Let us imagine an ordinary person who hurries to work, returns home in the evening, calls his parents, helps his children with their homework, and meets with friends. Colleagues know him as a calm and quite decent person who has never fought, never been in trouble with the police, and has always considered himself someone who would never cross the line.

But one day a situation arises in which something changes. A quarrel, financial problems, pressure from those around him, fear, a sense of injustice, or a suddenly arisen conflict. Just yesterday the person was certain that certain actions were impossible for him. Today he finds an explanation for why it is precisely now that this can be done.

Can such a person commit a crime? Intuitively, one wants to answer no, because we are more accustomed to imagining a criminal as a person who from the very beginning differs from the aggressive, ruthless, compassion-deprived majority. Such a representation is psychologically convenient; it allows us to draw a clear line between "them" and "us." A criminal is a different person, not like us.

However, reality is considerably more complex, and the very fact of committing a crime does not yet mean that a person suffers from a mental disorder or possesses some special criminal personality. In some cases, we may indeed be dealing with pronounced personality disorders, chronic aggressiveness, or other psychological characteristics. But sometimes criminal behavior arises where we least expect to see it — in a person with a quite ordinary biography.

Then a far more alarming question arises — what happens to a person at the moment when an action that only recently seemed impermissible to him suddenly becomes possible?

The answer to this is connected not only to the character of the person himself. What matters is the situation, the emotional state, the influence of the group, the ability to control impulses, the attitude toward the potential victim, and, what is especially important, the ability to justify one's own action. Sometimes the path to crime begins not at all with the intention to break the law; it may begin with a single thought — "This time it's allowed."

When we hear the word "criminal," the imagination almost automatically paints a certain image. Before us, it seems, there should appear a dangerous, rude, aggressive person devoid of compassion. We want to believe that such people can be recognized in advance by their behavior, their gaze, their manner of speaking. Then the world seems more understandable: there are ordinary people, and there are those from whom one should stay away.

A person who has committed a crime does not cease to be a human being with all the contradictions inherent in him. He may love his children, care for his parents, treat his friends well, and at the same time commit an act that causes serious harm to another person. This contradiction is difficult to accept precisely because it destroys the familiar picture of the world.

Something else is also important: criminal behavior and mental disorder are not one and the same. A mental illness in itself does not make a person a criminal, and the presence of criminal behavior does not yet indicate a mental illness. The causes of breaking the law can be entirely different and can be composed of a multitude of factors.

Let us imagine a person who has found himself in a severe conflict. He feels humiliated, unjustly wronged, driven into a corner. Emotions gradually intensify, and the ability to calmly assess the consequences declines. At a certain moment an impulse to act appears, and the person, in fact, acts. After that he may sincerely regret what happened.

Or there may be an entirely different story. A person plans a crime in advance, but at the same time does not consider himself bad. He finds an explanation for himself: he needs money, the other person is to blame himself, circumstances forced him, and the risk of being caught seems minimal.

In both cases a crime has occurred, but the psychological mechanisms that led to it may differ substantially.

That is precisely why criminal psychology does not attempt to find a universal portrait of the criminal. It is far more important to understand the mechanism by which a specific person in a specific situation ceases to perceive a certain action as impermissible.

Perhaps the most dangerous illusion lies in the belief that a crime always begins with the intention to do evil. Sometimes it begins much earlier — with a change in one's own attitude toward what is happening.

The most interesting thing about criminal behavior sometimes happens before the act itself. Externally, a person may be doing nothing; he is only thinking, assessing the situation, arguing with himself. But it is precisely at this moment that an important psychological change may be taking place within him: what previously seemed impermissible gradually becomes permissible.

Let us imagine a person experiencing financial difficulties. At first, the thought of taking someone else's money вызывает у него внутреннее сопротивление — "No, I'm not like that." But then circumstances arise, and the following explanation appears: he will return it all.

In psychology, this process is connected with rationalization — an attempt to find an acceptable explanation for one's own behavior. The person, as it were, negotiates with himself in order to preserve the image of himself as a good or, at least, normal person.

The next step is the reduction of one's own responsibility. Sometimes a person convinces himself that his action does not cause serious harm at all, because it seems to him that nothing terrible has happened. This happens especially easily where the consequences of an action cannot be seen directly. That is precisely why the digital environment creates additional psychological risks, where a person can insult, humiliate, or deceive another without seeing his reaction and without coming face to face with the consequences of his actions.

Thus a dangerous sequence gradually forms — first the person justifies the action, then diminishes its significance, and after that begins to justify himself.

But internal justification alone is often insufficient; the situation plays a large role. If there are people nearby who support aggression, rule-breaking, or unlawful behavior, personal doubts become weaker. What a person would never dare to do alone may be perceived in a group as entirely acceptable.

A paradox emerges: sometimes, in order to commit a crime, a person does not need to change his personality. It is enough to change the situation, the perception of what is happening, and the explanation he gives to himself. And then one decision can lead to another.

Criminal psychology shows that criminal behavior rarely has a single cause. It is formed in the interaction of personal characteristics, emotional state, social environment, and the specific situation. Rationalization, a diminished sense of responsibility, devaluation of consequences, the influence of the group, and weakened self-control can make an unlawful act psychologically acceptable. However, the presence of individual risk factors does not mean that a crime is inevitable.

Therefore, the task of criminal psychology is not to search for a universal "type of criminal," but to study the mechanisms that turn a potential possibility into a real action. Understanding these mechanisms allows for more precise identification of risk factors and the development of preventive measures. To explain a crime is not to justify it; a scientific understanding of the causes is necessary above all for preventing the repetition of such actions.

Kazbek AKHMETOV,

Psychologist, Doctoral Student at Al-Farabi
Kazakh National University