Analyzing Homicidal Behavior: A Three-Case Study

Dylan C. Floyd, Doctoral Candidate

Doctorate of Philosophy in Forensic Psychology, Walden University

FPSY 8135: Criminal Behavior

Dr. Scott A. Duncan

January 26, 2024

Analyzing Homicidal Behavior: A Three-Case Study

Venturing into the enigmatic realm of lethal transgressions, dissecting the multifaceted nature of homicide through a trio of compelling narratives. This scholarly exploration commences with an intimate examination of a family homicide, unraveling the intricate web of intrafamilial tension and the psychological dissonance that can precipitate such a devastating event. The poignant saga of Luke Woodham is scrutinized against the backdrop of Social Learning Theory, revealing the potent influence of environmental factors in sculpting the contours of a young perpetrator's violent acts. Cary Stayner's macabre serial killings are probed through the introspective lens of Psychodynamic Theory, diving into the abyss of the unconscious mind and its unseen scars from the past. Additionally, this paper thoughtfully navigates the dichotomy between expressive and instrumental crimes, providing a critical framework for dissecting the multifarious motivations behind homicidal behavior. By weaving together theoretical insights with the stark realities of these case studies, the paper aspires to enrich the forensic psychology field with a unique synthesis of knowledge, fostering a more profound understanding of the psychological undercurrents that drive individuals to the brink of homicidal action and informing more effective preventative and rehabilitative interventions.

Case 1: Family Homicide

Embarking on an analysis of this harrowing narrative, we encounter a tale where faith, family, and the frailties of the human mind intertwine with devastating consequences. At its core, the story unfolds around a mother in Florida, deeply rooted in her Christian beliefs and the motherly love for her six children, yet tragically ensnared by an unrelenting depressive psychosis. The increasing burden of each new life she brought into the world only deepened her psychological abyss. Despite medical intervention, the support she received was mismatched against her husband's denial of her illness and their collective religious conviction to continue expanding their family.

In a fateful convergence of her isolation, untreated mental illness, and profound distress, the mother's psyche fractured, leading her down a path of irreversible tragedy. Her subsequent actions, while under the specter of psychosis, culminated in an act that would not only redefine her family's existence but also ignite a complex discourse on the intersections of mental health, moral responsibility, and the legal system's role in adjudicating sanity amidst such profound human suffering.

Key Factors

The protagonist, a devout Christian and devoted mother, grapples with a relentless tide of depression, each child's birth augmenting her despair. Despite therapeutic intervention and pharmacological aid, her mind's fortress succumbs to the invading forces of psychosis, a dark veil that only occasionally lifts. Contrasted against her spiraling descent is her husband's skepticism, his belief in simple, archaic solutions, and an unyielding desire to expand their family, ostensibly as a divine mandate. The controversial cessation of her antipsychotic regimen, compelled by the husband's insistence and religious convictions, casts a grim shadow over her already precarious mental landscape. The narrative is woven with threads of religious conviction, with the husband's persuasive narrative that their growing brood is celestial in design, despite the wife's reported misgivings. As the fateful day unfolds, her actions are haunted by the belief that she is acting in a twisted form of benevolence, even as she envisions an eternal punishment for her deeds.

The heart of the case pulsates with the question of her mental state during the tragic act—her criminal liability hinges upon her grasp of reality, or lack thereof. The prosecution's stance on premeditation clashes with the mire of her psychological turmoil, the oversight of her mental collapse, and the potential failure of her guardians to protect the innocent. Through this lens, the case transforms into a labyrinthine exploration of the human psyche under siege, the influence of unwavering belief systems, and the intricate dance between moral responsibility and mental illness. The courtroom, in this saga, becomes a theater where the drama of legal definitions of sanity is played out, set against a backdrop of societal norms and the stark realities of psychological afflictions.

Developmental Risk Factors and Criminal Behavior

Developmental risk factors encompass a myriad of elements that interact to shape an individual's potential for engaging in criminal behavior. These factors, which encompass biological, psychological, social, and environmental aspects, are critical in understanding the pathways that may lead to criminal acts. Research has elucidated the role of biological factors in contributing to antisocial and criminal behavior. Genetic influences, for instance, have been associated with an increased risk of criminality, suggesting that individuals may inherit a predisposition for such behaviors (Mednick, Gabrielli, & Hutchings, 1987). Additionally, biological protective factors have been identified that could help high-risk individuals abstain from criminal behavior (Portnoy, Chen, & Raine, 2013).

Psychological factors are also significant in the development of criminal behavior. Mental health issues can impair judgment and self-control, potentially leading to criminal acts. A review of the intervention literature has highlighted that psychological factors, other than cognitive ability, play a role in the prevalence of criminal behavior and recidivism (Hill et al., 2011). Social factors, such as family environment and peer influence, have received considerable attention in the literature. Theories of criminal behavior often consider social status and class as central variables for explaining criminality, indicating that social factors can significantly impact an individual’s likelihood of engaging in criminal acts (Thornberry & Farnworth, 1982). Environmental factors such as socioeconomic status, community context, and educational experiences are crucial in shaping an individual’s development. Studies have shown that shared environmental factors can contribute to the development of delinquency and criminal behavior (Manolakes, 1997; Kendler et al., 2015).

