Typology of offenders

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An offender typology or offender type theory allows past, present and future offenders to be assigned to groups. It is therefore a matter of classifications or attempts at systematization that serve to assign individuals to groups or classes of offenders, with a characteristic representative of the group being highlighted as its “typical representative” for illustration purposes.

Typologies of offenders refer to different characteristics such as the offenses committed , the underlying motivation, the type of execution ( modus operandi ) and the degree of danger posed by the offenders.

The first goal of a perpetrator typology (like any other system) is to provide an orderly overview. Furthermore, it is about increased precision and the avoidance of repetitions in information management. For this it is good if the categories of an offender typology are mutually exclusive (selectivity, no assignment to two or more of the categories) and if they are as exhaustive as possible (no residual category for “other”). In addition, the principle of thrift ( parsimony , no superfluous categories should be formed) applies to the creation of offender typologies .

Type formation criteria

Typologies are the results of a grouping process "in which an object area is divided into groups or types based on one or more characteristics, so that the elements within a type are as similar as possible (internal homogeneity) and the types differ from one another as strongly as possible (external heterogeneity ) ".

Typing is particularly problematic and unreliable if it simply follows a person's intuition or the prevailing prejudices in a society. It would therefore be useful for a scientifically or scientifically sound purpose of the typology if it corresponded to certain specifications.

  • First, a typology should be clear enough.
  • Second, it should, if possible, enable clear classifications, i.e. a perpetrator should only be assigned to one and not two categories.
  • Third, thrift is desirable, that is, the smallest possible number of types.
  • Fourth, typologists should not have to include a (large) residual category for the cases that cannot be assigned, if possible.

Offender typologies can be analyzed according to their degree of universality (not only applicable regionally), their continuity (applicability over a longer period of time), their flexibility (through adaptation to newer findings and possible expansion of the classification system). It is not uncommon for deficiencies to appear in the (subjective-ideological) context of development, in the internal consistency and in the rigidity of the category systems, which makes adaptation to changes in the state of knowledge difficult. Unsuitable or unsuitable categories then often lead to perpetrators being “forced” into classes into which they do not fully fit. This leads to a loss of information and incorrect assessments.

In criminological theory, criminal typologies are - despite their disadvantages and risks - just as indispensable as in criminal policy and criminal practice. For example, there is the view that juvenile offenders typically have different motives for their behavior than other offenders, or that the criminality of mentally ill lawbreakers has to be explained separately and specifically responded to. All such cause-related and sanction-related questions cannot be investigated without classifying offenders according to age, psychological peculiarities and so on.

Offender typologies can also be of interest for prevention programs and for (social) therapy in prison . The success of such efforts is based not least on knowledge of which specific problems underlie which acts.

On the other hand, the assignments to types cannot be obtained without a loss of information regarding the unique characteristics of each individual case. The danger of simplification, of “wrong abstraction” (Hegel) or of thinking in drawers is linked to typologies of all kinds, but is of particular importance with regard to the consequences for those affected in the area of ​​surveillance, control and punishment.

history

The variety of differences between prison inmates, which for a long time was considered to be synonymous with the variety of differences between offenders as a whole, has led to the formation of types since the beginning of criminological attempts at explanation. At the end of the 19th century, Cesare Lombroso made a distinction between "born criminals", "criminaloids" and "morons".

As one of the great opponents of Lombroso, Franz von Liszt differentiated between the "reformable", the "deterrent" and the "incorrigible", with the latter particularly including the "incorrigible habitual criminals". In Germany, the division of perpetrators into certain groups (“types”) was one of the compulsory exercises of every teaching or textbook-writing criminologist, for example by Franz Exner and Edmund Mezger, until the emergence of critical criminology .

In other countries, where it was the same during the first half of the 20th century, perpetrator typologies were not disavowed to the same extent after 1945 as in Germany. In the USA in particular, the typologies of the Gluecks and their successors were of great practical importance after 1945 and, after a phase of relativization, experienced a renaissance in the context of the sex offender typologies according to Robert K. Ressler and the rape perpetrator types in the 1990s Years.

National Socialism

Typologies of perpetrators during the Nazi era in Germany were of particular interest . This was also due to the fact that the criminal law of the "Third Reich" presented itself to a special degree as criminal law. In factual engineering, there was a tendency to replace the precise description and delimitation of acts (“deeds”) with more or less striking “perpetrators”. The first steps in this direction, taken by the Customs Criminal Law of November 24, 1933, could definitely be interpreted as a continuation of Liszt's typology of offenders. Franz Exner stated that the “criminological type” of the “dangerous habitual criminal” in Section 20a of the Customs Criminal Law and the subsequent sanctions (measures), central requirements of the “modern school of criminal law” are satisfied.

