The Psychopathology of Crime

Prompted by the ongoing debates here regarding whether certain political figures should be branded as criminals or not, I find myself compelled to open this discussion on the underlying reasons why people tend to idolize and defend mass murderers...
In our legal system, there is a general consensus—well, perhaps not universal, but certainly the prevailing view among most Americans—that any individual who kills another person, or orders such a killing, is a criminal. Yet, when we look at various statesmen (it doesn't matter which ones specifically), individuals who have undeniably ordered the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people, we see an enormous number of people consistently supporting them and hailing them as heroes. So, I wonder, who are these people who refuse to see them as criminals? Are they psychopaths? Is it pure egoism, where people simply cannot see past their own immediate interests? Are they just unrefined? Or perhaps they are criminals themselves, hiding behind a mask? Or maybe it is a combination of all these things... or am I simply holding humanity to an impossibly high standard?

There’s a massive difference between looking someone in the eye and taking their life, versus just sitting behind a screen playing Warcraft and sending an army off to slaughter people...

Is there perhaps a single psychologist or psychiatrist on this forum who might care to offer some professional insight regarding this matter... or are we all just mere amateurs here, playing at being therapists?

Kyle Nelson2 said:There’s a massive difference between taking someone's life with your own hands and just clicking buttons in Warcraft to send an army into a slaughter...

Man, seriously, no matter what site I browse, you're always right there dropping these heavy takes..🙂 .!
Cheers 🙂

We're talking about an individual who exerts total control over a specific group—influencing them until they essentially become brainwashed sheep just following orders.
I once read about this guy in a book—his mother was a sex worker, he ended up in juvenile detention at seventeen, and spent the next thirty years bouncing between prisons. He learned everything there was to know about the human psyche during that time, and once he was out, he built this cult of followers—mostly women, about 200 of them—who lived with him, catered to his every whim, and did exactly what he commanded. When things finally boiled over and the authorities started closing in, they committed mass suicide. Three hundred people took their own lives along with him.
And you're asking why? Psychologists and psychiatrists can offer all the theories they want, but they can't truly explain the sheer type of power that man held over those people. He simply broke them down—he knew exactly what they craved and convinced them he was the only one who could provide it. They were likely just fragile individuals looking for support and comfort, and once he promised them that, he had absolute dominion over them. (Azrael, if you're reading this, give it some thought)
Throw crowd psychology into the mix, and it becomes much clearer how figures like Castro, Maddox, and others managed to lure so many people into their ideologies... Not everyone is a critical thinker, and certainly not everyone thinks for themselves. In my view, these kinds of leaders are a sort of twisted kind of genius.

Kyle Morris7 said:Inspired by all the political debates here about whether certain leaders are criminals or not, I wanted to start a thread exploring why people tend to worship and support mass murderers.
In the legal system, there’s a general consensus—well, almost everyone agrees—that a criminal is anyone who kills someone or orders a killing. Yet, when it comes to a statesman (doesn't matter which one) who is undeniably responsible for ordering the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands, a massive number of people still cheer for them and view them as heroes. So, who are these people who refuse to see them as criminals? Are they psychopaths? Selfish people who can't see past their own noses? Are we talking about primitives, closeted criminals, or just a messy mix of everything? Or am I simply expecting too much from humanity?

It really comes down to the "shadow"—people actually enjoy being manipulated because the "leader" says the very things they would never dare to utter themselves, using those words to fuel various kinds of hatred...

These "leaders" essentially give voice to thoughts an individual wouldn't have the guts to say out loud. We all contain both good and evil within us—in varying proportions, certainly—but we carry both.

The "leader" often acts as a mirror for our own "evil."

Then the crowds gather, the applause starts, the euphoria kicks in, and some people even experience a sense of catharsis!

It begins with the validation of a thought you held privately, or perhaps a dark thought you were afraid to admit you had, and suddenly that darkness becomes public, reflected, and mainstream.

That is precisely how dangerous ideologies with bloody consequences are born.

urbannomad12 said:it's really about an individual who holds sway over a specific group of people and exerts their influence until, over time, those followers essentially become "brainwashed sheep" just following orders...
I recall reading in a certain book...