In sum, an extensive body of research supports the notion that developmental risk factors and correlates, spanning from genetic predispositions to environmental contexts, indeed influence criminal behavior. These studies underscore the complexity of criminality and the multifaceted nature of its origins, highlighting the importance of considering a broad spectrum of influences when examining the precursors to criminal behavior.

Crime Characteristics

The crime in question—where a mother suffering from severe mental illness drowned her six children—can be evaluated in terms of its expressive or instrumental nature. The distinction between expressive and instrumental crimes is well-established in the literature. Expressive crimes are often impulsive and emotional, as opposed to the premeditated nature typically associated with instrumental crimes (Youngs, Ioannou, & Eagles, 2016).

The crime appears to be expressive. The mother’s actions were driven by a distorted belief that she was acting in her children’s best interests, coupled with severe psychosis and depression. This suggests an absence of premeditation and goal-orientation that characterizes instrumental crimes. Instead, the act was a tragic expression of her psychological state, aligning with the characteristics of expressive crimes as defined by forensic psychology (Pecino-Latorre, Pérez-Fuentes, & Campos, 2019). Furthermore, forensic psychology research on homicide has identified the instrumental/expressive classification as a useful framework for understanding the psychological processes underlying such crimes. It helps distinguish between homicides driven by emotional and psychological factors and those committed with a specific goal or gain in mind (Greenall, 2023).

In the context of this case, the mother’s act of homicide did not serve an external purpose or gain but was a manifestation of her internal psychological turmoil. This aligns with the characteristics of expressive homicides, which are typically more emotion-driven and lack the calculated, goal-directed nature of instrumental crimes (Drawbridge, 2016). The crime should be categorized as expressive, as it reflects the key elements of this type of offense: impulsivity, emotional intensity, and a lack of instrumental purpose. This understanding is supported by forensic psychology research, which emphasizes the role of psychological processes in differentiating between expressive and instrumental criminal acts.

Criminality

In forensic psychology, the determination of criminality is closely linked to the concept of criminal responsibility, which is often influenced by the mental health of the individual in question. The insanity defense is one mechanism through which an individual’s mental illness can be assessed in relation to their legal responsibility for a crime (Acklin, 2008). In cases where severe mental illness is present, as with the mother who drowned her children due to psychosis and depression, forensic psychologists would perform a detailed assessment of her mental state. They would evaluate her capacity to understand the nature of her actions and her ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense (Math & Kumar, 2015; Ogloff, Roberts, & Roesch, 1993).

The relationship between mental illness and violence is a complex and multifaceted subject within forensic psychology, and it is crucial to understand how mental illness can impact an individual’s behavior and decision-making processes. The presence of mental illness can be a significant factor in determining criminal responsibility, and it is something that is carefully considered in forensic evaluations (Diamond, 1961). If the forensic psychological evaluation finds that the mother was incapable of understanding the criminal nature of her actions due to her mental health condition at the time of the crime, she may be considered legally insane. In such cases, the individual is often deemed not criminally responsible, which is distinct from being labeled a “criminal” in a traditional sense. The focus then shifts to treatment for the mental illness rather than punishment for the crime (Shapiro, 2016).

Ultimately, while the act committed by the mother is undeniably criminal, the forensic psychology perspective on her criminality is contingent on her mental state and capacity for criminal responsibility at the time of the offense. The findings from a forensic psychological evaluation would be critical in determining the legal outcome and the appropriate response by the criminal justice system.

Theoretical Application

Applying the Beauchaine Ontogenic Process Model of externalizing psychopathology, a biosocial theory, to the criminal behaviors displayed in this case provides a specific theoretical framework that integrates both biological predispositions and environmental triggers. This model suggests that the development of externalizing behaviors, which can include criminal acts, is a result of both genetic vulnerabilities and environmental risk factors such as stress, trauma, or socialization experiences (Eme, 2015).

In the context of the mother’s actions, the Beauchaine model would consider her severe depression and psychosis as biological vulnerabilities that predispose her to maladaptive responses to stress. When combined with the environmental stress of caring for six children and the potential lack of adequate support or treatment for her mental illness, this creates a situation where her capacity to regulate emotions and behaviors is overwhelmed. This interaction of biological and environmental factors could lead to a tragic breakdown in behavior resulting in the criminal act of drowning her children.

Furthermore, the model emphasizes the importance of early intervention and the development of protective environmental factors that can mitigate the impact of biological vulnerabilities. In this case, the lack of such interventions may have contributed to the mother’s inability to cope, underscoring the importance of comprehensive mental health services and support systems in preventing such tragedies.

