This article has been written by Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article discusses criminal psychology in relation to the law, society, and people in general.

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.

Introduction 

“Crime” is an act against the law, whereas “criminality” denotes intentions and a mindset of engaging in illegal behaviour. Criminal psychology provides solutions for criminality with the goal of controlling crime. It can be challenging to define crime as such since it is situation-based as well as contextual in nature. When a soldier in a war kills a counter-army soldier, it is regarded as a brave and patriotic deed. But it is regarded as a crime if committed by the citizens among themselves. It is crucial to take into account whether a civilian crime was committed in self-defence, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or under social pressure. As a result, while the legal definition of crime emphasises an act that violates the law, the normative definition of crime emphasises an act that violates our moral standards. Criminal psychology is the study of criminal behaviour, and by criminal behaviour we mean personality, attitude, physiology, learning, motivation, thinking, and other cognitive factors that contribute to the commission of a crime or the intention to commit a crime. Understanding criminal psychology is crucial because it allows us to characterise, explain, anticipate, and control such behaviour. With such intent, the author of this article wants to discuss criminal psychology and help the readers understand its relationship with the law. 

What is criminal psychology 

Since psychology is intended to systematically research behaviour, it has undergone significant transformation and diversification. Globalisation and liberalisation paradigms, which were quite popular in the 20th century, have now given way to more focused paradigms. Diversification is now more necessary to comprehend the theory and application of particular features. As a result, we observe that it is exemplary that eclectic, multidisciplinary, and multicultural approaches are thought to be more practical. At the same time, the necessity for a holistic approach cannot be overlooked. Governmental organisations must intensify their attention on enhancing legal services as a result of the rising crime rate.

Finding the causes of crime, understanding the psychology of criminals, and being able to design treatments at the individual and social levels are also crucial for enhancing social conditions. These days, it is impossible to overlook the existence of organised crime-related operations. Where may one find a little child, a woman, an adult, or an elderly person engaged in criminal activity? Crime can range from simple theft and break-ins to murder and mass killing. No matter the nation or state, there are many things that we see every day that have criminal intent. Females have been brutally abused and raped in a large number of recent rape incidents.

This raises the question of how a regular person, whom you presumably merely pass in a market or on public transportation, can go to such lengths without even thinking about other people and without fear of legal repercussions. Many cases in the history of crime have left many questions unanswered, which can only be explained by understanding human behaviour.

History of criminal psychology

Even if the idea of criminal psychology was first introduced in the early 20th century, its observable development has opened the door for contemporary criminal psychology. It is neither a restricted nor a theoretical idea, just like other areas covered by the study of psychology. It is regarded as one of the most important therapeutic approaches to revealing the true motivation and causes behind any criminal action in the legal context.

The first book on criminal psychology was written and edited in 1961 by a psychologist named Hans Toch. The line separating psychometrics from psychological criminology was first drawn in the early 1960s.

Goddard, a well-known psychologist, had alerted us to the fact that the majority of juvenile and adult offenders were “mentally defective,” concluding that intellectual disability was the main contributor to crime and delinquency. The hypothesis that a person’s psychology influences their criminal behaviour was developed by British psychologist Hans J. Eysenck in his book “Crime and Psychology.” He placed a strong emphasis on extraversion as a personality trait and held that it could be explained by both a biological propensity to seek or avoid stimuli and the ability to perceive experiences received from the environment. His beliefs were quite influential at the time, but as he grew older, the inclination for a clinical approach took precedence. The various theories used to punish the offender contain conceptualizations of criminal psychology and methods for dealing with it.

Evolution of criminal psychology

Criminal psychology has emerged from the two major branches of psychology, namely social psychology and clinical psychology. 

Social psychology is a significant and specialised area of psychology that aids in comprehending criminal behaviour and related issues. Social psychology focuses on group behaviour. It helps us comprehend how people act around others and how other people’s opinions and deeds shape how those around us perceive and think. Important topics covered by social psychology include competition, cooperation, mob behaviour, leadership, group behaviour, internal and external factors influencing group behaviour, etc. This makes it possible for us to comprehend, account for, manage, and forecast social behaviour, it is not necessarily caused by clinical issues. Humans are regarded as sociable creatures. Even though most of our actions are guided by social norms, the definition of proper and improper conduct, ethical behaviour, and unethical behaviour and their related meanings are influenced by the culture we are brought up in. The public policy allows us to comprehend the social context of a crime and the factors that contribute to its behaviour. Social psychology also helps us comprehend the societal influences behind particular behaviours. 

Clinical psychology is the area of psychology that focuses on using research methodology and findings in real-world settings to diagnose and treat mental problems. Assessment (including diagnosis), therapy, and research are the three primary categories under which clinical psychologists categorise their fundamental tasks. Clinical psychologists conduct assessments by administering and interpreting psychological tests, either to assess a person’s general intellect or other talents or to elicit mental traits that may help a doctor diagnose a specific mental condition.

