What do you think?
Rate this book
Inside the Criminal Mind
Long-held myths defining the sources of and cures for crime are shattered in this ground-breaking book--and a chilling profile of today's criminal emerges.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
802 people are currently reading
7301 people want to read
About the author
Stanton E. Samenow
18 books39 followersDr. Samenow received his B.A. (cum laude) from Yale University in 1963 and his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1968. After working as a clinical psychologist on adolescent inpatient psychiatric services in the Ann Arbor (Michigan) area, he joined the Program for the Investigation of Criminal Behavior at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. From 1970 until June, 1978, he was clinical research psychologist for that program. With the late Dr. Samuel Yochelson, he participated in the longest in-depth clinical research-treatment study of offenders that has been conducted in North America.
In 1978, Dr. Samenow entered the private practice of clinical psychology in Alexandria, Virginia. His specialty has continued to be the evaluation and treatment of juvenile and adult offenders. Dr. Samenow has delivered lectures, training seminars, and workshops in 48 states, Canada, and England. These presentations have been to a variety of professional groups including mental health, law enforcement, corrections, education, social services, and the judiciary. He has served as a consultant and expert witness for a variety of courts and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dade County (Florida) Public Schools, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Office of Probation. In 1980, he was appointed by President Reagan to the Law Enforcement Task Force and in 1982 to the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. In 1987, President Reagan appointed him as a Conferee to the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America.
In 1978, Dr. Samenow entered the private practice of clinical psychology in Alexandria, Virginia. His specialty has continued to be the evaluation and treatment of juvenile and adult offenders. Dr. Samenow has delivered lectures, training seminars, and workshops in 48 states, Canada, and England. These presentations have been to a variety of professional groups including mental health, law enforcement, corrections, education, social services, and the judiciary. He has served as a consultant and expert witness for a variety of courts and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dade County (Florida) Public Schools, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Office of Probation. In 1980, he was appointed by President Reagan to the Law Enforcement Task Force and in 1982 to the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. In 1987, President Reagan appointed him as a Conferee to the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews
December 28, 2014
This is one of the worst books - if not the absolute worst - I've read on criminal behavior. The short version of my thoughts is that the writing is repetitive, the passages often lead nowhere aside from self-serving examples, and the tone is arrogant and judgmental.
So much is wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin. Samenow criticizes the neuroscience approach to studying psychopathy, making the claim that criminals have "errors in thinking" rather than specific brain anomalies. Yet his examples of these errors in thinking are almost exact carbon copies of neuroscience's examples of psychopathic thinking. Samenow's claim is that traits like a lack of empathy are choices, rather than being rooted in brain chemistry. There is no such thing as psychopathy. All those people can choose to empathize with victims, but they simply don't want to.
Samenow believes that parenting and/or abuse plays little to no role in how a person turns out. He downplays biology, claiming that our brain chemistry has nothing to do with our actions. And he also states that poverty has virtually nothing to do with crime. All our actions are choices we make freely, regardless of genetics, environment, and/or upbringing.
Samenow makes the broad and absurd statement that all criminals are highly intelligent. They are a conniving bunch of equal status. He makes no distinction between a criminal who is a con artist and one who is a sadistic killer.
One of the most disturbing passages comes in the section on sex crimes. Samenow tells us about one man who has sexually abused dozens of children, calling his crime an "irresponsibility". He then goes on at length about another man who was arrested and imprisoned for possession of child pornography. Samenow actually defends this man, telling us that his crime was simply "a relief from boredom". Samenow goes on to authoritatively state that this man should not have received such a harsh prison sentence because he would not have gone on to actually harm children. In making such an assumption disguised as fact, Samenow commits an egregious error in his own thinking. First, this insinuates that 'merely looking' at child pornography is harmless. Here, Samenow is completely ignoring the fact that those children were victimized, not only by the person who took those photographs, but also by each person who then downloads and looks at them. Second, Samenow's defense of this man is based on his belief that this man's interest is merely a way to relieve boredom and has nothing to do with actually wanting to have sex with a child. Samenow completely fails to acknowledge that perhaps the only reason this man's crime never escalated to physical assault was because he was confined to a wheelchair.
Samenow perpetuates the myth of marijuana as a gateway drug, and he states without question that drug abuse is a choice. Once the drug addict is caught committing a crime, he/she conveniently cries about the addiction being a disease and causing his/her actions. The criminal is, in Samenow's opinion, conning the system in order to get away with crime. In this respect, Samenow ignores all the science of addiction, instead choosing to further his own opinion of addicts as worthless (but smart!) criminals choosing drugs over sobriety simply because they're having more fun.
Throughout this entire book, Samenow offers no research of his own. At the same time, he ignores any and all research that contradicts his beliefs. In his world, there is no such thing as cause and effect. There is only right and wrong thinking, and choice, and we all, in his view, stand in the same place and have all these same choices.
So much is wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin. Samenow criticizes the neuroscience approach to studying psychopathy, making the claim that criminals have "errors in thinking" rather than specific brain anomalies. Yet his examples of these errors in thinking are almost exact carbon copies of neuroscience's examples of psychopathic thinking. Samenow's claim is that traits like a lack of empathy are choices, rather than being rooted in brain chemistry. There is no such thing as psychopathy. All those people can choose to empathize with victims, but they simply don't want to.
Samenow believes that parenting and/or abuse plays little to no role in how a person turns out. He downplays biology, claiming that our brain chemistry has nothing to do with our actions. And he also states that poverty has virtually nothing to do with crime. All our actions are choices we make freely, regardless of genetics, environment, and/or upbringing.
Samenow makes the broad and absurd statement that all criminals are highly intelligent. They are a conniving bunch of equal status. He makes no distinction between a criminal who is a con artist and one who is a sadistic killer.
One of the most disturbing passages comes in the section on sex crimes. Samenow tells us about one man who has sexually abused dozens of children, calling his crime an "irresponsibility". He then goes on at length about another man who was arrested and imprisoned for possession of child pornography. Samenow actually defends this man, telling us that his crime was simply "a relief from boredom". Samenow goes on to authoritatively state that this man should not have received such a harsh prison sentence because he would not have gone on to actually harm children. In making such an assumption disguised as fact, Samenow commits an egregious error in his own thinking. First, this insinuates that 'merely looking' at child pornography is harmless. Here, Samenow is completely ignoring the fact that those children were victimized, not only by the person who took those photographs, but also by each person who then downloads and looks at them. Second, Samenow's defense of this man is based on his belief that this man's interest is merely a way to relieve boredom and has nothing to do with actually wanting to have sex with a child. Samenow completely fails to acknowledge that perhaps the only reason this man's crime never escalated to physical assault was because he was confined to a wheelchair.
Samenow perpetuates the myth of marijuana as a gateway drug, and he states without question that drug abuse is a choice. Once the drug addict is caught committing a crime, he/she conveniently cries about the addiction being a disease and causing his/her actions. The criminal is, in Samenow's opinion, conning the system in order to get away with crime. In this respect, Samenow ignores all the science of addiction, instead choosing to further his own opinion of addicts as worthless (but smart!) criminals choosing drugs over sobriety simply because they're having more fun.
Throughout this entire book, Samenow offers no research of his own. At the same time, he ignores any and all research that contradicts his beliefs. In his world, there is no such thing as cause and effect. There is only right and wrong thinking, and choice, and we all, in his view, stand in the same place and have all these same choices.
May 5, 2016
I read this for a doctoral level class I'm taking in Social Deviance. I wish I hadn't though. In this book, Dr. Samenow sets out to answer the age-old question of why criminals commit crimes and spends 50,000 words (or how ever long this book is) answering, simply, "well, because they choose to."
Don't get me wrong. I am not the one to coddle or play hug-a-thug either with the big bad wolves of society. I did agree with some of the points he makes here. Samenow says that criminals are narcissistic, selfish people who feel entitled to the finer things in life (agreed) and feel that they shouldn't have to work for them (agreed). Their need for power and validation feeds into their desire to victimize others in whatever way they can--fraud, sexual assault, robbery, etc (agreed). Work places, schools, and other social institutions are where they hone their con game, and if and when they're caught and locked up, they'll hopefully change their thinking. Samenow is adamant that prisons, rehabs, reading programs, and career counseling will not change the criminal because of how he thinks. He scoffs at sociologists who point to indicators such as poor schooling, drug abuse, lack of job opportunities, mental illness, poverty, and other factors as the reasons why people turn to crime.
And I understand this, I really do. But how can Dr. Samenow completely dismiss these sociological viewpoints? Most of the case studies of criminals he gives in this book are of middle class men he has interviewed--men who came from the so-called 'normal' homes, whose parents more than likely had the resources for therapy, and, who despite all of their efforts, still went on to choose a life of crime regardless. One cannot help but to notice the lack of socioeconomic diversity in this book, which, I'm sad to report, makes this book terribly biased. While I am not saying that all poor people are criminals (nor are all criminals poor), one cannot deny the effects of poverty and class stratification on a large number of the people in our criminal justice system. Poverty itself does not cause crime, but it definitely leads to the illusion that illegal means are necessary to achieve prosperity.
