CRI1104 - Essay Case Study 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

CRI1104 - Essay Case Study 2...

Description

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

1

Abstract David Birnie was part of the serial killer couple known as the ‘Moorhouse Murderers’ whom, along with his partner Catherine Birnie, abducted and raped five women and murdered four of them in 1986 (David and Catherine Birnie, 2015). Birnie’s childhood and adolescent life consisted of various life experiences and events which could have contributed or caused his criminal behaviour and offending. The psychological theories of Moffitt, Bowlby, Sutherland and the risk factors perspective provides an explanation into the motivations and causes of his offending behaviour and criminal history.

Introduction David Birnie was born 16 February 1951 in Western Australia and died 7 October 2005 after hanging himself in his prison cell (Innes, 2006). Birnie and his partner Catherine are regarded as one of Australia’s most violent couples after they abducted and raped five young women and murdered four of them (Forry & Llewelyn, 2014). Birnie was convicted of four counts of murder, five counts of abduction and rape and was subsequently sentenced to four consecutive terms of life imprisonment (Innes, 2006).

The purpose of this case study is to develop a case description of Birnie and to identify life experiences and events that can be linked as a contributing factor to his criminal behaviour, through the use of psychological theory and research, in particular, the theories of Moffitt, Bowlby, Sutherland and the risk factors perspective.

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

2

Definition of Offence The most serious offence Birnie committed was Murder. Under s. 279 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), Murder is deemed to have been committed when a person unlawfully kills another and intended to cause their death.

Birnie meets the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). For antisocial personality disorder, a person must meet at least five of the seven criteria and Birnie meets at least five of these criteria. The first criterion is the “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This is evident in his extensive criminal history which begun at the age of eight (Woollett, 2014). Birnie also meets the third criterion of “impulsivity or failure to plan ahead” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This is evident by Birnie’s kidnapping of five women. These abductions and the later murder of four of these women were impulsive, with Birnie and Catherine deciding to abduct many of them when they saw them hitchhiking on the highway (Woollett, 2014). The fifth criterion is the “reckless disregard for safety of self or others” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This is evident by the five women he abducted and raped and the murder of four of them (Forry & Llewelyn, 2014). The sixth criterion is “consistent irresponsibility” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This is met by his inability to sustain consistent work and his history of failed employment opportunities (Gibson, 2014). The seventh criterion is the “lack of remorse” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This is evident by the lack of remorse for the crimes he committed (Woollett, 2014).

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

3

History of the Offender Birnie was born to Margaret and John Birnie and was the eldest of five children (Gibson, 2014). His family and childhood was described by neighbours and church members as wild, chaotic and dysfunctional (Woollett, 2014), with rumours that the family engaged in incest (David and Catherine Birnie, 2015).

His father worked long hours and was rarely at home, whereas, his mother was described by Birnie’s first wife as an unstable alcoholic who was dirty and unkempt (Woollett, 2014). Birnie’s first wife also described the Birnie family home as dirty, messy and filthy (Woollett, 2014). It has been reported that as a young child Birnie would be forced to look after his younger siblings and would be physically abused by his mother if he did not (Woollett, 2014). Due to Birnie’s Mothers unstable nature and inability to care for her children, Birnie and his siblings were taken into state care at one point during their childhood (Woollett, 2014; Innes, 2006; Gibson, 2014). Birnie’s parents divorced when he was ten, and Birnie became a ward of the Court when neither his Mother nor Father requested custody of him (Gibson, 2014).