Other types of perpetrators constructed during the “Third Reich” were, for example, the “ pest ” or the “murderer” and the “manslaughter”. The latter in particular could no longer be built into the tradition of criminological types of offenders, but were based on the divergent doctrine of the "normative offender type", which had been deliberately differentiated from the "criminological" types. The lowest common denominator of the inherently heterogeneous "normative offender type theory" ( Kiel School , Erik Wolf , Paul Bockelmann , Hans Welzel ) was the rejection of what they consider to be a "naturalistic" or "rationalistic" criminal law, as it was proposed by Franz von Liszt and the " modern school "and that led to a" softening of the bones "of criminal law. On the other hand, Franz Exner in particular advocated preventive criminal law based on research results in criminology and the typology of perpetrators in the spirit of Franz von Liszt . In contrast to the representatives of the normative doctrine of the types of offenders, he emphasized the repressive possibilities of criminal law based on criminological offender types and the particular suitability of this approach for the criminal policy goals of the “Third Reich”.

Today's German penal code still differentiates between murder and manslaughter in the form introduced by the National Socialists between murderers and manslaughters . As with other crimes, however, both crimes are examined for the fact that the offense was actually committed (the killing of a person) and not for the existence of one type of perpetrator. The subject of the accusation of guilt is also the individual offense in § 211 and § 212 StGB, the basis of the punishment is the guilt.

Current perpetrator typologies and their criticism

Richard Jenkins and Lester Hewitt differentiated between pseudosocial boys and unsocialized aggressive adolescents on the basis of psychiatric experience. Marguerite Warren distinguished seven stages of adaptation that adolescents would have to go through on the way to adulthood, and from the difficulties and the failure of solutions she gained a typology of adolescent delinquency based on the “Interpersonal Maturity Level”. This "I-Levels" teaching met with criticism from Don Gibbons, among others. Clarence Schrag, in turn, had the role typologies of fellow inmates of criminals drawn up (criticism was made by Peter Garabedian and Robert Leger).

Sociological typologies of offenders are often driven by the effort to overcome the one-dimensionality (and unreality) of legal typologies, which are based on the criminal offenses that have been fulfilled and collide with the fact that many offenders fulfill several criminal offenses and thus belong to several categories. For example, different collections of “typical” criminal offense patterns can be classified as “criminal behavior systems”. Typological efforts also apply to the socio-economic and socio-cultural backgrounds of acts. Marshall B. Clinard and Richard Quinney, for example, differentiated between nine different “criminal behavior systems” (including personal violent behavior, disruptive behavior with regard to public order, occasional property delinquency) on the basis of crime and perpetrator criteria. Daniel Glaser identified ten perpetrator patterns in relation to the type of acts committed and the degree of involvement in criminal careers. The "growing repeat offender" has difficulties adapting to the adult role, while the "professional predator" has opted for an illegal career. However, Glaser's classification is not complete. For example, there is a lack of allocation options for criminal political protests or petty crimes such as fare dodging or the violation of hunting and fishing laws. The criteria are also mixed up. Some categories are established according to causal processes, while others relate to patterns of crime or criminal careers. Ultimately, the precision of the classification is vulnerable: Different people would probably have difficulty in agreeing on the assignment of individual perpetrators to the respective categories. The typologies for juvenile and adult offenders developed by Don Gibbons are more detailed and comprehensive. These typologies (nine types of juvenile delinquents; 15 types of adult offenders) are based on the current crime, previous criminal career, self-concept and role-related attitudes. For example, there is the “naive check forger” who writes bad checks on his own bank account, has few criminal skills and sees himself as a normal citizen and who believes that he has not killed anyone by simply filling out a form. According to James McKenna, however, it is not easy to precisely assign real offenders to one or the other category. Joan Petersilia, Peter Greenwood and Marvin Lavin also found out that even “career criminals” are usually less specialized than assumed. But if the vast majority of prisoners were more involved in “crime switching” than in “criminal specialization”, then this questioned the overall meaning of the offender typologies that were based on the offenses committed.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Kluge, Susann: Empirically founded type formation. P. 26.
  2. ↑ Clinard, Marshall B. & Quinney, Richard: Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology. Pp. 14-21.
  3. ^ Glaser, Daniel: Handbook of Criminology. Pp. 27-66.

literature

  • Clinard, Marshall B. & Quinney, Richard (1986), Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology.
  • Frommel, Monika (1980), The importance of the offender type theory in the creation of Section 211 of the Criminal Code in 1941, JZ, pp. 559-564

Web links