Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Inside the Criminal Mind” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Inside the Criminal Mind

Stanton E. Samenow

3.83 · Rating details · 1,531 ratings · 149 reviews

In 1984, this groundbreaking book presented a chilling profile of the criminal mind that shattered long-held myths about the sources of and cures for crime. Now, with the benefit of twenty years' worth of additional knowledge and insight, Stanton Samenow offers a completely updated edition of his classic work, including fresh perceptions into crimes in the spotlight today, In 1984, this groundbreaking book presented a chilling profile of the criminal mind that shattered long-held myths about the sources of and cures for crime. Now, with the benefit of twenty years' worth of additional knowledge and insight, Stanton Samenow offers a completely updated edition of his classic work, including fresh perceptions into crimes in the spotlight today, from stalking and domestic violence to white-collar crime and political terrorism.

Dr. Samenow's three decades of working with criminals have reaffirmed his argument that factors such as poverty, divorce, and media violence do not cause criminality. Rather, as Samenow documents here, all criminals share a particular mind-set--often evident in childhood--that is disturbingly different from that of a responsible citizen.

While new types of crime have grown more prevalent, or at least more visible to the public eye--from spousal abuse to school shootings--little has changed in terms of our approach to dealing with crime. Rehabilitation programs based on the assumption that society is more to blame for crime than the criminal, an assumption for which a causal link has yet to be established, have proved to be grossly inadequate. Crime continues to invade every aspect of our lives, criminal court dockets and prisons are oppressively overcrowded and expensive, and recidivism rates continue to escalate.

To embark on a truly corrective program, we must begin with the clear understanding that the criminal chooses crime; he chooses to reject society long before society rejects him. The criminal values people only to the extent that he can use them for his own self-serving ends; he does not justify his actions to himself. Only by "habilitating" the criminal, so that he sees himself realistically and develops responsible patterns of thought, can we change his behavior.

It is vital that we know who the criminal is and how and why he acts differently from responsible citizens. From that understanding can come reasonable, compassionate, and effective solutions. ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, Revised, 288 pages

Published March 30th 2004 by Crown (first published 1984)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Inside the Criminal Mind, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Anatomy of a False Confession by Michael D. Cicchini

Top 50 Books for Criminal Justice Professionals

36 books — 8 voters

People Who Eat Darkness by Richard Lloyd Parry

forensics freak

105 books — 14 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.83 ·

Rating details

· 1,531 ratings · 149 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Inside the Criminal Mind

Oct 30, 2014 Darcia Helle rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, true-crime, culture-sociology, review-copies

This is one of the worst books - if not the absolute worst - I've read on criminal behavior. The short version of my thoughts is that the writing is repetitive, the passages often lead nowhere aside from self-serving examples, and the tone is arrogant and judgmental.

So much is wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin. Samenow criticizes the neuroscience approach to studying psychopathy, making the claim that criminals have "errors in thinking" rather than specific brain anomalies. Yet h This is one of the worst books - if not the absolute worst - I've read on criminal behavior. The short version of my thoughts is that the writing is repetitive, the passages often lead nowhere aside from self-serving examples, and the tone is arrogant and judgmental.

So much is wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin. Samenow criticizes the neuroscience approach to studying psychopathy, making the claim that criminals have "errors in thinking" rather than specific brain anomalies. Yet his examples of these errors in thinking are almost exact carbon copies of neuroscience's examples of psychopathic thinking. Samenow's claim is that traits like a lack of empathy are choices, rather than being rooted in brain chemistry. There is no such thing as psychopathy. All those people can choose to empathize with victims, but they simply don't want to.

Samenow believes that parenting and/or abuse plays little to no role in how a person turns out. He downplays biology, claiming that our brain chemistry has nothing to do with our actions. And he also states that poverty has virtually nothing to do with crime. All our actions are choices we make freely, regardless of genetics, environment, and/or upbringing.

Samenow makes the broad and absurd statement that all criminals are highly intelligent. They are a conniving bunch of equal status. He makes no distinction between a criminal who is a con artist and one who is a sadistic killer.

One of the most disturbing passages comes in the section on sex crimes. Samenow tells us about one man who has sexually abused dozens of children, calling his crime an "irresponsibility". He then goes on at length about another man who was arrested and imprisoned for possession of child pornography. Samenow actually defends this man, telling us that his crime was simply "a relief from boredom". Samenow goes on to authoritatively state that this man should not have received such a harsh prison sentence because he would not have gone on to actually harm children. In making such an assumption disguised as fact, Samenow commits an egregious error in his own thinking. First, this insinuates that 'merely looking' at child pornography is harmless. Here, Samenow is completely ignoring the fact that those children were victimized, not only by the person who took those photographs, but also by each person who then downloads and looks at them. Second, Samenow's defense of this man is based on his belief that this man's interest is merely a way to relieve boredom and has nothing to do with actually wanting to have sex with a child. Samenow completely fails to acknowledge that perhaps the only reason this man's crime never escalated to physical assault was because he was confined to a wheelchair.

