acceptable, and vice
versa, as changes in consensus morality and the introduction of new
technology opens new avenues for crime meaning new laws must be created.
The straightforward social construction theory is a rather weak theory
but there is a version of the theory which carries more weight – elite social
constructionism. This version of the theory puts the emphasis of the social
construction of crime with ‘elite’ groups such as the medical profession who
are ‘experts’ in their field and with that knowledge exercise their expert power
to dictate some actions as injurious to health resulting in, for instance, the
current smoking ban. Other groups that fall within the so-called ‘elite’
category are MPs, the rich and, possibly even, the Church.
Social constructionism is a fairly weak theory in either form because of
its essential nature based as it is on ever-shifting boundaries and its inability
to provide definitive definitions of crime. Its strength, however, lies in its
acceptance of the social influences that society has over the individual –
something that is neglected by the biological/genetic approach.
A question worth asking oneself is – would an isolated village
community have a similarly constructed version of what is considered crime
as opposed to society at large? How would that affect a member of that
community when he or she leaves that community?
Monkey see, monkey do?
Social learning theory as the name suggests acknowledges that we learn
some, if not all, of our behaviour from observing and partaking in social
situations from which we learn directly through personal experience or
indirectly from the experience of others. If an individual perceives that a
particular behaviour is acceptable and, in some way, rewarded that individual
is more likely to learn and repeat that behaviour in the future.
An essential feature for social learning is the availability of some kind of
role model from which the individual can learn although it must be pointed out
that the role model is not necessarily going to be an upstanding pillar of
society and the behaviour being copied may not be good behaviour. It is also
8
© Myles Cook, 2006
essential that the ‘learner’ have the ability to pay attention to the behaviour
being ‘taught’ – a problem for individuals with learning difficulties such as
Attention Deficit Disorder – and the ability to retain the behaviour learnt
something which may be made difficult for an individual who has suffered
some kind of brain injury. The final necessity required for social learning is
that the individual must have the motor skills to repeat the behaviour that they
have learnt.
A study carried out by Bandura and Walters (1963) shows how
aggressive behaviour can be socially learnt by the use of a ‘bobo’ doll. The
researchers placed a self-righting doll in a room and allowed one group of
children to witness an adult attacking the doll. A second group acted as the
control group and as such saw no aggressive behaviour from the adult
towards the doll. The amount of aggressive behaviour exhibited by the two
groups of children was then monitored over a 20-minute period the result of
which was a higher amount of aggression was observed in the first group of
children than the control group. In Bandura’s opinion, exposure is all that is
needed for an individual to learn criminal behaviour, however, reinforcement
also contributes to social learning.
If imitating a role model was the only factor in social learning it would
be reasonable to assume that copycat crimes would abound stemming from
the imitation of crimes shown in the media, however, Ray Surette argued that
it is the techniques that are copied rather than the media providing a
motivation to commit crime where none existed before.
Social learning theory does go some way to explaining the role of
society in creating criminal behaviour, however, it only proves that social
learning is a factor rather than the whole explanation. Where, for instance,
does a criminal individual from a good background learn their behaviour?
Surette’s research shows that media images and coverage does not provide
the motivation for criminal activity. Obviously there are more factors to be
explained before we can fully understand why someone would turn to crime.
Fred West revisited – lessons in crime
Two questions were posed at the end of our discussion of social
constructionism as an explanation of criminal behaviour and our chosen killer,
Fred West, may provide us with a reasonable model on which to base some
kind of answers.
Fred West’s family lived in the village of Much Marcle, a fairly remote
and isolated community and as such, the West family formed their own little
community and spent much of their time together. As explained earlier, there
can be regional and cultural differences in what is considered criminal activity
therefore it is entirely possible that this isolated family formed their own
warped social construction of crime. In view of the sexual abuse Walter West
subjected his daughters to, it is probable that at some unconscious level the
entire family made the decision to make the incestuous acts acceptable within
their community essentially decriminalising those acts to avoid admitting what
was happening was wrong. The fact that Daisy West seduced her own son
Fred further strengthened the acceptability of incestuous relationships within
their community and therefore in Fred West’s mind so much so that when he
left the family home for the ‘outside world’ he would take that warped social
9
© Myles Cook, 2006
construction with him and would find himself at odds with a world that
disagreed with what he believed was acceptable behaviour.
Fred West had possibly the worst type of role models in his parents – a
father who sexually abused his own daughters, believing that they were his to
do with as he pleased and a mother who entered into an incestuous sexual
relationship with him, aged 12, in a retaliatory attack aimed at his father.