Another jarring problem with this book is how Dr. Samenow talks about criminals as one homogeneous group. A person who uses crack cocaine because she is addicted and sells her body for profit and a Jeffrey Dahmer-like sex predator/murderer are both criminals according to the law--but are they really in the same category of deviance? According to Dr. Samenow, there isn't much of a difference between a marijuana user and John Wayne Gacy. He also disregards 'addiction as a disease' pathology and with it, pretty much everything that's been written in the field of human psychology for the past 25 years. As a psychologist, you would think he wants to understand what really drives people to do what they do beyond the most obvious, the motivator of choice.
I got almost zero information from this book. I imagine that this book is hot with prosecutors and other right-wingers who want to 'get tough' on crime by locking up people doing everything from robbing a bank to stealing a chicken. It doesn't make it correct though. Not in the least.
Don't get me wrong. I am not the one to coddle or play hug-a-thug either with the big bad wolves of society. I did agree with some of the points he makes here. Samenow says that criminals are narcissistic, selfish people who feel entitled to the finer things in life (agreed) and feel that they shouldn't have to work for them (agreed). Their need for power and validation feeds into their desire to victimize others in whatever way they can--fraud, sexual assault, robbery, etc (agreed). Work places, schools, and other social institutions are where they hone their con game, and if and when they're caught and locked up, they'll hopefully change their thinking. Samenow is adamant that prisons, rehabs, reading programs, and career counseling will not change the criminal because of how he thinks. He scoffs at sociologists who point to indicators such as poor schooling, drug abuse, lack of job opportunities, mental illness, poverty, and other factors as the reasons why people turn to crime.
And I understand this, I really do. But how can Dr. Samenow completely dismiss these sociological viewpoints? Most of the case studies of criminals he gives in this book are of middle class men he has interviewed--men who came from the so-called 'normal' homes, whose parents more than likely had the resources for therapy, and, who despite all of their efforts, still went on to choose a life of crime regardless. One cannot help but to notice the lack of socioeconomic diversity in this book, which, I'm sad to report, makes this book terribly biased. While I am not saying that all poor people are criminals (nor are all criminals poor), one cannot deny the effects of poverty and class stratification on a large number of the people in our criminal justice system. Poverty itself does not cause crime, but it definitely leads to the illusion that illegal means are necessary to achieve prosperity.
Another jarring problem with this book is how Dr. Samenow talks about criminals as one homogeneous group. A person who uses crack cocaine because she is addicted and sells her body for profit and a Jeffrey Dahmer-like sex predator/murderer are both criminals according to the law--but are they really in the same category of deviance? According to Dr. Samenow, there isn't much of a difference between a marijuana user and John Wayne Gacy. He also disregards 'addiction as a disease' pathology and with it, pretty much everything that's been written in the field of human psychology for the past 25 years. As a psychologist, you would think he wants to understand what really drives people to do what they do beyond the most obvious, the motivator of choice.
I got almost zero information from this book. I imagine that this book is hot with prosecutors and other right-wingers who want to 'get tough' on crime by locking up people doing everything from robbing a bank to stealing a chicken. It doesn't make it correct though. Not in the least.
January 14, 2013
The oversimplification in this book is jarring. This is a 250-page book that can be summed up in Nancy Reagan's ever-helpful admonishment to "Just Say No."
It's simply a whole list of people behaving badly, rather like reading the news. His whole thesis is - people have control over their actions. Sure - why not? But who cares?
There is nothing new here. Maybe this book was cutting-edge in the '80's, but it still seems like pages and pages of nothing. The premise of the book is sociology tries to explain why criminals become criminals, but that at the end of the day, it all resides in the choices they make.
Of it's many flaws, probably its biggest is lumping together what we can and must expect from our children, with what we expect from our adults. Children having "choice" and adults having "choice" are entirely different concepts.
This book talks about children making choices practically in the same breath as the "choice" of a rapist. We can expect that our children will be deeply effected by their environments, and will not know the right road to take. Yet, he talks about the way people think as if there is a right way, and a wrong way, and somehow children will "know" to make the right choice. While there are certainly "righter" ways, and "wronger" ways, there is a whole lot of gray, and even the best choices often go wildly astray.
He says in the real world, it's all about personal choice, but that's simply not reality. In the real world, the individual has to constantly balance his rights and responsibilities in society. Each individual case is different. When people break laws, sometimes the individual is mostly to blame, and sometimes society is mostly to blame. Usually, it's somewhere in between.
At the end of the day, it may not make a difference in how society chooses to respond to a criminal, but saying it is never society's fault is filled with as much magical thinking as saying it is always society's fault.
It's simply a whole list of people behaving badly, rather like reading the news. His whole thesis is - people have control over their actions. Sure - why not? But who cares?
There is nothing new here. Maybe this book was cutting-edge in the '80's, but it still seems like pages and pages of nothing. The premise of the book is sociology tries to explain why criminals become criminals, but that at the end of the day, it all resides in the choices they make.
Of it's many flaws, probably its biggest is lumping together what we can and must expect from our children, with what we expect from our adults. Children having "choice" and adults having "choice" are entirely different concepts.
This book talks about children making choices practically in the same breath as the "choice" of a rapist. We can expect that our children will be deeply effected by their environments, and will not know the right road to take. Yet, he talks about the way people think as if there is a right way, and a wrong way, and somehow children will "know" to make the right choice. While there are certainly "righter" ways, and "wronger" ways, there is a whole lot of gray, and even the best choices often go wildly astray.
He says in the real world, it's all about personal choice, but that's simply not reality. In the real world, the individual has to constantly balance his rights and responsibilities in society. Each individual case is different. When people break laws, sometimes the individual is mostly to blame, and sometimes society is mostly to blame. Usually, it's somewhere in between.
At the end of the day, it may not make a difference in how society chooses to respond to a criminal, but saying it is never society's fault is filled with as much magical thinking as saying it is always society's fault.
March 29, 2008
Many people react strongly to Samenow's conclusions in this book. He is simultaniously accused of being "too hard" on criminals by some, and "too soft" on criminals by others. He is "too hard" on criminals because he expects them to take full accountability for themselves and not blame their disadvantaged childhoods, abuse by parents, poverty, etc for their problems. He says there truly are "bad seeds" who are just antisocial. But he is is also accused of being "too soft" because his approach is treatment focused. I personally find him right on.
When I first read this book years ago I had a negative reaction to his ideas. But since then, I've spent the last 6 years as a nurse taking care of criminal patients. And I've come to agree with many of his principles and rely on them in my every day working life. What I love is that if criminals are responsible for their lives and are in control of them, then yes, they cannot get let "off the hook." But it also restores dignity, because they can't change their pasts, but they can change their futures. So being completely responsible for themselves gives them hope and freedom to change who they have become, if they want to. He identifies common thinking errors (Cogntive approach) that all people have. When you have too many of certain types of incorrect beliefs though, you are more likely to commit crimes. We help our clients challenge these beliefs which occur automatically most of the time. And that can help people realize when they are acting in destructive ways that will hurt them and society.
For anyone working in the criminal justice field, or in mental health care, I highly recommend this book.
When I first read this book years ago I had a negative reaction to his ideas. But since then, I've spent the last 6 years as a nurse taking care of criminal patients. And I've come to agree with many of his principles and rely on them in my every day working life. What I love is that if criminals are responsible for their lives and are in control of them, then yes, they cannot get let "off the hook." But it also restores dignity, because they can't change their pasts, but they can change their futures. So being completely responsible for themselves gives them hope and freedom to change who they have become, if they want to. He identifies common thinking errors (Cogntive approach) that all people have. When you have too many of certain types of incorrect beliefs though, you are more likely to commit crimes. We help our clients challenge these beliefs which occur automatically most of the time. And that can help people realize when they are acting in destructive ways that will hurt them and society.
For anyone working in the criminal justice field, or in mental health care, I highly recommend this book.
August 27, 2014
The author clearly thinks in black and white. Stating that poverty is not a factor in criminality is ludicrous. Most of his examples from the first few chapters are those of upper middle-class parents who have no problem forking over money for therapists, college tuition and attorneys. The fact that the author finds typical adolescent behavior as being “delinquent” and “criminal” is really appalling. Most young people do not want to listen to their parents and/or go to school - it’s called being a kid. Most of these children move on to become productive members of society. This book was originally published in 1984 and this is the 2014 revision. The author needs to realize "criminal mind" is an antiquated term. The new term is Psychopath. Research shows that not every criminal is a psychopath and not every psychopath is a criminal. The author oversimplifies an issue that is full of complexities.
September 18, 2017
I'm on page 44 and I can tell I won't get much further. First of all, the author's constant reference to pot smoking as criminal/delinquent behavior, even in the updated edition, is irksome. Adult use marijuana will be legal in California in January 2018 and is already legal in a few other states. I know many, many successful, good, even professional people who smoke pot and aren't criminals. So Dr. Samenow lost me there.
