You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Devereux presents a theoretical discussion of the differences between the neurotic, occasional criminal and the habitual criminal. He feels that analysts have failed to make the necessary distinction because of their subjective need to project their own unconscious conflicts which would fall into the neurotic classification rather than that of the habitual criminal.
In the isolated and recurrent criminal actions of the neurotic there is a temporary failure of the defenses against the instincts. The superego demands punishment and expiation which is usually forthcoming. Whether occurring in a character neurotic or symptom neurotic, it is the impulse and not the defense which is criminal.
In habitual criminality, excessive and criminal defenses are maintained as a character armor against instinctual demands prohibited in childhood. These defenses are conspicuously more damaging to both the individual and society than the instinct demands would be. The unconscious ego and superego of the criminal seems to find these defenses more satisfactory than the forbidden masturbation and homosexuality they usually hide. The superego is structurally modified to permit the use of the criminal defenses. Both ego and superego accept criminality as a subcultural method of earning one's livelihood.
In perversions, pregenital drives are used as defenses against genital demands. The pervert is a criminal either as the result of a social convention, e.g. homosexuality, or as the result of the break-through of aggressive pregenital impulses, e.g. lust, murder.