Fred learned that this type of activity was acceptable within one’s own family
as neither role model was seen to be punished for performing those acts and,
thanks to his father’s influence, saw young girls, as a group, to exist only to
serve his own appetites. His mother, by refusing to believe Fred could do
anything wrong, ‘taught’ him that all of his own bad behaviour was acceptable
as well. Social factors have definitely contributed to Fred West’s criminal
behaviour but does it explain the full picture?
The social approach shows that individuals are influenced by the attitudes
prevalent within their particular society and the behaviours they see around
them but it could be said that it only explains how the actions are imitated and
not how the inclination to commit criminal acts is created. The picture still
seems to be incomplete therefore our investigation must continue…
The Personality Approach to Criminal Behaviour
Introduction
In a similar fashion to the social approach, the personality approach
acknowledges the social influence on individuals, however, the influence is on
an individual’s developing personality rather than on the development of skills.
It would be reasonable to consider this approach as another supporter of the
‘nurture’ position in the nature/nurture debate with the only difference being its
alternative perspective on how individuals are influenced. Have we finally
found an approach that can explain criminal behaviour without reference to
another approach or is the jigsaw still incomplete?
In this section, we shall be looking at the theory of psychosexual
development and personality structure formulated by Sigmund Freud and the
research on attachment performed by Bowlby.
“Paging Dr. Freud…”
Freud believed that all individuals are born with instincts that either promote
life (Eros) or prepare one for death (Thanatos) and it is the goal of an
individual to maintain a balance between the two while passing through the
stages of personality development, which he called psychosexual stages, to
develop a normal personality or psyche.
The psyche, according to Freud, is made up of three parts – the id, the
ego and the superego – and it is the interaction of these parts that forms a
series of checks and balances on an individual’s behaviour. The id is the
primitive, child-like part of the psyche that seeks instant gratification whereas
the superego is the moral, restrictive and judgemental part that acts as the
opposing force to the id. The job of the ego is to act as the voice of balance in
the psyche knowing that the needs of the id have to be satisfied but that there
are restrictions imposed by society which means that the superego must have
10
© Myles Cook, 2006
its way until the needs of the id can be satisfied when the social situation
allows.
The id is the first part of the psyche to develop which satisfies the
instinct for survival driven by Eros while the child is in the first stage of
psychosexual development – the oral stage. It is in the oral stage that the
mouth is the focus of sensation and through which pleasure is derived either
by sucking (oral receptive) or biting (oral aggressive). Over or under
gratification in this stage may lead to personality traits such as impatience,
narcissism, covetous and being full of rage (an oral aggressive trait).
As an individual enters the anal stage, the ego starts to develop and
the focus of sensation is the anus through which pleasure is derived from
either expelling (anal expulsive) or withholding (anal retentive) faeces. It is
during this period of development that the child learns that they exert some
control over their parents and that society has expectations on acceptable
behaviour that may conflict with their need for the instant gratification of their
own desires. Character traits displayed in individuals that may develop from
over or under gratification at this stage include a striving for power and
control, a rigid personality and a drive to be successful.
The third stage of psychosexual development is the phallic stage
where the focus of sensation moves to the genitals from which pleasure is
now derived. The successful passing of this stage is dependent on resolving
either the Oedipus complex (males) or the Electra complex (females) and
involves the development of the superego (formed by the two constituent
parts – the conscience and the ego ideal). The Oedipus complex is
characterised by the attraction of a boy to his mother and hostile feelings
towards the father whom he sees as a rival for the mother’s affection. The
boy wishes to remove his rival but cannot due to being less powerful and the
boy fears that the father may castrate him in retaliation (castration anxiety) so
to avoid this fate he starts to imitate the father’s behaviours in the hope that
becoming more like his father will earn his mother’s affection. The Electra
complex, on the other hand, is characterised by the attraction of a girl to her
father. The girl will notice that her body is different to that of a boy and
believes that she has already been castrated and noting the similarity
between herself and her mother believes that at some point in the past the
mother has also been castrated, leaving the girl with a certain amount of
hostility towards the mother for allowing her to be punished in the same way.
The girl desperately wants a penis of her own (penis envy) and believes that
her father can provide her with one but she can only receive her prize by
making herself more attractive to her father and she achieves this by imitating
her mother’s behaviours. It is this ‘identification with the aggressor’ that leads
to the formation of the superego which can be thought of as an individual’s
internal parents. The conscience is an individual’s ‘punishing parent’
modelled on their father and the ego ideal is their ‘rewarding parent’ modelled
on their mother therefore males are thought to have a stronger conscience
than females (due to their strong identification with the father) and females are
thought to have a stronger ego ideal (due to their strong identification with the
mother). Character traits that can be attributed to this stage include the need
to appear macho (males) and flirtatious, seductive behaviours (females).