The first scenario you mentioned makes sense to me, at least to a certain extent... I suppose one can always find a few hundred unstable, disgruntled, or simply uneducated individuals out there. But the real conundrum arises when you have millions, or even hundreds of millions, actively supporting an atrocity. And it isn't merely a question of being underdeveloped or backward. If we were only talking about sheer lack of sophistication, then perhaps we could use Castro or Maddox as easy examples to explain away such things. However, how does one account for the collective madness seen in Germany during the Second World War? It certainly wasn't due to being behind the times, because back then, Germans were arguably one of the most traditionally, culturally, and economically advanced nations on the planet...

Neli said:It’s all about this "shadow" concept—people actually enjoy being manipulated because they hear a "leader" say the very things they wouldn't dare utter themselves, which then fuels hatred on all sorts of different grounds...

I find myself thinking that your opening sentence is actually a bit of a contradiction, if you don't mind me saying... I mean, the idea of people "loving" to be manipulated just doesn't sit right with me, because love and manipulation are fundamentally at odds, since manipulation is essentially a deception. But then again, the masses don't go looking to be deceived, nor do I believe they truly are. If I were to frame it differently, I would suggest that the crowd chooses and follows a leader who simply fulfills their specific desires and needs... which brings us back to the second half of your thought. There is always an inherent presence of both good and evil, and in these instances, the chosen leader becomes the vessel for that evil. To constantly harp on the theory of manipulation—a narrative we saw repeated endlessly during the American Civil War, and indeed during many other conflicts where entire communities participate in atrocities—is a flawed thesis, and perhaps even a dangerous one, because it shifts the entirety of the blame onto one or two individuals when, in reality, the responsibility lies with everyone involved...
One could argue that it isn't manipulation at all, but rather a product of immediate fear, ignorance, or a sense of vulnerability, but I don't think that's quite it either. If that were the case, the sentiment would dissipate once the fear subsided, but it doesn't... instead, we see the masses continuing to glorify criminals even after five, ten, or fifty years have passed...

Kyle Morris7 said:Is there even one actual psychologist or psychiatrist on this forum who can weigh in on this? Or are we all just total amateurs playing pretend doctor here?

Since when did you decide they're the only ones qualified to talk about moral dilemmas?

Kyle Morris7 said:. But how else do you explain the collective madness of the Germans during WWII? It definitely wasn't because they were "behind." Back then, the Germans were one of the most advanced nations—culturally, traditionally, and economically.

That last part of yours just doesn't hold water.
Look, Germany was basically a broken state for an entire century leading up to WWII. They were getting hammered politically, losing wars, dealing with crushing economic sanctions, having foreign solutions shoved down their throats, losing territory, and watching their economic dominance in Europe evaporate. When you face that kind of long-term failure in every single sector, people start looking for a way to compensate. And honestly? That whole idea about German cultural superiority is a total myth. Sure, Germany had geniuses in art, literature, and philosophy, but the average German was just as clueless and backwards as anyone else. You had this massive, uneducated, deaf-and-blind mob on one side, a handful of intellectuals trying to revive some old-school "superman" myth through books and history on the other, and then the industrialists who just wanted a leader to kickstart a new era of global conquest and colonies. Unfortunately, out of that mess, the guy who rose to lead them was nothing more than a mentally unstable wreck.

Kyle Morris7 said:Look, the public doesn't want to be lied to, and honestly, I don't think they even feel cheated. It’s simpler than that: people just pick the leader who promises to give them exactly what they want and need.

Here's my take on it. The real issue with mob mentality is that rational thought just goes right out the window. People stop thinking and start acting purely on raw impulse. Think about it—being a decent, civilized human being requires constant effort. You have to fight against social pressure every single day just to stay "normal." That's exhausting! So, whenever they get the chance, crowds try to rebel against those cultural expectations and just let their darkest instincts take over. We see it everywhere—from mindless binge drinking and screaming at football games to much darker stuff like bullying or even genocide. It’s way easier for most people to deal with their own insecurities and feelings of helplessness by just drowning themselves in the power of a massive, mindless crowd.

