Psychology Of Criminal Behavior
Criminal behavior is not just a result of legal violation—it often stems from deep-rooted psychological, social, and biological factors. The psychology of criminal behavior studies why individuals commit crimes, focusing on their thought patterns, emotional states, personality traits, and social influences.
Key Psychological Theories of Criminal Behavior:
Psychoanalytic Theory (Freud)
Crime may result from unresolved internal conflicts (id vs. superego).
Early childhood trauma, lack of guilt, and suppressed emotions influence behavior.
Behavioral Theory (Skinner)
Criminal behavior is learned through conditioning and reinforcement.
Environment and consequences (reward/punishment) shape actions.
Cognitive Theory
Offenders have distorted thinking, poor problem-solving skills, or lack empathy.
Focuses on how criminals justify or rationalize their actions.
Social Learning Theory (Bandura)
Crime is learned by observing and imitating others, especially role models.
Reinforced through peer approval or personal gains.
Personality Theories
Certain traits like impulsivity, aggression, narcissism, or antisocial tendencies increase criminal propensity.
Biopsychosocial Model
Integrates biological, psychological, and social risk factors in explaining crime.
⚖️ Case Laws Involving Psychological Aspects of Criminal Behavior
Here are five detailed cases where courts evaluated the mental or psychological state of the accused to determine criminal liability, punishment, or intent:
1. R v. Daniel McNaughten (1843) – United Kingdom
Issue: Criminal responsibility due to mental illness
Facts: Daniel McNaughten, suffering from severe delusions and paranoia, assassinated Edward Drummond, believing he was being persecuted by the government.
Judgment:
The court found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
Established the McNaughten Rules, a legal test for determining criminal responsibility based on mental illness.
Psychological Insight:
Recognized that individuals who cannot understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to mental disease cannot be held criminally liable.
Legal Impact: Set global precedent for using mental illness as a defense in criminal cases.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2011) – India, Supreme Court
Issue: Insanity as a defense under Section 84 of IPC
Facts: The accused committed murder and pleaded insanity. Medical reports and behavior were analyzed to assess his mental state at the time of the crime.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that mere abnormal behavior is not enough to claim insanity.
The accused must prove he was suffering from a serious mental disorder at the time of the act that impaired his understanding of right and wrong.
Psychological Insight:
Courts require concrete psychiatric evidence and behavioral patterns to accept the insanity defense.
3. People v. Edmund Kemper (1973) – United States
Facts: Edmund Kemper, a serial killer, killed 10 people including his grandparents and mother. Despite early psychiatric issues, he showed high intelligence and planning.
Judgment:
Court rejected his insanity defense, noting his organized, premeditated crimes, and ability to avoid detection.
Found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Psychological Insight:
Showed that even mentally disturbed individuals can exhibit control and awareness, thus being legally responsible.
Highlighted psychopathy – lack of empathy, guilt, and remorse – as a personality trait rather than legal insanity.
4. R v. Byrne (1960) – United Kingdom
Issue: Diminished responsibility due to abnormal mental functioning
Facts: Byrne was a sexual psychopath who murdered and mutilated a woman. His defense argued that he lacked control over his actions due to mental abnormality.
Judgment:
Court accepted diminished responsibility, reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter.
Recognized that mental abnormality, even if not insanity, could impair self-control.
Legal Impact:
Expanded legal understanding of mental disorders beyond insanity.
Courts began accepting partial defenses for psychological conditions that influence behavior.
5. Amrit Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1986) – India, Patna High Court
Issue: Psychological evaluation in sentencing
Facts: A convict appealed for sentence reduction in a murder case, claiming emotional disturbance and psychological trauma.
Judgment:
The court considered psychological background, family circumstances, and prior behavior.
Sentence was reduced, acknowledging his mental distress and lack of premeditation.
Psychological Insight:
Shows judicial sensitivity to emotional triggers, psychological hardship, and mental state during sentencing.
🧠 Key Legal Principles on Psychology & Crime
| Legal Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Insanity Defense | Used when the accused couldn’t understand their act due to a mental disease. |
| Diminished Responsibility | Reduces criminal liability when mental illness doesn't amount to insanity but still affects behavior. |
| Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) | Psychological state is crucial to establish intent (mens rea) in most crimes. |
| Rehabilitation vs. Punishment | Courts may consider psychological factors to determine suitability for rehabilitation. |
| Expert Testimony | Psychiatrists and psychologists play a key role in criminal trials involving mental health claims. |
✅ Conclusion
The psychology of criminal behavior plays a pivotal role in understanding, assessing, and judging criminal acts. Courts increasingly recognize that behavior can be influenced by mental illness, emotional trauma, personality disorders, or social learning. Legal systems aim to strike a balance between accountability and psychological understanding, ensuring justice is served while acknowledging human complexity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments