|
The Esteem-Motivated Offender
It is human nature to seek acclaim and recognition. Given the choice, most people would rather be well known and respected than an obscure outsider who is unimportant and
ignored. Typically, this basic need is satisfied in socially acceptable ways. Some people excel in school, sports, or the arts. Others may perceive themselves as being a really
good parent or spouse. Still others strive to be outstanding employees or civic leaders. There are individuals, however, who are unable to satisfy this basic human drive through socially
acceptable behavior (or have an insatiable need to prove their superiority). Some of them become esteem-motivated offenders.
Most crimes make sense to the average person. A man loses his job and is threatened with eviction, so he robs a convenience store to pay his rent. Another man kills his wife during a heated
argument. While we know that these acts are illegal and wrong, at least the motives are understandable. This is often not the case with esteem-motivated crimes, which include a wide range
of behavior ranging from false claims of rape and con games to sexual molestation, product tampering and arson.
Esteem- motivated crimes are committed to elevate the suspect’s self worth. Through his criminal behavior the suspect demonstrates superior power, influence, intelligence or skill over his victim
which may be a person, a company or agency, or even society as a whole. The crime may reap financial or revenge gains, but the primary drive is to elevate the suspect’s deflated esteem. John
Wilkes Booth, for example, did not hate Abraham Lincoln or his policies. He assassinated Lincoln so that he would be remembered in history as someone who killed an important person.
Characteristics of Crimes
One characteristic of an esteem-motivated crime is that the offender uses stealth, ingenuity, or cunning to accomplish his goal. To obtain a password into a government computer database,
an employee could be tortured to reveal the password. But obtaining the password is not the goal for the esteem-motivated offender. Demonstrating his superior intellect by cleverly hacking
into the system is his goal.
Manipulation of the victim is very common, e.g., a rapist talking his way into the victim’s apartment or the child molester telling the victim to keep their activity a secret. The arsonist may
start a small fire to cause the building to be evacuated and feel powerful as he realizes it was his action that caused the emergency vehicles to arrive. A good indication that a crime was
esteem-motivated is that the victim is left feeling foolish, e.g., “Why didn’t we use a more sophisticated security system?”; “Why did I let him in my apartment?”; “Why did I believe that
guy was a police officer?” “Why did I let my boss harass me in that way?”
Esteem-motivated crimes often escalate over time. In the beginning, it may have been sufficient for the offender to meet a child in a chat room and persuade the child to reveal information about
her body. Eventually, this activity is no longer a challenge or psychologically rewarding, so the offender attempts to obtain pictures of the child and then to eventually meet her in person.
Esteem- motivated crimes often come to the attention of authorities after they have escalated to criminal behavior. These offenders may become violent in their late-stage behaviors, e.g.,
pulling fire alarms escalates to calling in bomb threats which escalates to planting actual bombs.
An exception to the foregoing characteristic is the person who experiences a situational loss of esteem or self-worth. This may be from losing a job, breaking off a relationship, failing
in school or having an upcoming stressful event such as a court trial or wedding. Under this circumstance, the suspect may be a one-time offender. A good example of this is the suspect who
makes up a story about being the victim of a crime (abduction, rape, robbery, arson) to seek attention or emotional support from loved ones.
Esteem-motivated offenders generally act alone. Their crimes typically do not require an accomplice and the offender does not want to share the glory or power with another person. However,
sometimes the esteem is derived from manipulating a person into joining the offender in illegal activity. John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper, recruited a younger man to participate in the
sniper activity. His feeling of power was derived not only from deciding who would live or die, but also in manipulating the accomplice.
Characteristics of Offenders
While esteem motivated offenders obviously have an inadequate personality, with predominant features of paranoia and oversensitivity to criticism (real or perceived), these traits are often
veiled within the suspect’s persona. What is more likely to be apparent to the investigator is that these individuals have a normal to above normal intelligence, are long-range planners, and
have good impulse control.
While many of these offenders are reclusive and very private, others express high confidence and may interject themselves within the investigation by contacting the police or media. Sometimes
the offender will leave an obvious clue or “signature” at the crime scene to make certain the offender receives proper credit for the act.
Interview / Interrogation
Because of underlying low esteem, these offenders should not be approached in an authoritative or intimidating manner. It is more productive to present the interview as an opportunity to assist
the investigator, e.g., “I would appreciate your assistance…” or as part of a logical sequence of investigative steps, e.g., “I am interviewing everyone who has security clearance to that area.”