Samenow perpetuates the myth of marijuana as a gateway drug, and he states without question that drug abuse is a choice. Once the drug addict is caught committing a crime, he/she conveniently cries about the addiction being a disease and causing his/her actions. The criminal is, in Samenow's opinion, conning the system in order to get away with crime. In this respect, Samenow ignores all the science of addiction, instead choosing to further his own opinion of addicts as worthless (but smart!) criminals choosing drugs over sobriety simply because they're having more fun.

Throughout this entire book, Samenow offers no research of his own. At the same time, he ignores any and all research that contradicts his beliefs. In his world, there is no such thing as cause and effect. There is only right and wrong thinking, and choice, and we all, in his view, stand in the same place and have all these same choices.

...more

flag 35 likes · Like · see review

Apr 29, 2016 kelly rated it did not like it

Shelves: nonfiction, social-issues, 2016, books-i-read-for-my-phd-program

I read this for a doctoral level class I'm taking in Social Deviance. I wish I hadn't though. In this book, Dr. Samenow sets out to answer the age-old question of why criminals commit crimes and spends 50,000 words (or how ever long this book is) answering, simply, "well, because they choose to."

Don't get me wrong. I am not the one to coddle or play hug-a-thug either with the big bad wolves of society. I did agree with some of the points he makes here. Samenow says that criminals are narcissisti I read this for a doctoral level class I'm taking in Social Deviance. I wish I hadn't though. In this book, Dr. Samenow sets out to answer the age-old question of why criminals commit crimes and spends 50,000 words (or how ever long this book is) answering, simply, "well, because they choose to."

Don't get me wrong. I am not the one to coddle or play hug-a-thug either with the big bad wolves of society. I did agree with some of the points he makes here. Samenow says that criminals are narcissistic, selfish people who feel entitled to the finer things in life (agreed) and feel that they shouldn't have to work for them (agreed). Their need for power and validation feeds into their desire to victimize others in whatever way they can--fraud, sexual assault, robbery, etc (agreed). Work places, schools, and other social institutions are where they hone their con game, and if and when they're caught and locked up, they'll hopefully change their thinking. Samenow is adamant that prisons, rehabs, reading programs, and career counseling will not change the criminal because of how he thinks. He scoffs at sociologists who point to indicators such as poor schooling, drug abuse, lack of job opportunities, mental illness, poverty, and other factors as the reasons why people turn to crime.

And I understand this, I really do. But how can Dr. Samenow completely dismiss these sociological viewpoints? Most of the case studies of criminals he gives in this book are of middle class men he has interviewed--men who came from the so-called 'normal' homes, whose parents more than likely had the resources for therapy, and, who despite all of their efforts, still went on to choose a life of crime regardless. One cannot help but to notice the lack of socioeconomic diversity in this book, which, I'm sad to report, makes this book terribly biased. While I am not saying that all poor people are criminals (nor are all criminals poor), one cannot deny the effects of poverty and class stratification on a large number of the people in our criminal justice system. Poverty itself does not cause crime, but it definitely leads to the illusion that illegal means are necessary to achieve prosperity.

Another jarring problem with this book is how Dr. Samenow talks about criminals as one homogeneous group. A person who uses crack cocaine because she is addicted and sells her body for profit and a Jeffrey Dahmer-like sex predator/murderer are both criminals according to the law--but are they really in the same category of deviance? According to Dr. Samenow, there isn't much of a difference between a marijuana user and John Wayne Gacy. He also disregards 'addiction as a disease' pathology and with it, pretty much everything that's been written in the field of human psychology for the past 25 years. As a psychologist, you would think he wants to understand what really drives people to do what they do beyond the most obvious, the motivator of choice.

I got almost zero information from this book. I imagine that this book is hot with prosecutors and other right-wingers who want to 'get tough' on crime by locking up people doing everything from robbing a bank to stealing a chicken. It doesn't make it correct though. Not in the least. ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Jan 14, 2013 Rachel Bayles rated it did not like it

The oversimplification in this book is jarring. This is a 250-page book that can be summed up in Nancy Reagan's ever-helpful admonishment to "Just Say No."

