Criminal thought. For the most part of the 20th century sociologists have focused on the causes that lead to crime and idtified those causes with various social, cultural and economical factors such as, social status, education, poverty, profession. Conflict theory, labeling theory, social learning theory explored deeper the causes of crime and delinquency.
One of the groudnbreaking theories of crime belong to sociologist Edwin Sutherland a symbolic interactionist , was the theory of differential association, that proposed that through interaction individuals learn the values, norms motives for the criminal behavior.
One of the causes mostly ignored by sociologists, were the cognitive processes, the criminal thought that leads to criminal behavior
Hypotheses: Every crime, every criminal behavior has a cause. The factors leading to the behavior may vary but the underlying cause that leads to crime is always the same. The legitimacy of crime. Every criminal establishes a legitimacy for crime. The norms and values that allow him to commit a crime. We can say that this legitimacy suspends his conscience and any norms and values that he was taught that condemned criminal behavior are erased.
The crimiinal builds a structure of motivations, norms and "values" that sanctions and legitimizes his behavior. Thus we can say that no crime is unpremedited, for every criminal considers his crime to be legitime and when he commits his first crime he already has established his legitmity and built a structure of motivations and legitimacies for his crime, whatever form it may take, whther it is theft, roberry, violent murder or even white collar crime. At every level the crime is legitimized and is the foundation for justification of crime.
Terrorism
What is important to look into terrorist attacks is not the political motivation, or the terrorists allegiance withh a political or military organization. It is the same legitimacy the same foundation that he constructs for his crime. Terrorist attacks have been shown not to resemble one another. One may be a detonation, one maybe be done with firearm or with vehicles of diff sorts. What it leads the terrorists to murder are the axiological and cognitive structures that have build their legitimacy and the justification of murder.
It is very important to identify the structures and phases of criminal legitimacy.
Structures of Criminal Legitimacy
The crime is well established and justified based on the criminal legitimacy long before the moment of its comission. The criminal legitimizes crime.
Offender decision making takes place at each stage of the crime comission moments and it may vary its method when different obstacles appaear. (Clarke and cornish 1985) Rational choice approach
Perceptual structures
sociall perception ( how the indiviual perceives social system, society, comuunity and the expected and accepted social behavior)
cultural perception ) how the individual perceives the cultural environment, differences between his and others cultural background)
criminal perception all are related and intertwined\
influnced by and influences
Axiological structure
Values (dominant culture and values in his community and dominant valuesoutside his community_
Norms (lernt rhough socialization and norms inside his group-community)
internalized or rejected
Abnormal Norms and values that are internalized but they are not accepted by the scoiety they bypass the norms and values that the scoiety tries to inculcate. Criminal legitimacy bypasses any axiological system and legitimacy and values in the criminals mind.
Fiske and Tage Ray bring in the perspective of the virtuous violence and the moral criminal, the criminal that thinks he she is doing the "right thing".
dehumanization versus humanization of victim. humanization is necessary in puntive criminal act. Perpetrators do not want to commit violence but they engage in violence because they feel they must do the right thing., Fiske and Tage Ray
Relation of self with the other individuals, the other, the system, the society, the community, his perceived self worth in relation to the others.
The hierachical structure
The criminal thinks he is superior to the victim.
The criminal has already profiled the victim, long before a crime is comitted. Of course the profile may be general but its as thorough and detailed as possible when in coonnection to the crime.
The anomic personality and culture
The vacuum of cultural authority.
One of the factors leading to crime is th evacuum of authority. We can describe authority in this case in the case of primary socialization, the father authority, the school but we can extrapolate it to the social catalyst of a community. In the case of muslim immigrants authroities tend to overlap. An authroity figure may be the school director, the father or the imam. The great discrepancies between the host culture and the immigrant culture cause a dissonance and an inability to adpatate due to a lack of authority of the host culture. there is a such conflict between old and new norms and values which is in essence a result of an anomical society, community.
Model association
Unfavourable interpretations of law.
there is a very important distinction to be made between the offical written law and the counterculture law. The unfavourable interpretation of law will lead to the crime motivation. In the case of muslim immigrants there is the distinction between the law of the land, and the Sharia law. Due to primary socilization and the association of models and learning of values through group learning, the cultural legislation is superior to the official law of the land.
Normative chaos leads to disoriented and anomic personalitiesaccording to Pinatel. As it is the case with countries such as France, Uk and Germany periods of social and cultural transition lead to an anomic behaviour and the lack of social control.
Corner street society
Iter criminis, criminal idea.
