Crime: The Unsolved Problem; M. D. Barger

The theory that has partly gov erned public policy for many years is that crime is caused by an unjust society. A most eloquent spokesman for this point of view was Ramsey Clark, who served as assistant at torney general in the Kennedy Ad ministration and attorney general in the Johnson Administration. Here's how Clark described the crime problem in his well-known 1970 book, Crime in America: Mr. Barger Is a corporate public relations executive and writer In Toledo, Ohio. 98 If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is the de humanizing effect on the individual of slums, racism, ignorance and violence, of corruption and impotence to fulfill rights, of poverty and unemployment and idleness, of generations of malnutri tion, of congenital brain damage and prenatal neglect, of sickness and disease, of pollution, of decrepit, dirty, ugly, un safe, overcrowded housing, of alcoholism and narcotics addiction, of avarice, anxi ety, fear, hatred, hopelessness and injus tice. These are the fountainheads of crime. They can be controlled. As impre cise, distorted and prejudiced as our learning is, these sources of crime and their controllability clearly emerge to any who would see.l And how would such conditions be changed? In that same volume, Clark explains that it's a ~~matter of will." If society becomes willing, the conditions that cause crime can be changed, and then crime will be greatly reduced.

INew York: Simon and Schuster.

CRIME: THE UNSOLVED PROBLEM 99 Clark's theory has a plausible sound and anybody who visits a large state prison will find scores of inmates from deprived backgrounds. Some of them are not really crimi nals in the true sense of the word; they are simply badly adjusted and disturbed people who need to be in stitutionalized. There are others with personal problems which got them into trouble. But if a visitor searches out the professional criminals-both in prison and out-he may find that the theory doesn't hold up at all. There are men, and some women, who have numerous advantages in their lives and yet they seem to become criminals by deliberate choice. For example, neither John Dil linger nor the notorious Alvin Kar pis really were deprived as young sters, nor were they getting revenge on an unjust society. The fact is, the criminal life simply gave them power, excitement, and recognition that they couldn't have found in most straight professions. Far from being driven to crime by necessity and despair, both men had fierce appetites for the danger and re wards of their lawlessness. It is even possible that John Dillinger would have considered his short life well spent, for his crimes brought him a dubious fame that he couldn't have achieved in any other way. Even Karpis, who spent more than 32 years in Federal 'prisons for his crimes, did not seem to regret his choice of a criminal ca.reer. Indeed, his personal story published after his release in 1969 carried few re grets and tended to glorify and de fend his criminal career. 2 In the introduction to that same book, a quotation from Ben Hecht sheds some light on the nature of the criminal mind. Hecht had been working on a biography of Mickey Cohen, and this portion was later published: (Wrote Hecht): I have been talking to Mickey Cohen for a number of years and mingling with his underworld entour age. Out of my contacts has come what I think may be a major piece of an thropological lore. The criminal has no hates or fears-except very personal ones. He is possibly the only human left in the world who looks lovingly on soci ety. He does not hanker to fight it, re form it or even rationalize it. He wants only to rob·it. He admires it as a hungry man might admire a roast pig with an apple in its mouth.

I was pleased to find this out, for I have read much to the contrary. Society does not, as sociologists and other tony intel lectuals maintain, create the criminal. Bad housing, bad companions, bad gov ernment, etc., have little to do with why there are killers, robbers and outlaws. The criminal has no relation to society to speak of. He is part of man's soul, not his institutions. He is an old one. A 2Alvin Karpis, The Alvin Karpis Story (New York: Coward-McCann & Geoghegan, Inc., 1971).

100 THE FREEMAN February thousand preachers, summer boy's camps, plus a congress of psychiatrists can barely dent even a minor criminal. As for the major criminal, he cannot be touched at all by society because he op erates on a different time level. He is the presocial part of us-the ape that spurned the collar . . . The criminal at the time of his law lessness is one of the few happy or con tented men to be found among us ... Alvin Karpis certainly was that kind of criminal. In his biography, he discussed the few times he had accepted regular employment in the straight world. To Karpis, such a life was boring and pointless, and he quickly abandoned it for the lure of crime. He considered himself a pro fessional thief, and he took consid erable pride in his competence and in his standing among other gangsters. If he suffered any re morse for his crimes or saw any thing evil in the robberies or kid nappings he carried out, it was not evident in his autobiography. In reading it, one almost has the feel ing that Karpis would have selected such a life again if he could have returned to his youth and had choices to make.