It's simply a whole list of people behaving badly, rather like reading the news. His whole thesis is - people have control over their actions. Sure - why not? But who cares?

There is nothing new here. Maybe this book was cutting-edge in the '80's, but it still seems like pages and pages of nothing. The premise of the book is sociology tries to ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2014 Tracy rated it it was ok · review of another edition

The author clearly thinks in black and white. Stating that poverty is not a factor in criminality is ludicrous. Most of his examples from the first few chapters are those of upper middle-class parents who have no problem forking over money for therapists, college tuition and attorneys. The fact that the author finds typical adolescent behavior as being “delinquent” and “criminal” is really appalling. Most young people do not want to listen to their parents and/or go to school - it’s called being ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Mar 28, 2008 Suzanne rated it it was amazing

Many people react strongly to Samenow's conclusions in this book. He is simultaniously accused of being "too hard" on criminals by some, and "too soft" on criminals by others. He is "too hard" on criminals because he expects them to take full accountability for themselves and not blame their disadvantaged childhoods, abuse by parents, poverty, etc for their problems. He says there truly are "bad seeds" who are just antisocial. But he is is also accused of being "too soft" because his approach is ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Sep 18, 2017 Sheryl Sorrentino rated it did not like it

Shelves: started-but-didn-t-finish

I'm on page 44 and I can tell I won't get much further. First of all, the author's constant reference to pot smoking as criminal/delinquent behavior, even in the updated edition, is irksome. Adult use marijuana will be legal in California in January 2018 and is already legal in a few other states. I know many, many successful, good, even professional people who smoke pot and aren't criminals. So Dr. Samenow lost me there.

Second, I simply don't buy the notion that nothing--absolutely NOTHING--tha ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Nov 01, 2014 Christen rated it did not like it

Shelves: dnf

I attempted to read this book. It was oversimplified and most of the information learned is the stuff you learn from watching L&O: CI or Criminal Minds or just by watching the news. Other reviewers have mention is felt like a newspaper piece and it does. I got bored quickly making less than 50 pages.

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 07, 2018 Jeanne rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: read-2018, psychology, forensic

Stanton Samenow's Inside the Criminal Mind was an often-frustrating book, but shouldn't we read things with different perspectives? Wouldn't our fractious times profit from listening? In fact, the very differences between Samenow's and my own worldviews were what I most appreciated. This book was ultimately helpful, sharpening and refining my views on criminality.

Throughout, Samenow talked about "the criminal," as though there is only one type of person committing crimes. People end up in the pr Stanton Samenow's Inside the Criminal Mind was an often-frustrating book, but shouldn't we read things with different perspectives? Wouldn't our fractious times profit from listening? In fact, the very differences between Samenow's and my own worldviews were what I most appreciated. This book was ultimately helpful, sharpening and refining my views on criminality.

Throughout, Samenow talked about "the criminal," as though there is only one type of person committing crimes. People end up in the prison system for all sorts of reasons: crimes of self-defense, accidental crimes, crimes of laziness, crimes of conviction. Should we believe that Ted Bundy = Martha Stewart = Nelson Mandela?

I don't believe that Samenow even believes this. He writes, "Obviously, not every person who commits a crime is a hard-core criminal. But still, crimes of all types result from the way a person thinks" (p. 326). Nonetheless, his description of "criminals" is really a description of one kind of criminal, those diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Samenow's descriptions were dichotomous (e.g., total disregard), which felt like fingernails on a chalkboard. I don't think it is generally useful to describe people in this way. I'll grant that it may be useful for the population he described, as this population often underestimates their own problems and overestimates their "goodness."

Samenow talked a lot about causality of criminality. He rejected the accuracy of children's and teens' self-reports, while accepting those of their parents. He talked about the law-abiding siblings of the criminals he studied, concluding that the criminal behavior must be "a choice," without acknowledging that nature and nurture often interact, that parents don't treat all of their children alike, that all children in a single family are not raised in a single environment.

Samenow complained about the research available – much of it correlational in nature, thus preventing causal conclusions on their own – but drew his own conclusions on nonsystematic observations from his clinical evaluations. He ignored the longitudinal or experimental research that would allow causal conclusions. Samenow used no research citations or footnotes, although made some references to secondary sources, mostly to criticize the article's conclusions, which he (generally wrongly) attributed to the group publishing the popularization of the data (e.g., American Psychological Association). He created and attacked a straw horse, even though his arguments, if more thoughtfully-developed, would be useful on their own.