Clinical psychologists can be found working in a range of places, such as private practice, businesses, and hospitals. Some focus on helping those who are physically or mentally ill, prisoners, drug and alcohol addicts, or elderly patients. In some situations, a clinical psychologist collaborates with a psychiatrist and a social worker and is in charge of carrying out research for the group in relation to any particular case. Clinical psychologists are also employed by the armed forces to assess or treat service members, while others work with courts to evaluate defendants or potential parolees.

Psychology and crime : the inter-relationship

Crime and psychology are closely related. What kind of person a person becomes is heavily influenced by their mental makeup. The examples or features that can aid in understanding how crime and psychology interact are as follows: 

1. People who experienced physical or mental abuse as children or antisocial behaviour as adults are more likely to inflict these behaviours on their offspring, who will then frequently repeat the cycle. Children who are abused or neglected have a distinct worldview and perspective on the world; they are more prone to committing crimes as adults.
2. More frequently than not, when they commit a crime against another person, they believe they are gaining the same authority as their abuser. Peer pressure has a significant impact on a person’s decision to commit a crime. 
3. Young boys and girls who are bullied or who don’t quite match the expectations of contemporary society frequently end up using drugs, which is unlawful in and of itself, to gain the courage to conduct bigger crimes.
4. Crime is frequently used as a last resort by those who feel unappreciated or who claim they are not taken seriously to try to get the respect of others around them. The graph of someone who is more inclined to commit a crime clearly shows that lack of education also influences that likelihood.

How psychology governs crimes against women in India

Studying the country’s crimes against women and the country’s enduring gender disparity can help one comprehend the function of psychology in relation to crimes in India. Women have historically been viewed as inferior to men and more as servants than as wives or partners, not just in modern times but even further back in India’s history when kings and rulers predominated.

Since ancient times, men have been the ones responsible for providing necessities for their families, with women viewed as only being useful for procreation, raising children, and maintaining the home. Women have always suffered as a result of this in every aspect of life. The birth of a boy is a cause for celebration, but the birth of a girl is frequently accompanied by suffering and despair. Gender detection is therefore illegal in India for a reason. Boys have historically been viewed as outgoing, whilst women have traditionally been viewed as shy.

Consider a boy who grows up in a typical Indian middle-class family, where his sister is exposed to these things from an early age, such as being given more food to eat and more milk to drink. The son and the father love having the job done at home, and even get to reprimand the women for not doing the same task to their taste, while the girl is forced to do all the housework alongside their mother. The girlchild is kept grounded while her brother receives all permission. When it comes to prohibited activities like drinking and smoking, boys get away with it, whereas girls get punished and reprimanded for the same.

The boy inherits all of his ancestors’ property, whereas the girl, who is married to a man and forced to leave her own home for the home of another man, does not inherit any property there (discussing property rights from the point of view of the society where there are equal laws and rights for women against their ancestors’ property, but using them frequently leads to prejudice and hatred). The youngster witnesses this as he develops the mindset that he owns the women he marries or who make up his life, which makes him believe that everything he does as a man is right, even if it is wrong. Crime is also a result of such ingrained perspectives, significant for moulding the child’s psychology. 

What role does psychology play in cases of suicide

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) previously classified suicide or any attempt to commit suicide as a crime, but this was subjected to changes in 2017 with the passage of the new Mental Healthcare Act, which now states that “notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the IPC, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed unless proved otherwise, to be under stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.” A person who attempted suicide and is under a great deal of stress must be given care, treatment, and rehabilitation services in order to lessen the likelihood that they will attempt suicide again. Therefore, the Act aims to change the country’s system of mental healthcare.

According to NCRB data from 2015, one student commits suicide per hour. The total number of suicides that year was 8934, but the number of attempted suicides, many of which went unreported, is likely to be far higher. Failure in tests or even in their employment can be difficult for youth to handle, and neither relatives, friends, nor social institutions provide enough support. 

Given the lack of qualified mental health specialists in India, finding professional assistance might be challenging. Suicide among young students is on the rise in Kota, Rajasthan, where several for-profit coaching facilities promise success to push their pupils to meet impossible targets, thereby leaving them feeling anxious and depressed about disappointing their families and with no other option but to take their own lives. The top Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) across the nation are exhibiting a comparable trend. Poor relationships with parents and friends, feeling unwelcome, a lack of understanding of their love relationships, and other factors are all contributing factors in these suicides.