Birnie’s first brush with the law was at the age of eight, when he was institutionalised for petty crimes including stealing (Woollett, 2014). Birnie and Catherine engaged in a spree of lawbreaking activity throughout their adolescence (Woollett, 2014; Innes, 2006). In June 1969, they were convicted of eleven counts of breaking and entering, with Birnie receiving a nine-month sentence (Gibson, 2014). Just over a year later, they were convicted of another fifty-three counts of theft, breaking and entering, trespassing and illegal operation of a motor vehicle (Gibson, 2014). By the age of fifteen, Birnie had an extensive juvenile record and subsequently left school to take a job at the Perth Stables working as a stable hand (Woollett, 2014; Gibson, 2014). His offending behaviour continued and it was reported that not long

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

4

after he started his job he attempted to rape his landlady (Woollett, 2014; Forry & Llewelyn, 2014; Gibson, 2014).

Birnie married another woman during his early twenties, a marriage that has been described as unsuccessful and troubled by his insatiable sexual appetite (Gibson, 2014). Birnie’s sexual appetite led to him having multiple relationships and affairs with other women whilst married (Woollett, 2014). His younger brother also reported that when there were no available females Birnie would turn to men, and alleged that Birnie forced him to engage in acts of sodomy whilst Birnie was separated from Catherine (Woollett, 2014; Gibson, 2014).

Risk Factors Perspective The risk factors perspective suggests that everyone follows a particular path during their life that is filled with risk factors (Bartol, 2014). Risk factors are characteristics that when present in someone’s life make it more likely that this individual will engage in criminal behaviour (Shader, 2004). Research shows that the more risk factors someone is exposed to, the higher the likelihood that they will engage in criminal behaviour (Bartol, 2014; Shader, 2004; Farrington & Welsh, 2008).

Family factors that have been identified as risk factors include family size, antisocial parents, harsh or inconsistent discipline as well as child maltreatment, neglect and abuse (Shader, 2004; Dennison & LeClerc, 2011). Research has shown that exposure to harsh punishment during childhood has been linked to an increase in the occurrence of criminal behaviour as well as an increase in likelihood that children will become offenders later in life (Fonagy et al., 1997; Farrington & Welsh, 2008). One particular study found that one of the strongest predictors of later convictions for violent offenses was harsh and punitive punishment and

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

5

discipline (Shader, 2004). Other studies have found that psychological and physical abuse is a frequently occurring characteristic in the childhood of serial killers (Allely et al., 2014). Research has shown that the increase in likelihood of later offending could be caused by the development of dissociative coping styles, which can lead to poor-problem solving skills (Farrington & Welsh, 2008).

It was reported that Birnie and his siblings were neglected so severely by their parents that their clothes would constantly be wet and covered in filth (Woollett, 2014). Birnie would also be abused if he did not look after his younger siblings (Woollett, 2014). The risk factors perspective suggests that this neglect and maltreatment Birnie suffered during his childhood contributed to his offending behaviour.

Relationships and involvement with delinquent peer groups during childhood has also been linked to later criminal behaviour (Shader, 2004). Research has shown that the presence of delinquent peers between the ages of twelve and fourteen are key predictors of later involvement in criminal behaviour (Shader, 2004).

Birnie has a strong relationship with Catherine Birnie during his childhood and adolescence and they had a long juvenile record during their friendship. It was a relationship in which they bonded over their joint participation in crime. Birnie and Catherine had a long juvenile record during their friendship as adolescents. This perspective suggests that Birnie’s relationship with Catherine increased the likelihood of him engaging in criminal behaviour.

Attachment Theory

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

6

Bowlby’s attachment theory examines the emotional connection that develops between a child and their primary caregiver, along with how the quality of the attachment between them can affect the child’s later development (Ansbro, 2008). Bowlby concluded that the attachment that develops early on between a child and their primary caregiver is necessary for normal development to occur (Hayslett-McCall & Bernard, 2012). He also proposed that when a secure attachment to the primary caregiver is absent, the child can develop a condition known as affectionless psychopathy which includes a lack of concern and empathy for other people and an inability to develop normal relationships (Ansbro, 2008).

Bowlby believed that as children we adopt and develop patters of relating to people and that through the repeated interactions and experiences with a child’s primary caregiver they are able to form mental depictions of themselves and others, these are known as internal working models (Levy, 2005; Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002; Hoeve et al., 2012). It is these internal working models that organize our personality development and as a result, direct and shape our future relationships (Levy, 2005; Craissati et al., 2002).