The last two chapters were focused on treatment and were worth the pain incurred by me – and my partner – during the rest of the book. The treatment combined empathy without excusing responsibility, holding people in treatment accountable for even "minor" slips. Such treatment is seen with sex offenders and those with a history of substance abuse.

In short, this is a book that is worth reading, but do so by reading the first sentence of each paragraph and slowing down for his points. Inside the Criminal Mind is pedantic, overstated, and weakly defended, but does make thought-provoking and sometimes helpful points. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 03, 2014 Mira Joseph rated it did not like it

Shelves: nonfiction, serial-killers-criminology, psychology, dropped

Samenow believes that murder is a choice. He believes that environmental factors - such as abuse, (even prostitution), poverty, racism are but excuses to commit murder. A bad past obviously does not excuse murder but Samenow misinterprets this to a harmful degree. He even states that abused children deserved to be abused.

And his evidence? That there are exceptions to every rule. That people of all social groups commit crime. What he doesn't realize is that not all abused children are abused in t ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 23, 2015 Mauoijenn rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: serial-killer-psychopath, she-blinded-me-w-science, wacky-bizarre-weird, freaks-4all-ages, just-4-thought, 2015-rc

I really got into this book.
Interesting way to look at the criminal mind.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Sep 04, 2014 Liz Barnsley rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: received-via-netgalley

**Actual rating 3.5 stars***

I requested this book via netgalley because I wanted to read some more non fiction and the subject matter was interesting to me – I do have a passing interest in psychology and crime so it seemed as if this would be fascinating. And it was.

There was a definite academic quality to the writing but done in an accessible fashion so that it was easy to follow – and the author’s thoughts on “criminal personality” and the possibility of identifying criminals early were well ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jan 03, 2013 Stephen Bourque rated it really liked it

The chief merit of this book is Dr. Samenow’s orientation to objective reality-—specifically, that he regards human beings as creatures possessing free will and capable of thinking. This plainly evident fact apparently constitutes a radical departure from conventional views in his field, and Samenow admits that he and his mentor had to completely overthrow their university training in order to advance their understanding of the evidence they faced.

Although Samenow does, at the end of the book, e ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Dec 30, 2014 Kathy Lynch rated it liked it

This was a strange, strange read. I was not familiar with Dr. Samenow prior to reading this book, but now that I have, I'm suspicious regarding how this man has a career. He spends most of the text talking about "criminals" as though they are a homogenous group of like-minded abominations who think differently than "normal" people. That may seem reasonable until you realize that the "criminal" mind he is describing applies to everyone from a marijuana user to an axe murderer. There doesn't seem ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 25, 2014 Michelle Desgagne rated it it was amazing

Wow. This authors ideas coupled with experience and training completely undressed my obviously out-dated assumptions of the minds of criminals. In fact, I hadn't even realized that I had specific opinions until there were challenged directly by the concepts presented in this book.
The author takes the reader on an inside-the-criminal-mind trip that will at first challenge then shock you into a full-on reconsideration of Everything You Think you know about Criminal Behavior, Rehabilitation and Th ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Nov 19, 2014 Kristin-Leigh rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2014-reads

I received the latest edition of this book as part of an early review program; my understanding is that the updates in this release are mainly in the examples used (Boston Marathon bombings, Aurora theater shooting, Sandy Hook, etc have been added).

I'm ambivalent about this book. As another reviewer has already thoroughly explained there are a lot of problems with the author's views on the causes and repercussions of criminal behavior, frequently to the point of oversimplifying or even seeming ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 17, 2014 Nicole rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2016, professional-reading, the-reading-room-giveaways, nonfiction

Yes, he could be a lot less arrogant in his delivery, but on the whole (and as a former therapist) I absolutely agree with the premise that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everything in the world except themselves for where they are in life. Samenow's "three options" are pretty stark, but the story of Leroy is inspiring and shows that it CAN be done when and individual WANTS to make the necessary changes. Maybe if we started with these concepts a little ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 20, 2015 G.C. Neff rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I was very impressed with the depth of this book. The author explained in detail how the criminal mind works, and tells precisely how to change his thinking so that he can become a "normal" citizen. My only negative comment about the book is due to the lack of response by those who deal with criminals to be more interested in the concept and adopt it in prisons or jails.

It is, after all, something within the criminal's mind that causes him to act. Therefore, it makes perfectly logical sense to m ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 15, 2015 Mariah rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed

I was greatly disappointed by this book. Other books that I've read on this subject had actual statistics and research findings, whereas this book revolved primarily around anecdotes and hypotheticals. Anyone without a PhD could tell you that criminals don't obey rules, or that they act out. Considering the author had a PhD, I expected a lot more.

