Theories of Criminological Behavior: The of Timothy McVeigh - Case Study Example

?Theories of Criminological Behavior: The Case of Timothy McVeigh The Oklahoma bombing perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh is considered tobe one of the most devastating in the history of America. The damage to life and property has been aggravated by the fact that the mass murder has been committed in the American “Heartland,” the place long thought as invulnerable to attacks of this kind. The sheer magnitude of the devastation underscores the need to examine the motivations and the behavioral patterns of the criminal that led him to commit this unspeakable crime. Several criminological theories cover this aspect and explain the dynamics behind McVeigh’s action in detail, providing comprehensive insights both on the crime and the criminal. Unarguably, the case of Timothy McVeigh is one of the most infamous and heinous crimes ever committed in the United States. It is second only to the damage wrought by the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York in damage to property lives claimed. What made it particularly significant, however, is the fact that McVeigh is an American citizen, which made his terrorist act homegrown as opposed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which was perpetrated by foreign terrorists. This paper will explore the criminal theories behind his act as well as in the dynamics of the drama that unfolded in the course of his arrest and trial, which culminated in his execution. This is particularly because there was so little effort to comprehend his act and his motivations because there was a collective clamor for his death and nothing else just so he could no longer repeat his feat. The sentiment was understandable, as McVeigh – throughout the whole affair stood unmoved and unrepentant, coldly defending his action as rational and calling the victims “collateral damage” in his twisted notion of things. Background It was April 19, 1995 when Timothy McVeigh left a truck loaded with bombs in Alfred Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. It exploded as intended, killing 168 victims and further injuring more than 600 people, which included 15 children in the nearby day care center. It flattened the federal building and destroyed the surrounding edifices, leaving a wide radius of destruction that shocked Americans to the core. The tragic event, wrote Stein, effectively “shattered the mythic invulnerability of the American “Heartland””. (p. 51) McVeigh was apprehended a little over an hour later on a different charge – that of transporting a firearm. “By August 1995, McVeigh and co-defendant Terry Nichols had been charged with conspiracy, use of weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives, and eight counts of first-degree murder.” (Greene and Heilburn 2010, p. 189) When McVeigh was apprehended, along with his cohort, Terry Nichols, America was again shocked to find that these clean-cut men, both served in the country’s armed forces, were responsible for planning and implementing an action that would kill hundreds of their countrymen. In the process, they methodically constructed and detonated bombs, with the plan as some sort of revenge and catalyst to his separatist movement. (Disilvestre 2003, p. 64) For this paraphrase, this is the information/direct quote from the source (I will include the quotes if you want to use it): “Timothy McVeigh, just 29 years, was the ex-soldier convicted of constructing, planting and detonating the bomb that killed so many of his countrymen. Terry Nichols, 42, was convicted of helping McVeigh plan, purchase and steal materials in order to construct the bomb.” (Disilvestre, p. 64) Criminological Theories Again, it must be emphasized that contemporary interest on the motivational factors for McVeigh’s crime was close to nonexistent as many Americans wanted closure and the sense of security that came with finally putting the man who murdered hundreds of Americans to death. If the public and criminologists themselves bothered to look, there are existing criminological theories that could explain McVeigh’s behavior and state of mind that led him to commit the mass murder. This way, a more rational and less passionate approach to the issue could have been adopted and steps were immediately taken in order to avoid such deviant behavior from occurring in the future. The sociological theory is one of the most applicable theories in McVeigh’s case. Here, it is argued that people who are disadvantaged in life such as those mired in poverty, discriminated upon, tend to engage in criminal activities because most of the opportunities for succeeding in life have been closed off. A more specific theory in this category, which could possibly explain McVeigh’s behavior as a criminal has been posited by Gaines and Miller (2008), the Social Disorganization Theory. This particular school of thought argues that “those who are disadvantaged because of poverty or other factors, such as radical discrimination, are more likely to commit crimes because other avenues to “success” have been closed off.” (p. 35) This social disorganization supposedly leads to the breakdown of social control, allowing for an environment conducive to criminals and crime. McVeigh’s life seems to be one of the ideal profiles identified by social theorists in this particular framework. While his early life was not marked by extreme poverty, he did grew-up in a stressful environment beginning with being raised by a single parent and being constantly bullied at school. Various reports, including a story about his life, have been in agreement that McVeigh had constantly fantasized of getting even with school bullies. As he grew older, his anger towards bullies was transferred to the government. He was quoted as saying the US government is the ultimate bully, finally finding for himself an object to his anger, which has accumulated inside him all his life. It is in this context how he came to plan his ultimate revenge by bombing a federal building to satisfy his “cause”. McVeigh’s story, however, is a little different than the more ideological and general profile adopted by Social Disorganization theory. There is some disconnect in the way this theory dwell on the stereotypical low-class-less-chance-in-life argument. For one, McVeigh was not poor, was not abused, did not suffer neglect and has even enjoyed a fairly successful military career. No reports of inadequacies in most aspects of his life were ever recorded, except the bullying and his difficulty in impressing girls. Another form of sociological theory that appears right in most respects in explaining McVeigh’s behavior is the so-called Differential Association