contents

SCROLL DOWN FOR ESSAYS BELOW
 
Towards a General Theory of Crime - Crime is a vast and  contradictory area, but could it be that, within the chaos, indicators could be found to produce a general theory of crime?
 
Media Tribe - What lies behind hooliganism and gang culture? Could the media be to blame? Further is it possible that our images within culture mimic ideas of warriordom in prehistory? If so, we have a fundamental problem - and also a unique way of understanding, and combating, crime.
 
Streets of Terror - Who was Jack the Ripper? Many candidates have been put forward over the decades, but his identity has remained illusive. Could it be because he never existed in the first place?
 

towards a general theory of crime

  The murderer and confidence trickster seem to have very different roles and psychologies, occupying, as they do, the extreme ends of the criminal spectrum. Between these two extremes we find the robber, kidnapper, blackmailer, gangster, delinquent and rapist. But could it be that all criminals are more alike than we think, allowing us to build a general theory of crime?

 Looking at the extreme end of murder, the serial killer, and comparing their psychology to the more successful confidence tricksters can be illuminating. For rather than being supremely confident, the con man uses a facade of varying personalities, the inner person being a rather pathetic soul, so under­confidant that he has to continually prove his guile. Such under-confidence and frustration can equally be seen at the heart of the serial killer. So although seemingly different, the two come from the same mind-set.

 Accepting the existence of such a shared criminal mentality, from where can a general theory come? One defining element of a criminal seems to be a lack of conscience, as if he has no morality to counter his wants and urges. There are two areas of life which seem to share these characteristics - the impulsive child and the survival mechanisms of the animal world. These two areas seem to share a non-moral world of urges.

   In the successfully matured adult these traits are suppressed. And the obvious reason why is that he has learned a moral code. Hence, we could argue that criminality is, essentially, infantile instinctuality, and our best defence against crime is the existence of a veneer of morality to keep these characteristics in check.

   This is an important social point to make. The liberal mind­set is of the opinion that in his natural state, man is a peaceful, social animal. Philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau enshrined this idea in the western consciousness. Whether this  was the case in the past is unimportant to the present. But I would argue it is not the case now. Rather, without a proper morality, we are barbarians.

   During the 1950s, some American penologists noticed another important factor. It seemed that sociopaths had no understanding of the positive aspects of life such as 'love' or 'responsibility’. The usual answer to such negativity is that they were brutalised in childhood. I find this explanation unacceptable. There are many instances of brutalised people leading full and rewarding lives. But one factor that does present itself is that sociopaths were rarely offered affection. Could it be this - the failure to be taught how to be affectionate - which lies at the heart of such negativity?

   This inability to be positive became known as 'negative blocking', in that such people block out the existence of positivity in their lives and throughout the society they inhabit. In other words, everyone becomes an enemy. The usual term for this is 'psychological distancing', and in effect it de-humanises everyone in the eyes of the sufferer.

   Once this state of mind is achieved, the 'non-human' prey of the criminal can have a host of psychological responses placed on them. At heart, the criminal knows that his failings are his own, but he can never accept this. Hence, a process of transference occurs, whereby he places on his victim the reasons for HIS failure. This allows him to say that what he does is not his fault. It is the fault of the victim; his whole society, even.

   This is, of course, a fantasised reaction to his own failures. And such fantasy is at the heart of criminal activity. The philosopher, Sartre, invented the term, 'magical thinking', to describe how a person can ignore elements he doesn't want to know and build a whole fantastic world view. In particular, the criminal builds a fantasy concerning his own invulnerability.

   The science fiction writer, van Vogt, called this person the 'Right Man'. So sure is he of his own rightness that he can call black white if required, and often resorts to violence. Inside, he is a psychological wreck, but this is rarely shown, unless his world totally collapses. Most people will know such a man - usually a wife beater - and when his wife finally leaves him, he becomes a whimpering wreck.

   Such a fantasising mind-set turns the criminal to crime to satisfy his needs, whether this is to kill, say, a wife instead of divorcing her, or actually manifest the fantasy as a character, as in the con man. But equally important is the fact that the fantasy of invulnerability makes the criminal commit the most basic mistakes whilst committing crime. This is an important point to make. The criminal is, by nature, incompetent. And a long criminal career is only achievable through luck, brutality, or police incompetence and judicial failure.