Case 2: A Child Murderer

In the distressing case of Luke, a 12-year-old boy charged with the heinous murder of a younger child, several multifaceted elements emerge that require a thorough forensic psychological analysis. Luke’s actions were a result of the complex interplay of developmental, environmental, and potential biological factors contributing to Luke's criminal behavior and explore the implications for criminal responsibility and rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.

Luke's formative years were marred by significant challenges. Diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and burdened by a speech impediment and hearing impairment, Luke was not only academically behind his peers but also a target for relentless bullying. These developmental disorders likely precipitated a sense of alienation and social rejection, which are known to have profound psychological impacts on a child's well-being. The forensic psychological perspective necessitates an exploration into how these challenges contributed to Luke's emotional distress and, subsequently, his capacity for empathy and self-regulation. The turmoil within Luke's familial environment cannot be overlooked as a contributing factor to his psychological state. The death of his grandfather, with whom he had been living, presented a significant emotional loss for Luke. His stepfather's violent temper and the subsequent molestation allegation by Luke's sister represent severe familial stressors. Additionally, the revelation about his biological father added to Luke's emotional burden. These cumulative adversities likely created a volatile emotional state that forensic psychologists must consider when evaluating the motivation behind Luke's violent act.

While not explicitly detailed in the case, the potential for biological or genetic predispositions to violence must be contemplated. Luke's impulsive and violent crime prompts the question of whether there were inherent neurodevelopmental factors at play. A forensic psychologist would be tasked with discerning these factors through a comprehensive assessment that might include family history, a neurological examination, and a review of Luke's behavioral patterns leading up to the crime. A central concern in forensic psychology is determining an individual's criminal responsibility, especially when that individual is a minor. Luke's young age, combined with his psychological and developmental issues, raises critical questions about his understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions and his capacity to conform to the law. A forensic psychologist would evaluate Luke's cognitive development, maturity level, and mental health conditions to inform the court about his legal culpability.

Given Luke's age, a forensic psychologist would also engage in a risk assessment to evaluate the likelihood of future violent behavior and to recommend appropriate treatment interventions. Juvenile offenders often have a greater capacity for change and rehabilitation, and it is imperative to identify pathways for Luke's psychological and social development that could reduce the risk of recidivism. Finally, the case indicates that Luke was sentenced to several years in prison. In this context, forensic psychologists play a vital role in advising the legal system on sentencing options that are congruent with a juvenile offender's rehabilitation needs. The goal is to balance the requirements of public safety with the potential for Luke's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The case of Luke is an exemplar of the intricate factors that forensic psychologists must navigate in the realm of juvenile crime. It underscores the necessity for a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates developmental, environmental, and biological assessments to inform the legal process. The ultimate aim is to ensure that justice is served in a manner that considers the unique psychological needs of juvenile offenders and the broader societal interest in their rehabilitation.

Developmental Risk Factors and Correlation of Criminal Behavior

In the case of Luke, a 12-year-old boy who committed a violent crime, developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior provide a lens through which we can better understand the influences that may have shaped his actions.

Genetic and Neurological Factors:

While the case details do not explicitly mention genetic predispositions to violence, Luke's diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suggests the presence of neurological differences that can be associated with impulsivity and difficulties with self-regulation. These neurological factors, potentially compounded by genetic influences, could have contributed to Luke's inability to control his aggressive impulses (Nigg, 2006). Luke's early experiences were marked by developmental challenges and victimization by peers. His speech impediment and hearing impairment made him a target for bullying, which could have led to feelings of social rejection and isolation. Such adverse experiences are known to negatively impact emotional development and may contribute to the development of aggressive behavior as a coping mechanism (Arseneault et al., 2010).

Luke's family environment was characterized by instability and trauma. The loss of his grandfather, who had been his primary caregiver, and the subsequent introduction of a violent and abusive stepfather, created a turbulent and possibly unsafe home life. The molestation of his sister by the stepfather and the family's lack of cohesion likely exacerbated Luke's internal distress and anger, further increasing his risk for externalizing his emotions through violent behavior (Widom, 1989). The bullying and social rejection Luke experienced at school due to his physical and developmental differences may have further alienated him from his peers. The negative influence of this peer victimization can contribute to the development of antisocial attitudes and behaviors, as Luke may have internalized the aggression shown towards him and later replicated it in his violent act (Schwartz et al., 2005).

Although not detailed in the case, socioeconomic and community factors could also play a role. If Luke was living in a community with limited resources and exposure to violence, these environmental stressors could have normalized aggressive behavior or provided fewer opportunities for positive social engagement (Sampson et al., 2005). The tragic case of Luke illustrates how developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior can intertwine to influence an individual's actions. Luke's neurological and psychological challenges, combined with environmental stressors from family and peers, likely contributed to his criminal behavior. Understanding these developmental influences is crucial for informing appropriate interventions and rehabilitation efforts tailored to juvenile offenders like Luke.

