The Evolution of Perpetrator Research within International Criminology
Disposition: attitude/characteristic/nature
(1) Evolution: WWII
WWII
● Holocaust
● Nuremberg Trials → attempt to hold political leaders responsible for holocaust accountable
(ie criminally prosecuted)
Psychologists and Psychiatrists → engaging with Nazi leaders in prison before Nuremberg Trials to
attempt to understand the politicians and reasoning for Holocaust
● Kelley (1947)
→ politicians are overly ambitious; lacked empathy to the same degree; but otherwise pretty
normal
● Gilbert (1947) & Goldensohn (Gellately 2005 – published after death)
→ ‘narcissist in a very malignant manner’; ‘psychopathology’; ‘no conscious’
Quite quickly in academia, dispositional perspective was challenged…
Eichmann Trial → Eichmann fled to Argentina, kidnapped and brought to Israel and tried
● Responsible for logistics regarding death freight trains
● Eichmann was an incredibly important bureaucrat → ie important for execution of the
Holocaust itself
● His trial sparked interest in various people
● By philosophers: Arendt
● By social-psychologists: Milgram & Zimbardo
● By historians: Browning
1.1 Arendt: The Banality of Evil
‘It would have been comfortable indeed to believe that Eichmann was a monster.. The trouble with
Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted or
sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal’ (p 276)
‘This new type of criminal, who is in fact hostis generis humani commits his crimes under
circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible to know or to feel that he is doing wrong’ (p 276)
‘For when I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level ... Except for an
extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all . He
merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realised what he was doing.’ (p 287)
"In principle he knew quite well what it was all about .. He was not stupid. It was sheer
thoughtlessness - something by no means identical with stupidity - that predisposed him to become
one of the greatest criminals of that period" (p 287-288)
,→ Controversial: something so heinous can be made so normal (at least in the way her words were
executed)
● Arendt doesn’t vilify Eichmann, normalises him to be a normal individual (comparable to
your next-door neighbour)
● Ambition is an important debate; the German community culture in relation to destruction of
the Jews is also important to note → role of bureaucracy that facilitates the process that makes
it very detached from the harm he is doing
○ Knowledge vs comprehension: Arendt never saw and experienced the pain that the
Jews were feeling? Though, it’s known that he saw
● People interpreted Arendet’s words to believe that Eichmann was very ingrained to the wider
culture that was very pervasive at that time → anti-semitism
● People interpreted Arendt’s words to say that he only obeyed orders → however based on
national archives, it seemed incorrect
1.2 Social-Psychology
1.2.1 Milgram → obedience experiments (electric shocks)
Replicated: numerous scientific replication
● People are much more obedient than we thought after the experiment
● Le Jeu de la Mort (‘Game of Death’)
Heavily criticised → ethics
● Caused distress
● Milgram was not as conscientious in debriefing
Methodology
● Prods was less systematic than they seemed
● Did everyone believe the experimental setting?
Outcome
● Disobedience might be potentially higher than Milgram reported
1.2.2 Zimbardo → prison experiment
Presented as saying that in a particular surrounding (ie prison), abuse is more likely to
occur than anybody would expect
However, it was found that Zimbardo was prodding the students involved to be incredibly abusive
Replicated: BBC prison study (approved by ethics board)
Foundational experiment shifted the debate from the ‘mad Nazi theory’ to ‘ordinary people in
extraordinary circumstances’ → went from nature to nurture
, 1.3 History
Police Battalion 101: guarded Polish prisoners of war and carried out expulsion of Poles, called
"resettlement actions", in the new Warthegau territory around Poznań and Łódź. Following a
personnel change and retraining from May 1941 until June 1942, it became a major perpetrator of the
Holocaust in occupied Poland.
1.3.1 Browning (historian)
‘Only the very exceptional remained indifferent to taunts of ‘weakling’ from their comrades’ (1992; p
186)
→ almost everyone participated in the shooting of Jews; framed it that it was military culture and
camaraderie that made normal people engage in heinous acts (ie situation contributed to the acts)
1.3.2 Goldgagen (Political Scientists)
‘These men and women were Germans first, and SS men, policemen, or camp guards second’ (1996, p
7)
→ not necessarily normal but culture first
1.4 Interdisciplinary Challenge
Disposition vs situation debate
… but what is disposition?