A structured interview approach, such as the Behavior Analysis Interview, is ideal for this offender.
Esteem-motivated offenders have very shallow insight on their behavior and will place blame for their crime onto someone or something else. For example, they will project blame for their
criminal behavior onto the victim, unfair treatment by an employer, an unjust government or society or affected judgment as the result of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It
is not at all uncommon for these offenders, even after they have confessed, to maintain this distorted perception behind their crime, e.g., “I touched her to show love and affection, “
“He deserved what I did to him – I am not guilty.”
This lack of insight, coupled with resentment toward authority, will cause the esteem-motivated offender to reject any effort to obtain a confession through intimidation or threats of
consequences. These offenders will respond well to an interrogation approach that expresses understanding toward the suspect’s behavior and reinforces underlying justifications for his crime.
In conclusion, the first step of an investigation is to identify what motivated the criminal behavior. Typically, investigators think of financial or emotional motives (anger, revenge, jealousy,
etc.). However, many crimes are committed for the sole purpose of elevating the offender’s self esteem, and this motivation should always be considered. While these offenders cover a broad
spectrum of backgrounds and personality traits, they all will project blame for their crime away from themselves and justify their criminal behavior by distorting reality. These underlying
attitudes will surface during a structured interview which will guide the investigator in identifying these offenders. During the interrogation theme, the suspect’s distorted reality should
be reinforced to create an environment in which the suspect feels more comfortable telling the truth. | |
The Use of Rationalization
During An Interrogation Theme
Two conditions must be satisfied before a person decides to commit a crime. The first is that the individual must believe that he or she will not be punished for the crime. For
example, no sane person would set their neighbor's house on fire or download pornography on a company computer if they knew that they would suffer consequences for their actions.
However, ninety percent of society would never sell illegal drugs, steal a car or sexually molest a child even if they were guaranteed to get away with the crime. Therefore, a second
condition must also be met which is that the person must be able to justify the criminal behavior in some manner.
The difference between people who commit crimes or violate company policies and those who do not is that the former believe that their dishonest behavior is justified. This is
done by cognitively distorting reality. By doing so, the individual does not experience significant guilt or anxiety as a result of their criminal behavior. Anna Freud coined
the phrase "defense mechanism" to describe this mental process. In our experience, there are several predominant defense mechanisms guilty suspects employ to justify their criminal behavior.
Many criminals utilize projection to place blame for their own actions onto someone or something else, e.g., the victim, an accomplice, low
salary, unfair treatment, intoxication. A criminal may also reduce their feeling of guilt through minimization by convincing themselves
that what they did could have been much worse, e.g., "I only took $50,000 – If I were dishonest I could have easily embezzled $100,000." Most criminals form a false belief
that many others share their dishonest attitudes (identification) and may also engage in denial, where
they convince themselves that there is no injury to the victim, e.g., "The company can afford the loss"; "The child was not physically injured." Finally, there are individuals who justify
their criminal behavior by psychologically distorting the true intention behind their crime. e.g., "I didn't mean to steal the money, I just wanted to borrow it." This defense mechanism
is called rationalization.
Interrogation techniques rely on the fact that guilty suspects utilize defense mechanisms to justify their crimes. In an effort to create an environment in which
a guilty suspect feels more comfortable telling the truth, the interrogator will reinforce the defense mechanisms that already exist in the suspect's mind. This is done by
presenting a persuasive monologue called an interrogation theme.
Consider that an employee is being interrogated on the issue of stealing a $2,000 deposit from the manager's office. During his interrogation the investigator may
develop a theme that blames the employee's decision to take the deposit on the company's failure to pay him an adequate salary or for the manager's negligence
for not securing the deposit (projection). The employee may experience further moral relief when the investigator explains that if the employee was truly dishonest he
would have stolen money the first week he was hired or stolen other deposits from the company (minimization).
For a guilty suspect to relate to an interrogation theme, the justifications offered by the investigator must be similar to how the suspect himself justified the crime. Furthermore,
the theme should not provide the suspect with a legal defense for his criminal behavior.
For both of these reasons, the investigator must be cautious in using themes which
reinforce the defense mechanism of rationalization.
An example of an inappropriate rationalization theme in the previous theft case would be for the investigator to describe a scenario where the employee took the $2,000 believing
that it was a cash advance for an upcoming business trip. Considering the money was clearly in a deposit bag sitting on top of the manager's desk and that the employee
has never received a cash advance of more than $100, it is implausible that he would have justified his theft by distorting reality in this manner. Furthermore, this particular
rationalization theme is improper because it offers the employee a legal defense since it removes the necessary element of wrongful intent, i.e., taking money that the employee knew
belonged to the company.