Most people spend their lives paralyzed by fear and the weight of unfulfilled dreams—always chasing wealth and status. If you told them they weren't actually at fault for their struggles, but could instead blame a specific group—say, Jewish Americans—and promised happiness through their removal, a huge chunk of the population would swallow it whole. It’s just much easier to point a finger at someone else than to face your own failures.
Hitler didn't just dump all those ridiculous ideas on everyone overnight; he spent years relentlessly drilling those conspiracies into people's heads until the confused masses actually started believing him. Not to mention, he leaned hard on intimidation—it was basically "get on board with us or die."

Kyle Morris7 said:I don't think they were lagging behind—back then, Germans were pretty much at the top when it came to culture, economy, and everything else.

That's true... though, I guess maybe 90% of those Germans were basically just part of the establishment. 🙂
If you actually look at who was driving the culture or leading the way in science and literature, you'll see there weren't really many Germans fitting that specific racial profile.

Walter Myers4 said:why do you think they have more right to speak about moral dilemmas?

That wasn't quite my point, though I suppose I can see how it might have come across that way... what I am actually preoccupied with is the pathology behind the crime itself rather than the ethical quandaries surrounding it, and frankly, those professionals are trained for this level of scrutiny, whereas for the rest of us, psychology is merely a passing interest or a hobby...
Regarding Germany. Please, let’s not get bogged down in that specific detail, as it was intended solely as an illustration... My curiosity lies in the psychopathology of crime in a general sense, not focusing on any one particular nation or state... I will concede that much of the German populace may have been lagging behind at the time, but nations that lack, or perhaps never possessed, a significant number of great thinkers tend to be even further behind, so the end result remains essentially the same...

I believe the issue with mass psychology is that it effectively shuts down all rational impulse, reducing human behavior entirely to mere primal instincts.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that... if we were truly driven by pure instinct, we would be behaving almost identically to animals, which doesn't seem to be the case... I actually suspect the opposite is true—that it is fundamentally a matter of the mind... Even you (and urbannomad12) touch upon this in your own observations: things like humiliation, unfulfilled ambitions, the fear of loss, greed, and so on... none of those things could strictly be categorized as simple animalistic instincts...
Looking through your messages, I still sense a persistent belief that a single individual is the one who drives the masses into madness... If you feel inclined, I would be interested to hear your reasoning on why you believe one person can sway a whole crowd... Personally, I find myself leaning toward the contrary view, as I mentioned before: the masses select a leader who promises to fulfill their own latent ambitions... Whether that leader is later judged as a hero or cast as the sole villain depends entirely on whether he succeeded in satisfying those collective desires... The crowd simply finds it easier to point the finger at one man to absolve themselves of responsibility...

Kyle Morris7 said:Why on earth do people think one single guy just hypnotizes the whole crowd? I totally disagree. Like I said before: the masses pick a leader who’s going to pull off whatever they’re greedy for. Whether that leader ends up being some legendary hero or the absolute villain responsible for everything depends entirely on whether he actually delivers what the people wanted. People love to point the finger at one guy just to save their own skins.

Look, I don't think it's that simple. Most of the time, a leader isn't even chosen by "the people"—they're picked by some more or less visible ruling elite who thinks they can use him to get what they want. And here's the kicker: that leader doesn't even have to be the smartest or most capable person in the country. Honestly, it's usually some marginal, ridiculous figure—someone easy to manipulate.
So, to make it short: the elite picks the leader and pulls his strings.
The leader is basically just an entertainer for the public; he’s just putting on the specific show they want to see.

Walter Myers4 said:I don't think things are ever quite that straightforward... more often than not, the ruling "elite" handpicks a leader—someone perhaps a bit more visible—simply because they believe he'll be the most efficient tool for advancing their own specific interests. To fulfill that particular role, a leader doesn't actually need to be the most capable person in the nation; in fact, quite frequently, the individual chosen is some marginal, almost laughable figure, someone who is much easier for those in power to manipulate and control.
So, to put it bluntly: the elite selects the leader and pulls his strings...
And that leader essentially serves the masses as a sort of entertainer, performing whatever little drama they want to see...