I received this book for free in return for an honest review from Blogging for Books. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 30, 2016 Tiffany rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: crime

Highly recommend! I thoroughly enjoyed this book and will be buying some of the authors other publications. I have my degree in forensic psych and currently work in corrections - this book gave me greater insight and a deeper understanding of the criminal personality and behaviors. The book was clearly written and the examples used helped to clarify and illustrate the author's major points. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 30, 2015 Anne rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Explains the centrality of dysfunctional cognition to criminal behavior. Invaluable background information to anyone providing social services or re-rentry programs for inmates or offenders. Made me realize how much money has been wasted on interventions focused on increasing self-esteem.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2017 DL rated it it was amazing

We have this cult of exhonoration in our society where choice is subjugated to the panorama of our painful experiences. While our traumas and past serve to explain, Samenow sets to rights the conscious choices we must make to not allow those shadows to define our present.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 05, 2014 Danny rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: first-reads, non-fiction

I won this book as part of Goodreads Giveaway. I've become more interested in reading & learning about the brain, elasticity, mental health, PTSD, etc. Some of this interest stems from the social work that my brother and some friends are involved in for their jobs. I was really disappointed in this book. The author's main point in the end is that thinking leads to choices which leads to behaviors. This "nugget" holds true for anyone; "criminal" or not.

The main disappointment came from the appro I won this book as part of Goodreads Giveaway. I've become more interested in reading & learning about the brain, elasticity, mental health, PTSD, etc. Some of this interest stems from the social work that my brother and some friends are involved in for their jobs. I was really disappointed in this book. The author's main point in the end is that thinking leads to choices which leads to behaviors. This "nugget" holds true for anyone; "criminal" or not.

The main disappointment came from the approach the author took to get his thoughts/theory across. It felt like he set the book up by discrediting & putting down other studies & theories to lift his own above the rest. A lot of it came down to the the language the author used. Some of his choices of words gave the impression of insecurity; it felt like he went out of his way to put down other theories in an attempt to make his superior. In the beginning of the book he starts the first chapter by telling anyone who believes external factors can impact a "criminal's" choices to be in error: "When I began working as a clinical psychologist, I believed that people turned to crime largely because of factors outside of themselves...Working with my mentor..., we eventually found this view to be COMPLETELY IN ERROR." He furthers this condemning language approach in another example: "Policy makers WASTE billions of dollars as they NAIVELY seek to combat criminal behavior by eradicating its SO-CALLED environmental "root causes." In another example, the author describes the Control for Disease and Prevention's risk factors of youth violence as a "hodge-podge list." The impression the author paints is that his theory is the only right one, making the reader feel bad for believing otherwise, yet the author himself, doesn't provide a lot of detail into his own studies that would strongly support his theory supremacy. This leads me to my next disappointment.

The approach to his research does not gel well with me. I'm not an experienced researcher and maybe his approach is commonly used or widely accepted amongst researchers. In his own words, this is how he gathered his information for his theory: "Having interviewed criminals for 44 yrs, I had hundreds of cases from which to choose while writing this book. I DELIBERATELY SELECTED AS EXAMPLES MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE AT THE EXTREME END OF THE CONTINUUM OF CRIMINALITY." Again, I'm not an experienced researcher, but does studying and highlighting the anomilies (extremes) and then projecting them to the rest of the population make sense? From this approach, the author proceeds to use absolutes when describing the criminal and brushing off "minor" differences or the "small percentages" that appear contrary to his way of thinking. Isn't his cohort group a small percentage of the criminal population as well? He said he used the extreme of extreme criminals. The author strongly suggests that criminals are criminals regardless of ANY external factors because of the choices they make (puts down mental illness, environmental factors, etc.). He suggests that criminals have "pre-existing personalities." He is forced to play down the "small number [that] may change on their own after having experienced the loss of their freedom." He writes these "small numbers" off because they don't fit into his theory. Throughout the book, the author briskly waves off any variations from his theory as unimportant/meaningless.

One more thing on the author's research approach: heavy reliance on interviews. Now some cases interviews are all you have to work with, but that doesn't make interview studies as the most effective, ESPECIALLY when interviewing "extreme" criminals who have a pattern of lying. The author emphasizes throughout his book that criminals are deceptive liars; they say and do anything to get the results they want and that they can't be trusted, yet he relies heavily on these "liars'" interviews for his research. Why does the author think that these criminals are telling him the truth in his interviews as to why they do or did things, but expounds on how they manipulate parents, teachers, psychologists, law enforcement, etc. to leave an impression that they want or to get what they want. Throughout the book, he quotes these extreme liars to prove his points and discredit other theories. Not sure I would trust what they say let alone use so many of their quotes as your "evidence."