However, there are many occasions where guilty suspects do use rationalization to justify their criminal behavior and where the investigator can appropriately use a theme that
incorporates rationalization. The following guidelines are offered to help identify whether a particular suspect may have used the defense mechanism of rationalization to justify
his crime:
- Suspects who are essentially caught in the act of committing the crime.
A male nurse at a convalescent center was caught on video tape having sexual contact with an 18-year-old comatose female patient. After being shown the tape he explained that
he engaged in the activity merely in an effort to stimulate the patient out of her coma.
- Suspects who commit spontaneous or opportunistic crimes.
A suspect who takes days or weeks to carefully plan out exactly how to commit a crime is unlikely to have justified his dishonest behavior through rationalization. However, a suspect
who commits a crime on the spur of the moment may well have rationalized it. Consider a driver of a vehicle who strikes a pedestrian and leaves the scene because he was drinking
and did not want to be charged with DUI. In his mind, he may well convince himself that he left the scene in an effort to get help.
- Suspects who are facing significant personal consequences of embarrassment, loss of pride or esteem.
To restore the suspect's self-worth this type of offender is likely to have rationalized his criminal behavior. A classic example is the child molester who simply does not recognize that
he engages in sexual contact with children to elevate his own self-worth. Very often, pedophiles perceive their sexual contact with children as showing love and affection.
- Suspects who offer judgmental denials.
Consider the suspect who is asked, "How do you feel about being interviewed concerning this allegation against you?" and responds, "I feel fine because I know I didn't do anything wrong." This
suspect is not denying committing the crime. Rather he is denying wrongful intent behind his actions. A similar judgmental denial is a statement where the suspect claims he is
"innocent" of committing the crime. For example, a suspect may explain that he is "innocent of robbing the victim." Under this circumstance the investigator should consider the possibility
that the suspect believed the victim owed him the money that was stolen during the robbery.
The recommendation that an interrogation theme should not present the suspect with a legal defense is offered to guard against claims that the theme somehow offered the suspect an
implied promise of leniency. This concern is not based on court rulings or empirical findings in the field. Rather, it is in response to the theoretical argument that if a theme offers
a legal defense for the suspect's crime, it may then be perceived as removing any consequences if the suspect chooses to confess to the crime. The following list is offered to help
investigators understand the sometimes subtle distinction between themes that may offer a legal defense and those that do not.
Examples of Rationalization Themes that Do or Do Not Offer A Possible Legal Defense
Arson
Possible defense:
You were smoking in the area and one of your cigarettes accidentally started the fire.
No defense:
Your original intention was just to cause smoke damage; you started the fire to scare your neighbor to see how he would
react; you started the fire to prove that the fire department's response time is too slow.
Child physical abuse
Possible defense:
You accidentally burned your child with the cigarette; you were playing catch with your child and you threw the ball
too hard and bruised him.
No defense:
You just wanted to teach the child a lesson; you wanted to toughen up your son so he would not be pushed around when he was older.
Child sexual abuse
Possible defense:
You were wrestling with your daughter and accidentally put your hand down her panties
No defense:
You touched her there to show her love and affection; you touched her out of curiosity to see how she would react.
Hit and run
Possible defense:
You thought your car struck a deer so you didn't stop.
No defense:
You left the scene to get help; you thought the pedestrian wasn't seriously injured.
Homicide
Possible defense:
You thought the victim had a weapon and you killed him in self defense; the child slipped out of your hands and struck its head on the floor;
you were just fooling around with the gun and didn't know it was loaded.
No defense:
You killed her to put her out of her misery; you only intended to cut her slightly with the knife; you only intended to wound him in the shoulder
but your aim was off; you only shook the child to get him to stop crying.
Rape
Possible defense:
The knife was already near the bed and you held it in your hand while you were having sex so she wouldn't get accidentally cut.
No defense:
You pointed the knife at her just to scare her initially – you never would have actually used it to cut her.
In conclusion, individuals who commit crimes often reduce the anxiety and guilt associated with the crime by utilizing defense mechanisms. A suspect who employs the defense mechanism of
rationalization re-describes the original intention of his behavior. There are certain characteristics which suggest that a suspect may have justified his criminal behavior through rationalization.
When an investigator incorporates rationalization within an interrogation theme, he should avoid describing a scenario which could offer the suspect a legal defense for engaging in the
criminal behavior.
|