The final two stages of psychosexual development are the latent and
genital stages but are of less importance when looking at criminal behaviour.
11
© Myles Cook, 2006
Problems with passing through any of the developmental stages can
have an effect on an individual in later life and it is also possible that they may
not even pass beyond a particular stage due to over or under gratification
during that stage. Over gratification at any stage would rob the individual of
the motivation to move beyond that stage whereas under gratification would
leave the individual with a fear of moving to the next stage because of the
problems faced in the present stage, however, in either case, the individual
would form a fixation on that stage and is likely to return to that stage if
triggered by some kind of stressor.
As mentioned earlier, the job of the ego is to act as a balance between
the needs of the id and the demands of the superego allowing each a certain
amount of expression, however, when it is unable to cope it employs defence
mechanisms such as denial (denying an event took place) and displacement
where the frustration felt is transferred to a new focus for some reason.
One of the possible causes of criminal behaviour following Freud’s
theory is that an individual may have a strong superego coupled with a weak
ego which is unable to stop the desires of the id from ever being met and the
repression (another defence mechanism) of id would eventually cause an
explosion of animalistic, primitive urges as the energy built up by the
repressed id must be directed into some activity although the chosen activity
may not be criminal in nature. It is also possible that an individual’s superego
may not even get a chance to develop at all which would leave them driven
purely by their id.
Freud’s theory seems to have the ability to explain the personality
aspect of criminal behaviour quite well, however, it lacks hard scientific
evidence which although does not invalidate its usefulness in explaining
criminal behaviour does mean the investigator must weigh up the evidence
most carefully.
For sale: one affectionless psychopath (no attachments included)
Lorenz (1935) performed research in attachment involving goslings who
seemed to bond with the first thing they saw, an innate process called
imprinting, and believed that there was a period of time (the critical period)
after which imprinting could not occur. Imprinting seems to serve the dual
purpose of protection and of providing a role model from which to learn the
behaviour appropriate to its own kind, however, Harlow (1959) also attributes
imprinting to comfort.
Bowlby was influenced by the ethological theories of Lorenz and
Harlow, however, the focus of Bowlby’s research was human beings. He
viewed proximity, a close physical bond, as of utmost importance for a child’s
emotional development and believed that the innate need for attachment
would be focussed on a single person, e.g. the child’s mother (monotropy).
This relationship provides the child with a role model from which to learn how
to behave, how to form attachments and how to solve problems and in so
doing, aiding the child’s social, emotional and cognitive development by the
creation of an internal working model, a kind of blueprint for how to be an
adult. Bowlby believed that, although there was a sensitive period for the
creation of attachments, attachment could still be formed after this period,
however, these later attachments would not be as strong as one formed with
the sensitive period. Shaffer and Emerson (1964), however, were convinced
12
© Myles Cook, 2006
that babies can form multiple attachments rather than just the one special
bond.
Problems can arise in an individual should an attachment be broken,
although the amount of time for which the attachment is broken certainly
affects the seriousness of the problem. Deprivation can occur for a number of
reasons for instance, a mother leaving her child at a nursery school (shortterm) or death of the mother (long-term), of course these can also apply to
whoever is the primary caregiver and not just a mother.
Short-term deprivation will lead a child to move through three stages of
distress – protest (an immediate reaction to prevent the attachment being
broken), despair (where the child will withdraw into itself and refuse to be
comforted believing the mother will not come back) and detachment (where
the child will start responding to other people). Detached children, however,
will treat people in a uniform way and the relationship will most likely be a
shallow one. Long-term deprivation, on the other hand leads to separation
anxiety and may cause a child to exhibit aggression, clinging behaviour or
may become completely detached and self-reliant. Rutter (1970) believed
that the reason for the deprivation is far more damaging to a child than the
actual loss of the attachment figure. This can be substantiated by the fact that
in divorce there are usually feelings of animosity towards the parent who
leaves and the change of family dynamic may mean new rules to obey and
the child may feel in some way to blame for the divorce. When dealing with
death, however, the departed parent becomes an idealised figure and the
extended family would be more supportive towards the child enabling the child
to create new multiple attachments or strengthen the ones already present.