   At its most depraved, criminality gives us the serial killer. And the idea of the criminal as fantasist can offer an understanding of this killer's mentality. Almost always a frustrated loner with a large degree of negative blocking, he has a specific psychology. His very personal and barbaric way of killing suggests insanity, but few serial killers are declared insane. Rather, when not killing, they are innocuous and quiet, if single, or, if married, can produce a persona of sanity, leaving their wife shocked to discover what they are. Further, another element of their psychology is horrified at their deeds, as if they have a conscience. Just which of these contradictory elements is the real person?

   Perhaps none of them. Psychology knows of an unsettling phenomenon called 'multiple personality'. Almost certainly a fantasised response to a troubled life, the sufferer's mind seems to fragment into a number of distinct personalities who take it in turn to invade the host. Seemingly based on specific emotions, the fantasized personalities take on roles of normality, hyper-conscience, and extreme emotional behaviour. Whilst I am not saying that the serial killer is a multiple personality sufferer per se, the contradictory aspects of the serial killer suggest a related phenomenon; a factor made more credible by the statements of many such killers that at times they were just taken over by this monster in their heads.

   In the above I have attempted, albeit briefly, a general theory of crime. But in one sense I would argue we all have elements of the psychology involved. So could it be that this understanding of the criminal could give us a better understanding of society? Quite possibly. There are plenty of monsters out there.

 

© Anthony North, May 2002

 

media tribe

 
   Hooligans tend to wear a uniform. From the Teddy Boy of the 5Os, through the skinhead, to the modern day Hoodie, a uniform tends to identify a particular type. Regardless of region or city, the uniform can often be exact and the logical explanation is to ally it to media images which attract the attention of the young. Once the uniform is identified, hooligans tend to inhabit particular areas - certain estates, roads, whatever. A particular gang tends to mark their area with graffiti or other symbolism. This then becomes their hunting ground, and gang warfare can erupt if other gangs try to move in on them. These dual notions of similarity and hunting ground are similar to what happens in tribal societies. This is perhaps the best way of understanding what is going on - it is not a new phenomenon, but a rebirth of the oldest form of known human society; the tribe. And when we see it thus, the entire mentality of the hooligan can be identified.
   Tribal societies were known as brutal and savage, and we now understand why this is. The notion of psychological distancing tells us that a person can be conditioned to see others as sub-human, or different, if told so by an apparent authority figure. Just how fundamental the effect of this can be was identified  by psychologist Stanley Milgram. In research up to the early 1970s, he conned people to think that, during a test, they were administering an electric shock to another person. Normally they would not do this, but under the authority of science, they carried out what they thought were horrendous levels of electric shock treatment.
Such a phenomenon required a suspension of morality and an acceptance of absolute authority over their ideals. But once such a notion of psychological distancing has been achieved, the most horrendous atrocities can be realised, as best seen in Nazi Germany.
   Once this ability is realised, we can see how psychological distancing can make the hooligan immune to any form of responsibility for his actions. And with such a mentality he can so easily destroy property, mug old ladies, carry out  rapes with indifference, and even, at times, commit murder. No morality is involved for his conditioning has absolved  him of blame. But from where does such authority come? Most gangs have a leader. And one of the defining things about the leader is that he is seen as daring. This, of course, is inspiring. But the process can be seen as much more than this. We saw earlier how gangs of hooligans tend to wear a uniform. This usually comes from a fashion statement of a particular media icon - the Teddy Boy aping Elvis Presley, for instance. But we can also see in the gang leader an attempt to ape the actions and attitudes of this media icon. Whether deliberately or by implication, the daring-do of a media icon can transfer down to a gang leader, and from there to the members of the gang.
   In this way the gang leader is transformed from a mere person, to a reflection of the icon involved. And in a real sense, the sociology of this form of veneration is religious in nature. For in reflecting the icon in flesh and blood, he becomes an image of the icon, in the same way that a prophet  becomes the mouthpiece and vehicle of God's will. This becomes a potent sociological force. For in the process we have an almost supernatural authority invested in a thug. And as a quasi-divinity, everything that then follows must be seen as glorious and invested with cause.
   This is totally against the perceived wisdom of theorists. Rather, hooliganism is seen as mindless thuggery, with no cause identifiable. But such ideas miss the point. So what exactly is going on? Through mythology we can identify the time when tribalism first breaks into a semi-ordered, historical society. And the interesting thing about early gods is that they were not moral beings. Rather, they were  reflections of human foibles with an innate criminal mentality, involving mass murder, rape and any other depravity you care to name. Thus, they were 'magnificent' due to their excess. Britain itself has a particular mythology invested in King Arthur, a glorious king who had his own gang of hard men who went through the land on quests. Such quests were classed as glorious, but what was actually happening was murder, conquest and an attempt to validate a particular system of authority over the people.
   These early, mythological idiosyncrasies are, I believe, invested in hooligan gangs. For in their muggings, vandalism and joy-riding, they are expressing their superiority over their territory and the people who seem to disagree with their antics. We see it as mindless thuggery - in the wider sense it is - but to the gangs, it is the way they express their power over forces they see as oppressive. Until we understand this, we will not be able to truly combat crime in any form.
 