Crime Characteristics

The violent crime committed by Luke, which culminated in the murder of a young boy, is more accurately classified as an expressive crime rather than an instrumental one. This distinction is crucial for understanding the underlying motivations and potential interventions required in such tragic circumstances.

Expressive crimes are often characterized by a lack of planning and a direct link to the emotional state of the perpetrator. In Luke's case, the crime was seemingly impulsive and driven by deep-seated anger and distress. His violent actions were preceded by a cascade of personal challenges: relentless bullying due to his physical and developmental differences, familial turmoil including his sister's molestation and abandonment, the recent death of his caring grandfather, and the revelation about his estranged biological father. These stressors likely contributed to a profound sense of emotional dysregulation, feelings of powerlessness, and a need for control, culminating in an explosive and violent outburst directed at an innocent victim.

The manner in which the crime was executed—a spontaneous attack in a park, without any apparent premeditation or strategic planning—underscores its expressive nature. Luke's use of found objects as weapons implies a lack of preparation, suggesting that the crime was not committed with a prior intent but in a moment of overwhelming emotional turmoil. His subsequent lack of concern for the consequences and inability to explain his actions further indicate that the crime was not instrumentally motivated; there was no rational or tangible goal that Luke sought to achieve through his actions.

The expressive nature of Luke's crime suggests that his violent behavior was a manifestation of his accumulated psychological distress rather than a means to achieve an external objective. This understanding is vital for the justice system when considering Luke's sentencing and rehabilitation. It points to the necessity of addressing the underlying emotional and psychological issues that may have precipitated the crime. Interventions such as therapy, emotional regulation training, and support for overcoming trauma could be essential components of his rehabilitation, given the expressive roots of his criminal behavior. Luke's crime is emblematic of an expressive act, where the interplay of personal anguish and emotional dysregulation overrides rational thinking and planning, leading to a tragic and senseless act of violence.

Criminality Assessment

The evaluation of whether Luke, a 12-year-old boy who committed a violent crime, is considered a "criminal" involves both legal definitions and psychological considerations. Legally, a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, which is an act in violation of the laws of a jurisdiction. Based on the information provided, Luke committed murder, which is a criminal offense. Therefore, according to the legal definition, Luke would be considered a criminal, as he has committed a criminal act. From a psychological perspective, the term "criminal" is more complex, particularly when the offender is a child. Children, like Luke, are still undergoing significant psychological and neurological development. Their cognitive abilities, moral reasoning, impulse control, and understanding of the consequences of their actions are not fully mature. Additionally, the influence of various environmental factors, such as family dynamics, trauma, and social experiences, can significantly impact a child's behavior.

Luke's actions occurred within a context of developmental challenges, including ADHD, bullying, family instability, and the recent loss of a primary caregiver. These factors contribute to his psychological profile and raise questions about his capacity to fully understand and control his actions. While these factors do not excuse the crime, they provide important context for evaluating his actions and determining appropriate interventions.

The juvenile justice system often makes distinctions between juvenile offenders and adult criminals, recognizing that children and adolescents have a greater capacity for change and rehabilitation. The system focuses on rehabilitation and treatment rather than solely on punishment. Therefore, while Luke has committed a crime, within the juvenile justice system, he may not be labeled as a criminal in the same way an adult would. Instead, he would be seen as a juvenile offender in need of interventions that address the underlying issues contributing to his behavior.

Legally, Luke is a criminal by virtue of having committed a crime. However, given his age and the circumstances surrounding his actions, it is essential to consider the broader context of his life and the developmental factors at play. The goal should be to understand the multifaceted reasons behind Luke's behavior and to provide him with the support and resources necessary for rehabilitation. Labeling him as a criminal without considering these factors would overlook the potential for positive change and the opportunity to guide him towards a better path.

While Luke's actions technically classify him as a criminal, it is more constructive to view him as a juvenile offender whose criminal behavior is the result of a complex interplay of individual and environmental factors. The focus should be on rehabilitation and prevention of future criminal behavior, rather than solely on punishment.

Theoretical Application

To analyze Luke's criminal behavior, we can apply the Social Learning Theory as articulated by psychologist Albert Bandura. This theory posits that individuals learn behaviors through observation, imitation, and modeling. Social Learning Theory suggests that people can learn to engage in behavior through the observation of others, particularly if those behaviors are seen to have positive outcomes or are committed by individuals to whom they feel similar or look up to.

Luke's home environment appears to have been fraught with negative role models and experiences. His stepfather's violent temper and the alleged molestation of his sister could have served as powerful examples of aggressive behavior that Luke learned to replicate. According to Social Learning Theory, this exposure could have normalized aggression and violence as acceptable responses to stress or anger. It is unclear what specific reinforcements he might have encountered for aggressive behavior. However, the absence of meaningful consequences for his stepfather's alleged violence might have inadvertently taught Luke that such behavior does not lead to negative repercussions. This lack of punishment can serve as a form of reinforcement, potentially encouraging the child to repeat observed behaviors.