Attachment theory studies suggest that caregivers who provide a child with a secure base are more likely to develop into psychologically healthy children, who in adulthood are able to form normal, stable relationships, emphasize with others and can also self-regulate their emotions (Ansbro, 2008). Research also suggests that children who are not provided with this secure base develop a state of attachment known as detachment, and that this occurs in response to a distressing failure of the primary caregiver to meet the attachment needs of the child (Hayslett-McCall & Bernard, 2012). This state of detachment has also been linked to later negative effects in a child’s life leading to a variety of problems and lasting consequences in adult life (Hayslett-McCall & Bernard, 2012).

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

7

Poor attachment to caregivers has been significantly linked to criminal behaviour in both male and females (Hoeve et al., 2012). Research has shown that insecure attachment styles are three times more likely to develop for a child if they are within an abuse and neglectful family environment (Craissati et al., 2002). Problems in the development of a child’s early attachment has been found to compromise the development of their capacity to show empathy, moral reasoning and to self-regulate their emotions (Mackillop, Smallbone, Wortley & Andjic, 2012; Hayslett-McCall & Bernard, 2012). Poor attachment has also been linked with the development of inappropriate copying skills, inability to express fondness or concern for other people and violent behaviour (Rikhye et al., 2008; Hoeve et al., 2012). Some studies have shown that insecure attachment styles have been linked to complications in social relationships, in particular, when developing and maintain consensual intimate relationships (Maniglio, 2012). It has also been suggested that an insecure attachment style is linked to sexual offending, in that the offender uses it as a method of attaining intimacy and emotional attachment (Maniglio, 2012).

Birnie did not have a strong, consistent parent-child attachment relationship with either of his parents. His father has been described as never home due to his work hours and so Birnie never spent time with him (Woollett, 2014). His mother was described as a drunk who neglected her children and forced the children to care for each other (Woollett, 2014). Based on attachment theory research it is likely that Birnie developed an insecure-avoidant attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 2014). People with this type of attachment are independent of their primary caregiver and do not seek contact from their primary caregiver when they are distressed (Ainsworth et al., 2014). The research shows that people with this style of attachment typically have a primary caregiver who is insensitive and rejects

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

8

their needs (Ainsworth et al., 2014). It is likely that Birnie developed a state of detachment in response to the inability of both his parents to care for and meet his attachment needs during childhood. Bowlby’s theory suggests that the abuse and neglect afforded to Birnie by his parents caused a negative impact on his development during childhood. Negative effects of developing a state of detachment include the inability to show fondness or concern for other people and violent behaviour. This could explain Bernie’s aggressive behaviour in carrying out his crimes and his lack of empathy towards the women he murdered. It also suggests that his motivation for committing these crimes could be linked to his inability to form pro-social relationships, which had led to him using his crimes in an effort to achieve intimacy and emotional closeness.

Moffitt’s Developmental Theory Moffitt identified two categories of offenders, known as adolescence-limited and life-coursepersistent offenders (Barnes, 2014). Moffitt’s theory suggests that life-course-persistent offenders will participate in criminal activity and behaviour in early adolescence and will maintain a frequent involvement in crime throughout their life and may progress to more serious criminal activity as they grow older (Barnes, 2014).

Moffitt believed that life-course-persistent offending is linked to two factors – neuropsychological deficits and an unfavourable home environment (Barnes, 2014; Turner, Hartman & Bishop, 2007). These two factors together work to increase the likelihood that a life-course-persistent offending pattern will develop (Barnes, 2014).