Second, I simply don't buy the notion that nothing--absolutely NOTHING--that happens in a person's life, and certainly not environment, has any bearing on criminal behavior. The author takes that notion and runs with it--indeed harps on it to the point of grating on my nerves like chalk on a blackboard. Of course criminal behavior is a choice, just like just about everything else we do is a choice. But I think that's a rather simplistic and sophistic approach to take in what is supposed to be a scholarly work. The real issue is, why do we make the choices we do? Maybe the author delves into that later on, but if I accept what he says in the chapter on parents, all criminals are little monsters in the mold of The Bad Seed from toddlerhood. I'm fairly certain not everyone in our overflowing prisons was a childhood terrorist.
Forgive me if this tome gets any deeper in the pages ahead; I won't make it that far. I'm already exhausted.
Second, I simply don't buy the notion that nothing--absolutely NOTHING--that happens in a person's life, and certainly not environment, has any bearing on criminal behavior. The author takes that notion and runs with it--indeed harps on it to the point of grating on my nerves like chalk on a blackboard. Of course criminal behavior is a choice, just like just about everything else we do is a choice. But I think that's a rather simplistic and sophistic approach to take in what is supposed to be a scholarly work. The real issue is, why do we make the choices we do? Maybe the author delves into that later on, but if I accept what he says in the chapter on parents, all criminals are little monsters in the mold of The Bad Seed from toddlerhood. I'm fairly certain not everyone in our overflowing prisons was a childhood terrorist.
Forgive me if this tome gets any deeper in the pages ahead; I won't make it that far. I'm already exhausted.
November 1, 2014
I attempted to read this book. It was oversimplified and most of the information learned is the stuff you learn from watching L&O: CI or Criminal Minds or just by watching the news. Other reviewers have mention is felt like a newspaper piece and it does. I got bored quickly making less than 50 pages.
April 30, 2021
"Một số thủ phạm thực hiện những tội ác khủng khiếp là những kẻ cô độc không phải vì họ là nạn nhân của những người khác mà vì họ đã xua đuổi người khác bằng hành vi của chính bản thân mình."
Quéo quèo, trên Goodreads này tôi chưa hề thấy một người bạn nào của tôi đọc cuốn này hết, nên chắc tôi là 1 trong những người mở hàng đầu tiên rồi quá =))
Mê tâm lí học từ lâu, mà giờ còn qua Tâm lí học tội phạm nữa, đợt thấy Tiki sale mạnh bộ 2 cuốn này tới 40% thấy cũng nghi nghi nên chỉ dám hốt trước 1 cuốn về đọc xem sao. Đọc xong rồi thì quyết định sẽ sớm tậu luôn tập 2 vì khá hay!! Hú yeah 💓
Nói chung cuốn này chữ nhiều, không hề có hình ảnh minh hoa lẫn dẫn chứng các kiểu, nên với một số bạn sẽ bị ngấy. Cuốn này tiêu đề đã nói lên tất cả, nội dung xoáy vào tìm hiểu Tâm lí của các các loại tội phạm: Từ trộm cắp, đánh nhau, phá hoại tài sản, hiếp dâm, giết người,v..v.... Nhưng nhìn chung, sau khi đọc cuốn này mình có một khái niệm tương đối khát quát rút ra được đó là: Tội phạm đều không hề thấy mình sai, Cái tôi cực kì cao, và sự hối hận duy nhất bọn chúng có chính là Để bị bắt. Lại còn hay bị ảo tưởng, muốn nhiều thứ nhưng không chịu bắt tay làm gì, ai làm gì không theo ý chúng là sẽ vào tròng :v Bất cứ vấn đề gì xảy ra trong quá trình phạm tội của chúng, chúng đều đổ lỗi cho hoàn cảnh và mọi người xung quanh chứ không bao giờ là chính mình.
Cuốn này đọc khá nhanh, cách viết lôi cuốn, tác giả đánh mạnh vào từng ví dụ cụ thể để đưa ra kết luận. Mặc dù mình không biết các nghiên cứu có chính xác không, có phiến diện quá không (vì thấy trên đây rating cuốn này khá thấp??) nhưng với một đứa không có kiến thức chuyên môn như mình để judge thì đọc qua cuốn này đẻ biết và lượm lặt thông tin cũng là một cái hay.
Dịch giả dịch khá mượt,đọc dễ hiểu không đau não, mặc dù còn vài lỗi chính tả nhưng mình vui tính dễ dãi bỏ qua hihi :3
P/s: Không hiểu sao khi tác giả Samenow nói về công trình nghiên cứu tâm lí trong "Chương trình điều tra Hành vi tội phạm" những năm 70-80 lúc ông 28 tuổi cùng giáo sư đồng nghiệp, mình lại nghĩ tới Holden Ford với Bill Tench trong Mindhunter :v Ôi 2 ông anh thân thương cụa toaiiiiiiii
July 23, 2016
Wow. This authors ideas coupled with experience and training completely undressed my obviously out-dated assumptions of the minds of criminals. In fact, I hadn't even realized that I had specific opinions until there were challenged directly by the concepts presented in this book.
The author takes the reader on an inside-the-criminal-mind trip that will at first challenge then shock you into a full-on reconsideration of Everything You Think you know about Criminal Behavior, Rehabilitation and The Criminal Mindset. All very, very disturbing yet incredible important for all of us to comprehend. You will not think about crime & criminals the same ever again. This book will smash the lens of your rose colored glasses, permanently.
The author takes the reader on an inside-the-criminal-mind trip that will at first challenge then shock you into a full-on reconsideration of Everything You Think you know about Criminal Behavior, Rehabilitation and The Criminal Mindset. All very, very disturbing yet incredible important for all of us to comprehend. You will not think about crime & criminals the same ever again. This book will smash the lens of your rose colored glasses, permanently.
August 7, 2021
Tiếp cận tội phạm trên góc độ theo dõi, ghi chép và phân tích các trường hợp ( case) của 1 nhà tâm lý học người Mỹ. Nhưng tôi thấy, đây còn là sách nên đọc cho cả những người làm giáo dục hoặc làm cha mẹ.
Tác giả khảo sát tội phạm từ góc độ gia đình, trường học, công việc. Với các tội ác điển hình như: ma tuý, khủng bố, sát nhân, hiếp dâm, ấu dâm, trộm cắp, biến thái, lệch lạc nhân cách…. Sách cố gắng ghi chép khoa học và khách quan, không thiên kiến và áp đặt, không cố giải thích khi chưa đầy đủ có căn cứ, nên đôi chỗ khá lạnh lùng và trần trụi.
Nhưng đọc cả 2 tập thì thấy điểm chung nhất của tất cả những trường hợp tội phạm được ghi chép trong đó là: Luôn nói dối, hay đổ lỗi cho người khác, hoang tưởng thể vĩ cuồng và nóng giận mất kiểm soát.
Điều đặc biệt mà tác giả theo dõi các trường hợp này nữa là, dù bị bắt, và được áp dụng rất nhiều phương pháp cải tạo, trị liệu thì khả năng phục thiện gần như là không có. Họ rất dễ tái phạm, ngựa quen đường cũ.
Đọc sách này, tôi mới nhận ra rất rõ ràng về việc: dạy trẻ con biết đối diện với thất bại, chấp nhận thất bại, tự vực dậy sau thất bại là quan trọng thế nào.
Một đứa trẻ hay nói dối cũng bắt đầu từ việc nó không dám thừa nhận sự thất bại trước mặt người lớn.
Đổ lỗi cho người khác, không dám nhận lỗi, luôn đóng vai nạn nhân cũng là sản phẩm của việc không dám chấp nhận mình thất bại.
Hoang tưởng vĩ cuồng, cũng là cơ chế được sản sinh ra để xoa dịu thất bại của con người.
Mà mặc dù, tác giả không kết luận được là nguyên nhân tội phạm có thể bắt nguồn từ gia đình, hay nhà trường, hay do bản tính. Nhưng người đọc sẽ nhận ra ngay, một khi đứa trẻ bị tổn thương từ tâm lý lúc nhỏ. Thì sau đó chuyện giáo dục lại hay chữa lành gần như là không thể. Nên cũng đừng quá tự tin vào việc có thể thay đổi, chữa lành, hướng thiện của 1 con người. Những thiền định, những liệu pháp, những triết lý, đôi khi như một trò đùa trước những tổn thương đã quá sâu rồi.
Nhưng càng vì thế càng thấy phải cẩn trọng, và khoẻ khoắn, lạc quan hơn rất nhiều trong việc nuôi dạy một đứa trẻ lớn lên và trưởng thành.
Tác giả khảo sát tội phạm từ góc độ gia đình, trường học, công việc. Với các tội ác điển hình như: ma tuý, khủng bố, sát nhân, hiếp dâm, ấu dâm, trộm cắp, biến thái, lệch lạc nhân cách…. Sách cố gắng ghi chép khoa học và khách quan, không thiên kiến và áp đặt, không cố giải thích khi chưa đầy đủ có căn cứ, nên đôi chỗ khá lạnh lùng và trần trụi.
Nhưng đọc cả 2 tập thì thấy điểm chung nhất của tất cả những trường hợp tội phạm được ghi chép trong đó là: Luôn nói dối, hay đổ lỗi cho người khác, hoang tưởng thể vĩ cuồng và nóng giận mất kiểm soát.