Given his age, Luke was at a stage where the influence of observed behavior is particularly strong. His violent act could be seen as an imitation of the aggression he witnessed and experienced. The Social Learning Theory would suggest that Luke's behavior was learned through the observation of his stepfather and possibly other aggressive figures in his life. Social Learning Theory also acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in learning. Luke's perception of his environment, including the bullying and victimization he experienced, would have influenced his emotional responses and decision-making. His cognitive interpretation of these events may have led him to believe that violence was a viable way to express his emotions or assert control. While the case details do not specify Luke's interactions with peers, Social Learning Theory would also consider the influence of his schoolmates. The taunting and bullying he endured could have been interpreted by Luke as aggressive behavior that goes unpunished, further reinforcing the idea that violence is an appropriate response to conflict or a means of gaining social power.

Applying Social Learning Theory to Luke's case provides a framework for understanding his criminal behavior as a learned response, influenced by his environment, observed behaviors, and personal interpretations of his experiences. This theory suggests that interventions aimed at Luke should focus on providing positive role models, teaching alternative methods of coping with stress and anger, and reinforcing pro-social behavior while providing consistent consequences for aggressive actions. Social Learning Theory offers a comprehensive explanation for Luke's behavior that accounts for both the influence of his environment and his individual cognitive processes. By recognizing the learned aspects of his criminal behavior, it becomes possible to design targeted interventions that could help modify Luke's behavior and prevent future acts of violence.

Case 3: Cary Stayner, The Yosemite Park Signature Killer

The enigmatic case of Cary Stayner, also known as the Yosemite Park Signature Killer, presents a multifaceted profile of a man whose external charm was starkly contradicted by his internal malevolence. Cary Stayner's outward appearance and early potential as an artist painted a picture of a promising future. His creative talents earned him the title of "most creative" by his high school peers, and he was well-regarded for his artistic abilities. However, a deeper inspection of his drawings from around 1995 revealed a dark preoccupation with death and decapitation, particularly within the scenic confines of Yosemite National Park. These illustrations were an ominous harbinger of the violence that Stayner would later unleash.

Stayner's acquaintances described him as amiable, easygoing, and a tranquil naturalist, yet this public demeanor belied the sinister fantasies that plagued his private thoughts. This duality is not uncommon among serial offenders, who often possess the ability to maintain a convincing facade of normality. Stayner's unassuming nature and his role as a seemingly reliable hotel handyman allowed him to mask his predatory inclinations.

From a forensic psychology standpoint, Stayner's familial experiences, particularly being the elder brother of kidnap victim Steven Stayner, are of paramount importance. Steven's abduction and subsequent hero status following his escape and rescue of another child left Cary in the shadows, breeding resentment and a sense of obscurity. The psychological ramifications of such family dynamics, including the potential for feelings of neglect or sibling rivalry, may have contributed to Stayner's disturbed psyche.

The gruesome nature of Stayner's crimes, characterized by decapitation, points to elements of sexual sadism, where the act of killing itself is intertwined with sexual arousal. The repetitive nature of this method signifies a signature aspect of his killings, suggesting a deeply ingrained fantasy that Stayner felt compelled to actualize. This signature not only linked the murders but also provided insight into Stayner's need for control and dominance.

Stayner's predilection for violent imagery in his art serves as a chilling reminder of the potential predictive value of such expressions. Forensic psychologists recognize that artwork can be a window into the creator's mind, offering clues to their inner thoughts and possible future behavior. In Stayner's case, the violent themes depicted in his drawings presaged the brutality he would later commit.

The progression from Stayner's violent fantasies to the actualization of those thoughts into murderous actions is a critical area of study within forensic psychology. The process by which an individual transitions from imagining a crime to executing it is complex and often involves a gradual escalation of behaviors. Stayner's case exemplifies this trajectory, as his long-standing fantasies ultimately manifested in a series of brutal murders.

Stayner's eventual confession and expression of remorse, including his public apology to the families of his victims and the communities affected by his actions, raises questions about the sincerity of his contrition. His request for a movie deal and an interview with a national broadcaster suggests an attempt to manipulate his circumstances for personal gain, even in the face of overwhelming guilt.

Cary Stayner's case is a stark reminder of the complexities that lie within the human psyche. His ability to conceal his violent tendencies behind a veneer of attractiveness and reliability is a testament to the challenges faced by forensic psychologists in understanding and predicting criminal behavior. Stayner's artistic expressions, family dynamics, and the manifestation of his violent fantasies into a signature method of murder provide a comprehensive case study in the field of forensic psychology. The analysis of his behavior underscores the importance of considering a wide range of psychological factors when evaluating criminal conduct and the potential for preventive interventions.

