Search results

What leads a person to commit a crime, an act which not only violates moral norms and rules but also what are often considered to be among the most serious legal ones? A wide variety of social scientists, including psychologists, economists, and sociologists, have offered answers to this question. The current paper aims to take a different approach, offering an explanation drawn from the moral psychology of a pre‐eminent philosopher, Immanuel Kant.

While best known for his duty‐based ethics and the categorical imperative, Kant had a very rich conception of character, strength, and willpower that can inform the understanding of why persons choose to commit criminal acts. This short paper begins with a brief description of Kant's moral psychology, and then surveys a number of topics within the criminal law to which this can be applied, such as normative considerations in criminal penalties, Hart's distinction between internal and external points of view on the law, mens rea and mental illness, how people regard different criminal prohibitions, and how punishment does and should affect people's choice.

The paper emphasizes the effect of the normative status of criminal laws and penalties on the choice and action of morally imperfect persons, which contrasts with the overly simplistic models of criminal behavior of other social scientists, which are based on calculations of costs and benefits alone.

The paper introduces Kant's rich but little‐known moral psychology into the discussion of criminal psychology, bringing a different angle to topics such as motivation and responsibility that are primary areas of focus for psychologists, criminologists, and philosophers.

Libraries supporting a forensic psychology undergraduate and/or graduate level college program need to collect materials from a range of disciplines – psychology, law, psychiatry and criminal justice. This guide identifies the major reference works, journals, databases and other resources that should be in a good forensic psychology collection.

Social Identity Theory proposes that identity and thinking style are strongly related. Research also suggests that the process of depersonalization is responsible for shifting from personal identity to social identity and assimilating group attitudes. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of personality in the relationship between criminal social identity and criminal thinking style.

The Measure of Criminal Attitudes, the Measure of Criminal Social Identity, and The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire was administrated to a sample of recidivistic male prisoners with learning difficulties (n=312).

Sequential moderated multiple regression analyses indicated the unique main effect of extraversion, psychoticism, in‐group affect, and in‐group ties on criminal thinking style. In terms of the moderating role of personality, the in‐group affect was more strongly associated with criminal thinking for low levels of extraversion, whereas high levels of extraversion moderated the positive relationship between in‐group ties and criminal thinking style.

The findings provide the first empirical support for the moderating role of personality in the relationship between criminal identity and criminal thinking style of offenders with learning difficulties.

This study aims to differentiate crime-related characteristics (such as the number of cases filed against current convictions and criminal history) based on the criminal thinking prevailing among convicts. However, because of the low reliability of subscales and poor structural validity of indigenous and translated versions of international instruments, a new instrument criminal attitude measure (CAM) was extracted to measure criminal thinking patterns among convicts incarcerated in central prisons of Punjab.

A cross-sectional research design was used. Data was collected from 1,949 male convicts (extracting mutually exclusive data from 649 respondents for EFA and 1,300 respondents for confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]). Both data samples were collected from convicts incarcerated in the nine (all) central jails of Punjab, Pakistan.

The results of this study showed poor model fit for both the indigenous criminal thinking scale and the translated version of criminogenic cognition scale. CAM was extracted through principal component analysis and proposed as a 15-item questionnaire with five factors extracted through varimax rotation. Those five factors are power orientation, mollification, entitlement, mistrust toward authorities and short-term orientation. The results of CFA for CAM confirmed the proposed five-factor structure for the construct. Findings based on MANOVA further found that CAM differentiates between the thinking patterns of recidivists, convicts with multiple charges filed against them in current convictions and convicts with a familial criminal record. The findings of this study showed that CAM is a practical, valid and reliable instrument for measuring criminal thinking among convicts.

In this study, using the survey method was inevitable because of the restrictions imposed by the granted permission. However, this time duration was extended because of the courtesy of the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of each jail. This study is focused on a male sample only, and the findings cannot be generalized to females. The phenomena proposed (based on large data sets) in this study can further be elaborated using qualitative research designs and methods (using a small sample with an in-depth study). So, it is also suggested to test this new instrument on a comparative study between prisoners and non-prisoners to explore whether scale can differentiate between these two groups.

A short-scale and easy-to-administer instrument was developed for assessing major criminogenic needs among convicts for prison management, i.e. assigning barracks, allocating treatment and also detecting changes in attitude after imprisonment.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first study to explore and validate the construct of criminal attitudes among convicts using both the EFA and CFA. A small and valid instrument facilitates the measurement of criminogenic needs among prisoners. Data was collected from all central jails in Punjab. This study explored comparatively less researched crime characteristics in a relatively large sample.

This paper aims to systematically compare the textbook‐based criminal justice and psychological literatures on detecting deception in field settings to determine the accuracy of the criminal justice literature in this area.

A total of 18 criminal justice textbooks covering detecting deception were systematically reviewed and coded. The alleged indicators of deception were then compared with the psychological literature on the valid indicators of deception.

Many criminal justice textbooks on interviewing, interrogation, and criminal investigation claim that there are numerous accurate indicators of deception which can be readily used in field settings. The comparison of these claims with the research in psychology indicates that a great deal of the information found in criminal justice textbooks is erroneous. Further review indicates that in controlled studies criminal justice practitioners rarely detect deception at levels greater than chance or comparison groups of non‐practitioners. It is exceedingly difficult to detect deception in field settings without the help of technology or complicated instruments or aids.

Much of the information in criminal justice textbooks on detecting deception is erroneous and may have negatively affected practitioners to the extent that they are unable to detect deception effectively. Textbooks on interviewing, interrogation, and criminal investigation should be circumspect regarding an individual's ability to detect deception in field settings. Texts should refrain from presenting deception detection as a simple and accurate science. Practitioners should be cautious when attempting to detect deception in field settings.

The criminal justice and psychological literatures on detecting deception have not been synthesized before. This information will be useful to criminal justice practitioners who seek to detect deception.

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Tri-PM) was developed in 2010 as an alternative approach to the assessment of psychopathy. The measure aims to capture psychopathic traits on a 3-factor model, which encompass the characteristics established in previous measures, as well as those evidenced within practise. Though support for the tool in academic research is growing, less is known about the scale’s utility within crime forensic settings. Thus, this study aims to explore the relationship between the Tri-PM psychopathy constructs and criminal cognition within a forensic sample.

Seventy-three adult male offenders, convicted for acquisitive or sexual crimes, from a Category B prison within the Northwest of England completed questionnaires measuring their criminal backgrounds, psychopathy traits (Tri-PM; Patrick, 2010) and criminal thinking styles (Psychology Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles; Walters, 2001).

The Tri-PM measurement proved to be a successful predictor of most criminal thinking styles. Moreover, the meanness construct was the strongest predictor of proactive thinking styles, whereas the disinhibition construct was the strongest predictor of reactive thinking styles, and the boldness construct was negatively associated with reactive thinking. Comparisons among offender groups also indicated that acquisitive offenders reported higher scores of psychopathy and criminal thinking.

This study offers valuable insight into the proposed relationship between psychopathy and criminal thinking, using a recent addition to the repertoire of psychopathy measurements, the Tri-PM. This study also offers practical implications for those offering treatment within forensic settings, with significant relationships identified between the highly scoring psychopathy constructs and various criminal thinking styles.