Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
why people break the law
Why Do Criminals Break The Law?
By Larry Pratt (02/21/05)
Criminals are as much a victim as those they have victimized, right? After all, they do what they do because of poverty, or bad parenting, or lousy peers, mental illness or the availability of a gun, right?
Well, no, says clinical psychologist Stanton Samenow. Criminals are the way they are because that is what they choose to do. From his experience, Samenow argues that even if a criminal has a mental illness, they commit crimes because they want to do so. Lots of people have mental illness, but very few of them commit crimes.
Samenow warns that criminals are not stupid. If they score low on IQ tests, that is usually because they could not care less about learning the kinds of things in school that are measured by such tests. They are quite adept at picking up on what will help them -- the law being a favorite course of study behind bars.
Also, criminals are quick to pick up on psychological jargon and get good at feeding it back to the practitioners. In other words, crooks are good at scamming mental health workers. If someone thinks they are nuts, not a crook, and that will get them out of jail, then, they quickly learn to sound as if they are mentally ill.
Samenow warns therapists against listening to just one side -- especially when the one side is a criminal (of any age) who lies not out of necessity but as a way of getting a thrill from manipulating other people. Lying gives power. A child or a student can often con a mental health practitioner into thinking that a parent or a teacher is an abuser and should be brought under control in the criminal justice system. Samenow has found that without a third party who can provide a "truth check" of what the child or student accuser is saying, devastating injustices can result.
Indeed, many people come from poverty, broken homes, lousy neighborhoods filled with budding criminals -- and lead good, productive lives. And criminals can come from wealthy homes just as easily as not.
One of the implications of Samenow's decades of experience is that the War on Poverty was doomed to failure as a crime-fighting measure.
Another implication of Samenow's research is that prisons do not make criminals into criminals, although they may increase their networking behind bars for when they get out.
Criminals like the excitement of doing what is prohibited. It is a characteristic they demonstrate often very early in life. Normal living is boring. Breaking the law is fun. One predator told Samenow: "If rape were made legal, I would find some other law to break." They lie not out of uncontrollable compulsion, but for the excitement of manipulating and controlling other people.
Criminals can change; they can stop being criminals, Samenow has found. To do so, they have to choose to do so. The have to learn how to think about the future, and especially about how their actions will affect other people.
(To learn more about Samenow's findings and his book, Inside the Criminal Mind, you can listen to my interview of him at http://www.gunowners.org/radio.htm in the archives of my Live Fire radio program.)
Until criminals choose to change, they will be criminals and the rest of us make a huge mistake to ignore that simple fact.
And, sorry gun control advocates -- criminals don't care about your gun control laws. They know that gun control is only for suckers (their word), not for them. What does that make those who support gun control laws? Aiding and abetting criminals is a term that comes to mind.
One of the legislative ramifications of Samenow's research bears on the so-called Our Lady of Peace Act. Anti-Second Amendment Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants to add mental health records to the National Criminal Information database. The assumption is that mental illness is a predictor of violent behavior. Based on his extensive clinical experience, Samenow puts it very succinctly: "[A]ll criminals are rational and -- crime is never caused by mental illness."
Of course, Schumer wants to disarm Americans and has shown that, for him, any excuse is a good excuse. But the rest of us now know the truth: all medical records, including mental health records, should be off limits to police investigators.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
why steriotypes exist
So why is it that this stereotype exists? Almost every profession has its negative stereotypes: ambulance-chasing lawyers, pushy reporters, untrustworthy used car salesmen. It is human nature to extract a relatively small number of characteristics and project them onto an entire group of people in order to simplify our understanding of what we know very little about.
“Stereotypes are persuasive and pervasive because they seem, in some manner, to contain real attributes and qualities…so, for example, the stereotype that librarians are detail oriented and concerned with maintaining order in a quiet library is based on experiential reality” (Adams 2000).
A great deal of writing on this subject has led to much speculation as to the reason for the persistence of an old-fashioned image of librarians: “Stereotyping tends to occur where there are gross inequalities of power” (Hall 1997). “I see the librarian stereotype as part of a broader cultural notion that says intelligent women cannot be physically attractive” (Adams 2000). “Why librarians are seen the way they are reflects complex social and cultural forces that have short-changed traditionally ‘female’ professions – both in dollars and respect” (Wallace 1989).
Part of the problem could be that, due to the hidden nature of much of a librarian’s work, people generally lack an understanding of what it is that librarians actually do. Many people assume that the job is simply that of shelving and checking out books, since these are the tasks seen by the public. This misunderstanding perpetuates the negative stereotype and has even broader ramifications: without a solid understanding of the value of librarians, funding support for libraries can diminish (Nilsen & McKechnie 2002). “Perhaps one of the reasons librarians are so concerned with their image is our recognition that what people think of us not only limits our status and salaries, but also the growth of our profession and the funding and use of libraries” (Schuman 1990).
Another important point to consider is that it is typically a goal of librarians to make their library as welcoming and user-friendly as possible. Librarians want the public to think that it is easy to use libraries, reference librarians seek to take the mystery out of their work, and librarians avoid claiming expert knowledge (Nilsen & McKechnie 2002). With this approach, perhaps the public comes away with a lack of appreciation for the complexity of the job.
IT’S THE LIBRARIANS’ FAULT!
Is it fair to blame the prevalence of a negative stereotype on the public? “I realized it wasn’t the public’s fault for not being interested in us; it is our fault. We do little to promote ourselves, and when we do, we rarely deviate from the traditional images” (Hutchins 2000). How can the public be expected to shift their impressions of a profession when little is done on the professionals’ part to portray themselves in a new light?
“When it comes to professional dress, librarians are slobs” (Herring 2000).
“If we had attended business school, we would have learned the importance of selling our own image, as well as our product” (Kalan 2002). Perhaps instead of only focussing on the four walls around us, librarians need to realize the importance of the image portrayed by the professionals inside the building.
Much has been done in the past few decades to bring about change in public perception of librarians…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)