Not all criminals have been as open as Karpis about the attractions of a criminal career. In any prison, it is always possible to find convicts who seem to have changed and who have shown appropriate responses to counseling and other supposedly rehabilitative programs. Some of them, of course, are sincere people who really have changed. Other convicts, however, are usually cyni cal about the motives of their fellow inmates. Quite often, the ~~rehabili tated" inmate is really only a per cepti ve and cunning person who produces the responses that coun selors and prison authorities are seeking. This is not to say that brutal pris ons are good institutions for society or that one should abandon hope in possible methods of rehabilitation. We should admit, however, that crime is a lot like cancer. We may know more about it than we did in former days and we may have some criminals who have dramatically changed for the better. Still, both crime and cancer are unsolved prob lems and nobody has answers that promise wholesale improvements in crime statistics.

Self-Responsibility One recent development is that some thoughtful people are begin ning to question the belief that the criminal is simply the victim of bad social conditions. They are taking another look at the problem and are concluding that the criminal is, after all, responsible for his be havior. This was the conclusion of a psychiatrist, the late Dr. Samuel Yochelson, who with a clinical psychologist named Stanton Samenow studied 252 male hard1980 CRIME: THE UNSOLVED PROBLEM 101 core criminals. They also inter viewed people connected with the criminals, including prison and pro bation officials, families, girl friends, employers, and associates. Yochelson and Samenow eventu ally made a basic assumption that flew in the face of popular theory about the roots of crime. This as sumption was: The criminal can and does choose his way of life freely in his quest for power, control and ex citement. Moreover, he can choose to change if he musters courage or will to endure the consequences of re sponsible choices. 3 This assumption was surprisingly close to Ben Hecht's thoughts after spending time with Mickey Cohen and his underworld friends. The criminal, like the rest of us, pos sesses a human will and is capable of making choices. Every human being is controlled by the fact that choices may lead to unpleasant or unwanted consequences. For many of us, it is often necessary to make hard or dif ficult choices because we want to avoid certain consequences. For example, many people choose to plod away at boring, unsatisfying jobs simply because they need to make a living and do not want to live in destitution or dependency. Most people, in fact, do not manage to find a great deal of power, control, or excitement.

aSee uThe Criminal Mind: A Startling New Look," The Reader's Digest, May 1978. It's true that most criminals may not completely understand their own motivations. However, this too is changing. Yochelson and Samenow started a therapeutic pro gram aimed at helping criminals understand themselves and volun tarily change their thought patterns and actions. The program was un apologetically moralistic and was aimed at helping criminals change into responsible citizens. They had promising success with a small group of persons who were willing to change. In the process, they also discovered that a criminal who comes to the program has CCto wean himself from the high-voltage jolts he got out of crime to a steady cur rent of satisfaction from self-respect and responsible living." This process may even produce withdrawal pains similar to those experienced by a recovering drug addict! Helping the Individual To Help Himself While the work of Yochelson and Samenow is still controversial among professionals in the mental health and psychiatric fields, it is likely to attract other disciples who have become disillusioned with the conventional deterministic theories about criminal behavior. Their find ings also are consistent with the results obtained by self-help and re ligious groups which have worked with criminals. Prison inmates have 102 THE FREEMAN February been helped by voluntary efforts such as Alcoholics Anonymous and the Dale Carnegie speech training program. The significant element in these programs is that of personal responsibility. The individual is guided to understand himself and to take voluntary steps to change his own thoughts and behavior.

At this point, none of these pro grams have helped more than a small percentage of the criminal population. Crime is still an un solved problem, and nobody has found ways of changing the majority of criminals. From time to time, the nation's prisons come under attack for their failure to rehabilitate crim inals; some of these institutions also are rightly criticized for their bru tality and bestial living conditions. However, there is nothing about the prison system that should logically lead to recovery or rehabilitation of criminals. Prisons are state or Federally-run institutions with bu reaucratic managements which are forced to respond to political pres sures. The primary purpose of a prison is custody and in any conflict between that purpose and rehabili tation' custody always wins. And until rehabilitation measures can produce a better record of re sults, custody will continue to be society's principal way of dealing with criminals. Maintaining a prison is expensive and difficult, but there is a grim logic in the concept of custody. John Dillinger held up no banks while he was in prison at Michigan City, Indiana, and Alvin Karpis neither robbed nor kidnapped anybody after he landed in AI catraz. There is also a strong feeling in society that violators should be punished. Even Jonathan Kwitny, a know ledge able and seasoned report er who writes on crime subjects for The Wall Street Journal, has stated that the main problem with crimi nal justice now is that the system doesn't punish violators-organized or unorganized-after they are con victed. 4 Punishment as Deterrent Perhaps another arrangement in favor of strong custodial measures and swift punishments is to deter others who may be weighing the possible advantages of a criminal life. Whether it works this way or not, the public apparently believes that it does and supports the main tenance of prison systems.