However, this can be rectified, and the Indian government has already made a small but crucial move in that direction with the new Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Act guarantees that every individual with a mental illness has the right to exist in society, to participate in it, and to not be isolated from it. The person won’t stay in a mental health facility just because he doesn’t have a family, his family doesn’t accept him, he’s homeless, or there aren’t any community-based facilities available. The Act can be viewed as one of the many admirable efforts that need to be made in order to ensure that we have enough awareness of mental health to enhance the dialogue about mental health and eliminate the stigma associated with mental disease.

Role of psychology in understanding the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 377 of the IPC, which refers to “unnatural offences,” was first adopted in 1861, which was the time of the British administration in India. People who identify as homosexual were denied basic rights that everyone else was allowed to enjoy since they were not deemed to be human. An aspect of how a person’s brain works and responds to people of the same sex is pure science. The hypothesis that several studies in biological and psychological science have occasionally supported and confirmed cannot be ignored by society.

Sexual activity that was once considered “unnatural,” “deviant,” and “perverse” will now have to be embraced by everyone in a natural, justifiable way, just as it was intended, whether they like it or not. Since the government and the judiciary now support homosexuals, the judgement of the Supreme Court of India will change people’s perceptions of them and lead to a wider movement of acceptance of them as normal people, which will lead to more jobs and greater respect in society. It will also prevent crimes against them and the regular harassment they experience.

Although this progressive decision was a very major move for a democratic country, it still lags behind in its implementation. Countries like the USA, England, and Canada have long welcomed homosexual individuals, and they even borrowed their marriage laws. This accomplishment was also made possible by having an open mind and realising that no two people think and function in the same manner. People differ from one another and find humour in various things, and none of this would have been possible without efforts to comprehend psychology, people, and their various responses. Therefore, psychology unquestionably contributes to our knowledge of Indian crime, or more precisely, what was and could be a crime in India.

Criminal psychology and serial killings

It has long been believed that sexual motivations are primarily what lead to serial killings, and in more than half of the serial killers who have been interviewed, this has been proven to be the case. Criminals, including those who commit homicide in a single episode, are more likely to be male than female (9:1), although serial killers are more likely to be male (19:1). When a pair of serial killers operate, one member typically assumes the part of the dominant one while the other assumes the role of the submissive.

In general, serial killers choose their victims, and they find preoccupied, distracted, or weak individuals who are least likely to draw attention to their disappearance particularly alluring. Therefore, runaway youths, single women, transients, and prostitutes are the main targets for serial killings. The serial murderer kills in a similar way in each of his instances, but they are all much more horrific and unusual than regular killings, which makes them shocking to society and makes people remember them. Some of the more gruesome killings that are still noteworthy have been pointed out hereunder: 

Nithari case

When the skulls of missing children were found in the Nithari village, on the outskirts of Noida, a businessman named Mohinder Singh Pandher and his domestic worker, Surinder Kohli, were both taken into custody. Rape, cannibalism, paedophilia, sodomy, and even organ trafficking were all alleged crimes. In the same investigation, Mohinder was charged with 11 unsolved murders, while Surinder was found guilty of 5 murders. Both of them received death sentences. However, in 2014, Surinder’s death sentence was revoked and replaced with a life term.

Stoneman killer case

In one of the most infamous unsolved murders in Indian history, nine people were brutally killed in 1989 by having the tops of their skulls bashed with a large blunt object. A Calcutta newspaper dubbed the unidentified murderer “The Stoneman,” but the mystery surrounding those killings remains unsolved and the stone man has not been found.

Lady Cyanide or cyanide Mallika

From 1999 until 2007, Mallika, a resident of Bangalore, murdered six other women. She used cyanide to kill lower-middle-class women who had experienced domestic abuse while robbing them of their possessions and jewellery. She was detained in 2007 and given a life sentence.

Need of criminal psychology in the field of law

Criminal psychology, a field of study that focuses on the intents and behaviours of people who plan and carry out criminal activities, is an area of study that examines why people choose to commit crimes, frequently in the face of severe repercussions. On the other hand, psychology has itself, over time, led to substantial changes in how legal professionals see crime and the law, as well as changes in how the criminal justice system handles the mentally ill.

Criminal psychology offers greater insight into a criminal’s mind than that. It also affects how the law is put into practice. To make an objective decision in court, attorneys need to understand the reasons behind the defendants’ behaviour. Other mental health specialists and forensic psychologists are frequently requested to assist in clinically assessing the mental conditions of lawbreakers. Police jobs also incorporate psychology. Criminal anthropologists or forensic psychologists are frequently employed as criminal profilers, who use a combination of crime-scene investigation, investigative psychology, and other behavioural disciplines to identify potential culprits. These professionals are frequently used by law enforcement authorities to get insight into the mind of a potential offender by determining the offender’s likely personality type, lifestyle habits, and peculiarities.

Findings in criminal psychology may aid in the identification of suspects, maybe enabling law enforcement to stop more crimes or apprehend a serial offender. On a bigger scale, understanding what drives criminal behaviour, whether due to deprivation, personality traits, or other factors, is essential for fostering the social environments that would enable people to quit.