Bowlby’s (1946) study of juveniles at child guidance clinics revealed
that of the 44 thieves in his study 14 showed signs of affectionless
psychopathy whereas none of the control group (who were emotionally
disturbed but not criminal) showed such signs. 43% of the thieves had
suffered prolonged separation from their mothers during their first five years
as opposed to only 5% of the control group. Twelve of the thieves who
suffered from affectionless psychopathy had the prolonged separation
whereas only five of the ‘ordinary’ thieves had similar experiences. Bowlby
concluded that criminal behaviour was caused by maternal deprivation,
however, Rutter (1981) believes affectionless psychopathy is due to the
failure of the individual to form any attachments whatsoever thereby having no
internal working model from which to know how to act and form attachments
(privation).
Bowlby’s attachment theory shows us the importance of attachments in
an individual’s childhood, however, his study of juveniles in 1946 gives us two
possible conclusions (whether affectionless psychopathy is caused by
deprivation or privation) and could be considered flawed due to the fact that
there was no group of ‘normal’ juveniles studied due to the location where the
study was conducted.
Fred West – developing the criminal personality
How can we explain Fred West’s criminal behaviour using the personality
approach?
The details of his earliest years are fairly sketchy but it is reasonable to
assume that West’s need for control over women came during the anal stage
13
© Myles Cook, 2006
of development when he found he had control over his mother who doted
after him as, in her eyes, he could do no wrong. This being the case, it is also
reasonable to assume that his potty training efforts were lavished with praise
from his mother although not to the extent that he felt so over gratified he was
unable to progress to the next stage. West may well have had some fixation
issues from this stage regarding his need for control which he regressed to
when certain stressors triggered it.
Moving ahead to the phallic stage, West would have been trying to
become more like his father in order to resolve his Oedipus complex,
however, his father was not the best role model he could have had. In
wanting to ‘attract’ his mother, West started copying his father’s behaviour
which has been reported as being overbearing and sexually abusive to his
daughters. The family home has been described as being “dominated with an
intense sexuality” (Murder in Mind no.1, pg 7) and that the father was driven
by powerful sexual urges – hardly a good environment in which to develop a
personality. It seems that West became entrenched in the phallic stage at this
point seemingly driven by the same urges as his father it is reported that West
may have lost his virginity before the age of 12, when it is alleged that his
mother seduced him in retaliation at her husband’s activities. By the age of
16, West had proven himself to be aggressive towards women, possibly due
to displaced resentment to his mother, but also rather promiscuous, picking
up any woman who caught his fancy.
Of course, West was a compulsive liar and fantasist who liked to
embellish his stories with details of his accomplishments which may have had
no relationship with reality so we must take his allegations of sexual abuse
within the family with a pinch of salt, however, if even half of his allegations
are true it seems reasonable to assume that having such a father would result
in the development of little or no superego, leaving West driven almost
completely by his id.
The personality approach has many similarities to the social approach in its
recognition of the importance of social interaction upon the individual,
however, where the focus for the social approach is mainly on the wider view
of societal influences this approach concentrates on the closer family
influences. Both approaches, however, show the need for role models in an
individual’s development.
Combining the Approaches – The Holistic View
Introduction
There is a tendency in psychological research and in education in general to
compartmentalise research and knowledge into convenient isolated groupings
which individuals then tend to specialise in, however, this leads to the view
that the specialisation an individual follows should be viewed in isolation from
the other specialisations and never the twain shall meet. In psychology, this
is a view that damages the scientific integrity of the discipline as a whole as
connections between approaches are largely ignored where they exist or are
never made in the first place. The study of criminal behaviour is a
demonstration of how powerful the holistic view is when we start to combine
the approaches that are taken in explaining that behaviour which individually
14
© Myles Cook, 2006
cannot definitively explain why people turn to crime. Research in the
biological/genetic approach by Boham (1995) involving adoption studies
suggested that social/environmental factors had a bearing on criminal
behaviour and Hans Eysenck proposed his biosocial theory of crime which
combines genetic/constitutional factors with personality and
social/environmental factors to create an all-encompassing holistic view of the
development of criminal behaviour. Eysenck’s theory has its critics who
believe that it is based on flawed data, however, it certainly shows
researchers in which direction a complete explanation could be found, for it is
only with a combination of the approaches that we may finally complete the
jigsaw.
Fred West – the whole picture
If there is truly a genetically transmitted factor in criminal behaviour then it is
surely running through the West and Hill families - Fred’s father, Walter,
sexually abused his own daughters, his mother, Daisy, seduced him, his
brother, John, and cousin, William Hill, both engaged in sexual offences.
