The criminal, the narcissist

The literary archetype

In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky’s aspiring criminal Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov tests his theory that the world exists only to serve the needs of a few exceptional men, to lift them to great heights and achievements. Raskolnikov convinces himself that laws apply only to average men, and not to those of his own intelligence and willpower:

[The extraordinary men] all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities...[I]f such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood...

To test his extraordinary man theory, Raskolnikov plans to murder a pawnbroker, presumably to use her money for good purposes. I won’t spoil the results of his experiment. But this narcissistic attitude, this sense of being above others and excepted from all rules and laws, seems to be universal among real criminals, leading me to think back to this character often.

The "right to crime"

White collar criminals, as mentioned in a past post, exhibit narcissism in spades. Warning signs of workplace violence, according to the study discussed, include a sense of entitlement and egocentric behavior. These offenders believe they are entitled to commit fraud, and feel victimized when challenged - much in the way that one teenage armed robber interviewed by psychologist Stanton Samenow believed he was the only real victim of his crime, since he was the one incarcerated.

The criminal act itself can betray a narcissistic perspective. Take the case of Thomas Lagenbach, a VP in a prestigious software company, charged with stealing discounts on Lego sets at Target stores by switching the barcodes on boxes. He not only resold sets on eBay at full price, but assembled many and put them on display in his own home. They would have served as visual reminders of successful burglaries, trophies in plain sight. Police found bags of bar codes at his home and in his car. It may seem remarkable that someone in a position with so much to lose would flaunt his crime so carelessly, not even bothering to take simple steps to avoid detection.

From breaking rules to breaking laws

The conveniences of technology, in addition to making life easier for law abiding folks, have made it easier to commit crime and for educated criminals in positions of trust to believe they are untouchable. This bar code scam serves as a good example. Stores are only able to catch offenders by carefully comparing inventory with sales and reviewing surveillance tape. The criminal, on the other hand, can go through checkout and leave the store with a receipt for his stolen merchandise.

But the other angle to this story is that with easy crime comes easy excuses. Many people, not exclusively criminals, suffer from some degree of narcissism. They may simply like to be the center of attention, or they may break small rules to prove their special status. But in most cases to break a law means to cause harm to another person, which goes beyond attention-seeking.

There are at least two ways, however, in which a person with feelings of entitlement and superiority could potentially cross this line. The first is to deny that real harm was caused, and in cases of property crime this is an easy rationalization for offenders to make. Crimes against businesses may create even more emotional distance from the act of theft, since no single individual appears to be harmed by it.

A second is, frankly, to be a sadist as well as a narcissist. The desire to control someone physically, to compel them to act in a certain way, leads to many forms of violent crime - from spousal abuse, to rape and murder. This worship of violence turns pain inflicted on others and their submission into an affirmation of the criminal’s power. Violent criminals don't evade the harm they cause, but derive pleasure from it.

Changing perspective

Given the widespread assumption that crime is an attempt to overcome poverty or some form of injustice, it’s a wonder that crime persists in the face of its total failure to do those things. And there are many cases, such as with this Lego thief, in which there is no apparent injustice that the crime is aimed at overcoming. Instead the crime just appears to be an irrational escape, an act of pure self-destruction.

Alternatively, if you consider that crime persists because it often succeeds at acquiring something for the criminal, then your focus shifts. And one thing it acquires is a delusional state of freedom from morality, Raskolnikov's "right to crime", which is freedom from accountability not only for his behavior towards others, but from the accountability of acting in his own interests.

What is terrorism, really?

The word “terrorism” refers to acts of destruction used against groups to compel them to make changes in behavior or policies. Examples of terrorist groups range from the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) to Al Qaeda. The climate of terror during the aftermath of an attack, due in part to the trauma of victimization and also to the threat of future attacks, is intended to cow communities and leaders into submission.

However, the use of fear to control others is not a tactic particular to “terrorism”, making the term a somewhat inappropriate identifier. Fear and intimidation are also used in acts such as kidnapping, ransoming, and rape. This fear might be used to extort money, favors, or silence and passivity from the victim. The common denominator is not any particular form of demand - which will vary by the offender - but the desire for the power to make those demands.

When concerning rape this point is generally understood. The ultimate goal of the rapist is not sex, but the submission of the victim. According to the FBI's Crime Classification Manual, "for some rapists the need to humiliate and injure through aggression is the most salient feature of the offense, whereas for others the need to achieve sexual dominance is…" Stanton Samenow writes that,

At stake in a rape is the criminal's affirmation of his image of himself as powerful and desirable...Her attempts to ward him off only heighten his excitement. Then he tries to reduce her to a quivering, pleading speck of humanity and helps himself to what he believes was rightfully his from the start. Brute force is rarely necessary because intimidation works.

The victim's humiliation not only excites him, but serves as his protection. A humiliated and demoralized victim is less likely to report the crime or resist future attacks.

As the goal of a rapist is the subjugation of an individual to his wishes, terrorists seek to subjugate a community, business or government to theirs. This is accomplished, as it is with rape, through a combination of physical attacks and intimidation.
 