Criminal vs forensic psychology : how law benefits both 

The phrases “forensic psychologist” and “criminal psychologist” are frequently used interchangeably. People can carry out the same tasks whether they identify as one or the other. There are some crucial distinctions, though. 

1. If you are referring to criminal profiling, that is probably the purview of criminal psychology. 
2. Although forensic psychologists do the majority of assessments, a criminal psychologist may still provide tests. 
3. Although many professionals who do experimental research identify as forensic psychologists, criminal psychologists evaluate a significant amount of research and data to determine the psychological profiles of criminals. 
4. Another distinction is that although criminal psychologists concentrate on criminal problems, forensic psychologists deal with all legal matters, including civil ones.

What does forensic psychology have to offer

When speaking to experts who deal with crime in the nation, one frequently hears that “forensic psychology is an emerging field in India.” You may learn the same thing by performing a quick Google search for “forensic psychology in India.” While it is generally acknowledged that crime investigation organisations are using more techniques related to forensic psychology, there is still much room for improvement. In nations like the UK and Australia, forensic psychologists are an essential component of the criminal justice system. Their job descriptions are varied and include serving as victim counsellors, expert witnesses in legal proceedings, suspect interrogators, and criminal profilers.

Unfortunately, their Indian counterparts don’t have as many distinct, varying functions. The nation’s criminal investigation and judicial systems might benefit from allowing forensic psychologists to practise in additional areas and utilising their knowledge across different platforms. There are separate psychological departments at numerous governmental and non-governmental organisations that are involved in criminal investigations. In contrast to competent forensic psychologists, these departments find more use for clinical psychologists who are trained in diagnosis and psychotherapy. This is being done for an unknown cause.

The criminal justice system has several roles for forensic psychologists, with a concentration on the three domains of law enforcement, corrections, and the courts. Police psychologists who work for police departments, prison psychologists who work in our nation’s prisons, and expert witnesses who testify in court are three instances, one for each part. Every day, there is a stronger connection between the application of psychology and the law, creating new professional opportunities and places where it must be developed.

How psychology influences law

The legal system has been significantly impacted by psychological and psychiatric research, especially since the turn of the 20th century. The movement to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill occurred at the same time when more sophisticated psychiatric drugs were being developed, and there was also an increased awareness of the causes and potential treatments for mental diseases. Additionally, the rising psychological consensus that homosexuality and, more lately, being transgender are not mental diseases probably had a substantial impact on the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the United States. In addition, psychologists are now frequently consulted by legal professionals, such as attorneys, police officers, and judges, in order to evaluate defendants’ mental states and, if necessary, offer therapy. In recent years, the field of psychology known as “forensic psychology” has expanded rapidly. The possible ways in which psychology influences the law have been laid down hereunder: 

1. By providing decision-makers with considerably more accurate images and representations of human perceptions and preferences, it aids in enhancing and influencing decisions.
2. As eyewitnesses are frequently easily frightened or persuaded, it aids in determining the witness’s objectivity.
3. It aids in lowering the number of false confessions.
4. Psychological studies also examine a variety of legally and socially crucial issues.
5. When decisions are made after taking the accused’s psychological needs into account, true justice is maintained.

Role of psychologist in an investigation

Professor Lionel Haward, the founder of criminal psychology, stated in 1981 that there are primarily four responsibilities for psychologists in a criminal investigation, in addition to ‘psychologists in science.’

1. Clinical: To make a significant decision, a thorough evaluation must be carried out. This will help when interviewing the suspect and looking through the collected evidence.
2. Experimental: In this situation, psychologists must conduct in-depth research on the specific case. Executing experimental tests as part of this research is necessary to comprehend the offender’s psychology and give the court pertinent data.
3. Actuarial: This work primarily focuses on gathering statistical information on the suspect’s past and present mental and physical health because such information is crucial to determining if he would likely commit a crime in the future.
4. Advisory: The psychologists are also accountable for advising the police and the court on how to move forward with their investigation. This covers every step of the vulnerable witness cross-examination process as well as the anticipated responses from the offenders.

Role of psychologist in a courtroom 

The forensic psychologist’s job starts when the police, attorneys, or judges ask them to examine and evaluate criminals. The information they gather during this time is then utilised as evidence in court. A forensic psychologist might work toward the rehabilitation of a criminal or victim in a medico-legal ward under a court order.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, states that “the court might take help of the experts, whenever it has to form a judgement upon a point of foreign law, of science, or art, or as to the identification of handwriting, and the opinion of such an expert is important.” 

The “mens rea,” the state of mind of the person who often pleads not guilty while testifying at a trial of the subject, will be illuminated by the role played by forensic psychologists. When someone enters a guilty plea and says they were impaired by drugs or alcohol or didn’t know they were doing it, the defence has the chance to ask for a lighter sentence or ask the judge to postpone rendering a decision.

