Roberto (not his real name) was a difficult person to do therapy with, because he was so committed to his gang and to criminal ways of thinking. Yet, I felt that I was having some success with him, presenting him with noncriminal ways of being. He was 16 years old and the shooter for a Hispanic gang in California. His gang nickname was "Snyper," and he was their shooter for drive by shootings. He said "I am in prison for robbery, but if they knew what I did I would never get out." He admitted he had shot and killed many people.
However it was also easy to feel sorry for him, growing up as he did with a schizophrenic mother and a father who is a member of the Mexican Mafia. In many ways, he never had a chance. Therapy often went well, even though others at the prison thought he was a lost cause and not worth wasting time on. He even asked me to adopt him. He said he would obey me totally, which I knew would not have turned out to be true, had I been foolish enough to adopt him.
I stopped doing therapy with him when, during one session, he was angry because I would not let him make but a few phone calls from my office phone, so he punched me in the knee. I heard something crack, and, thinking it might be my knee I said "I hope you haven't hurt me." Mocking me he said "'I hope you haven't hurt me.' You sound like a girl." After that I stopped doing therapy with him and got him transferred to a regular, nontreatment prison.
I think my intensive therapy might have succeeded with Roberto, especially if I could have gotten him to move to a different neighborhood upon release, away from his gang and the other antisocial influences where he lived. But, it was a long shot, and not worth risking injury. I felt like I helped about 15% of the prisoners I worked with become crime free. Roberto was part of the other 85% who were not reformed.
Working with the young prisoners gave me many insights into why they were the way they were. Among the many important insights I gained are two perspectives. These two views seem contradictory, but they are really not. They also tend to be associated with liberal or conservative views about crime and society. Liberals and conservatives are both misunderstanding criminals unless they integrate both views into their understanding.
SYMPATHETIC VIEW
The first view is consistent with the typical liberal view of criminals. My insight is that criminals often have horrible family backgrounds, and have been victims of abuse, neglect, or even sexual abuse when growing up, often by family members. No wonder they become outlaws, hating society and having little empathy for others. From this standpoint we likely feel sorry for criminals and want to help them. Rehabilitation seems like the goal and we want to make sure criminals get treated with some respect and dignity, as we hope they change into useful members of society. Exposing them to a therapist or to some person who is a model of good behavior, and who gives them insights (e. g., how to succeed at work), might help reform many prisoners.
NONSYMPATHETIC VIEW
I believe that the sympathetic view is partly correct. The liberals are on to something. But, so, too, is the nonsympathetic view, which is held by many conservatives. From this standpoint, criminals are very hard to change. They are bad people, who have chosen a life of crime, and routinely hurt and manipulate others to get what they want.
So, the best thing is to lock them up for long periods of time, or execute them if they are murderers, to make sure they do not hurt more people. As I point out in my book Creativity, Mental Illness and Crime (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 2007), many murderers get out of prison and kill again. Criminals are typically not interested in education (too boring, too much sitting still, too much being told what to do) or working at a job, and in fact are often unemployable, since they will not show up on time, obey the boss, do good work, etc. As one said to me "If the boss tells me to do things I don't like, I'll knock him out."
BOTH VIEWS ARE CORRECT
It may seem impossible, but both views are correct. Both fit the criminals I worked with and, I suspect, fit most criminals. We need to keep each view in mind when working with or trying to understand criminals. It may seem strange to think of both as correct, but I am convinced that is the case.