Developmental Risk Factors and Correlations of Criminal Behavior

In evaluating Cary Stayner's criminal behavior, the influence of developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior is a critical area of inquiry. Scholarly research in the field of forensic psychology provides robust frameworks for understanding how such factors may shape an individual’s propensity for crime. Cary's elder brother position and the subsequent kidnapping and hero status of his younger brother Steven likely disrupted the family structure and dynamics. According to the social control theory, familial bonds and societal attachments play a significant role in deterring individuals from criminal paths (Hirschi, 1969). The overshadowing of Cary by Steven's notoriety could have weakened Cary's social ties, increasing the likelihood of deviance. This disparity in familial attention could lead to resentment, a diminished sense of self-worth, and a potential increase in antisocial behavior (Caspi et al., 1990).

The media coverage and attention focused on Steven could have fostered feelings of neglect or jealousy in Cary, potentially contributing to his emotional turmoil and subsequent criminal behavior. The differential reinforcement theory posits that individuals are likely to engage in criminal behavior when they perceive the rewards of such behavior to outweigh the consequences (Burgess & Akers, 1966). In Cary's case, the desire for attention and notoriety, which he lacked in comparison to his brother, might have been a motivating factor behind his crimes. The traumatic events in Cary's life, such as the kidnapping of his brother and the murder of his uncle, may have desensitized him to violence. The unresolved grief and trauma from these events could have impacted his emotional regulation and increased his propensity for violence. General strain theory suggests that individuals who experience stress or strain are more likely to engage in criminal behavior as a means of coping (Agnew, 1992). Stayner's history of familial trauma aligns with this theory, as it could have served as a significant source of psychological strain.

Stayner's violent drawings serve as an indicator of his preoccupation with themes of death and destruction. According to the cognitive theory of crime, which emphasizes the influence of thought processes on behavior, such artistic expressions can be considered rehearsals for future criminal acts (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Stayner's artwork, depicting scenes eerily similar to the crimes he would later commit, underscores the potential predictive value of violent fantasies and their role in criminal behavior. Described as a loner, Stayner's isolation from social support systems could have made him more vulnerable to acting upon deviant impulses. Social support theory emphasizes the protective role that positive relationships play in deterring criminal behavior (Cullen, 1994). The absence of such relationships in Stayner's life may have removed a critical buffer against the development of antisocial behavior.

The developmental risk factors and correlates present in Cary Stayner's life provide insight into the multifaceted influences on his criminal behavior. While these factors do not excuse his violent actions, they offer a framework for understanding the psychological pathways that may have led to his criminality. Scholarly research supports the notion that developmental risk factors and correlates, such as family trauma, exposure to violence, and lack of social support, play a role in shaping criminal behavior. Cary Stayner's case is a poignant example of how these factors can coalesce to influence an individual's trajectory toward crime. Understanding these elements is crucial for identifying preventative measures and interventions for individuals with similar risk profiles.

Crime Characteristics

Cary Stayner's series of murders within Yosemite National Park can be more precisely categorized as expressive crimes when examined through the lens of their intrinsic motivations and the underlying psychological gratification they provided for Stayner. The key elements that define Stayner's murders as expressive include the highly personal and ritualistic nature of the killings, the lack of a tangible external motive, and the clear connection to his pre-existing violent fantasies.

The manner in which Stayner executed his crimes—particularly the decapitation of his victims—was not only gruesome but also highly symbolic. This ritualistic component of his crimes suggests a compulsion to express dominance and power in a specific, recurring manner. Such a signature is indicative of gratification derived from the act itself, rather than from any external reward (Schlesinger, 2007).

Stayner's crimes lacked any apparent instrumental purpose. There was no evidence of robbery, ransom, or other material advantage sought by Stayner through the commission of these murders. The absence of an instrumental motive such as financial gain or another form of tangible benefit points to the conclusion that the crimes were motivated by internal psychological needs (Hickey, 2013).

Stayner's documented history of violent and disturbing drawings, which predated the murders by several years, demonstrates a long-standing preoccupation with themes of death and decapitation. This suggests that the murders were an actualization of his internal fantasies—expressive acts that brought his macabre imaginings into reality (Meloy, 2000).

The use of decapitation as a method of killing is particularly indicative of an expressive crime when linked to sexual fantasies. The fact that Stayner admitted to deriving sexual gratification from the act of cutting his victims’ throats further underscores the expressive nature of the murders. The crimes served as a means to fulfill a deviant sexual desire, a characteristic often associated with expressive rather than instrumental homicides (Ressler et al., 1988).

In synthesizing these specific elements, it becomes clear that Stayner's crimes were driven by a need for psychological expression rather than by rational, goal-oriented motives. The consistent use of decapitation reflects a personal signature, a manifestation of his violent fantasies, and a means of attaining sexual gratification. This paints a picture of a man whose criminal acts were deeply rooted in his psyche, pointing to the expressive categorization of his crimes.