Accordingly, a forensic psychologist can help the courts administer the law fairly by providing evidence in the form of reports from interviews and evaluations of the subject of the case. In these situations, experts are needed to intervene and take into account the interview and evaluation of the person in question to judge and provide an opinion on how true the person’s statement is. This aids the judge in executing a judgement that is fair and also takes into account the individual’s safety as well as the safety of society at large. Section 45 of the aforementioned statute also permits forensic psychologists to contribute their knowledge to the resolution of criminal investigations, giving them the freedom to adapt their forensic techniques to the demands of particular cases.

Why are psychologists relevant in building a robust criminal justice system

Psychologists possess some valuable skills that can help in improving the criminal justice system, which have been laid down hereunder: 

Judging the mental state of criminals

People frequently commit crimes when under duress or when their thoughts are not stable. In comparison to a sensible person, such criminals face fewer penalties. In such a case, forensic psychologists can evaluate the offender’s mental state and determine whether or not they are in the proper mental state. It can aid in creating appropriate penalties for criminal actions.

Advising the type of treatment in prison

Many criminals who suffer from mental illness are prone to injuring themselves or other inmates. These people receive special accommodation in rooms with settings tailored to their cognitive requirements. The optimum place for such criminals to be imprisoned and a suitable sentence might be recommended by forensic psychologists.

By offering a few advantages like the ones listed above, forensic psychologists can improve the legal system. Before it can sentence criminals, a court system must be thorough and clear. To aid the court in identifying the crimes committed and determining the appropriate sanctions, forensic psychologists are called upon.

Providing additional evidence

Forensic psychologists’ testimony might serve as extra proof to help the jury make a conclusion. Lack of evidence frequently causes cases to become murky. The outcome can radically change with a few flaws. In this situation, forensic psychologists can be of assistance by making comments and offering additional details on the criminal’s actions and motivations for committing the crime.

Motive, instrumentality and opportunity : how criminal psychology functions 

Psychologists and law enforcement officials are both very interested in understanding why people commit crimes and what can stop them from doing so in the future. Extensive study so far indicates a complex interplay of environmental, genetic, and personality factors. In order to understand how criminals select their victims, whether it is possible to protect oneself from particular types of crime, and what legal experts and policymakers can do to prevent crimes from happening, psychologists also conduct research, frequently working with people who have committed crimes or are the victims of crimes.

A person’s thoughts have an impact on their actions. A person’s personality determines how and/or what they think at any given time. What distinguishes people is personality. It would be unfair and unjustified to criticise a person for the crimes they have committed based solely on the way they appear, but a person’s mentality and personality have a lot to do with whether or not they will commit a crime and how serious it will be. People typically approach situations or carry out tasks differently from other people, but what makes a person’s approach unique is how they perceive the circumstance, and how they see it depends on their personality and attitude.

Although there has been significant progress in our knowledge of the criminal mind, there is still much to learn about the motivations of some criminals, as well as a degree of randomness in who becomes a victim and who does not. Some criminals act out of necessity, while others are motivated by rage, defiance of authority, a manipulative nature, or psychopathic characteristics. While it is untrue that all mentally ill individuals are more likely to commit crimes, there are specific situations in which mental illness, such as psychosis, substance misuse, or severe bipolar disorder, may motivate a person to breach the law.

The prosecution must prove both actus reus (‘guilty act’) and mens rea (‘guilty mind’) at the time of committing the crime in order to secure a criminal conviction. Failure to establish the presence of these components will result in a complete exoneration of the charged crime. The claim that there was no actus reus or mens rea is not a defence per se because both must be established by the prosecution at trial with evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. They differ from numerous positive defences, such as the defence of insanity or the self-defence defence, which are seen as explanations or justifications for otherwise unfavourable behaviour.

According to some research, thieves may select their victims in part or entirely depending on the way they move or appear. For instance, one study indicated that people who stood out visibly from their surroundings or moved in distracting, unconventional ways were more likely to be identified as prospective victims by criminals.

The relationship between mens rea and criminal psychology

The necessity that a defendant should have had a specific frame of mind at the time the crime was committed is known as mens rea, or guilty mind. The appropriate criminal statute will typically use one of the following phrases to describe the mens rea element of a crime, namely, intent, purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. Most criminal laws merely need a broad or objective mens rea standard, where the question is whether a reasonable person would have understood that the act would be harmful. The defendant must have known that they were behaving, but not that any specific criminal consequences would follow from their action, in order to be found guilty of a so-called general-intent crime; this is typically referred to as “recklessness” or “negligence.” The prosecution is exempted from having to consider the defendant’s mental state in order to satisfy this criterion. 