The author focuses nearly the entire book discrediting the "causes" of ciminality just so, it seems, he can point out his main point in the concluding chapter(s) that it is ultimately the criminal's thinking patterns and the resulting choices that are the most important thing to focus on when working with criminals. Yes, how and what people think can lead to behaviors, good or bad. The author did have some good thoughts regarding similarities in criminal thought patterns, but I wish he would have made that the focus of his book, rather than feeling the need to defend his theories throughout the book. If he would have done this he wouldn't have felt the need to put down potential explanations to point that it made him appear overly absolute.

Discrediting environmental or mental factors and their influence/impressions on thinking lessened his authority in my mind. Too many other studies that I've read (that better presented their approaches, methods, statistics, etc. than this author) have shown environmental & mental factors have had influences on the final choices that criminals made. Yes, the "criminal" made the ultimate wrong choice resulting from unhealthy thinking patterns, but it's not "naive" to try and study & improve environmental & mental factors. A recent PBS special on juvenile delinquency that I watched interviewed 3 dangerous inmates serving time. They described that when they were younger, they were picked on and beat up. Over an extended period of time, they got so tired of being beaten up that they felt their only option was to fight back, eventually using guns. They said that the guns gave them power. Their thought process and the eventual criminal choices they made were wrong indeed, however, it seems too excessive to write-off the impact that the bullying, beating, etc. had on their young minds.

The author also minimizes the impact of mental illness on choices. In the author's own words: "Having a mental illness does not mean that a person loses the ability to make choices, or that he loses the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong." I disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, I think come criminals try and utilize "insanity" in court cases immorally to avoid consequences. But I do believe that some people with extreme cases of bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia impacts their ability to make logical, healthy choices sometimes. Yes, they ultimately do something which is a "choice" like the author states, but, again, the author's stance is too extreme to discredit these mental factors' influence on choices. Another PBS documentary on mental illness that I watched highlighted a young boy who has been in an out of juvenile detention for aggressive disorder. Mental healthcare professionals are trying to help diagnose him and try different medications. In his interview, the boy doesn't like when he acts aggressive; he feels bad on how it hurts his family. He describes it as his mind turning black and that no matter what he can't control the rage. He's working at trying to better recognize feelings & circumstances that lead to the "point of no return" so as to not go there. Again, the strong language used by this author would discredit the impact that this child's mental illness has on his choices.

Lastly, having studied child development in college, the author treats adult and child cognitive ability as the same. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Children and young adults do lack strength in thinking/projecting the consequences of choices. Because the prefrontal cortex is still developing, teenagers might rely on a part of the brain called the amygdala to make decisions and solve problems more than adults do. The amygdala is associated with emotions, impulses, aggression and instinctive behavior. This further hurt the author's "authority" in my mind. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2021 Amber Graham111344 rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This took me a while to get through but it was SO GOOD. I went into the book expecting a sort of explanation and lots of talk about criminals environments or the conditions in which they grew up, but that was not the case at all. The book talks about how certain situations don’t “create” a criminal but that criminals, no matter they’re background, have almost identical destructive thinking patterns. I really liked the case examples that were given. The section on sexual crimes and crimes against ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 27, 2021 Anubhav Awasthy rated it it was amazing

This is an eye opening book.

What makes a criminal? Bad experiences? A bad childhood, bad influences? A tough neighborhood? Genes?

The answer is none of the above. Not really.

The world has been fooled long enough and so have you. If you want to find out more and understand the inner workings of the criminal mind, then this is the book for you

What I loved about it is that it delves unbelievably deep into real examples and that gives one a clarity that nothing else can.

Certainly helps that it's b ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 08, 2018 Tadas Talaikis rated it really liked it

Shelves: psychology

Interesting, but doesn't answer the question - why and how, talks too much about symptoms. So, I'll stay to my usual explanation - life's economics. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 31, 2015 Michal Leah rated it did not like it

I'm in chapter 4 of this book and my intention was to finish it, but I really can't waste more of my time with a book which I will get nothing out of.

This book is terrible and I do not recommend it for anyone. The book is full of conjectures and anecdotes with no studies or other reliable evidence to support its offensive views. The author is also internally inconsistent with constant contradictions that undermine his whole "argument," if you could call it that. For example, the early chapters I'm in chapter 4 of this book and my intention was to finish it, but I really can't waste more of my time with a book which I will get nothing out of.