Looking at his own children, Fred Jr was imprisoned for illegal activities with a
minor and Stephen admitted to having a violent streak. However, Fred’s
sexual abuse of his children could have been a result of witnessing or, at
least, having knowledge of the sexual abuse of his sisters by their father
whilst in the process of resolving his Oedipus complex. That his mother
seemed to allow the incestuous sexual abuse of her daughters and the
relative isolation in which they lived allowed a warped socially constructed
version of what was acceptable behaviour – something Fred carried with him
into the outside world.
The atmosphere in the West household while Fred was growing up
was one of intense sexuality dominated by an overbearing father driven by
powerful sexual urges – an ideal environment to influence the young Fred to
become the promiscuous teen he would eventually be. It was due to this
environment that Fred lost his virginity before the age of 12 and that his
fantasies revolved around sex.
Fred did not do well at school and was frequently in trouble, however,
in his mother’s eyes Fred could do no wrong and always argued with his
teacher for trying to instil some discipline into the boy. Leaving school at the
age of 15, Fred was unable to write or spell properly. His atavistic features
combined with his illiteracy surely marked Fred out for a life of some kind of
crime and, with the home life he had, it was most likely to involve sex and the
exercise of control over women; the younger the better.
At the age of 17, Fred became involved in a motorcycle accident that
left him unconscious for a week and with a metal plate in his head followed
the next year with a head injury sustained when he was pushed from a fire
escape after an abortive attempt to grope a girl. This second accident left him
unconscious for 24 hours and a changed personality including mood swings
and violent rages whenever he felt his will was being opposed. This could
have been the beginnings of his sexual violence.
Turning to petty crime with a friend was the next step on his journey
towards his destiny as a sexual predator and killer. Falling in with the wrong
element gave him the opportunity to learn skills he would need for his life as a
petty criminal, however, sex was still his main obsession and, at the age of
15
© Myles Cook, 2006
19, Fred was forced to leave home after molesting and impregnating a 13year-old girl. At his trial, his doctor testified that Fred suffered with epileptic
fits, a fact that saved him from prison but still left him a convicted child
molester and thief.
The head injuries combined with his sexual fantasies and displaced
resentment towards his mother created a sexual sadist who needed to
dominate and control women. When he met Rosemary Letts, a woman who
had also had a traumatic and tortured childhood, Fred West discovered
another individual with his own particular proclivities, which would pose a
problem for them – if they both liked to have control and to inflict pain they
would have to find victims. The rest is history…
A point worth remembering is that Fred West was a compulsive
fantasist so the allegations he ranged against his family may well have been
simply a way of trying to get his sentence reduced.
The only way to form a complete picture of criminal behaviour is to look at the
biological/genetic factors combined with the social influences both from
society at large and the individual’s family. The nature/nurture debate is
basically redundant, however, it is only through debates such as this that
progress can be achieved for without progress stagnation will occur but it is
also true that without amalgamation the whole picture will be beyond our
grasp.
Conclusion
As we have found, none of the approaches can explain criminal behaviour by
itself. The biological and genetic factors of an individual are insufficient by
themselves to explain why an individual would turn to crime but it would also
be wrong of us to dismiss completely those factors entirely. This argument
can also be levelled against the other two approaches as none of the
approaches can really stand on its own as the sole reason for criminal
behaviour. It is only when we combine two or more of the approaches that we
see a more compelling argument for the creation of a criminal. Biological and
genetic factors can be seen as making an individual more susceptible to
becoming a criminal, however, it is only through social interaction that the
individual becomes ‘socialised’ into criminal behaviour. It would be wrong to
think that the biological/genetic factors could not be overcome through a life of
good socialisation because that would deny those so afflicted a chance at a
normal life. On the other hand, it would also be wrong to think that an
individual whose personality had developed normally could not ‘learn’ criminal
behaviour from a bad influence later in life.
No individual is completely without external influences from others in
society and it would be wrong to ignore that fact, however, it would also be
wrong to assume that any individual is beyond redemption and as criminal
behaviour can be caused by bad socialisation so can it be removed by good
socialisation.
16
© Myles Cook, 2006
References
Theories
Howitt, D (2006) Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology 2nd Edition, Pearson,
Harlow
Scott, S L What Makes Serial Killers Tick?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/killers_9.html?sect=19
Greek, Cecil. 1997a. Copy-cat crimes. In Rasmussen, R. Kent (ed). Ready reference:
Censorship. Pasadena, CA: Salem Press.
Class handouts
Biographical information
Campbell, D et al (1996) Fred & Rosemary West, Murder in Mind no.1, Marshall Cavendish,
London
Bardsley, M Fred & Rose West
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/west/fred_2.html?sect=3
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/west/update_2.html?sect=3
17