For some crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant truly knew or intended that specific harm would follow from their actions, a requirement known as a showing of specific or subjective mens rea. Specific or subjective mens rea is typically reserved for more serious offences with more severe punishments because this might be difficult to prove. As a person’s mental condition is unimportant to the question of general or objective mens rea, evidence of mental disease is rarely permitted in these situations. On the other hand, some states allow the submission of mental disorder evidence if it is rationally pertinent to challenge the objective or particular mens rea requirement (i.e., the state of mind associated with a specific-intent crime). If this defence (also known as diminished capacity) is successful, the defendant is often only concerned about being found guilty of a lesser charge that only calls for proof of general or objective intent.

In order to be able to punish the defendant if they are unable to persuade the judge or jury that the required particular intent existed at the time of the offence, prosecutors who charge a person with a specific-intent crime usually additionally charge the defendant with a general-intent crime. The use of evidence of a mental disorder in discounting the existence of a specific purpose differs from the use of evidence of a mental disorder for an insanity defence in that the former can result in an unconditional acquittal and the latter often results in civil commitment and treatment. Because, as stated above, both mens rea and actus reus are parts of the crime that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, if they cannot be proven, the defendant will be exonerated of the charged crime. This outcome is the same as that which occurs from a lack of actus reus.

The use of expert testimony about mental diseases has frequently been prohibited by courts and legislators. For instance, testimony based on any indication of a mental disorder is prohibited in some jurisdictions unless it is being used to bolster an insanity defence. In Clark v. Arizona (2006), the Supreme Court maintained this approach, holding that Arizona did not violate due process by limiting the admissibility of evidence of mental disease to just insanity claims and excluding such evidence when it could be used to address mens rea. However, even in areas where mens rea experts cannot testify in court, the details of a defendant’s mental condition may still be discussed during plea talks and before sentencing.

Concurrence

Criminal conduct that results in unlawful hurt or damage must have both criminal intent and the banned harm or injury. The ideas of criminal acts, criminal intent, the congruence between acts and intent, causality, culpability, and defences are fundamental notions that are necessary for understanding criminal law.

Causation

A criminal act must be both the legal or proximate cause and the cause in fact or “but for” of harm or injury. Unless the intervening conduct was foreseeable, a coincidental intervening act shatters the line of descent established by a defendant’s unlawful act. Unless the intervening action was exceptional and unexpected, a responding intervening act does not sever the chain of causation started by a defendant’s criminal act.

Criminal psychology and its relation to actus reus

The conduct necessary for a crime is called actus reus. A person’s condition or status (such as being an alcoholic as opposed to criminal behaviour committed while intoxicated) and involuntary acts are all excluded from criminal liability by the actus reus requirement. Positive behaviour, omissions of obligatory or logically expected conduct, and ownership of illegally obtained objects are examples of voluntary acts that meet this criterion. The term “voluntary act” is used widely to refer to any act that involves the exercise of volition; for instance, someone acting under duress is nevertheless regarded as behaving voluntarily (although this may constitute an affirmative defence of duress).

Two sorts of actions that might be categorised as being involuntary exist, namely,  involuntary conduct and impaired consciousness. The first group comprises physically compelled movements (such as when someone pushes someone into another person, harming the third person), reflex movements (such as when someone gets stung by a swarm of bees suddenly), muscular contractions brought on by illness, and unconscious acts. Among the illnesses that could result in uncontrollable behaviour are strokes, epilepsy, and narcolepsy. A disruption in the mind-body link that leaves the person’s actions unguided by a conscious thought process underlies all of these behaviours. Compared to the second group, this one’s behaviours are more frequently considered as lacking the actus reus component.

The second category, impaired consciousness, includes behaviours where the connection between the mind and body has sufficiently diminished such that the person is not consciously aware of the actions being taken but is still capable of engaging in goal-directed behaviour based on previously learned responses. The person’s actions during these times may be referred to as “automatic,” and they may be called “automatons.” Concussion-induced temporary brain injury and sleep disturbances like night terrors are two typical examples of decreased consciousness. There has been debate over whether symptoms brought on by hypoglycemia should fall under this heading.

A claim that the defendant lacked actus reus is nearly never allowed to be supported by evidence of a mental illness. Instead, in places that permit volitional arguments, this evidence might be used to support an insanity defence, such as the idea that the defendant’s actions were motivated by an irresistible need brought on by the mental disease. Suppose a person’s inability to adapt their behaviour to the law is the result of mental disease. In that case, they may be exonerated under the insanity defence and then committed for treatment- a consequence that cannot be enforced on individuals exonerated for lack of actus reus.