This book is terrible and I do not recommend it for anyone. The book is full of conjectures and anecdotes with no studies or other reliable evidence to support its offensive views. The author is also internally inconsistent with constant contradictions that undermine his whole "argument," if you could call it that. For example, the early chapters deal with "delinquents" (a term the author applies to any child that will eventually become a criminal, he also refers to them as "criminals in the making") and in these chapters the author insists that the delinquent's choices - as if children have that many choices - alone lead to their eventual descent into crime. He claims that poverty doesn't cause delinquency because plenty of poor children do not grow up to be criminals and plenty of rich kids do. He claims its not peer pressure because plenty of kids withstand peer pressure. There are two things wrong with the author's line of reasoning. The first, is that it is illogical. Just because ALL poor children do not grow up to be criminals and SOME rich kids do, does not mean that poverty is not a cause of criminality. Think of it this way. If I say that second-hand smoke is a cause of cancer, it would be illogical to argue against it by saying that plenty of people exposed to second-hand smoke do not develop cancer and there are people who are not exposed to second-hand smoke who do develop cancer. The second problem, which I mentioned above, is his own internal inconsistency. In one of the many anecdotes, upon which the author bases his conclusions, he presents the tale of a delinquent child who joined a gang. To dispel the notion that peer pressure, poverty, search for family-substitute or any other factor influenced this criminal-in-the-making's bad choice of joining a gang, he also presents the law-abiding brother of the delinquent who did not join a gang. However, the law-abiding brother's own account of his childhood, describing the physical abuse and verbal torment he endured when trying to avoid joining a gang, demonstrates how far from a simple "bad choice" the delinquent was making when he "chose" to join. In fact, the law-abiding brother says that his own "choice" to withstand the pressure to join a gang was based upon seeing the consequences of gang membership on his older brother (the "delinquent") - something "the delinquent" could not have seen at the time he joined. Another internal contradiction is in the next chapter when he discusses the need to remove delinquents from schools. He states that these delinquents will use pressure to cause other children to make bad choices. But, I thought pressure doesn't cause bad choices? Wasn't that the whole point of the previous chapter?

Asides from these two flaws in the author's reasoning, the author also engages in circular reasoning (aka question begging). One example, the author states that delinquent children choose to be bad students. He says that some teachers try to make subjects more interesting to intelligent students whose work is lacking and then says, although this will be successful for some children, the delinquent will resist all attempts to engage him unless the topic is one of interest to him. Huh? So what exactly distinguishes "the delinquent" from the "some children" who respond successfully to a teacher's attempt to make the subject of interest to them? Perhaps the teacher hasn't yet found the way to make subject interesting to "the delinquent," however, if the teacher is successful, then by the author's definition, that child was never a delinquent to begin with. His premise is that a delinquent child cannot be helped, but then every child who is helped by intervention was never really a delinquent by his definition. So his conclusion is part of his premise. That is called circular reasoning and makes up a large part of the author's reasoning in this book.

For anyone who is actually looking to learn anything - I would advise you to steer clear of this book. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 12, 2018 Bastard Travel rated it it was amazing

I can see why this book is controversial. Taking a look at the other reviews, you'd think Samenow was advocating bringing back flogging.

This guy, likely the hardest psychiatrist I've ever heard of, worked with irreconcilable criminals for his entire career, and established that maybe they weren't that irreconcilable. His theory posited that the issue was all of this empathy, understanding, gentle words, sad eyes, and Freudian excuses provided exactly the smokescreen that criminal psychopaths ne I can see why this book is controversial. Taking a look at the other reviews, you'd think Samenow was advocating bringing back flogging.

This guy, likely the hardest psychiatrist I've ever heard of, worked with irreconcilable criminals for his entire career, and established that maybe they weren't that irreconcilable. His theory posited that the issue was all of this empathy, understanding, gentle words, sad eyes, and Freudian excuses provided exactly the smokescreen that criminal psychopaths need to gleefully hustle the system, get back out onto the streets, and recidivise fast and hard.

His approach was different, and reminded me of REBT videos I'd seen of Albert Ellis shouting at smokers until they took accountability and quit. Samenow sits these murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, and gangbangers down and tells them, "You're different from other people. You took a different track, and you've always believed you're superior to everyone else, you're smarter, and the rules are for the other dumbasses who can't get around them. Well, now you're caught, so you're not as good as you thought you were. You're a parasite, and everyone who encounters you is worse for it. You have three options:

1) Keep up the criminal lifestyle, which you've demonstrated that you suck at. Get caught again, inevitably. Keep dealing with consequences like this. Wind up in the chair.
2) Kill yourself. Make the world a better place in so doing.
3) Change.

