Stanton E. Samenow (1941–2023)
Author of Inside the Criminal Mind: Revised and Updated Edition (in 2004)
About the Author
He is a clinical psychologist who has spent the last thirty years as a researcher, clinician, consultant, and expert witness specializing in criminal behavior, and the last seventeen specializing as an independent evaluator in extremely adversarial child custody disputes. He has been appointed to show more three presidential task forces on law enforcement, victims' rights, and drug-free America. He has appeared on "60 Minutes," "Oprah," NBC's "Today" show, "Good Morning America," "Larry King" and numerous other national venues. He lives in Alexandria, Virginia. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Image credit: Photo courtesy of Dr. Stanton E. Samenow
Works by Stanton E. Samenow
Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It (1989) 66 copies, 2 reviews
In the Best Interest of the Child: How to Protect Your Child from the Pain of Your Divorce (2002) 5 copies
Tâm lý học tội phạm - Tập 2 1 copy
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Other names
- Samenow, Stanton Ethan
- Birthdate
- 1941-10-16
- Date of death
- 2023-05-08
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Yale University (BA|1963)
University of Michigan (Ph.D.|Psychology|1968) - Occupations
- clinical psychologist
- Short biography
- STANTON E. SAMENOW, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, has spent thirty-four years as a researcher, clinician, consultant, and expert witness specializing in criminal behavior. He has also served as an independent evaluator in adversarial child custody disputes for the past twenty years and has been appointed to three presidential task forces on law enforcement, victims' rights, and a drug-free America. In October 2003, he was appointed an expert witness for the prosecution in the trial against accused "Washington Sniper" Lee Boyd Malvo, aka John Lee Malvo. Dr. Samenow lives in Virginia. [publisher information via loc.gov. retrieved 1/17/2011]
- Cause of death
- leukemia
Members
Reviews
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. show more 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. show less
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. show more 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. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.This is a thought-provoking book, which is well worth reading. The thesis is that most of the traditional methods of rehabilitating criminals don't work. This is because they focus on what caused the criminal to commit the crime. According to Samenow, this emphasis doesn't do anything to rehabilitate prisoners. Instead, it merely affords them additional ways to EXCUSE their crimes, including future crimes.
Samenow argues that criminals engage in criminal conduct because they make bad show more choices. The pattern of making these choices often begins very early in their lives. One of the more interesting findings --at least to me--is that substance abuse doesn't cause crime. Most addicts who commit other crimes had already committed serious crimes BEFORE they became addicts. Using illegal substances or abusing booze was just one more bad choice they made. Thus, even if addicts get "clean," it doesn't mean that they won't commit other crimes.
Another example of this is illiteracy. While Samenow doesn't oppose programs to improve prisoners' ability to read, he doesn't see them as an effective deterrent to future crimes. Instead, we may simply transform illiterate criminals into criminals who can read well. He notes that while many criminals can't read at all, most have no trouble learning in prison. He suggests that they CHOSE not to learn to read in school. In prison, with fewer distractions, they turn to classes and learn to read. This doesn't mean that when they are released they won't go back to a life of crime.
Samenow is also very critical of anger management programs, which he sees as particularly ineffective.
This book offers a very different perspective than most. show less
Samenow argues that criminals engage in criminal conduct because they make bad show more choices. The pattern of making these choices often begins very early in their lives. One of the more interesting findings --at least to me--is that substance abuse doesn't cause crime. Most addicts who commit other crimes had already committed serious crimes BEFORE they became addicts. Using illegal substances or abusing booze was just one more bad choice they made. Thus, even if addicts get "clean," it doesn't mean that they won't commit other crimes.
Another example of this is illiteracy. While Samenow doesn't oppose programs to improve prisoners' ability to read, he doesn't see them as an effective deterrent to future crimes. Instead, we may simply transform illiterate criminals into criminals who can read well. He notes that while many criminals can't read at all, most have no trouble learning in prison. He suggests that they CHOSE not to learn to read in school. In prison, with fewer distractions, they turn to classes and learn to read. This doesn't mean that when they are released they won't go back to a life of crime.
Samenow is also very critical of anger management programs, which he sees as particularly ineffective.
This book offers a very different perspective than most. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
As a reader of crime fiction and mysteries, and with a fondness for anti-heroes and antagonists rendered with accurate realism, Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton E. Samenow has strong appeal. I didn't have any preconceptions about the book and haven't read earlier editions. With an almost hardline approach, Samenow skirts around the complexities of the topic of criminality and instead offers a very simplistic, dumbed down look. I wasn't expecting a dissertation or academic treatise but the show more book is strives for nothing more ambitious than a cursory literature review on case studies and examples that support select theories. Samenow rarely cites his own research and never cites opposing research, even to at least, attempt to debunk it. Examples and references are self-serving and cherry-picked. Which is sadly a perfectly legitimate, if lazy, way to write a book. Readers should read with caution.