Understanding terrorist statements to the public

One obstacle to understanding the motives of terrorists is that even when their violent actions are almost universally condemned, the grievances and demands they present usually resonate with the mission of some peaceable activists. This clash of values creates debate and mixed sympathies. And this is not accidental, but by design. Demands are used by terrorist groups to cast themselves as victims of their target's unjust policies. It is important to view any public statement made by terrorists not as the ultimate reason for their actions, but as an attempt in itself to assert moral superiority and diminish the confidence and moral certainty of their target. Essentially they attempt, as rapists do, to "reduce [their victim] to a quivering, pleading speck of humanity". This is pursued through public statements and even flyers containing moral denouncements of the target group.

However for a moral denunciation to be effective, it must be rooted in a belief held by the victim. A rapist uses a woman’s insecurities against her. Denouncing her in the language of his own misogynistic world-view would be ineffective. Similarly, many times the grievances of terrorists are presented in a way to exploit moral controversy.
 
For example, in The Al Qaeda Reader, Raymond Ibrahim analyzes and compares communications by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to audiences in Muslim countries and to audiences in the West. The narratives differ completely. Al Qaeda urges Muslim audiences to kill Americans as part of their duty to religious jihad. Religious scripture is quoted extensively to justify violence in the name of compelling infidels to submit to the word of Allah. The West, and America especially, are villainized because they dare to write their own laws, defying religious commandment. The government of Saudi Arabia is denounced as corrupt for its alliance with the secular US, and for allowing American presence on its holy soil. However if this reasoning had been directly communicated to the US and to American Muslims, it would have emboldened Americans to fight against a tyrannical ideology not unlike that of the Christian Church during the Dark Ages.
 
Instead, bin Laden chose to confine his public rebuke to America’s military presence, its strikes against targets in the Middle East, and support for Israel - policies that have been the subject of serious controversy and public uncertainty in America for decades. While Al Qaeda certainly wishes the US to break its alliance with Israel, it was not expedient to also explain the underlying and much broader goal of spreading state Islam and subjugating or killing non-believers.

Interestingly, the picture bin Laden painted of America is one of a despotic world bully, which seems hypocritical in light of his own support for the truly barbaric and brutal rule of the Taliban. It seems hypocritical, that is, unless you consider that public statements and propaganda issued by Al Qaeda are intended to advance its goals as much as any planned attack. A victim who feels guilty, who believes he is responsible for the attacks against him, will lack the strength to resist.

Terrorists are not freedom fighters

It is sometimes said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", suggesting that the actions of a terrorist could be viewed as monstrous or heroic depending on the side one is on. Following 9/11 the question ringing in the air was, "why do they hate us?" Perhaps projecting their own experience and morality onto our attackers, some (such as Ron Paul) believed that the attacks were retaliation for American policies violating freedoms in the Muslim world. However, terrorists do not act to advance their own freedoms, but to deny the freedoms of others. They are not fighting for the betterment of their lives, but for power over the lives of others. Certainly they represent a "side", but theirs is the side of rapists and dictators who thrill in breaking the spirit of their victims.

Criminal “toughness” and victimhood

In From Hard Time, Understanding and Reforming the Prison, Robert Johnson studies accounts of institutional life.

The “tough and menacing pose”, state-raised convict Jack Abbott argues, is the only way “to keep a hostile and rejecting world at bay”. He defends his malice and capacity for violence as the result of persecution by an “uncaring and impersonal” society. In fact, Abbott was the victim of physical and sexual abuse while in foster homes as a child. Yet he experienced a long line of “failures to adjust”: first by dropping out of the sixth grade, being committed to a training school for six years, leading later to alcohol abuse, fraudulent check printing, stabbing a fellow inmate during incarceration for his crime, throwing a water pitcher at his judge and attempting to choke a juror. After escaping prison during his 20 year sentence he robbed a bank, again “failing to adjust” to the institutional life he was confined to by an allegedly “hostile world”.

Abbott bemoans an institution that is “uncaring and impersonal”, that fails to show empathy and understanding for his lifetime of criminal actions. He may rail against the behavior of others, their lack of understanding or compassion, but he holds his own behavior to no such standard. Violence, he explains,

is what makes us effective, men whose judgment impinges on others, on the world…Here in prison the most respected and honored men among us are those who have killed other men…It is not merely fear, but respect.

An ex-inmate, Shroeder, went even further, claiming that

if you could convince inmates and guards that you had absolutely nothing to lose and that your countermeasures…would be totally unrestrained…then you were given respect and a wide berth, and people looked to you for leadership and advice. “He’s crazy,” they’d say admiringly, even longingly, when the name came up. “He’s just totally, completely insane”.

In civilized society, a person might demonstrate his independence by developing a special skill or knowledge to bring to the job market. Such a skill is then a commodity to trade with others. In convict culture, however, the only commodity is “respect”, developed by openly demonstrating ones capacity for wanton, indiscriminate violence and destruction. To the outside world, a convict may plead for understanding, may defend his behavior as self-protection; among his fellow convicts, however, violence is not regarded as something to be excused or defended, but is praised and encouraged as a sign of efficaciousness and strength.