Criminality

Cary Stayner is classified as a criminal based on his actions and their alignment with legal definitions. A "criminal" is generally defined as an individual who commits acts that are in violation of the laws set forth by a jurisdiction, which are codified responses to behavior that a society agrees is harmful or undesirable. In Cary Stayner's case, he committed multiple murders, which are serious criminal offenses under any legal system. The specificity of his criminal designation is grounded in the nature of his deeds, the legal adjudication of his case, and the societal recognition of his violations as serious offenses. Cary Stayner’s actions consisted of the premeditated and intentional killings of four women, which included elaborate planning and the execution of a ritualistic signature method—decapitation. These actions are defined as first-degree murder under criminal law, which is one of the most severe offenses due to the intentional and pre-planned taking of human life (18 U.S. Code § 1111).

Stayner’s criminal status is further specified by the legal outcomes of his actions. After a detailed investigation, Stayner was arrested and confessed to the murders. His confession provided law enforcement with details only the perpetrator could know, thereby reinforcing the validity of the charges against him. Stayner was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to the death penalty, a legal sanction reserved for the most egregious of criminal offenses (California Penal Code § 190.2).

While the legal classification is clear-cut, a psychological perspective might dive deeper into the factors that contribute to criminality. Forensic psychology examines not only the criminal acts themselves but also the mental state of the offender and the myriad factors that may have led to the criminal behavior. In Cary's case, forensic psychologists might explore his family dynamics, personal history, and psychological development to understand the motivations behind his criminal acts. However, these factors do not negate the fact that the acts he committed are crimes; they simply provide context for understanding his behavior. Society's recognition of Stayner’s actions as criminal is based not only on the breach of legal codes but also on the moral and ethical norms that murder violates. The societal consensus is that murder represents a fundamental transgression against individual rights and community safety, and those who commit such acts are labeled criminals.

Cary Stayner's actions meet the criteria for criminal behavior due to the deliberate and unlawful nature of the murders he committed. His acknowledgement of guilt through confession and the subsequent judicial process, which led to his conviction and sentencing, further reinforce his categorization as a criminal. The criminal justice system's primary function is to adjudicate such cases, and by all legal accounts, Cary is a criminal. Cary Stayner is considered a criminal because he committed illegal acts that are defined as crimes. His status as a criminal is based on his actions violating established laws, and this is supported by his admission of guilt and legal conviction. Understanding why he became a criminal may involve psychological exploration, but it does not change the fact that he committed criminal acts.

Theoretical Application

To analyze Cary Stayner's criminal behavior, one can apply the Psychodynamic Theory of Criminal Behavior. This theory, rooted in the work of Sigmund Freud, suggests that unconscious forces, often stemming from early childhood experiences, drive individual behavior. In the context of criminal behavior, the Psychodynamic Theory posits that unresolved internal conflicts and repressed impulses may manifest as antisocial or criminal actions.

In the case of Cary Stayner, it's possible that early childhood experiences, including the trauma of his brother's kidnapping and the subsequent shift in family dynamics, may have created deep-seated psychological conflicts. According to psychodynamic theorists, such traumatic events can lead to repressed emotions and unresolved psychological issues that may later surface in harmful ways (Freud, 1916/1957). Stayner's behavior could be interpreted as a form of acting out—wherein unconscious emotional conflicts are expressed through actions rather than being resolved internally. This is a defense mechanism described in psychodynamic theory, where an individual unconsciously tries to manage internal anxieties or conflicts by transforming them into external behaviors (A. Freud, 1936).

The brutality of Stayner's crimes, especially the decapitation of his victims, could reflect a form of projection—a psychodynamic defense mechanism where one's unacceptable desires or thoughts are attributed to others. In Stayner's case, the violent fantasies that he projected onto his victims could be indicative of his own internal aggression and a desire to externalize his deep-seated anger or hostility (Kernberg, 1992). Another psychodynamic concept that could be applied to Stayner's case is identification with the aggressor. This occurs when an individual, often as a coping mechanism for trauma, unconsciously adopts the characteristics of a person who has caused them harm or distress. Cary may have identified with the aggressor in his brother's abduction, leading to an internalization of violent behaviors (A. Freud, 1936).

The psychodynamic approach also emphasizes the development of the superego—the part of the personality that holds moral standards and ideals. If the superego is underdeveloped or maladaptive, as could be the case with Stayner, an individual might lack the moral inhibitions that prevent most people from acting on their most base impulses (Freud, 1923).