© Anthony North, December 2002
 

streets of terror

 

    The most famous murder mystery of all began on the night of 30 August 1888 when a policeman found the body of Mary Ann Nichols in Buck's Row, Whitechapel, in London. She had had her throat cut. A week later, 'Dark Annie’ Chapman met a similar fate near Spitalfields Market. Rumours abounded of a monster on the loose, heightened by the first of many letters delivered to Fleet St and other places from Leather Apron, and later Jack the Ripper. He advised the next victim would have her ears chopped off. On the morning of 30 September two further bodies were found - Elizabeth ‘Long Liz’ Stride and Catherine Eddowes. Situated within 15 minutes of each other, the former was not mutilated, but the latter was; her ears had also been partially chopped off. The final victim of Jack the Ripper - a killer who removed organs from his victims in a frenzied manner - was murdered in her room on 9 November. Mary Kelly was different to the rest. She was younger and her body had been mutilated to a much greater extent, even being partially skinned.
   Speculation remains to this day as to who Jack the Ripper was. A Jew was suspected when police chief Sir Charles Warren had removed from a wall where a blooded rag was found following the Eddowes murder, the words: ‘The Juwes are not men to be blamed for nothing.’ Others blamed Queen Victoria s grandson, the Duke of Clarence, Warren’s actions suggesting conspiracy to hide the fact. In the 1980s a variation put the killings down to royal physician Sir William Gull and coachman John Netley to prevent a scandal involving the Duke, a shop girl and an illegitimate child, the killings being merely a screen.
   Occultist Dr Roslyn Johnston Stephenson, who disappeared in 1904, became a suspect, the killings being thought to be a ritual in some macabre occult ceremony. Failed lawyer Montague John Druitt made the mistake of drowning himself in the Thames in December 1888, thus guaranteeing his place in the list of suspects. Mary Kelly's lover, fish seller Joseph Barnett also found himself dragged in for questioning. In 1995 suspicion fell upon doctor, Francis Tumbelty, who was in London at the time, and murders seemed to follow him wherever he went until his death in 1903.
   With the publication of the now infamous diary of Jack the Ripper, suspicion recently fell on Liverpool cottonbroker James Maybrick, who often visited London and was murdered by his wife shortly after the murders. However, the main reason for suspicion is now repeated in Patricia Cornwell's candidate, artist Walter Sickert. Both Sickert and Maybrick (if he wrote the diaries) had a morbid fascination with the deaths. This may be unhealthy, but we don't yet have Thought Police in this country(?).
   Speculation as to who Jack the Ripper was has become an industry, so fascinated are we by the deaths. Yet if we look at modern serial killers, it becomes plain such killers are sad loners, total unknowns. Hence, none of the above fit the bill. Indeed, I would go a step further and argue Jack the Ripper didn't even exist.
   For instance, the supposed similarities in wounding tells us more about forensic science's need for respectability at the time than what really happened. At the time the East End of London was a hotbed of vice and criminality, with over a dozen prostitutes killed and mutilated in the 12 months before and after the Ripper killings. One was even murdered the same month Jack first struck - Martha Tabram, killed on 7August.
   If you tie these facts in with the hundreds of hoax letters written at the time - none of which had information of relevance except a handful with details of only one murder - the suggestion arises that the murders could have been isolated events, brought together into a mythology of a monster, possibly fuelled by the separate murderers themselves in order to avoid suspicion. After all, if the murders were to be investigated as a block, any person who could have killed one of them was discounted because of alibis for the others.
   Here lies the possible secret of Jack the Ripper. He was a product of a culture that needed a monster to hide what was really going on. And this symbolises our insatiable need to be fascinated with crime to this day. By glorying in the monsters, we miss the monster in ourselves; we deny the reality of the terrifying abilities we have within. Indeed, Jean Rostard said it the best: Kill a man and you are an assassin (murderer). Kill millions of men and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone and you are a god.
 
© Anthony North, December 2002