There is some validity to a few of his ideas particularly for families coping with relatives who have been in and out of the criminal justice system and are just looking for some solace. Samenow's suggestion for families to focus on damage control rather than figuring out 'why' is particularly insightful.
Samenow doesn't believe in external or biological factors (upbringing, socioeconomic status, educational achievement, genetic factors, or mental illness) playing any significant, direct role in determining whether someone turns to crime. For Samenow, crime seems to be a deliberate and very individualistic choice; criminals are just different from you and me. In some ways, I agree, but Samenow doesn't explore that darker pathology in great enough detail where I can say, so *this* is a criminal mind. Instead, most of the book is devoted to debunking mainstream theories instead of establishing strong counter theories. What's particularly disturbing is that there is no sense of criminality by degrees; Samenow makes no distinction between a rapist or a serial killer and a someone who shoplifts. The one redeeming factor is that he does call in question the current corrections/prison system. It's little consolation though. Overall, Inside the Criminal Mind is very simplistic analysis of criminality. If you're looking for some intellectual sophistication in the content and panache in the writing, look elsewhere. 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. show less
There is some validity to a few of his ideas particularly for families coping with relatives who have been in and out of the criminal justice system and are just looking for some solace. Samenow's suggestion for families to focus on damage control rather than figuring out 'why' is particularly insightful.
Samenow doesn't believe in external or biological factors (upbringing, socioeconomic status, educational achievement, genetic factors, or mental illness) playing any significant, direct role in determining whether someone turns to crime. For Samenow, crime seems to be a deliberate and very individualistic choice; criminals are just different from you and me. In some ways, I agree, but Samenow doesn't explore that darker pathology in great enough detail where I can say, so *this* is a criminal mind. Instead, most of the book is devoted to debunking mainstream theories instead of establishing strong counter theories. What's particularly disturbing is that there is no sense of criminality by degrees; Samenow makes no distinction between a rapist or a serial killer and a someone who shoplifts. The one redeeming factor is that he does call in question the current corrections/prison system. It's little consolation though. Overall, Inside the Criminal Mind is very simplistic analysis of criminality. If you're looking for some intellectual sophistication in the content and panache in the writing, look elsewhere. 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. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Всеки който е работил с престъпници е забелязал, че голяма част от тях имат определени модели на поведение, които ясно се забелязват и се повтарят при различните хора. Очевидно е, че подобни модели спомагат за превръщането им в престъпници и клиенти на поправителната show more система.
Стантън Сеймнау е психолог, който с книгата си се стреми да се противопостави на наложилото се в много кръгове виждане, че "средата прави престъпника" и че престъпният ум е резултат от тежко детство, лош квартал, небрежни учители и т.н. Той се опитва да наложи виждането, което е като цяло виждане и на всеки немалоумен човек, работил достатъчно дълго с престъпници, че престъпникът по-скоро се ражда като определен тип човек и различните му вътрешни подтици и характерът му го тласкат към живот извън обществото и към криминалност.
По мое мнение обаче, авторът доста пресолява манджата в книгата - наистина, той описва различни поведенчески и психически модели, които се срещат непропорционално често при престъпниците, но също както и идеологическите му противници не успяват да обяснят защо всяко сексуално насилвано дете не става на свой ред сексуален престъпник, така и той не успява да обясни защо мнозинството от хората, които са по природа антисоциални, бунтари и лесно се ядосват са просто обикновени граждани, а не стават всичките насилствени престъпници.
Все пак, книгата е полезна с това, че онагледява как определени начини на мислене могат да доведат човек до определени психически състояние и определени постъпки. show less
Стантън Сеймнау е психолог, който с книгата си се стреми да се противопостави на наложилото се в много кръгове виждане, че "средата прави престъпника" и че престъпният ум е резултат от тежко детство, лош квартал, небрежни учители и т.н. Той се опитва да наложи виждането, което е като цяло виждане и на всеки немалоумен човек, работил достатъчно дълго с престъпници, че престъпникът по-скоро се ражда като определен тип човек и различните му вътрешни подтици и характерът му го тласкат към живот извън обществото и към криминалност.
По мое мнение обаче, авторът доста пресолява манджата в книгата - наистина, той описва различни поведенчески и психически модели, които се срещат непропорционално често при престъпниците, но също както и идеологическите му противници не успяват да обяснят защо всяко сексуално насилвано дете не става на свой ред сексуален престъпник, така и той не успява да обясни защо мнозинството от хората, които са по природа антисоциални, бунтари и лесно се ядосват са просто обикновени граждани, а не стават всичките насилствени престъпници.
Все пак, книгата е полезна с това, че онагледява как определени начини на мислене могат да доведат човек до определени психически състояние и определени постъпки. show less
You May Also Like
Statistics
- Works
- 10
- Members
- 530
- Popularity
- #46,960
- Rating
- 3.6
- Reviews
- 27
- ISBNs
- 23
- Languages
- 2
