Resistance to the Understanding of Criminotic Behavior

It is a surprising fact that whereas two major criminoses (incest-patricide) lie at the base of psychoanalytical theory and discovery the problem of crime itself remains one of the least studied by analysts. What is the meaning of this paradox? Not that non analysts have made any deeper or more penetrating studies by venturing more closely to the actual problem. The usual non-analyti techniques for crime study are very much of the “calipers” type The measuring instrument is held at a safe distance. Each investi gator brings away the findings that his own technical methods permit. The term Oedipus Complex has a mythical connotation as if it were of the past. But the past lies in the life of each individual.

In a study of the criminoticc individual it would seem that the very weight of the Oedipus Complex is revealed. The drama no longer is of the past, nor of infancy, but of the moment. The outward complexion of the crime is not necessarily that of Oedipus—but the power, threat and danger spring forth. After all, Oedipus at first was not conscious of his crime, much less its enormity. These elements appear in the awful punishment meted out to him. Is ther in this a clue as to why the problem of crime is largely neglected Is there a deep resistance to the understanding of the criminoti individual? Is he feared in himself apart from personal internal resistances to the freeing of impulses? Are there any resistances in addition to possible formulations within a mythological term of what is of the present? This is reminiscent of the general fear with which investigation of primitive races was begun. But the paralle is not exact for even the primitives have an inner circle of criminoti individuals.

There is an element of danger with the psychotic individua (actual or as part of each individual) but he is recognized and place safely away with relative ease. He generally shows an autoplastiphantastic structure. He is not usually ready for analysis in his