Role of criminal psychology in criminal trials

The fields of law and psychology are both incredibly fascinating. The two do not appear to interact as much as they ought to under the Indian legal system, though. Even though psychology might be complicated, it can also be a very powerful weapon, particularly in criminal trials. It needs to be used by those who are incredibly credible and professional. A specialist in psychology should be able to provide us with fascinating and trustworthy insights into the thoughts of suspects, witnesses, and alleged victims, which would be of great assistance and support in difficult criminal trials. The human brain is perfectly capable of being examined. It would vary from case to case and jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to how such expert opinions are to be taken into consideration. This is receiving a lot of worldwide thought, and for good reason.

Criminal psychology and deterrence : how they work together 

We need to consider both the psychological and the physical when discussing deterrence. While we can erect physical and mental barriers to crime, like fences, locks, and the presence of guards, we can also erect deterrents that are almost completely psychological. So what prevents individuals from committing crimes? People will go to tremendous physical lengths to commit a crime if they think the reward is worth it, as anyone with even a small amount of experience or who has ever watched a movie can attest. On the other hand, a lot of crime is just opportunism, where someone is motivated to steal by an open gate, window, or unattended shop counter. And frequently, the potential repercussions are not even contemplated, much less brought to mind.

In general, punishments are meted out with the intent of deterring future offences and safeguarding society. In addition to ensuring adherence to a nation’s regulatory laws, it also aims to ensure that offenders are changed by imprisoning them.

There may be some people who still think that the threat of punishment works as an effective deterrent to crime, but there are probably none in the security professions. If it were the case, crime and criminals would not exist. Although physical punishment is a component of the deterrent process, certainty as a concept is actually much more crucial. In his essay “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century,” Carnegie Mellon University professor Daniel S. Nagin asserts that “the evidence is significantly more consistent in favour of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment than that for the severity of punishment.”

Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend this concept before executing any security program or plan. It not only works in tandem with physical security tools like CCTV cameras, alarms, and guard patrols, but it also explains how and why such things function and how they don’t.

The effectiveness of legal sanctions has been the subject of a sizable corpus of research on what deters crime. The deterrence hypothesis, which underpins this study, contends that the threat of legal repercussions deters people from committing crimes. This theory is based on the idea that people decide whether or not to commit a crime by calculating the potential rewards of getting away with it against the potential costs of getting caught. It is grounded in the rational actor approach.

Simply “the process of manipulating an adversary’s cost/benefit calculations to prevent him from doing something you do not want him to do” has been described as the basic deterrence principle. For many offenders, those calculations are frequently conducted in a crude manner or not at all. The truth is that anyone with the desire to commit a crime can find an opportunity to do so. The road of least resistance is always taken by criminals, with the exception of the most committed and seasoned ones. Most people will opt to look elsewhere if they are faced with the certainty, real or otherwise, that they will be caught. They will act similarly if the payoff is clearly less desirable than the effort necessary to obtain it. The technique of persuading criminals that leaving the area is the safest course of action is true deterrence.

Theories of punishment 

Preventive theory

It is one of the earliest theories and is based on the idea that it is crucial to punish people who commit wrongdoing. This was created under the “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” tenet. This portrayed the violent, irregular mind of criminals and encouraged a more spiteful method of enforcing the law. Later, jurists attacked it for making people more vulnerable than the crime itself. 

Deterrent theory

This outdated approach to punishment implied that harsh penalties would dissuade offenders from committing crimes. It claimed that in order to get people to obey the law, it was necessary to instil the dread of punishment in their minds. According to this theory, the amount of punishment meted out will satisfy the criminals’ selfish motives because they already had a mental decline and were acting out of desperation.

Preventive theory

This notion is based on the idea that punishment should primarily serve to deter future crimes rather than exact revenge. This theory was developed with a less criminological and more humanistic outlook. It holds that getting rid of antisocial people from society will stop new crimes from happening.

Reformative theory

In the present period, this kind of meted-out punishment is widely used. This philosophy is in favour of rehabilitation of the criminal as opposed to humiliating punishment. As a result, people’s human rights are increasingly protected, and jails are being used as homes for rehabilitation. This thought clarified the idea that if a person’s wicked nature is removed, he will once more be suitable for society. This hypothesis has opened up a vast field for investigation and analysis in criminal psychology.

Death penalty as an effective deterrence with respect to criminal psychology 

One of the first arguments for capital punishment was deterrence—the idea that the institution of the death sentence would deter potential murderers from actually committing murder. Barbarous methods of execution, including beheading, burning at the stake, decapitation, and disembowelment, were deemed to be particularly successful at inspiring the dread needed to deter potential capital offenders. 

The study does not support the deterrent impact of the death penalty, despite the intuitive appeal of this hypothesis. Neither the adoption of the death penalty nor its removal resulted in an increase in murder rates. Numerous studies have looked into the deterrent power of the death penalty. These studies have analysed homicide rates over time when the death penalty was abolished or reinstated, as well as homicide rates in jurisdictions with and without the death sentence (such as neighbouring states). Social scientists have attempted to statistically control for variables that are known to affect rates of violence, such as the size of the police force, the proportion of young males in the population, and unemployment rates, in order to examine the potential for a deterrence effect.