Applying the Psychodynamic Theory to Stayner's criminal actions offers a framework for understanding his behavior as the outcome of unconscious psychological processes shaped by his early life experiences. This perspective suggests that Stayner's crimes were not the result of a rational choice but were influenced by unresolved internal conflicts, repressed emotions, and a potentially weakened moral conscience. While the Psychodynamic Theory provides a lens through which to interpret Stayner's behavior, it is one of many theoretical approaches that can be used to understand criminality. It underscores the importance of early experiences and unconscious processes in shaping behavior, potentially contributing to the development of violent criminal actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this academic paper has endeavored to dissect the intricate tapestry of criminal behavior through the detailed examination of three distinct homicidal case studies: the family homicide case, Luke Woodham, and Cary Stayner. The family homicide case illustrated the intersection of individual psychopathology and familial stressors, shedding light on the potential for catastrophic outcomes when domestic tensions align with psychological vulnerabilities. Luke Woodham's actions, when considered through Social Learning Theory, underscore the profound impact of environmental influences and the modeling of violent behavior. Cary Stayner's behavior, analyzed with the Psychodynamic Theory, suggests the complex interplay of unconscious motivations rooted in early life trauma and the resultant maladaptive behaviors. Additionally, the differentiation between expressive and instrumental crimes, particularly in Stayner's case, provides nuanced insights into the underlying motivations for criminal acts and the importance of accurate categorization in forensic profiling. Together, these case studies highlight the necessity of an integrated approach in forensic psychology, which accounts for the confluence of psychological development, social environment, and individual experiences, advocating for a holistic strategy in the prevention, intervention, and treatment of criminal behavior. Through meticulous examination and interdisciplinary discourse, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the multifactorial nature of criminal actions and the critical role of comprehensive analysis in advancing the field's capacity to manage and mitigate the risk factors associated with criminal conduct.

References

Acklin, M. W. (2008). The Rorschach test and forensic psychological evaluation: Psychosis and the insanity defense. In C. Gacono & F. Evans (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 157–176). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810071

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315677187

Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: 'Much ado about nothing'? Psychological Medicine, 40(5), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291709991383

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1966.14.2.03a00020

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1990). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 308-313. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.23.2.308

Cullen, F. T. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly, 11(4), 527-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829400092421

Diamond, B. L. (1961). Criminal responsibility of the mentally ill. Stanford Law Review, 14, 59–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/1226566

Eme, R. (2015). Beauchaine ontogenic process model of externalizing psychopathology a biosocial theory of crime and delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 177-183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.011

Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. International Universities Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(194710)3:4%3C402::aid-jclp2270030417%3E3.0.co;2-c

Freud, S. (1916/1957). Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis (Parts I and II). In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 15-16). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1916). https://doi.org/10.1037/e417472005-374

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. W.W. Norton & Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/e417472005-462

Hickey, E. W. (2013). Serial Murderers and Their Victims. Cengage Learning.

Hill, P. L., Roberts, B. W., Grogger, J. T., Guryan, J., & Sixkiller, K. (2011). Decreasing delinquency, criminal behavior, and recidivism by intervening on psychological factors other than cognitive ability: A review of the intervention literature. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16698

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081649

Kendler, K. S., Lönn, S. L., Maes, H. H., Sundquist, K., & Sundquist, J. (2015). The etiologic role of genetic and environmental factors in criminal behavior as determined from full-and half-sibling pairs: an evaluation of the validity of the twin method. Psychological Medicine, 45(9), 1873-1880. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291714002979

Kernberg, O. (1992). Aggression in personality disorders and perversions. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300159462

Manolakes, L. A. (1997). Cognitive ability, environmental factors, and crime: Predicting frequent criminal activity. In B. Devlin, S. E. Fienberg, D. P. Resnick, & K. Roeder (Eds.), Intelligence, genes, and success: Scientists respond to The Bell Curve (pp. 179-192). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0669-9_11

Math, S. B., & Kumar, C. N. (2015). Insanity defense: Past, present, and future. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(4), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.168559

Mednick, S. A., Gabrielli, W. F., & Hutchings, B. (1987). Genetic factors in the etiology of criminal behavior. In S. A. Mednick, T. E. Moffitt, & S. A. Stack (Eds.), The causes of crime: New biological approaches (pp. 74-91). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511753282.007

Meloy, J. R. (2000). Violence risk and threat assessment. Specialized Training Services.

Nigg, J. T. (2006). What causes ADHD? Understanding what goes wrong and why. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-1816

Ogloff, J. R. P., Roberts, C. F., & Roesch, R. (1993). The insanity defense: Legal standards and clinical assessment. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0962-1849(05)80122-2

Portnoy, J., Chen, F. R., & Raine, A. (2013). Biological protective factors for antisocial and criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(5), 292-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.018

Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. Lexington Books.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (2005). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918

Schlesinger, L. B. (2007). Explorations in Criminal Psychopathology: Clinical Syndromes With Forensic Implications. Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2005). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 76(4), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132117

Shapiro, D. L. (2016). Ethical issues in forensic psychology and psychiatry. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 2(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2016.01.015

Thornberry, T. P., & Farnworth, M. (1982). Social correlates of criminal involvement: Further evidence on the relationship between social status and criminal behavior. American Sociological Review, 47(4), 505-518. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095195

Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2704995