But there is no reason why self help programs cannot be offered even in maximum security prisons. And while no self-help program has produced spectacular results in helping criminals change their lives, some of the individual changes have been dramatic. The present author knows several per"See Jonathan Kwitny, "Ford Foundation Mulls Crime Fight," The Wall Street Journal, November 18,1976.

1980 CRIME: THE UNSOLVED PROBLEM 103 sons whose lives were completely transformed in prison by accepting certain new ideas about themselves and society. One man made such a complete change that he was later named to head a prison camp in another state. Another person who once had been associated with the Detroit underworld become so com pletely rehabilitated that he was named deputy sheriff of the county where he lived (legally possible for felons if they receive a complete pardon). Still another person had been considered institutionalized; that is, he was believed to be in capable of functioning in society. However, he eventually met all the conditions of a parole and has lived an exemplary life for more than ten years. Three greatly changed individ uals would not be very interesting to the people who compile statistics about crime and criminals. Out of 1,000 men, for example, these per sons would be only .3 per cent of the total number. In their lives, however, the changes were 100 per cent. They changed completely from persons who had been irresponsible crimi nals to citizens who could live in peace with themselves and other people in society. How were they able to do it?

All of them reached a point of becoming dissatisfied with their past lives and desired change. Moreover, they realized that the old ways were wrong and that they had harmed other people. They also ac cepted full responsibility for their own actions. While they knew that they had been driven by wrong im pulses and feelings, they did not place responsibility outside of them selves. Then they accepted new ideas and beliefs which resulted in change. They seemed to become dif ferent persons, and in a way they were. They thought differently, they felt differently, and they acted dif ferently. Probably none of these men had ever heard of Yochelson and Samenow. Yet they proved the Yochelson/Samenow thesis: The criminal chooses his way of life and can change it if he musters the cour age or will to do so. No Miracles Promised It would be misleading and thoughtless to say that every crimi nal can be changed by the sparse self-help programs now available in state and Federal prisons. After all, few people in free society make dramatic behavioral changes, so why should criminals be any differ ent from the normal population?

Crime is an unsolved problem, but it is not the only unsolved problem. It also is wrong to say that indi viduals can be expected to change their lives without help or assis tance from others. Actually, all of us are part of society and we owe many 104 THE FREEMAN of our best ideas and beliefs to others who have helped us, patiently in structed us, and guided us. There is no such thing as a good society with out a great deal of human coopera tion and voluntary problem-solving. But this is not the same as saying that society is responsible for our condition or that the proper way to change people is to impose, by coer cive means, a certain form of organ i zation on society. The fact is, it works the other way around. People think and act in certain ways, and society becomes a mirror of their beliefs and actions. Criminals are sometimes called the victims of an unjust society. But criminals, like the rest of us, hel p make society what it is. In fact, the criminal helps destroy the very society that is blamed for his ills.

In dealing with crime and crimi nals' we still have no answers that promise broad, sweeping changes. We should, however, be very skepti cal of any proposals for fighting crime that do not take into account the individual will and motivations of each person who is or might be come a criminal. James Q. Wilson, a Harvard professor who has served on crime and drug commissions, makes an important statement about the general problem of crime in closing his book, Thinking About Crime: ... some persons will shun crime even if we do nothing to deter them, while others will seek it out even if we do everything to reform them. Wicked peo ple exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people. And many people, neither wicked nor inno cent, but watchful, dissembling, and cal culating of their opportunities, ponder our reaction to wickedness as a cue to what they might profitably do. We have trifled with the wicked, made sport of the innocent, and encouraged the cal culators. Justice suffers, and so do we all. S The professor seems to be saying that we should be very humble about our knowledge of crime and its causes. He does say that we still .should make distinctions between innocence and wickedness. There are criminals whose actions need to be taken seriously, and who should be locked up in order to protect the innocent. The innocent person should not have to take the rap for the criminal's actions.

One of the crucial questions in thinking about crime is whether or not the criminal is capable of mak ing conscious choices that govern his actions. If he is incapable of making such choices, he should be adjudged insane and dealt with accordingly. If he is capable of choosing right or wrong behavior, then he also can choose a new way of life. Few crimi nals do make such choices. Perhaps that's why crime still is the great unsolved problem. ® 5James Q. Wilson (New York: Basic Books, 1975), p. 209.