I find myself agreeing with this first part, though I suspect it mostly applies during peaceful times when there aren't massive societal upheavals occurring... because once you hit those moments of intense conflict, the sheer madness—or perhaps just the inherent darkness—of the masses becomes the primary driver. Whether it's one singular leader or the entire elite class pulling the levers, as you suggest, feels almost secondary at that point... after all, it's still just a tiny handful of people leading millions, and those millions follow them not necessarily because they've been deceived, but simply because it suits their own needs at the time...

Kyle Morris7 said:I'm with you on this first part, but I think that only holds up during normal times when there isn't a massive conflict brewing. When things really go south, mass madness—or just pure evil—takes over. Whether it’s one single leader or a bunch of elites like you claim, it doesn't even matter. It always boils down to a tiny handful of people leading millions, and those millions follow because it suits them, not because they're some kind of brainwashed victims.

Of course it suits them.
I mean, look at how people act at concerts. You’ve got crowds flocking to see some half-literate, drugged-out rock star, and the second he yells, "Put your hands up!"—boom, everyone's hands are up. He shouts, "Everyone sing along!" and they all belt it out. Why do they do it? Because they want to.

Look, obviously, it's way better if they just act like total idiots at a concert instead of actually killing people.

http://www.susannealbers.de/04psycho-gruen-werk02.html

I found some writings by this Swiss psychoanalyst, Arno Grün. They’re in German, and honestly, they're far too long for me to bother translating myself.

It mostly deals with identity—how we actually build a sense of self. It touches on authority and how we challenge obedience, suggesting the only way to forge an identity is through identifying with a parent or authority figure, then later seeking out and accepting a different one. There's also this idea of fighting against what an authority labels as "bad"—which is really just a struggle against parts of ourselves we want to suppress to protect a fragile, carefully constructed identity.

It’s all a bit convoluted, and I can't exactly summarize the whole thing in a couple of sentences, but it sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Jonathan Hernandez4 said:http://www.susannealbers.de/04psycho-gruen-werk02.html

I’ve found a few texts here by that Swiss psychoanalyst, Arno Grün... they are written in German, and honestly, they are far too lengthy for me to attempt a full translation...

The core themes seem to revolve around identity—the actual process of developing one's own sense of self... things like authority, the testing of obedience, and how the only way to forge an identity is through initial identification with a parent, or an authority figure... then later, seeking out and identifying with a different authority... there is this idea of fighting against what is perceived as "bad," which the authority deems wrong... essentially being against parts of oneself that one wishes to suppress or conquer because those parts threaten the carefully constructed identity one has built...

It is all a bit convoluted, and I cannot quite summarize it properly in just a couple of sentences, but to my mind, it sounds rather plausible...

Unfortunately, my grasp of German is quite limited, so I am unable to offer much commentary... though, I must admit, I find this particular theory somewhat difficult to wrap my head around, primarily because I have always struggled to accept authority myself... once an authority figure disappoints me, I tend to walk away quite quickly, whereas in the case of a deranged—or perhaps just malicious—mob, it seems they never actually abandon their leader... I am thinking, for instance, of those people who still cling to leaders from fifty years ago, even when it is blindingly obvious that those figures were profoundly negative...
It occurred to me just now, reflecting on that last thought, that perhaps the key to understanding mass madness lies in the fact that they never truly abandon their chosen authority... The real question, I suppose, is why they refuse to leave, and why they choose to remain, quite voluntarily, within their own insanity...

nikakva said:http://www.susannealbers.de/04psycho-gruen-werk02.html

Found some stuff here by this Swiss psychoanalyst guy, Arno Grün. It’s all in German, though, and honestly? Way too long for me to sit here and translate everything for you guys.

It basically digs into identity—how you actually build one. It talks about authority and how we're taught to just obey, which is supposedly the only way to develop an identity through identifying with a parent or whatever authority figure is in charge. Then later, you go looking for a different authority to latch onto. It even touches on fighting against things the authority deems "bad"—basically being against parts of yourself because those traits threaten the fragile identity you've spent so much time building.

It's a bit twisted, and I can't really boil it down in just a couple of sentences, but it sounds pretty reasonable to me.

If I remember correctly, that sounds like Frahm's theory—the one where he talks about that whole sadistic-masochistic streak in the German character that supposedly stems from Protestant culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm