Study Shows Male Petty Criminals From Poor Background Are Less Likely to Succeed

Young men from poor backgrounds who have committed petty crimes are the least likely to be trusted or expected to succeed, according to new research.

The finding was a surprising result in new scientific research which set out to establish if those with a mental illness were likely to encounter problems being forgiven and trusted if they had committed petty crimes.

Researchers at the University of Portsmouth found instead that people with a mental illness and a criminal past were more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt, but that young men from disadvantaged backgrounds but no mental illness were considered beyond redemption.

The research is published in Psychiatry Research.

Lead researcher Dr Claire Nee, a forensic psychologist in the Department of Psychology, said: "We didn't expect this result. We assumed those with mental illness would be stigmatised more.

"The results suggest those with a criminal past and a disadvantaged background are among the most rejected in our society and will face significant obstacles in trying to lead a crime-free life.

"They are, as many others see it, beyond redemption and have everything stacked against them."

Dr Nee and colleagues wanted to know the extent to which the general public discriminated against people with schizophrenia, depression and anxiety and alcoholism and particularly whether they were seen as dangerous in our society.

She said: "Research tells us that people with mental illness are discriminated against on many levels, but little has been done on how different mental illnesses might elicit different reactions."

The researchers composed six different backgrounds of a man in his 20s called Sam. They asked 243 members of the general public , aged 18 to 76 in an anonymous online survey, to rate his trustworthiness, how sympathetic they felt towards him, how likely he was to commit crime in future, how serious such crimes might be, and whether he could be rehabilitated.

Five of the ‘Sams' had committed petty, nuisance crime in the past. Three of those also had a mental illness - one had schizophrenia, one suffered from depression and anxiety, and one was an alcoholic - and came from a 'normal' background. The fourth ‘Sam' had committed the same petty crimes in the past, had no mental illness and came from a ‘normal' background. A fifth ‘Sam' had no mental illness and came from a disadvantaged background and the sixth ‘Sam' was the control and had no mental illness, no criminal past and a ‘normal' background.

In response to the question, how likely is this young man to commit crimes in future, 80 per cent said the disadvantaged Sam with no mental illness probably or definitely would. The other Sams drew less sympathy: 79 per cent for alcoholic Sam; 73 per cent for depressed and anxious Sam; 62 per cent for schizophrenic Sam; 53 per cent for Sam with no illness, a ‘normal' background and history of committing petty crimes. The Sam considered least likely to go on to commit further crimes was the control Sam, who had no illness, no previous criminal activity and came from a ‘normal' background. The most sympathetic towards any of the Sam's were those aged 46 and older. The least sympathetic were those aged 18-25, closely followed by those aged 36-45. Participants who themselves had either offended or had mental health problems were also more likely to be sympathetic.

Dr Nee said: "What we found was, while people did think the Sam's with mental illness were more likely to commit crime, this was thought to be petty nuisance crime. Unexpectedly, it was the Sam with no mental illness, but who came from a disadvantaged background who elicited a really negative response.

"He was the only one expected to commit serious crime in the future, was considered beyond rehabilitation, and was seen as significantly less trustworthy than any other version of Sam.

"People were more sympathetic and less discriminatory towards those with mental illness than previous research has predicted which is good news, but the results highlight just how huge the challenges disadvantaged people with previous convictions face in terms of reintegrating into society."

Dr Nee thinks the reason for the people's reactions might be because they are more likely to think those with a mental illness can recover, deserve treatment and that the illness is not their fault. With offenders from disadvantaged backgrounds there is no similar understanding and they were seen as having no excuse for their behaviour.

She said: "For offenders from poor backgrounds, there is no allowance made for a recovery period, if you slip up, you're punished again, and you will always be an 'ex-con'. Your behaviour is seen as totally your fault, no matter what has gone on in your background."

The researchers suggest further studies need to be done to test attitudes of a wider cross section of participants, but if the results hold, the findings have the potential to be useful to those working with disadvantaged communities.

Report this article as inappropriate

Comments

You need to log in before you can do that! It's only a quick registration process to join the AMA network and completely free.