Studies have been done to see if the quantity of executions (rather than whether the death penalty is an option for punishment) is what deters crime. Specific analyses have also been done to see if only crimes punishable by death (such as aggravated murder) are deterred. The death penalty does not deter killers, according to the general conclusion of more than 40 years of research. Despite the fact that some researchers have discovered a deterrent impact for particular jurisdictions over a certain amount of time, other researchers have discovered what is known as the “brutalization effect,” a small but steady rise in the frequency of murders in the weeks after an execution.

Large data sets that have been gathered over extended time are frequently used in deterrence research. However, the deterrence theory also relies on a psychological theory to explain what goes on in the thoughts of potential killers. The likelihood that a murderer will be apprehended, found guilty, sentenced to death, and then put to death must be high enough for the death penalty to serve as an effective deterrent. The potential killer would also need to consider the likelihood of eventual execution as significantly more terrifying than the idea of spending the rest of his or her life in jail if the availability of the death penalty were to have a deterrent impact beyond that offered by life in prison. Even a logical evaluation of these probabilities would not necessarily deter a potential murderer, and given that the majority of killings are carried out while the perpetrator is under the influence of drugs or strong emotions, it seems improbable that murderers would weigh their options in a logical manner.

Psychological assessment of death row prisoners

The evaluation of death row inmates has expanded now that a fresh angle has been opened by the Supreme Court. In a historic decision, the Supreme Court mandated psychological testing for criminal defendants who were likely to receive the death penalty, along with a report on the defendant’s behaviour. The most recent order included the convict’s mental state as part of this larger set of factors needed to determine the suitability of the death sentence, indicating continuity with the 1980 Supreme Court decision (Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1980) that reserved the death penalty for the rarest of rare cases and took into consideration aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

According to a court order, state governments and prison administrators must make sure that the head of a government medical facility assembles a team that includes a psychiatrist and a psychologist to assess inmates on death row. The team’s report should be presented in court before the attorneys make their arguments, not afterwards as is customary at the moment, together with the probation officer’s report regarding the prisoner’s behaviour, his or her work while incarcerated, and other necessary details. Justice Uday U. Lalit has stressed in a number of his rulings the type of support that other institutions must provide to the court while the death penalty is being contemplated.

The most recent ruling makes clear the parameters within which such aid must be provided. Although the topic of psychological testing is related to the earlier Supreme Court concept of mitigating circumstances, it also introduces a component that has resonance outside of the death row community. A system that is scarcely engaged in meeting their basic requirements or caring for their health is unlikely to have considered the possibility of evaluating the mental state of Indian inmates, from those who are detained and being tried to those who have been found guilty but not of capital offences.

The Supreme Court’s ruling treats convicts as human beings, evaluating their mental health to determine which punishment would be most appropriate. In this situation, a fitting would imply being both just and compassionate while also allowing for reform. This may apply to all convicts, not least to children detained in juvenile detention facilities. A shift in strategy is required for psychological evaluation, changing the focus of staff training in prisons. It is a crucial step in the modernization of the legal system.

Conclusion 

Criminal psychology in developing nations like India has a long history. It has been recognised for thirty years as a field of applied psychology that helps with crime prevention, intervention, and victim rehabilitation. Technological advancements over the past three decades have changed the perspective of criminals, prompting sophisticated and creative technology development for crime detection. Investigations now go beyond simply looking for lies to follow the biopsychosocial underpinnings of criminal behaviour in accused and suspects. A legal system is required for society to function properly.  Psychologists play a crucial role in the entire inquiry at the time of the proceedings by thoroughly researching the psychology of the criminals. This aids lawmakers in determining the laws that are necessary to instil dread in the hearts and minds of such criminals. No legislation can prevent a person with a mental illness from committing a crime, but a psychologist can predict if the individual will keep up their bad habits in advance. As a result, society has a better future thanks to this expanding branch of science. The legal system makes an effort to address many of the issues facing modern society. Some legal authorities do not view psychology as relevant, yet that is because law deals with conceptions of behaviour.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How are psychology and criminology different from each other?

Despite being two distinct terminology and fields, psychology and criminology are equally significant and interrelated. While criminology is commonly understood to be the scientific study of crime and criminals, psychology is the scientific study of behaviour, which includes criminal acts and behaviour.

References

• https://theamikusqriae.com/forensic-psychology-and-law-in-india/.
• https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7320&context=jclc.
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/07/01/criminal-psychology-and-its-importance-in-criminal-trials-is-it-time-to-revisit-the-pigeon-hole/

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.