Moffitt suggested that deprivation of affection and stimulation from caregivers causes a disruption of neural development which could cause a neuropsychological deficit (Moffitt,

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

9

1993). Harsh and inconsistent parenting, child abuse and neglect have also been linked to possible sources of brain injury in offenders (Moffitt, 1993). These disruptions of neural development have negative consequences on learning, rationalisation, retention and disposition in childhood (Turner et al., 2007). Deficiencies in self-control have also been identified as representations of neuropsychological deficits (Barnes, 2014). Life-coursepersistent offending has also been linked to adverse rearing environments, and the inability of the environment to respond to the child’s behaviour in a prosocial manner (Barnes, 2014).

Moffitt’s theory suggests that as a child Birnie suffered neuropsychological deficits, caused by the neglect and abuse he suffered. It also suggests that these deficits coupled with being raised in an adverse home environment, where he was exposed to poor and inconsistent parenting and neglect, has contributed to his offending behaviour. This theory suggests that this could have caused a deficiency in Birnie’s reasoning, temperament, aggressiveness and self-control. This appears consistent with Birnie’s history and the crimes he committed during his life.

Differential Association Theory Sutherland’s theory assumes that individuals learn deviant and criminal behaviour from other people (Erickson, Crosnoe & Dornbusch, 2000; Jeffery, 1965). This theory examines the process in which criminal behaviour is learned through relationships with people who have delinquent attitudes and morals, in comparison to relationships with those who have nondelinquent attitudes and morals (Erickson et al., 2000; Jeffery, 1965).

Sutherland believed that by associating with people such as parents and friends, whom exhibit deviant behaviours or have favourable attitudes towards criminal behaviour, we learn

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

10

techniques for committing criminal acts and behaviours as well as motivations and attitudes that foster criminal behaviour (Moon, Hwang & McCluskey, 2011). The learning part of the theory is made up of two elements (Matsueda, 2010). The first element is learning the requisite skills and techniques for committing crime, which can include skills such as pickpocketing and assault (Matsueda, 2010). The second element is being exposed to definitions that are favourable and unfavourable to crime, including motives and rationalizations which the person can use to justify or unjustify criminal behaviour (Matsueda, 2010). The likelihood of a person engaging in criminal behaviour will depend on the ratio of pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions they are exposed to (Erickson et al., 2000). Where pro-criminal definitions are presented more frequently and for a longer duration, and in a more intense relationship, the more likely that criminal behaviour will occur (Matsueda, 2010). Therefore, when a person associates excessively with criminal definitions, they are likely to develop a criminal perspective which then influences the occurrence of criminal behaviour (Alarid, Burton & Cullen, 2000; Tittle, Burke & Jackson, 1986). The acquisition of motivations, attitudes and methods that encourage criminal behaviours predominantly occurs within intimate personal relationships (Erickson et al., 2000). Co-offenders can convey direct pressures, set an significant example and provide another person with opportunities to engage in criminal behaviour (Hochstetler, Copes & DeLisi, 2002).

This theory suggests that Birnie’s criminal behaviour is a result of his relationship with persons who exhibit pro-criminal beliefs and attitudes and that the presentation of more procrime definitions than anti-criminal definitions increased the likelihood of his criminal behaviour occurring. Birnie’s relationship with Catherine could be seen as such a relationship, due to their co-offending behaviour during their adolescence and adulthood.

David Birnie: Psychological theories and Crime

11

Conclusion The risk factors perspective suggests that the risk factors that existed in Birnie’s childhood, such as the neglect and maltreatment he suffered as well as the formation of a criminal peer relationship with Catherine Birnie increased the likelihood of future criminal behaviour. Moffitt’s theory suggests that the neglect and mistreatment Birnie suffered by his parents caused him to become a life-course-persistent offender. Bowlby’s theory suggests that Birnie’s criminal behaviour is linked to a state of detachment that he could have formed in response to the neglect and poor parental bonding he suffered as a child. Sutherland’s theory suggests that Birnie’s relationship with Catherine Birnie during their adolescence could have contributed to his criminal behaviour by way of learning criminal motives and behaviours from their relationship in which they participated ...