Theory of criminal strategy
The criminal legitimacy might be intragenerational, intracultural and disseminated within the group.
what is of interest in this paper and what we are trying to determine ar enot the political and societal levers that led to terrorist attacks but the behaviour that leads to the criminal legitimacy which is neccesary in any criminal act but especially in terrorist attacks.
Path of action
Line of interpretation
Emotional process
Line of intrepretation is required to enable the would be perpetrator to interpret the victim's acts and context in a particular way/
Introduction.8
The main framework in sociological criminology is based on the factors that drive the individual to commit a criminal act. Factors whether they are social, cultural biological, psychological or political are a very important part in constructing a perspective that would help explain the criminal phenomena.
However the study factors alone are proven to be inefficient in the analysis of criminal phenomena. Socio-cultural factors are very important in analysis of criminality in specific and given context but they are overused in criminology and many times fail to provide a thorough detailed tableau on criminality.
The classical early positivist, Marxist and Weberian theories of crime along with the theory of conflict make heavy use of such factors, especially economic and social factors leaving out a large array of other important and essential factors, whether it is done to explain a specific social phenomenon or to further political propaganda. Marxist theroies were useful in providing an explanation for the aggresion on the invividual or for lower class criminality from an economic perspective. but failed to provide a ground for a socio pshychological analysis of criminality. Th conflict theory is a very important starting point for such an analysis but is insuffiecient outisde of a given social, cultural and historical context.
The purpose of this paper is to incorporate all theories to construct a wider social psychological perspective. To provide a clear analysis of the criminal act in relation to a phenomenon that is more and more recurrent now in the early years of the 21st century, while incorporating the major theories of criminiology, we need to seek the cause of criminal behavior and terrorist acts farther than factors and contexts. While such indicators matter and we have to analyze studies in correlation to such indicators, we cannot identify and define the cause of terrorism acts simply by guiding ourselves after them. and a wider theoretical and interdisciplinary approach is needed.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the corelation between criminal behavior, motivations and the phenomen of terrorism in the 21 st cewntury. While the focus is on islamic terrorism which occurs more and more, a broader understanding of terrorism is neccessary, whther we are refering to ethnic terrorism, or terorism with a political or ideological purpose.
A distinction needs to be made in this case. Political terrorism must not be confused with religious terrorism. Political terrorist acts are commited to either further a political objective or a socio-political ideology as it is the case with far left terrorism or far right terrorism. Of course we must also take into account that political or ideological terrorism and religious terorism have important similarities and in many cases religious terorism seeks to change the laws and political system of a community or a society and there are many cases where political terorist acts have a religious motivation to an extent.
We will be focusing in this paper more on the motivation of crime, how it is cause, how it impacts socio-cultural and political aspects and how it is impacted by the socio-cultural context.
In this paper we will be following and anlyzing case studies based on crime statistics correlated with socio-economic, religious and cultural factors, studies based on surveys, interviews and observation.
The main objective of this paper is too identify the criminal thought processes that lead to the criminal motivation and the structures that lay the foundation for crime justifications and what we can call "criminal legitimacy".
Although there had been many motivation models provided by different theoretical frameworks it is important to establish a pattern of behaviour. Not only a behaviorual pattern, but a pattern in what regards the justification of the terrorist acts.
Definition of terrorism.
As the phenomenon of terrorism has been studied by sociologist, psychologists, psychiatrists and anthropologists it is important to mention that terrorism cannot be contained in a single definition. Walter Lauquer has identified over 100 definitions of terrorism. He suggest to simplify and synthesize the definitions, that "terrorism is the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent civilians. Tore Bjorgo (6) ) states “terrorism is a set of methods of combat rather than an identifiable ideology or movement, and involves premeditated use of violence against (primarily) non-combatants in order to achieve a psychological effect of fear on others than the immediate targets.” Thus the target of terrorists attacks is to provoke a reaction of the state, of authorities to precipitate social change. Terrorism is seen as a tool of political action and as an act of political violence. Although these definition can be applied to the majority of terrorist attacks, whther they are ideological, political or religious, it cannot be reduced to such a definition.
Romanov, Zussman, and Zussman (2012) showed in a study on terrorist attacks perpetrated on Jewish Israeli citizens that a major intention of the terrorists was to demoralize.
CrL=PL+RL+CL
Personal Legitimacy
Models of legitimacy
Religious legitimacy
Cultural legitimacy
Social legitimacy
Political/Ideological Legitimacy
Atribution theory in the context of criminality and criminal legitimacy
Secondary deviance occurs when a person’s self-concept and behavior begin to change after his or her actions are labeled as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled that individual as such.