Điều đặc biệt mà tác giả theo dõi các trường hợp này nữa là, dù bị bắt, và được áp dụng rất nhiều phương pháp cải tạo, trị liệu thì khả năng phục thiện gần như là không có. Họ rất dễ tái phạm, ngựa quen đường cũ.
Đọc sách này, tôi mới nhận ra rất rõ ràng về việc: dạy trẻ con biết đối diện với thất bại, chấp nhận thất bại, tự vực dậy sau thất bại là quan trọng thế nào.
Một đứa trẻ hay nói dối cũng bắt đầu từ việc nó không dám thừa nhận sự thất bại trước mặt người lớn.
Đổ lỗi cho người khác, không dám nhận lỗi, luôn đóng vai nạn nhân cũng là sản phẩm của việc không dám chấp nhận mình thất bại.
Hoang tưởng vĩ cuồng, cũng là cơ chế được sản sinh ra để xoa dịu thất bại của con người.
Mà mặc dù, tác giả không kết luận được là nguyên nhân tội phạm có thể bắt nguồn từ gia đình, hay nhà trường, hay do bản tính. Nhưng người đọc sẽ nhận ra ngay, một khi đứa trẻ bị tổn thương từ tâm lý lúc nhỏ. Thì sau đó chuyện giáo dục lại hay chữa lành gần như là không thể. Nên cũng đừng quá tự tin vào việc có thể thay đổi, chữa lành, hướng thiện của 1 con người. Những thiền định, những liệu pháp, những triết lý, đôi khi như một trò đùa trước những tổn thương đã quá sâu rồi.
Nhưng càng vì thế càng thấy phải cẩn trọng, và khoẻ khoắn, lạc quan hơn rất nhiều trong việc nuôi dạy một đứa trẻ lớn lên và trưởng thành.
March 28, 2025
لطالما روج علم النفس وعلم الاجتماع لفكرة أن المجرم كغيره من الناس، لكنه يصبح مدمرًا بسبب تعرضه لصدمة نفسية أو عرقلة لتحقيق طموحاته. ينضم المراهق إلى جماعة غير مناسبة وينضم إلى عصابة لأنه لم يعش حياة أسرية كريمة. أو يمارس تاجر المخدرات تجارته لأن مهاراته لا تؤهله إلا لوظائف بأجر زهيد. وهكذا يُنظر إلى كليهما على أنهما شخصان تشكلان بفعل ظروف خارجة عن إرادتهما، متجاهلين حقيقة أن معظم الشباب من الأسر المفككة لا ينضمون إلى العصابات، وأن افتقار تاجر المخدرات إلى التعليم والمهارات المهنية هو فشل شخصي ، وليس فشلًا مجتمعيًا. في كثير من الأوساط، يُنظر إلى المجرم على أنه ضحية، لا جلاد.
يذهب أصحاب هذا الرأي إلى أبعد من ذلك، مؤكدين أننا جميعًا، بمعنى ما، "مجرمون" لأننا نكذب ونشتهي ونستسلم للإغراء. لكن من السخافة مساواة كذبة صغيرة نادرة للشخص المسؤول بشبكة أكاذيب المجرم الهائلة. ومن السخافة أيضًا مساواة سرقة طفل للعبة صغيرة بسرقة جانح لكل شيء - تقريبًا - تقع عينه عليه. من المضلل الادعاء بأن المجرم يريد ما يريده الشخص المسؤول، وأنه يُقدّر الأشياء نفسها التي يُقدّرها الشخص المسؤول. قد يرغب كلاهما في الثروة، لكن أحدهما فقط سيعمل بجد وإخلاص لاكتسابها. يعتقد المجرم أنه من حقه الحصول عليها، فينتزعها بأي طريقة ممكنة، غير مبالٍ بمن يؤذيه، ثم يطلب المزيد. قد يرغب كلاهما في حياة أسرية، لكن الشخص المسؤول يُظهر الأخذ والعطاء، والتفكير، والرعاية التي يتطلبها الأمر. قد يُظهر المجرم ولاءه للعمل الجاد والنزاهة، (المسؤولية)، ولكن أفعاله تثبت أن هذه المفاهيم تتعارض مع الطريقة التي يعيش بها حياته.
.
Stanton Samenow
Inside the Criminal Mind
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
يذهب أصحاب هذا الرأي إلى أبعد من ذلك، مؤكدين أننا جميعًا، بمعنى ما، "مجرمون" لأننا نكذب ونشتهي ونستسلم للإغراء. لكن من السخافة مساواة كذبة صغيرة نادرة للشخص المسؤول بشبكة أكاذيب المجرم الهائلة. ومن السخافة أيضًا مساواة سرقة طفل للعبة صغيرة بسرقة جانح لكل شيء - تقريبًا - تقع عينه عليه. من المضلل الادعاء بأن المجرم يريد ما يريده الشخص المسؤول، وأنه يُقدّر الأشياء نفسها التي يُقدّرها الشخص المسؤول. قد يرغب كلاهما في الثروة، لكن أحدهما فقط سيعمل بجد وإخلاص لاكتسابها. يعتقد المجرم أنه من حقه الحصول عليها، فينتزعها بأي طريقة ممكنة، غير مبالٍ بمن يؤذيه، ثم يطلب المزيد. قد يرغب كلاهما في حياة أسرية، لكن الشخص المسؤول يُظهر الأخذ والعطاء، والتفكير، والرعاية التي يتطلبها الأمر. قد يُظهر المجرم ولاءه للعمل الجاد والنزاهة، (المسؤولية)، ولكن أفعاله تثبت أن هذه المفاهيم تتعارض مع الطريقة التي يعيش بها حياته.
.
Stanton Samenow
Inside the Criminal Mind
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
April 7, 2018
Stanton Samenow's Inside the Criminal Mind was an often-frustrating book, but shouldn't we read things with different perspectives? Wouldn't our fractious times profit from listening? In fact, the very differences between Samenow's and my own worldviews were what I most appreciated. This book was ultimately helpful, sharpening and refining my views on criminality.
Throughout, Samenow talked about "the criminal," as though there is only one type of person committing crimes. People end up in the prison system for all sorts of reasons: crimes of self-defense, accidental crimes, crimes of laziness, crimes of conviction. Should we believe that Ted Bundy = Martha Stewart = Nelson Mandela?
I don't believe that Samenow even believes this. He writes, "Obviously, not every person who commits a crime is a hard-core criminal. But still, crimes of all types result from the way a person thinks" (p. 326). Nonetheless, his description of "criminals" is really a description of one kind of criminal, those diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
Samenow's descriptions were dichotomous (e.g., total disregard), which felt like fingernails on a chalkboard. I don't think it is generally useful to describe people in this way. I'll grant that it may be useful for the population he described, as this population often underestimates their own problems and overestimates their "goodness."
Samenow talked a lot about causality of criminality. He rejected the accuracy of children's and teens' self-reports, while accepting those of their parents. He talked about the law-abiding siblings of the criminals he studied, concluding that the criminal behavior must be "a choice," without acknowledging that nature and nurture often interact, that parents don't treat all of their children alike, that all children in a single family are not raised in a single environment.
Samenow complained about the research available – much of it correlational in nature, thus preventing causal conclusions on their own – but drew his own conclusions on nonsystematic observations from his clinical evaluations. He ignored the longitudinal or experimental research that would allow causal conclusions. Samenow used no research citations or footnotes, although made some references to secondary sources, mostly to criticize the article's conclusions, which he (generally wrongly) attributed to the group publishing the popularization of the data (e.g., American Psychological Association). He created and attacked a straw horse, even though his arguments, if more thoughtfully-developed, would be useful on their own.
The last two chapters were focused on treatment and were worth the pain incurred by me – and my partner – during the rest of the book. The treatment combined empathy without excusing responsibility, holding people in treatment accountable for even "minor" slips. Such treatment is seen with sex offenders and those with a history of substance abuse.
In short, this is a book that is worth reading, but do so by reading the first sentence of each paragraph and slowing down for his points. Inside the Criminal Mind is pedantic, overstated, and weakly defended, but does make thought-provoking and sometimes helpful points.
Throughout, Samenow talked about "the criminal," as though there is only one type of person committing crimes. People end up in the prison system for all sorts of reasons: crimes of self-defense, accidental crimes, crimes of laziness, crimes of conviction. Should we believe that Ted Bundy = Martha Stewart = Nelson Mandela?
I don't believe that Samenow even believes this. He writes, "Obviously, not every person who commits a crime is a hard-core criminal. But still, crimes of all types result from the way a person thinks" (p. 326). Nonetheless, his description of "criminals" is really a description of one kind of criminal, those diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
Samenow's descriptions were dichotomous (e.g., total disregard), which felt like fingernails on a chalkboard. I don't think it is generally useful to describe people in this way. I'll grant that it may be useful for the population he described, as this population often underestimates their own problems and overestimates their "goodness."
Samenow talked a lot about causality of criminality. He rejected the accuracy of children's and teens' self-reports, while accepting those of their parents. He talked about the law-abiding siblings of the criminals he studied, concluding that the criminal behavior must be "a choice," without acknowledging that nature and nurture often interact, that parents don't treat all of their children alike, that all children in a single family are not raised in a single environment.
