The Inconvenient Truth of the Criminal Mind
: Dispelling the Myth of the "Bad Parent"
For decades, the narrative has been deeply entrenched: a child's descent into delinquency is, almost invariably, a direct reflection of parental failing. From the poorly communicated instruction to the emotionally distant embrace, society has wielded the stick of culpability largely against those who raise the young. However, the groundbreaking work of Dr. Stanton E. Samenow offers a stark, bracing counter-argument, asserting with potent clarity that the criminal mind is not a product of deficient parenting, but rather a stubborn, self-chosen path taken by the child themselves. In an age keen to assign blame and diagnose societal ills, Samenow forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: sometimes, the monster truly does reside within.
In Chapter 2 of his seminal work, "Inside the Criminal Mind," provocatively titled "Parents Don't Turn Children into Criminals: The Child Rejects the Parents," Samenow meticulously dismantles the prevailing wisdom. He argues that this blaming of parents, whether through perceived lack of nurturance, inadequate discipline, or outright abuse, has become a "given" across professional literature and public opinion worldwide. Consider the litany of supposed parental deficiencies catalogued by society: poor communication, insufficient monitoring, rejection, and inconsistency. These are the bricks and mortar of the popular narrative. But Samenow, drawing on decades of intense, forensic interviews with offenders, presents a far more complex and disquieting picture.
One of Samenow's most salient points is the inherent unreliability of the offender's testimony regarding their upbringing. Young delinquents, he observes, are remarkably adept at fabricating narratives that cast their parents as "monsters," conveniently deflecting personal responsibility and manipulating sympathy. Here, the criminal’s skill for deceit is not merely a tool for evasion, but often a source of perverse satisfaction. The striking contrast arises when siblings, raised under precisely the same roof and by the same parents, describe a home filled with love and devotion. Furthermore, even in cases where demonstrably ‘poor’ parenting existed, Samenow frequently found a non-offending sibling, proving that environment alone hardly serves as a determinative script. This leads to the profound observation that children are not "unformed lumps of clay" passively moulded by their surroundings; an "inborn potential can trump parental influence."
To illustrate this uncomfortable thesis, Samenow presents the harrowing case of "Tom." From infancy, Tom exhibited profound defiance. As a baby, his constant crying was beyond normal infant fussiness; in preschool, he manifested conflict; by first grade, disruptive behaviour became his hallmark—all despite paediatrician assurances that he was "typical." As he aged, his demands escalated, his rage incandescent, his rejection of parental authority absolute. His parents, the Pattersons, despite their tireless efforts to discipline and seek professional help, found themselves in a perpetual state of siege, feeling like "police officers" within their own home. Tom's criminality was not an accident but a conscious choice: his refusal to work, his theft from his mother, his palpable contempt for authority, epitomised by his casual justification of assaulting his own mother and his belief that a "police officer didn't like me." His proficiency in lying, not just to his parents but to therapists, was a lifestyle, a calculated manoeuvre to conceal misconduct and avoid accountability. Crucially, Tom’s brothers and sisters, sharing the same genetic lottery and domestic environment, were well-adjusted and law-abiding – a devastating blow to environmental determinism.
Samenow’s analysis delves deeper into the mechanisms by which the criminally-inclined child actively sabotages attempts at socialisation. Communication, for instance, becomes a weapon. Delinquent offspring deliberately withhold information, reacting with aggressive fury to any parental inquiry, thus transforming the home into a domestic "war zone." Lying, he posits, transcends the occasional white lie; for the criminal, it is a "gigantic network of lies," often serving no purpose beyond the "sheer excitement" and ego validation gleaned from successful deception.
The concept of "neglect" is also re-evaluated. While genuine neglect does exist, Samenow argues that many parents of delinquents are perceived as lacking "parental monitoring" because their children are masters of deceit and evasion, effortlessly circumventing any supervision. Consider the single mother with two sons: one compliant, the other delinquent. Both receive the same level of care and guidance, yet their responses are diametrically opposed. Likewise, attempts at discipline, from gentle reasoning to corporal punishment, are met with unwavering defiance, rage, and an unyielding pursuit of self-will.
Perhaps one of the most contentious aspects of Samenow’s work is his caution against uncritically accepting claims of parental abuse. Offenders, he suggests, are shrewd manipulators, frequently fabricating or exaggerating allegations of mistreatment to deflect blame, weaponise against their parents, and shift focus from their own egregious conduct. He offers compelling anecdotes of "Arnold," falsely accused by his actually aggressive brother, and "Janet," who wilfully concocted tales of parental abuse. Furthermore, what often appears as "over-indulgence" or "spoiling" is frequently a tragic misinterpretation of parental desperation—their inability to control a child who deftly thwarts every disciplinary effort. Within the family unit, delinquents rarely confine their pathology to their parents; they routinely exploit, abuse, and torment siblings, turning the home into a "psychological prison" for all.
The emotional and financial toll on these parents is immense. They grapple with profound guilt, experiencing debilitating physical and psychological symptoms, and living in constant fear for their child's future, yet rarely ceasing their love or support. Even divorce becomes a tactical opportunity for the criminal child, who expertly manipulates estranged parents, playing one against the other to exploit differences in discipline and secure greater freedom for their misbehaviour – a cynical strategy aptly demonstrated by Samenow through the case of "Emily."
Ultimately, Samenow’s central contention is that models attributing criminality primarily to parental influence are fundamentally flawed. Whilst genuinely abusive or neglectful environments can undeniably have negative consequences, they do not automatically produce criminals; indeed, many offenders emerge from loving, stable homes. His concluding assertion is a jarring paradigm shift: "the parents are usually the victims, the child the victimiser, not the other way around." The criminal, he posits, fundamentally chooses a path of self-will and defiance from their earliest days, actively rebuking all attempts at socialisation. This conscious choice, rather than environmental factors, forms the bedrock of their chronic criminality.
Samenow’s work challenges us to look beyond simplistic correlations and confront the uncomfortable notion of an innate propensity for malevolence, a will-to-power that manifests itself in a rejection of societal norms and familial bonds. It is a work that demands re-evaluation, not just of our penal systems, but of our very understanding of culpability and the origins of human depravity. It reminds us that sometimes, quite frankly, the little bastard was always going to be a bastard, regardless of how good, or bad, his parents were.
Citations:
Samenow, Stanton E. (1984). Inside the Criminal Mind. New York, NY: Crown Publishers Inc. (Specifically Chapter 2: "Parents Don't Turn Children into Criminals: The Child Rejects the Parents").
Event Portfolio
Street Portfolio