Model of symbolic interactionism in the context of personal legitimacy
According to Mead, individuals act based on personal symbols and semnifications.
identity formation
cultural deviance
COnflict and perception of conflict. Conflict between individuals appears first in perception
Main Ideas
Legitimacy refers to the process that allows the criminal to bypass internalized societal norms and values in order to commit his act of violcen and terrorism in this case. Assuming that a type of personal legitimacy exists in every behavior and interaction allowing someone to act in his perceived subjective best interest, the question posed is: What is the key factor that raises or makes personal legitimacy to criminal legitimacy?
Premise: The terrorist creates a persona of the victim that aids to justify the violent act of terrorism. The terrorist also profiles the victim. As the target in a violent attack does not reduce to one person, the terrorist may profile and construct a victim persona for an entire group of people, organization, community, society.
VICTIM PERSONA and victim identity
The construction of victim identity
A terrorist perceives his target in a certain way. As the target is the perpetrator of the perceived injustice and opression, the terrorist constructs a persona around him, and assigns, roles and attributes to his/her persona in his own interpretation.
The criminal thinking in terrorism is ext5remely reductionist. It reduces the other to an attribute.
Once the terrorist positions himself above society's laws, those laws are irrelevant. His legitimacy may be his only ground.
The terrorist not only reduce the victim, but himself to an attribute (martyr, freedom fighter, shahid). It doesn;t mean that it is his only attribute, but rather that it is his mainn attribute and acts based on that.
With lack of perspectives, the terrorist identifies those in the higher dominanc ehierarchy as perpetrators of injustice and the main cause of his low status.
Is not only the identity that he seeks, or the "great need of belonging" as Luckabaugh suggests, but a meaningful role, that at the mooment he lacks. When he comes in contact with the organization he also comes in a slight way, mor eor less, in conflict. the norms and values, laws of the organization differ and are oppposed to the societal norms that he was taught druign primary and secondary socialization.
The individual looks for a meaningful role.
What makes an individual adopt the organization;s norms and values and discard the societal norms and values?
Order through chaos. The terrorist's goal, especially in the islamic terrorism context is not political, in the sense that the aim is not to replace a politician, a minister, a mayor, a chief of police or a president. While that aim may exist, it is not the main aim. One of the aims of the terrorist is to bring "order" through chaos, his own interpretation of the order, in this case, islamic order, or islamic radical and fundamentalist socio-cultural-politic and religious order. When chaos rises to unprecented levels, the society will be more inclined to accept such an "order".
Also the terrorist wants to transfer those feelings of anomia and alienations to the others members of society, especially the outgroups that do not share his ideology-rleigions, and which he sees as opressors. He sees them and their culture as the cause of anomy and alienation. It his own insecurity and angst that the others must feel, as well.
The hero model
Plan
Introduction
The main framework in sociological criminology is based on the factors that drive the individual to commit a criminal act. Factors whether they are social, cultural biological, psychological or political are a very important part in constructing a perspective that would help explain the criminal phenomena.
However the study factors alone are proven to be inefficient in the analysis of criminal phenomena. Socio-cultural factors are very important in analysis of criminality in specific and given context but they are overused in criminology and many times fail to provide a thorough detailed tableau on criminality.
The classical early positivist, Marxist and Weberian theories of crime along with the theory of conflict make heavy use of such factors, especially economic and social factors leaving out a large array of other important and essential factors, whether it is done to explain a specific social phenomenon or to further political propaganda. Marxist theroies were useful in providing an explanation for the aggresion on the invividual or for lower class criminality from an economic perspective. but failed to provide a ground for a socio pshychological analysis of criminality. Th conflict theory is a very important starting point for such an analysis but is insuffiecient outisde of a given social, cultural and historical context.
The purpose of this paper is to incorporate all theories to construct a wider social psychological perspective. To provide a clear analysis of the criminal act in relation to a phenomenon that is more and more recurrent now in the early years of the 21st century, while incorporating the major theories of criminiology, we need to seek the cause of criminal behavior and terrorist acts farther than factors and contexts. While such indicators matter and we have to analyze studies in correlation to such indicators, we cannot identify and define the cause of terrorism acts simply by guiding ourselves after them. and a wider theoretical and interdisciplinary approach is needed.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the corelation between criminal behavior, motivations and the phenomen of terrorism in europe in the 21 st cewntury. While the focus is on islamic terrorism which occurs more and more, a broader understanding of terrorism is neccessary, whther we are refering to ethnic terrorism, or terorism with a political or ideological purpose.