Samenow complained about the research available – much of it correlational in nature, thus preventing causal conclusions on their own – but drew his own conclusions on nonsystematic observations from his clinical evaluations. He ignored the longitudinal or experimental research that would allow causal conclusions. Samenow used no research citations or footnotes, although made some references to secondary sources, mostly to criticize the article's conclusions, which he (generally wrongly) attributed to the group publishing the popularization of the data (e.g., American Psychological Association). He created and attacked a straw horse, even though his arguments, if more thoughtfully-developed, would be useful on their own.
The last two chapters were focused on treatment and were worth the pain incurred by me – and my partner – during the rest of the book. The treatment combined empathy without excusing responsibility, holding people in treatment accountable for even "minor" slips. Such treatment is seen with sex offenders and those with a history of substance abuse.
In short, this is a book that is worth reading, but do so by reading the first sentence of each paragraph and slowing down for his points. Inside the Criminal Mind is pedantic, overstated, and weakly defended, but does make thought-provoking and sometimes helpful points.
July 12, 2018
I can see why this book is controversial. Taking a look at the other reviews, you'd think Samenow was advocating bringing back flogging.
This guy, likely the hardest psychiatrist I've ever heard of, worked with irreconcilable criminals for his entire career, and established that maybe they weren't that irreconcilable. His theory posited that the issue was all of this empathy, understanding, gentle words, sad eyes, and Freudian excuses provided exactly the smokescreen that criminal psychopaths need to gleefully hustle the system, get back out onto the streets, and recidivise fast and hard.
His approach was different, and reminded me of REBT videos I'd seen of Albert Ellis shouting at smokers until they took accountability and quit. Samenow sits these murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, and gangbangers down and tells them, "You're different from other people. You took a different track, and you've always believed you're superior to everyone else, you're smarter, and the rules are for the other dumbasses who can't get around them. Well, now you're caught, so you're not as good as you thought you were. You're a parasite, and everyone who encounters you is worse for it. You have three options:
1) Keep up the criminal lifestyle, which you've demonstrated that you suck at. Get caught again, inevitably. Keep dealing with consequences like this. Wind up in the chair.
2) Kill yourself. Make the world a better place in so doing.
3) Change.
After that, it's straight CBT therapy. Samenow posits that punishment doesn't work, rehabilitative hugfests don't work, drugs don't work, and psychodynamic shrinking doesn't work. The kind of criminals he's talking about are narcissists, and if you want to get a handle on them, you gotta grab them by the pride. Come at their ego until they have no choice but to prove you wrong.
Samenow then corrected cognitive errors in his patients until they stopped doing all the terrible stuff they were doing, settled into a comfortable furrow, and lived a normal, prosocial life.
Choice and responsibility is why Samenow doesn't have many friends in the soft sciences. This flies in the face of everything you're taught as a social worker. Samenow explains this away by saying, "the people who have the grandest designs on sweeping sociological solutions to criminality only understand criminals as abstractions. Face to face, they're just people, making self-serving antisocial decisions, and telling them 'it's not your fault bb' is the surest way to have them continue doing just that."
This guy, likely the hardest psychiatrist I've ever heard of, worked with irreconcilable criminals for his entire career, and established that maybe they weren't that irreconcilable. His theory posited that the issue was all of this empathy, understanding, gentle words, sad eyes, and Freudian excuses provided exactly the smokescreen that criminal psychopaths need to gleefully hustle the system, get back out onto the streets, and recidivise fast and hard.
His approach was different, and reminded me of REBT videos I'd seen of Albert Ellis shouting at smokers until they took accountability and quit. Samenow sits these murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, and gangbangers down and tells them, "You're different from other people. You took a different track, and you've always believed you're superior to everyone else, you're smarter, and the rules are for the other dumbasses who can't get around them. Well, now you're caught, so you're not as good as you thought you were. You're a parasite, and everyone who encounters you is worse for it. You have three options:
1) Keep up the criminal lifestyle, which you've demonstrated that you suck at. Get caught again, inevitably. Keep dealing with consequences like this. Wind up in the chair.
2) Kill yourself. Make the world a better place in so doing.
3) Change.
After that, it's straight CBT therapy. Samenow posits that punishment doesn't work, rehabilitative hugfests don't work, drugs don't work, and psychodynamic shrinking doesn't work. The kind of criminals he's talking about are narcissists, and if you want to get a handle on them, you gotta grab them by the pride. Come at their ego until they have no choice but to prove you wrong.
Samenow then corrected cognitive errors in his patients until they stopped doing all the terrible stuff they were doing, settled into a comfortable furrow, and lived a normal, prosocial life.
Choice and responsibility is why Samenow doesn't have many friends in the soft sciences. This flies in the face of everything you're taught as a social worker. Samenow explains this away by saying, "the people who have the grandest designs on sweeping sociological solutions to criminality only understand criminals as abstractions. Face to face, they're just people, making self-serving antisocial decisions, and telling them 'it's not your fault bb' is the surest way to have them continue doing just that."
September 4, 2014
**Actual rating 3.5 stars***
I requested this book via netgalley because I wanted to read some more non fiction and the subject matter was interesting to me – I do have a passing interest in psychology and crime so it seemed as if this would be fascinating. And it was.
There was a definite academic quality to the writing but done in an accessible fashion so that it was easy to follow – and the author’s thoughts on “criminal personality” and the possibility of identifying criminals early were well put across and cohesive, allowing for the fact that although it can be applied in a lot of cases there are exceptions. I found it intriguing, the thoughts on “insanity defence” and how this is usually unlikely, although there are cases where a person could not control his or her actions it is rare.
There are actual real life examples to back up the points made, but I did like that the author allowed for other “types” of criminal and managed to make a sound argument for his own opinion. It is a little dry at times and occasionally repetitive but overall I found it an engaging and interesting read.
If you have an interest in the subject this would be a good book to read, easy, fact and discussion involved and overall I enjoyed it and maybe even learned something.
Happy Reading Folks!
I requested this book via netgalley because I wanted to read some more non fiction and the subject matter was interesting to me – I do have a passing interest in psychology and crime so it seemed as if this would be fascinating. And it was.
There was a definite academic quality to the writing but done in an accessible fashion so that it was easy to follow – and the author’s thoughts on “criminal personality” and the possibility of identifying criminals early were well put across and cohesive, allowing for the fact that although it can be applied in a lot of cases there are exceptions. I found it intriguing, the thoughts on “insanity defence” and how this is usually unlikely, although there are cases where a person could not control his or her actions it is rare.
There are actual real life examples to back up the points made, but I did like that the author allowed for other “types” of criminal and managed to make a sound argument for his own opinion. It is a little dry at times and occasionally repetitive but overall I found it an engaging and interesting read.
If you have an interest in the subject this would be a good book to read, easy, fact and discussion involved and overall I enjoyed it and maybe even learned something.
Happy Reading Folks!
January 14, 2013
The chief merit of this book is Dr. Samenow’s orientation to objective reality-—specifically, that he regards human beings as creatures possessing free will and capable of thinking. This plainly evident fact apparently constitutes a radical departure from conventional views in his field, and Samenow admits that he and his mentor had to completely overthrow their university training in order to advance their understanding of the evidence they faced.
Although Samenow does, at the end of the book, elaborate upon a treatment that seemed to succeed with a particular criminal, it is the absence of such proposed solutions that is most striking and admirable in this book-—admirable not because solutions to crime would not be welcome (of course they would be), but because the author refuses to invent plausible causes of criminality as pretexts for social engineering projects. (For example, among the fallacies Samenow demolishes is the notion that crime is caused by poverty.) Drawing upon his years of direct experience, Dr. Samenow places the source of crime in—-gasp!—-the criminal. For this, his book is to be praised.
Although Samenow does, at the end of the book, elaborate upon a treatment that seemed to succeed with a particular criminal, it is the absence of such proposed solutions that is most striking and admirable in this book-—admirable not because solutions to crime would not be welcome (of course they would be), but because the author refuses to invent plausible causes of criminality as pretexts for social engineering projects. (For example, among the fallacies Samenow demolishes is the notion that crime is caused by poverty.) Drawing upon his years of direct experience, Dr. Samenow places the source of crime in—-gasp!—-the criminal. For this, his book is to be praised.
July 4, 2014
Samenow believes that murder is a choice. He believes that environmental factors - such as abuse, (even prostitution), poverty, racism are but excuses to commit murder. A bad past obviously does not excuse murder but Samenow misinterprets this to a harmful degree. He even states that abused children deserved to be abused.
And his evidence? That there are exceptions to every rule. That people of all social groups commit crime. What he doesn't realize is that not all abused children are abused in the same way. Not all in poverty are in the same situation. He overgeneralizes ludicrously. He speaks as if 'good' and 'evil' are biologically innate in everyone.
That is not to say that the individual person doesn't matter. No one is born tabula rasa, sure, and the possibility of a person comitting murder is higher in some than others. However I strongly believe that no one is born a killer. It's completely environmental. I'd suggest Guilty By Reason Of Insanity as a much more educational read. It's like the antithesis of this book.