1.4.1 Recent Developments: Disposition
Mental disorders
● Sadism (Stein, 2005; Kaminer & Stein, 2001)
● Narcissism (usually in relation to leaders, eg Glad, 2002)
Traits and Interactionism → tendencies; some are more likely to
● Traits linked to obedience (Elms & Milgram, 1066; Begue et al, 2015)
● Pro-social values (Staub, 2010)
Culture → especially anthropologists look at the role of culture
● Cambodia (eg Hinton, 1998)
1.4.2 Recent Developments: Situation
Society
● Influence of war and opportunity (Verwimp, 2005) → perpetrators were opportunists who
took the opportunity during war to advance
● Ideology (Alvarez, 2008; Leader-Maynard, 2015) → eg totalitarian regime was so pervasive
in Nazi Germany; propaganda
● Combination of war and criminal opportunity (Weerdesteijn & Smeulers, 2011)
Disposition: attitude/characteristic/nature
(1) Evolution: WWII
WWII
● Holocaust
● Nuremberg Trials → attempt to hold political leaders responsible for holocaust accountable
(ie criminally prosecuted)
Psychologists and Psychiatrists → engaging with Nazi leaders in prison before Nuremberg Trials to
attempt to understand the politicians and reasoning for Holocaust
● Kelley (1947)
→ politicians are overly ambitious; lacked empathy to the same degree; but otherwise pretty
normal
● Gilbert (1947) & Goldensohn (Gellately 2005 – published after death)
→ ‘narcissist in a very malignant manner’; ‘psychopathology’; ‘no conscious’
Quite quickly in academia, dispositional perspective was challenged…
Eichmann Trial → Eichmann fled to Argentina, kidnapped and brought to Israel and tried
● Responsible for logistics regarding death freight trains
● Eichmann was an incredibly important bureaucrat → ie important for execution of the
Holocaust itself
● His trial sparked interest in various people
● By philosophers: Arendt
● By social-psychologists: Milgram & Zimbardo
● By historians: Browning
1.1 Arendt: The Banality of Evil
‘It would have been comfortable indeed to believe that Eichmann was a monster.. The trouble with
Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted or
sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal’ (p 276)
‘This new type of criminal, who is in fact hostis generis humani commits his crimes under
circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible to know or to feel that he is doing wrong’ (p 276)
‘For when I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level ... Except for an
extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all . He
merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realised what he was doing.’ (p 287)
"In principle he knew quite well what it was all about .. He was not stupid. It was sheer
thoughtlessness - something by no means identical with stupidity - that predisposed him to become
one of the greatest criminals of that period" (p 287-288)
,→ Controversial: something so heinous can be made so normal (at least in the way her words were
executed)
● Arendt doesn’t vilify Eichmann, normalises him to be a normal individual (comparable to
your next-door neighbour)
● Ambition is an important debate; the German community culture in relation to destruction of
the Jews is also important to note → role of bureaucracy that facilitates the process that makes
it very detached from the harm he is doing
○ Knowledge vs comprehension: Arendt never saw and experienced the pain that the
Jews were feeling? Though, it’s known that he saw
● People interpreted Arendet’s words to believe that Eichmann was very ingrained to the wider
culture that was very pervasive at that time → anti-semitism
● People interpreted Arendt’s words to say that he only obeyed orders → however based on
national archives, it seemed incorrect
1.2 Social-Psychology
1.2.1 Milgram → obedience experiments (electric shocks)
Replicated: numerous scientific replication
● People are much more obedient than we thought after the experiment
● Le Jeu de la Mort (‘Game of Death’)
Heavily criticised → ethics
● Caused distress
● Milgram was not as conscientious in debriefing
Methodology
● Prods was less systematic than they seemed
● Did everyone believe the experimental setting?
Outcome
● Disobedience might be potentially higher than Milgram reported
1.2.2 Zimbardo → prison experiment
Presented as saying that in a particular surrounding (ie prison), abuse is more likely to
occur than anybody would expect
However, it was found that Zimbardo was prodding the students involved to be incredibly abusive
Replicated: BBC prison study (approved by ethics board)
Foundational experiment shifted the debate from the ‘mad Nazi theory’ to ‘ordinary people in
extraordinary circumstances’ → went from nature to nurture
, 1.3 History
Police Battalion 101: guarded Polish prisoners of war and carried out expulsion of Poles, called
"resettlement actions", in the new Warthegau territory around Poznań and Łódź. Following a
personnel change and retraining from May 1941 until June 1942, it became a major perpetrator of the
Holocaust in occupied Poland.
1.3.1 Browning (historian)
‘Only the very exceptional remained indifferent to taunts of ‘weakling’ from their comrades’ (1992; p
186)
→ almost everyone participated in the shooting of Jews; framed it that it was military culture and
camaraderie that made normal people engage in heinous acts (ie situation contributed to the acts)
1.3.2 Goldgagen (Political Scientists)
‘These men and women were Germans first, and SS men, policemen, or camp guards second’ (1996, p
7)
→ not necessarily normal but culture first
1.4 Interdisciplinary Challenge
Disposition vs situation debate
… but what is disposition?
1.4.1 Recent Developments: Disposition
Mental disorders
● Sadism (Stein, 2005; Kaminer & Stein, 2001)
● Narcissism (usually in relation to leaders, eg Glad, 2002)
Traits and Interactionism → tendencies; some are more likely to
● Traits linked to obedience (Elms & Milgram, 1066; Begue et al, 2015)
● Pro-social values (Staub, 2010)
Culture → especially anthropologists look at the role of culture
● Cambodia (eg Hinton, 1998)
1.4.2 Recent Developments: Situation
Society
● Influence of war and opportunity (Verwimp, 2005) → perpetrators were opportunists who
took the opportunity during war to advance
● Ideology (Alvarez, 2008; Leader-Maynard, 2015) → eg totalitarian regime was so pervasive
in Nazi Germany; propaganda
● Combination of war and criminal opportunity (Weerdesteijn & Smeulers, 2011)
