A journey from Freud’s “criminal out of a sense of guilt” to the neurobiology of trauma: How the penitentiary system evolves from unconscious punishment to genetic and social transformation.
By Ana Rosa Rodríguez
HoyLunes – Having recently graduated with an undergraduate degree in Education, specializing in Guidance, from the illustrious University of Zulia in my birth country, Venezuela, the opportunities to practice my profession appeared to lie within the corporate field, university teaching, or the Venezuelan penitentiary system. It was in the latter that I would ultimately begin my professional career as an official of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, coordinating Social Reinsertion Programs following the enactment of the Law of Submission to Trial and Conditional Suspension of Sentence on April 1, 1980, according to Official Gazette number 31.956.
In this role, the demands of the position, coupled with a curiosity for theoretical and conceptual rhetoric, sowed deep concerns regarding crime and its causes. This became a passionate subject that would lead me through multifaceted and holistic paths, eventually interpreting transpersonal phenomena of high spirituality. All while maintaining a perspective of ethics and responsibility in developing the program’s objectives, with the respective verification of measurable and quantifiable results that I had to report systematically and periodically regarding social, family, and labor progress, as well as the transformation of the personality and attitudes of the assisted defendants and convicts.
The emphasis of the analysis was on one of the most fascinating and debated perspectives in the penitentiary field: clinical criminology with a psychoanalytic approach. This approach explains the style of criminal behavior in individuals who express a tendency to commit punishable acts as a way of “redeeming guilt” stored in the subconscious—reminiscences of ancestral parental patterns.
Psychoanalytic theory applied to the principles of criminology dates back to 1916, with Sigmund Freud’s contributions in his postulate: “The Criminal out of a Sense of Guilt.” This theory proposed that, in certain individuals, guilt is pre-existent. Unlike common logic, where guilt appears after the error that gives meaning to the crime, here it arises from an internal conflict stemming from feelings of guilt acquired through upbringing patterns and repressed desires. Consequently, the individual unconsciously feels a need for punishment, linking that diffuse and ancestral (inexplicable) guilt to concrete acts. The key components of this theory are grounded in what psychoanalysis defined as the “cruel Super-ego”, represented by moral and parental schemes internalized in the subconscious.
It is a strictly severe approach, as it judges not only one’s own acts but also diffuse thoughts—the product of unresolved guilt and traumas of parents and ancestors, which are transmitted through parenting models in the inherited and archaic “Super-ego”.
The crime or error committed acts as an escape valve for the subjective unconscious: “I prefer to be accused and punished for a real act than to live with an unconfessable guilt that has no explanation”. According to this psychoanalytic perspective in the field of criminogenic phenomena, it can be interpreted that the individual performs a script written by their ancestors. If there was an “unpaid sin” in the family history, the descendant and their circumstances lead them to “pay the debt” of their lineage. Within this referential framework, the punishable act is not an act of malice, but a failed attempt at self-healing—interpreted in that unconscious world as a “redemption” through the suffering caused by the legal process.
When referring to modern criminology studies following the Freudian beginnings—moving from the “introspection of the soul” and the “need for punishment” suggested by psychoanalysis to data-driven evidence supported by advances in neuroscience and cognitive-behavioral psychology—it is evident that the initial idea has not been entirely discarded but rather recontextualized more pragmatically.
Currently, in light of new trends in psychotherapy and Social Reinsertion treatment, this Freudian treatise is analyzed from a pragmatic perspective, redefining the “feeling of guilt” and the “desire for redemption” as a low tolerance for frustration, and aggressive and violent personality tendencies (traits observable when psychological tests are applied to individuals under study by technical teams in penitentiary centers); a condition treated as low self-esteem or feelings of self-defeat.
From all this, a critique for the proper treatment in criminal procedural law can be deduced: this psychoanalytic approach cannot be considered as mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances, nor can it be used to scientifically prove that someone committed a punishable act because they “felt inexplicable guilt,” due to “repressed” childhood desires, or to “redeem ancestral guilt”. Modern science seeks measurable variables. Hence, instead of speaking of “ancestral parental patterns,” these are presented as genetic and epigenetic predispositions. It has been scientifically proven that parental trauma and latent family conflicts can leave chemical marks on the DNA that affect the stress responses of descendants. This clarifies, in other terms, that it is not a “mystical reminiscence”, but a biological alteration in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that predisposes one to impulsive behaviors.
Modern criminology observes how parental bonds affect the criminal trajectory but from a perspective of social control. If parental patterns with criminal tendencies served as a model during upbringing, the individual does not commit crimes to “redeem themselves,” but because they never developed the necessary self-control, and because their social ties have been weak and lacking in empathy since childhood. Modern criminology posits that “redemption” is not sought unconsciously through punishment, but through appropriate turning points provided by specific providers of social capital, along with deep psychotherapy treatment to reveal the contents of the unconscious, in addition to cognitive-behavioral therapy and Social Reinsertion programs.
In summary, modern criminology has shifted from the *why* (the hidden cause of the past) to the *how* (treating the biological and social process of the present). Thus, programs in the penitentiary sphere should aim more toward the internal transformation of the individual, applying a multitude of avant-garde strategies provided by disciplines such as neuroscience, neuro-linguistic programming, trauma-based therapies and neurobiology, and third-generation therapies, among others. Furthermore, it seeks to vindicate the damage that was substantially detrimental to the victims and society at large by facilitating and offering services for the social and collective good.
`#ClinicalCriminology` `#Psychoanalysis` `#SocialReinsertion` `#Neuroscience` `#Epigenetics` `#AnaRosaRodriguez` `#CriminalJustice` `#MentalHealth` `#HoyLunes` `#InternalTransformation`