A distinction needs to be made in this case. Political terrorism must not be confused with religious terrorism. Political terrorist acts are commited to either further a political objective or a socio-political ideology as it is the case with far left terrorism or far right terrorism. Of course we must also take into account that political or ideological terrorism and religious terorism have important similarities and in many cases religious terorism seeks to change the laws and political system of a community or a society and there are many cases where political terorist acts have a religious motivation to an extent.
We will be focusing in this paper more on the motivation of crime, how it is cause, how it impacts socio-cultural and political aspects and how it is impacted by the socio-cultural context.
In this paper we will be following and anlyzing case studies based on crime statistics correlated with socio-economic, religious and cultural factors, studies based on surveys, interviews and observation.
The main objective of this paper is too identify the criminal thought processes that lead to the criminal motivation and the structures that lay the foundation for crime justifications and what we can call "criminal legitimacy".
Although there had been many motivation models provided by different theoretical frameworks it is important to establish a pattern of behaviour. Not only a behaviorual pattern, but a pattern in what regards the justification of the terrorist acts.
Definition of terrorism.
As the phenomenon of terrorism has been studied by sociologist, psychologists, psychiatrists and anthropologists it is important to mention that terrorism cannot be contained in a single definition. Walter Lauquer has identified over 100 definitions of terrorism. He suggest to simplify and synthesize the definitions, that "terrorism is the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent civilians. Tore Bjorgo (6) ) states “terrorism is a set of methods of combat rather than an identifiable ideology or movement, and involves premeditated use of violence against (primarily) non-combatants in order to achieve a psychological effect of fear on others than the immediate targets.” Thus the target of terrorists attacks is to provoke a reaction of the state, of authorities to precipitate social change. Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University has
defined terrorism as “violence—or equally important, the threat of violence—used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim.” Similarly,
Louise Richardson of Oxford University believes terrorism is “deliberately and violently targeting civilians for political purposes.” Terrorism is seen as a tool of political action and as an act of political violence. Although these definition can be applied to the majority of terrorist attacks, whther they are ideological, political or religious, it cannot be reduced to such a definition.
Romanov, Zussman, and Zussman (2012) showed in a study on terrorist attacks perpetrated on Jewish Israeli citizens that a major intention of the terrorists was to demoralize. Thus the psychological effect is the aim in many cases.
As Brian Jenkins observed in 1975 "terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead." However the recent terrorist attacks since 2001, showed us that both are important in organized terrorist attacks.
If by 1995, terrorist attacks wore political motivated, perpetrated by anarchists, socialists, communist, far left, and the casualties were minimal, the Tokyo subway attack with sarin gas revealed the complexity and danger of religious, cultist terrorism.
In the Federal Report "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism", Rex Hudson the author suggests that in committing violent acts against the population in general or a specific target
"such as that the targeted government(s) cannot protect its (their) own citizens, or that by assassinating a
specific victim, they can teach the general public a lesson about espousing viewpoints or policies
antithetical to their own." Thus it shows that many times, terrorist attacks have a symbolic goal. It is through the decisions of the populations or politicians, interpreting the symbolism of the attack to take measures that might appease or content the terrorists.
However simplified a definition may be it is insufficient, ths it is necessary to take into consideration a large variety of definiotns, as terrorism has many dimensions and there are as many behaviors and behavioral patterns.
Types of terrorism
Anarchist terrorism
Although, many experts and specialists, sociologists and psychologists in the field of terorism, each come with different typologies, it is important in this case to simplify and identify the main, most important and most prevalent types of terrorism and terrorists. We should start in a chronological order, with the anarchist terrorism. Marxist thought, revolutionaries such as Carlo Pisacane, Iohann Most, Mikhail Bakunin gave birth and had a massive influence on anarchist terrorism. At the end of the 19th century most anarchist terrorist acts targeted kings, aristocrats and politicians, such as King Alexander, Umberto, Kaiser Willhelm, Sadi Carnot, the President of France. Other targets of anarchists were individuals, that they perceived as buregios as burgeois opressor. The french anarchist Emile Henry, detonated a bomb at Cafe Terminus, killing one person and injuring twenty. Asked why he committed the attack ,Emile Henry responded "There is no innocent burgeois. " Another similar case is that of The Spanish anarchist Santiago Salvador who throws two
Orsini bombs into the orchestra pit of the
Liceu Theater in
Barcelona during the second act of the opera Guillaume Tell, killing some twenty people and injuring scores of others.
The anrachist organizations that used terrorist attacks, regicides and assasinations, continued well until the late 1970's, although the attacks were much more diminished in comparison to the late 190's and the early 20th century.
Religious terrorism.
Religious terrorism in the postmodern age is rather recent. Starting with the Aum cult, and continuing with islamic terrorism now receives wide attention from specialists, governments, secret services and media. Althsm