Theory. Here, the idea is that criminality is not a consequence of some individual trait(s) or low socio-economic status. Rather, there was a belief that criminal behavior is an offshoot of the social learning process that will not spare an individual just because he lives in a different cultural environment. It is supposed to be universally true, regardless of where one is from. According to Siegel, “skills motives conducive to crime are learned as a result of contacts with procrime values, attitudes, and definitions and other patterns of criminal behavior.” (p. 203) It is easy to apply this in McVeigh’s case. Starting from his childhood, McVeigh has been in contact with violence as demonstrated by the bullying he had to suffer in his childhood. More importantly, he learned to hate at this stage and cultivate a sense of vengeance and a twisted form of social justice. His grandfather introduced him to guns later on. This development fueled in him an interest in guns, with the weapon, occupying his spare time and his dreams with his subscription to gun magazines and his growing knowledge of guns and gun rights by the time he finished high school. After this period, he joined the United States Army. His stint as a soldier taught him the skills and knowledge that are crucial perpetrating crimes. He learned how to shoot, taking it upon himself to learn about guns and munitions as well as tactics in shooting and perhaps killing people even in his spare time. When he left the army, he was cited as a top-gunner back in the US 1st Infantry Division. Finally, an important association he would make during his soldiering was when he met Terry Nichols. McVeigh met him during basic training. “They shared a right-wing mentality and the belief that society was on the verge of self-destruction.” (Hickey 2003, p. 329) Like McVeigh, Nichols also hated the government to the core and their friendship stoked each of their desires further. “When McVeigh moved onto the Nichols family farm in 1993, McVeigh, Nichols, and Nichols’s brother formed their own cell of a paramilitary group called the “Patriots”.”(Hickey, p. 329) The above developments in McVeigh’s life are also covered by another criminological theory, which is called choice theory or rational choice theory. Briggs and Friedman (2009) explained that “rational choice theorists contend that even though a criminal may not write out the pros and cons of a decision to commit a crime, he does go through a rational decision-making process. That is, he engages in a risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis by asking himself, “What are the risks and rewards of my actions”.” (p. 179) It may appear that McVeigh’s choices are not rational but the argument under this theory is that a person’s personal values, no matter how twisted, drives the rational characteristic of their choices. Put in another way, the criminal behavior or the choice to commit crime is reasonable for a person who has significantly different set of values than the rest of the community. Choice theory is important in criminology or in law enforcement because it identifies specific variables that lead to a model in solving criminality. Since the theory maintains, wrote Briggs and Friedman, that a criminal assesses the potential rewards and risks before acting on a crime, society can develop – based from this variable – punishment that would weigh down the rewards, deterring the rational actor from committing crime. Dumas, Hughbank and Niosi (2011) stressed that the theory mirror the Classical Theory in that “it postulates that crime or criminal behavior can only be controlled through fear of criminal sanctions – that the punishment fits the crime.” (p. 193) Finally, there was also the fact that McVeigh’s crime was considered an act of terrorism. What this means is that his actions – blowing up a federal building and murdering hundreds of civilians – are part of his strategy of using threat and terror in order to achieve social and political goals. This theoretical explanation to McVeigh’s behavior is also legitimate and valid. His paramilitary cell and his involvement with Nichols underscored this point. They even called their group, Patriots, suggesting a nationalistic bent to their own twisted cause. This school of thought is suggesting that McVeigh may not be entirely a psychopathic killer but someone who has acquired a zealous and self-righteous rage not unlike those displayed by terrorists, reinforcing a need to shock society in order to effect his perceived as the righteous change. This argument is reinforced by Gibbs (2003) who emphasized that it is not clear that McVeigh was psychopathic in the classic sense. His absence of guilt over harm to others seemed to stem not from an absence of empathy so much as the effective use of self-righteous, sel-serving distortions.” (p. 156) Conclusion The various criminological theories cited by this paper are all sound and valid models that can explain McVeigh’s criminal behavior. However, each of these theories has its own weaknesses. In order to comprehensively examine and understand McVeigh’s case, therefore, it is suggested that they be integrated, with their strength and weaknesses functioning in a complementary manner. This combination theory may be expressed in the assumption that the crime perpetrated by McVeigh was an act resulting from a rational choice – a choice taken by a person who had positive associations made with crime and criminal behavior and with people that displayed and contributed such factors in his personal learning and development. The Oklahoma City bombing was a consequence of McVeigh’s development as a criminal, learning the motives, skills and techniques for its implementation along the way from situations as well as from people he had close relationships with. References Briggs, S. and Friedman, J. (2009). ?Criminology for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. Disilvestre, R. (2003). Collectible Meals--Second Helping. Bloomington, IN: Unlimited Publishing, LLC. Dumas, J., Hughbank, R. and Niosi, A. (2011). The Dynamics of Terror: And Creation of Homegrown Terrorists. Mustang: Tate Publishing. Gaines, L. and Miller, R. (2008). Criminal Justice in Action: The Core. New York: Cengage Brain. Gibbs, J. (2003). Moral development and reality: beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman. London: SAGE. Greene, E. and Heilburn, K. (2010). Wrightsman's Psychology and the Legal System. New York: Cengage Learning. Hickey, E. (2003). Encyclopedia of murder and violent crime. London: SAGE. Siegel, L. (2008). Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning Publisher. Stein, H. (2004). Beneath the crust of culture. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Read More