And his evidence? That there are exceptions to every rule. That people of all social groups commit crime. What he doesn't realize is that not all abused children are abused in the same way. Not all in poverty are in the same situation. He overgeneralizes ludicrously. He speaks as if 'good' and 'evil' are biologically innate in everyone.
That is not to say that the individual person doesn't matter. No one is born tabula rasa, sure, and the possibility of a person comitting murder is higher in some than others. However I strongly believe that no one is born a killer. It's completely environmental. I'd suggest Guilty By Reason Of Insanity as a much more educational read. It's like the antithesis of this book.
January 10, 2015
This was a strange, strange read. I was not familiar with Dr. Samenow prior to reading this book, but now that I have, I'm suspicious regarding how this man has a career. He spends most of the text talking about "criminals" as though they are a homogenous group of like-minded abominations who think differently than "normal" people. That may seem reasonable until you realize that the "criminal" mind he is describing applies to everyone from a marijuana user to an axe murderer. There doesn't seem to be much distinction between the two for him. He completely disregards the nature vs. nurture debate regarding how "criminals" become that way, implying that it is pointless to try and understand causes or mitigating circumstances of criminal behavior. He also states that he doesn't agree with the "addiction is a disease" school of thought. So basically, this man is a psychologist who doesn't have an interest in understanding human behavior and disagrees with the most up-to-date theories in psychology. The book itself was mildly interesting because of the case studies, but I will not be reading anything else by Dr. Samenow.
July 1, 2016
Highly recommend! I thoroughly enjoyed this book and will be buying some of the authors other publications. I have my degree in forensic psych and currently work in corrections - this book gave me greater insight and a deeper understanding of the criminal personality and behaviors. The book was clearly written and the examples used helped to clarify and illustrate the author's major points.
July 28, 2015
I really got into this book.
Interesting way to look at the criminal mind.
Interesting way to look at the criminal mind.
April 21, 2025
what this book tried to teach me:
1) 'the criminal' is different to me and you
2) criminal behaviour has nothing to do with psychosocial factors and has everything to do with mentality. being a criminal is in fact a choice, always. ALWAYS.
i wouldnt mind reading this if it explored different theories. im sure there are people who engage in criminal behaviour out there that do it for no good reason as the authour is trying to highlight. but i do not agree with the hard conclusions he has reached that all criminal behaviour is a choice, and criminals are power seeking, lying, manipulative assholes always
i cannnnoooottttttt
1) 'the criminal' is different to me and you
2) criminal behaviour has nothing to do with psychosocial factors and has everything to do with mentality. being a criminal is in fact a choice, always. ALWAYS.
i wouldnt mind reading this if it explored different theories. im sure there are people who engage in criminal behaviour out there that do it for no good reason as the authour is trying to highlight. but i do not agree with the hard conclusions he has reached that all criminal behaviour is a choice, and criminals are power seeking, lying, manipulative assholes always
i cannnnoooottttttt
October 5, 2021
Всеки който е работил с престъпници е забелязал, че голяма част от тях имат определени модели на поведение, които ясно се забелязват и се повтарят при различните хора. Очевидно е, че подобни модели спомагат за превръщането им в престъпници и клиенти на поправителната система.
Стантън Сеймнау е психолог, който с книгата си се стреми да се противопостави на наложилото се в много кръгове виждане, че "средата прави престъпника" и че престъпният ум е резултат от тежко детство, лош квартал, небрежни учители и т.н. Той се опитва да наложи виждането, което е като цяло виждане и на всеки немалоумен човек, работил достатъчно дълго с престъпници, че престъпникът по-скоро се ражда като определен тип човек и различните му вътрешни подтици и характерът му го тласкат към живот извън обществото и към криминалност.
По мое мнение обаче, авторът доста пресолява манджата в книгата - наистина, той описва различни поведенчески и психически модели, които се срещат непропорционално често при престъпниците, но също както и идеологическите му противници не успяват да обяснят защо всяко сексуално насилвано дете не става на свой ред сексуален престъпник, така и той не успява да обясни защо мнозинството от хората, които са по природа антисоциални, бунтари и лесно се ядосват са просто обикновени граждани, а не стават всичките насилствени престъпници.
Все пак, книгата е полезна с това, че онагледява как определени начини на мислене могат да доведат човек до определени психически състояние и определени постъпки.
Стантън Сеймнау е психолог, който с книгата си се стреми да се противопостави на наложилото се в много кръгове виждане, че "средата прави престъпника" и че престъпният ум е резултат от тежко детство, лош квартал, небрежни учители и т.н. Той се опитва да наложи виждането, което е като цяло виждане и на всеки немалоумен човек, работил достатъчно дълго с престъпници, че престъпникът по-скоро се ражда като определен тип човек и различните му вътрешни подтици и характерът му го тласкат към живот извън обществото и към криминалност.
По мое мнение обаче, авторът доста пресолява манджата в книгата - наистина, той описва различни поведенчески и психически модели, които се срещат непропорционално често при престъпниците, но също както и идеологическите му противници не успяват да обяснят защо всяко сексуално насилвано дете не става на свой ред сексуален престъпник, така и той не успява да обясни защо мнозинството от хората, които са по природа антисоциални, бунтари и лесно се ядосват са просто обикновени граждани, а не стават всичките насилствени престъпници.
Все пак, книгата е полезна с това, че онагледява как определени начини на мислене могат да доведат човек до определени психически състояние и определени постъпки.
September 30, 2021
Vì là sách mượn nên đọc như ma rượt vậy á để trả lại cho ngta nên cũng không nghiền ngẫm nát nhừ cho lắm, nhưng cuốn này không tệ chút nào. Cuốn này trả lại cho tội phạm đúng tính chất của nó, phạm tội vì thích thế, vì có khuynh hướng phạm tội chứ chẳng phải do nghèo đói, do môi trường, do bla bla gì hết.
Làm mình nhớ tới có vị gì đó phát biểu đề nghị kiểm duyệt phim gắt gao hơn vì từ khi phim Người phán xử được chiếu tỉ lệ tội phạm tăng cao lên nhiều, bác đó nên đọc thêm cuốn này để biết bạo lực trên game và phim ảnh không ảnh hưởng nhiều và vai trò của nó không kinh khủng tới mức như các nhà xã hội học, nhân viên xã hội và các nhà giáo dục gán lên lưng nó chút nào. Các tội phạm cổ cồn trắng cũng không có gì khác với mấy thằng oắt cầm dao xin tí máu ở ngã tư đường lúc nửa đêm, và không phải cứ phạm tội là mắc bệnh tâm lý, trừ phi dc luật sư dạy khai vậy để giảm tội xíu thôi.
1 cuốn sách hay, nhiều luận điểm mình rất đồng tình, sẽ tìm cuốn 2 mượn để đọc tiếp.
Làm mình nhớ tới có vị gì đó phát biểu đề nghị kiểm duyệt phim gắt gao hơn vì từ khi phim Người phán xử được chiếu tỉ lệ tội phạm tăng cao lên nhiều, bác đó nên đọc thêm cuốn này để biết bạo lực trên game và phim ảnh không ảnh hưởng nhiều và vai trò của nó không kinh khủng tới mức như các nhà xã hội học, nhân viên xã hội và các nhà giáo dục gán lên lưng nó chút nào. Các tội phạm cổ cồn trắng cũng không có gì khác với mấy thằng oắt cầm dao xin tí máu ở ngã tư đường lúc nửa đêm, và không phải cứ phạm tội là mắc bệnh tâm lý, trừ phi dc luật sư dạy khai vậy để giảm tội xíu thôi.
1 cuốn sách hay, nhiều luận điểm mình rất đồng tình, sẽ tìm cuốn 2 mượn để đọc tiếp.
April 1, 2016
Yes, he could be a lot less arrogant in his delivery, but on the whole (and as a former therapist) I absolutely agree with the premise that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everything in the world except themselves for where they are in life. Samenow's "three options" are pretty stark, but the story of Leroy is inspiring and shows that it CAN be done when and individual WANTS to make the necessary changes. Maybe if we started with these concepts a little sooner we wouldn't have so many people incarcerated. I've worked with children, families, the legal system, and both short-term and long-term behavioral health settings - making excuses isn't working.
June 20, 2015
I was very impressed with the depth of this book. The author explained in detail how the criminal mind works, and tells precisely how to change his thinking so that he can become a "normal" citizen. My only negative comment about the book is due to the lack of response by those who deal with criminals to be more interested in the concept and adopt it in prisons or jails.
It is, after all, something within the criminal's mind that causes him to act. Therefore, it makes perfectly logical sense to me that in order to change him, his thinking must be made to see himself as the rest of society sees him.
It is, after all, something within the criminal's mind that causes him to act. Therefore, it makes perfectly logical sense to me that in order to change him, his thinking must be made to see himself as the rest of society sees him.
November 24, 2015
Explains the centrality of dysfunctional cognition to criminal behavior. Invaluable background information to anyone providing social services or re-rentry programs for inmates or offenders. Made me realize how much money has been wasted on interventions focused on increasing self-esteem.