After that, it's straight CBT therapy. Samenow posits that punishment doesn't work, rehabilitative hugfests don't work, drugs don't work, and psychodynamic shrinking doesn't work. The kind of criminals he's talking about are narcissists, and if you want to get a handle on them, you gotta grab them by the pride. Come at their ego until they have no choice but to prove you wrong.

Samenow then corrected cognitive errors in his patients until they stopped doing all the terrible stuff they were doing, settled into a comfortable furrow, and lived a normal, prosocial life.

Choice and responsibility is why Samenow doesn't have many friends in the soft sciences. This flies in the face of everything you're taught as a social worker. Samenow explains this away by saying, "the people who have the grandest designs on sweeping sociological solutions to criminality only understand criminals as abstractions. Face to face, they're just people, making self-serving antisocial decisions, and telling them 'it's not your fault bb' is the surest way to have them continue doing just that." ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 07, 2018 Alana Cash rated it it was amazing

This book was recommended to me by someone who actually uses Samenow's technique working with prisoners in a state criminal justice system - AND IT WORKS. In fact, the prison system in which she works has such a low recidivism for the prisoners in the program that they have been contacted by other states to train the Samenow theory and system.

Samenow's theory is about taking personal responsibility for bad choices. No excuses for child abuse, neglect, poverty, bad parental examples, race, or any This book was recommended to me by someone who actually uses Samenow's technique working with prisoners in a state criminal justice system - AND IT WORKS. In fact, the prison system in which she works has such a low recidivism for the prisoners in the program that they have been contacted by other states to train the Samenow theory and system.

Samenow's theory is about taking personal responsibility for bad choices. No excuses for child abuse, neglect, poverty, bad parental examples, race, or anything else. Samenow claims that if these were the reason to explain crime, then everyone experiencing any of these things would be a criminal and that just isn't true. Not only that, by excusing the criminal, the person who does not commit crime is overshadowed.

Samenow's program is about mindfulness - which really interested me. The convicts are taught to pay attention to what they are thinking about and make different choices.

I once had a cop tell me, "You have to make 100 wrong choices before you get arrested the first time."

This is what criminals do - they make one bad choice after another. Choices that harm other people and which, if they get caught, they are punished for with incarceration. Making excuses for bad childhood, bad influences, bad friends, or it was "just a mistake" and giving probation does not change the propensity to make bad choices. Retraining themselves to make better choices changes the criminals. And making better choices is boring to the arrogant, narcissistic, thrill-seeking criminal mind, so they have to work at it.

If you are convinced that people need your pity when they beat their kids or shoplift or burglarize a house, then this is not the book or theory for you. Maybe people do need pity, but they also need to change and that does not happen by finding excuses for their bad behavior. Blaming someone else doesn't change anyone. Learning to make better choices and holding yourself accountable does.

Yes, the book is repetitive and sort of preachy, but so what? It seems to me that just about every nonfiction book I can remember that has psychological themes could be distilled down into a pamphlet. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 08, 2015 Christina rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, im-a-weirdo-about-crime

"A criminal is a criminal is a criminal." That's the overall message I got from Inside the Criminal Mind by Standon E. Samenow, Ph.D. The book goes into detail on a myriad of different criminal behaviors, and the thought processes behind them. But chapter after chapter, it was "once a criminal, always a criminal."

I actually found this quite refreshing since most other books that I've read on this subject (there haven't been many), have indicated that criminality is the result of upbringing. A ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 16, 2018 Matthew rated it did not like it · review of another edition

1.5 stars. I finished this book. I mention that because from about the time I reached the 100-page mark until near the end I kept asking myself and over and over "what is the point of this book?" it's one bleak vignette after another, most about manipulative criminals selfishly looking out for #1. the stories are journalistic and they pile up on one another. that said, it seems unfair to knock a book for living up to its title: this is a book about how criminals think, or, at least, how they ref ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Psychology

99 users

Nonfiction

74 users

Crime > True Crime

52 users

Mystery > Crime

29 users

Sociology

12 users

Science

11 users

Medical

4 users

Education

4 users

Law

4 users

Adult

3 users

See top shelves…

About Stanton E. Samenow

Stanton E. Samenow

26 followers

Dr. Samenow received his B.A. (cum laude) from Yale University in 1963 and his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1968. After working as a clinical psychologist on adolescent inpatient psychiatric services in the Ann Arbor (Michigan) area, he joined the Program for the Investigation of Criminal Behavior at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. From 1970 until June, 1978, ...more