July 2, 2015
I won this book as part of Goodreads Giveaway. I've become more interested in reading & learning about the brain, elasticity, mental health, PTSD, etc. Some of this interest stems from the social work that my brother and some friends are involved in for their jobs. I was really disappointed in this book. The author's main point in the end is that thinking leads to choices which leads to behaviors. This "nugget" holds true for anyone; "criminal" or not.
The main disappointment came from the approach the author took to get his thoughts/theory across. It felt like he set the book up by discrediting & putting down other studies & theories to lift his own above the rest. A lot of it came down to the the language the author used. Some of his choices of words gave the impression of insecurity; it felt like he went out of his way to put down other theories in an attempt to make his superior. In the beginning of the book he starts the first chapter by telling anyone who believes external factors can impact a "criminal's" choices to be in error: "When I began working as a clinical psychologist, I believed that people turned to crime largely because of factors outside of themselves...Working with my mentor..., we eventually found this view to be COMPLETELY IN ERROR." He furthers this condemning language approach in another example: "Policy makers WASTE billions of dollars as they NAIVELY seek to combat criminal behavior by eradicating its SO-CALLED environmental "root causes." In another example, the author describes the Control for Disease and Prevention's risk factors of youth violence as a "hodge-podge list." The impression the author paints is that his theory is the only right one, making the reader feel bad for believing otherwise, yet the author himself, doesn't provide a lot of detail into his own studies that would strongly support his theory supremacy. This leads me to my next disappointment.
The approach to his research does not gel well with me. I'm not an experienced researcher and maybe his approach is commonly used or widely accepted amongst researchers. In his own words, this is how he gathered his information for his theory: "Having interviewed criminals for 44 yrs, I had hundreds of cases from which to choose while writing this book. I DELIBERATELY SELECTED AS EXAMPLES MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE AT THE EXTREME END OF THE CONTINUUM OF CRIMINALITY." Again, I'm not an experienced researcher, but does studying and highlighting the anomilies (extremes) and then projecting them to the rest of the population make sense? From this approach, the author proceeds to use absolutes when describing the criminal and brushing off "minor" differences or the "small percentages" that appear contrary to his way of thinking. Isn't his cohort group a small percentage of the criminal population as well? He said he used the extreme of extreme criminals. The author strongly suggests that criminals are criminals regardless of ANY external factors because of the choices they make (puts down mental illness, environmental factors, etc.). He suggests that criminals have "pre-existing personalities." He is forced to play down the "small number [that] may change on their own after having experienced the loss of their freedom." He writes these "small numbers" off because they don't fit into his theory. Throughout the book, the author briskly waves off any variations from his theory as unimportant/meaningless.
One more thing on the author's research approach: heavy reliance on interviews. Now some cases interviews are all you have to work with, but that doesn't make interview studies as the most effective, ESPECIALLY when interviewing "extreme" criminals who have a pattern of lying. The author emphasizes throughout his book that criminals are deceptive liars; they say and do anything to get the results they want and that they can't be trusted, yet he relies heavily on these "liars'" interviews for his research. Why does the author think that these criminals are telling him the truth in his interviews as to why they do or did things, but expounds on how they manipulate parents, teachers, psychologists, law enforcement, etc. to leave an impression that they want or to get what they want. Throughout the book, he quotes these extreme liars to prove his points and discredit other theories. Not sure I would trust what they say let alone use so many of their quotes as your "evidence."
The author focuses nearly the entire book discrediting the "causes" of ciminality just so, it seems, he can point out his main point in the concluding chapter(s) that it is ultimately the criminal's thinking patterns and the resulting choices that are the most important thing to focus on when working with criminals. Yes, how and what people think can lead to behaviors, good or bad. The author did have some good thoughts regarding similarities in criminal thought patterns, but I wish he would have made that the focus of his book, rather than feeling the need to defend his theories throughout the book. If he would have done this he wouldn't have felt the need to put down potential explanations to point that it made him appear overly absolute.
Discrediting environmental or mental factors and their influence/impressions on thinking lessened his authority in my mind. Too many other studies that I've read (that better presented their approaches, methods, statistics, etc. than this author) have shown environmental & mental factors have had influences on the final choices that criminals made. Yes, the "criminal" made the ultimate wrong choice resulting from unhealthy thinking patterns, but it's not "naive" to try and study & improve environmental & mental factors. A recent PBS special on juvenile delinquency that I watched interviewed 3 dangerous inmates serving time. They described that when they were younger, they were picked on and beat up. Over an extended period of time, they got so tired of being beaten up that they felt their only option was to fight back, eventually using guns. They said that the guns gave them power. Their thought process and the eventual criminal choices they made were wrong indeed, however, it seems too excessive to write-off the impact that the bullying, beating, etc. had on their young minds.
The author also minimizes the impact of mental illness on choices. In the author's own words: "Having a mental illness does not mean that a person loses the ability to make choices, or that he loses the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong." I disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, I think come criminals try and utilize "insanity" in court cases immorally to avoid consequences. But I do believe that some people with extreme cases of bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia impacts their ability to make logical, healthy choices sometimes. Yes, they ultimately do something which is a "choice" like the author states, but, again, the author's stance is too extreme to discredit these mental factors' influence on choices. Another PBS documentary on mental illness that I watched highlighted a young boy who has been in an out of juvenile detention for aggressive disorder. Mental healthcare professionals are trying to help diagnose him and try different medications. In his interview, the boy doesn't like when he acts aggressive; he feels bad on how it hurts his family. He describes it as his mind turning black and that no matter what he can't control the rage. He's working at trying to better recognize feelings & circumstances that lead to the "point of no return" so as to not go there. Again, the strong language used by this author would discredit the impact that this child's mental illness has on his choices.
Lastly, having studied child development in college, the author treats adult and child cognitive ability as the same. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Children and young adults do lack strength in thinking/projecting the consequences of choices. Because the prefrontal cortex is still developing, teenagers might rely on a part of the brain called the amygdala to make decisions and solve problems more than adults do. The amygdala is associated with emotions, impulses, aggression and instinctive behavior. This further hurt the author's "authority" in my mind.
The main disappointment came from the approach the author took to get his thoughts/theory across. It felt like he set the book up by discrediting & putting down other studies & theories to lift his own above the rest. A lot of it came down to the the language the author used. Some of his choices of words gave the impression of insecurity; it felt like he went out of his way to put down other theories in an attempt to make his superior. In the beginning of the book he starts the first chapter by telling anyone who believes external factors can impact a "criminal's" choices to be in error: "When I began working as a clinical psychologist, I believed that people turned to crime largely because of factors outside of themselves...Working with my mentor..., we eventually found this view to be COMPLETELY IN ERROR." He furthers this condemning language approach in another example: "Policy makers WASTE billions of dollars as they NAIVELY seek to combat criminal behavior by eradicating its SO-CALLED environmental "root causes." In another example, the author describes the Control for Disease and Prevention's risk factors of youth violence as a "hodge-podge list." The impression the author paints is that his theory is the only right one, making the reader feel bad for believing otherwise, yet the author himself, doesn't provide a lot of detail into his own studies that would strongly support his theory supremacy. This leads me to my next disappointment.
The approach to his research does not gel well with me. I'm not an experienced researcher and maybe his approach is commonly used or widely accepted amongst researchers. In his own words, this is how he gathered his information for his theory: "Having interviewed criminals for 44 yrs, I had hundreds of cases from which to choose while writing this book. I DELIBERATELY SELECTED AS EXAMPLES MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE AT THE EXTREME END OF THE CONTINUUM OF CRIMINALITY." Again, I'm not an experienced researcher, but does studying and highlighting the anomilies (extremes) and then projecting them to the rest of the population make sense? From this approach, the author proceeds to use absolutes when describing the criminal and brushing off "minor" differences or the "small percentages" that appear contrary to his way of thinking. Isn't his cohort group a small percentage of the criminal population as well? He said he used the extreme of extreme criminals. The author strongly suggests that criminals are criminals regardless of ANY external factors because of the choices they make (puts down mental illness, environmental factors, etc.). He suggests that criminals have "pre-existing personalities." He is forced to play down the "small number [that] may change on their own after having experienced the loss of their freedom." He writes these "small numbers" off because they don't fit into his theory. Throughout the book, the author briskly waves off any variations from his theory as unimportant/meaningless.
One more thing on the author's research approach: heavy reliance on interviews. Now some cases interviews are all you have to work with, but that doesn't make interview studies as the most effective, ESPECIALLY when interviewing "extreme" criminals who have a pattern of lying. The author emphasizes throughout his book that criminals are deceptive liars; they say and do anything to get the results they want and that they can't be trusted, yet he relies heavily on these "liars'" interviews for his research. Why does the author think that these criminals are telling him the truth in his interviews as to why they do or did things, but expounds on how they manipulate parents, teachers, psychologists, law enforcement, etc. to leave an impression that they want or to get what they want. Throughout the book, he quotes these extreme liars to prove his points and discredit other theories. Not sure I would trust what they say let alone use so many of their quotes as your "evidence."
The author focuses nearly the entire book discrediting the "causes" of ciminality just so, it seems, he can point out his main point in the concluding chapter(s) that it is ultimately the criminal's thinking patterns and the resulting choices that are the most important thing to focus on when working with criminals. Yes, how and what people think can lead to behaviors, good or bad. The author did have some good thoughts regarding similarities in criminal thought patterns, but I wish he would have made that the focus of his book, rather than feeling the need to defend his theories throughout the book. If he would have done this he wouldn't have felt the need to put down potential explanations to point that it made him appear overly absolute.
Discrediting environmental or mental factors and their influence/impressions on thinking lessened his authority in my mind. Too many other studies that I've read (that better presented their approaches, methods, statistics, etc. than this author) have shown environmental & mental factors have had influences on the final choices that criminals made. Yes, the "criminal" made the ultimate wrong choice resulting from unhealthy thinking patterns, but it's not "naive" to try and study & improve environmental & mental factors. A recent PBS special on juvenile delinquency that I watched interviewed 3 dangerous inmates serving time. They described that when they were younger, they were picked on and beat up. Over an extended period of time, they got so tired of being beaten up that they felt their only option was to fight back, eventually using guns. They said that the guns gave them power. Their thought process and the eventual criminal choices they made were wrong indeed, however, it seems too excessive to write-off the impact that the bullying, beating, etc. had on their young minds.
The author also minimizes the impact of mental illness on choices. In the author's own words: "Having a mental illness does not mean that a person loses the ability to make choices, or that he loses the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong." I disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, I think come criminals try and utilize "insanity" in court cases immorally to avoid consequences. But I do believe that some people with extreme cases of bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia impacts their ability to make logical, healthy choices sometimes. Yes, they ultimately do something which is a "choice" like the author states, but, again, the author's stance is too extreme to discredit these mental factors' influence on choices. Another PBS documentary on mental illness that I watched highlighted a young boy who has been in an out of juvenile detention for aggressive disorder. Mental healthcare professionals are trying to help diagnose him and try different medications. In his interview, the boy doesn't like when he acts aggressive; he feels bad on how it hurts his family. He describes it as his mind turning black and that no matter what he can't control the rage. He's working at trying to better recognize feelings & circumstances that lead to the "point of no return" so as to not go there. Again, the strong language used by this author would discredit the impact that this child's mental illness has on his choices.
Lastly, having studied child development in college, the author treats adult and child cognitive ability as the same. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Children and young adults do lack strength in thinking/projecting the consequences of choices. Because the prefrontal cortex is still developing, teenagers might rely on a part of the brain called the amygdala to make decisions and solve problems more than adults do. The amygdala is associated with emotions, impulses, aggression and instinctive behavior. This further hurt the author's "authority" in my mind.
August 7, 2018
This book was recommended to me by someone who actually uses Samenow's technique working with prisoners in a state criminal justice system - AND IT WORKS. In fact, the prison system in which she works has such a low recidivism for the prisoners in the program that they have been contacted by other states to train the Samenow theory and system.
Samenow's theory is about taking personal responsibility for bad choices. No excuses for child abuse, neglect, poverty, bad parental examples, race, or anything else. Samenow claims that if these were the reason to explain crime, then everyone experiencing any of these things would be a criminal and that just isn't true. Not only that, by excusing the criminal, the person who does not commit crime is overshadowed.
Samenow's program is about mindfulness - which really interested me. The convicts are taught to pay attention to what they are thinking about and make different choices.
I once had a cop tell me, "You have to make 100 wrong choices before you get arrested the first time."
This is what criminals do - they make one bad choice after another. Choices that harm other people and which, if they get caught, they are punished for with incarceration. Making excuses for bad childhood, bad influences, bad friends, or it was "just a mistake" and giving probation does not change the propensity to make bad choices. Retraining themselves to make better choices changes the criminals. And making better choices is boring to the arrogant, narcissistic, thrill-seeking criminal mind, so they have to work at it.
If you are convinced that people need your pity when they beat their kids or shoplift or burglarize a house, then this is not the book or theory for you. Maybe people do need pity, but they also need to change and that does not happen by finding excuses for their bad behavior. Blaming someone else doesn't change anyone. Learning to make better choices and holding yourself accountable does.
Yes, the book is repetitive and sort of preachy, but so what? It seems to me that just about every nonfiction book I can remember that has psychological themes could be distilled down into a pamphlet.
Samenow's theory is about taking personal responsibility for bad choices. No excuses for child abuse, neglect, poverty, bad parental examples, race, or anything else. Samenow claims that if these were the reason to explain crime, then everyone experiencing any of these things would be a criminal and that just isn't true. Not only that, by excusing the criminal, the person who does not commit crime is overshadowed.
Samenow's program is about mindfulness - which really interested me. The convicts are taught to pay attention to what they are thinking about and make different choices.
I once had a cop tell me, "You have to make 100 wrong choices before you get arrested the first time."
This is what criminals do - they make one bad choice after another. Choices that harm other people and which, if they get caught, they are punished for with incarceration. Making excuses for bad childhood, bad influences, bad friends, or it was "just a mistake" and giving probation does not change the propensity to make bad choices. Retraining themselves to make better choices changes the criminals. And making better choices is boring to the arrogant, narcissistic, thrill-seeking criminal mind, so they have to work at it.
If you are convinced that people need your pity when they beat their kids or shoplift or burglarize a house, then this is not the book or theory for you. Maybe people do need pity, but they also need to change and that does not happen by finding excuses for their bad behavior. Blaming someone else doesn't change anyone. Learning to make better choices and holding yourself accountable does.
Yes, the book is repetitive and sort of preachy, but so what? It seems to me that just about every nonfiction book I can remember that has psychological themes could be distilled down into a pamphlet.
December 29, 2014
I received the latest edition of this book as part of an early review program; my understanding is that the updates in this release are mainly in the examples used (Boston Marathon bombings, Aurora theater shooting, Sandy Hook, etc have been added).
I'm ambivalent about this book. As another reviewer has already thoroughly explained there are a lot of problems with the author's views on the causes and repercussions of criminal behavior, frequently to the point of oversimplifying or even seeming like he doesn't understand certain theories when he'll repudiate them as garbage in one paragraph and then promote them under a different name in the next.
That said, I do believe this book has a lot of value for families dealing with a "problem child" or involved with anyone who has "criminal" tendencies - and for people seeking to better understand and cope with their own issues. There's a lot of value in, to borrow Samenow's analogy, setting aside discussion of why the table got scratched and instead focusing on how to repair the damage and prevent future scratches. For many people the "why" can become paralyzing, and I think this is where Samenow derails himself; in attempting to make this argument for the agency and will of a "criminal" and their ability to change, he seems to brush off all external factors and causes of crime.
I'm ambivalent about this book. As another reviewer has already thoroughly explained there are a lot of problems with the author's views on the causes and repercussions of criminal behavior, frequently to the point of oversimplifying or even seeming like he doesn't understand certain theories when he'll repudiate them as garbage in one paragraph and then promote them under a different name in the next.
That said, I do believe this book has a lot of value for families dealing with a "problem child" or involved with anyone who has "criminal" tendencies - and for people seeking to better understand and cope with their own issues. There's a lot of value in, to borrow Samenow's analogy, setting aside discussion of why the table got scratched and instead focusing on how to repair the damage and prevent future scratches. For many people the "why" can become paralyzing, and I think this is where Samenow derails himself; in attempting to make this argument for the agency and will of a "criminal" and their ability to change, he seems to brush off all external factors and causes of crime.
November 16, 2018
1.5 stars. I finished this book. I mention that because from about the time I reached the 100-page mark until near the end I kept asking myself and over and over "what is the point of this book?" it's one bleak vignette after another, most about manipulative criminals selfishly looking out for #1. the stories are journalistic and they pile up on one another. that said, it seems unfair to knock a book for living up to its title: this is a book about how criminals think, or, at least, how they reflect on their life of crime when interviewed by the tough-love, no-BS samenow. samenow is, to say the least, pessimistic about rehabilitation of the criminal (he claims they've never been 'habilitated' in the first place). perhaps usefully he notes that before criminals committed crimes, they lied, and they continue to lie because they narcissistically believe that society's rules don't apply to them. emphasizing the role of criminal thinking throughout, he finally focuses on changing criminal thinking in the second-to-last chapter, by way of a case study (and since it's a case study you're going to have come up with useful interventions by abstracting them from the text). all and all, read the intro and chapter 15.
September 5, 2021
This took me a while to get through but it was SO GOOD. I went into the book expecting a sort of explanation and lots of talk about criminals environments or the conditions in which they grew up, but that was not the case at all. The book talks about how certain situations don’t “create” a criminal but that criminals, no matter they’re background, have almost identical destructive thinking patterns. I really liked the case examples that were given. The section on sexual crimes and crimes against children was very difficult to get through. I’m glad an example of successful criminal rehab was shown and I’m glad a whole 2 chapters or more was dedicated to how to make these criminals not be a danger to anyone and how to make them act as functioning members of society. I thought it was interesting to see that the way to “fix” a criminal wasn’t to be sappy with them or overly compassionate, but to tell them the harsh truth and scare them into change. I believe the line the psychologist told the criminals was something along the lines of “here are your options: locked up in jail, suicide, or change”.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews