Abstract
Since Cesare Lombroso’s days, criminology seeks to define, explain, and categorize the various types of criminals, their behaviors, and motives. This aim has theoretical as well as policy-related implications. One of the important areas in criminological thinking focuses chiefly on recidivist offenders who perform large numbers of crimes and/or commit the most dangerous crimes in society (rape, murder, arson, and armed robbery). These criminals have been defined as “habitual offenders,” “professional criminals,” “career criminals,” and “serial offenders.” The interest in these criminals is a rational one, given the perception that they present a severe threat to society. The main challenge in this area of research is a conceptual problem that has significant effects across the field. To this day, scholars have reused and misused titles to define and explain different concepts. The aim of this article is 3-fold. First, to review the concepts of criminal career, professional crime, habitual offenses, and seriality with a critical attitude on confusing terms. Second, to propose the redefinition of concepts mentioned previously, mainly on the criminal career. Third, to propose a theoretical model to enable a better understanding of, and serve as a basis for, further research in this important area of criminology.
Criminology, as other sciences, should strive to study and fight the crimes and criminals most harmful to society. Criminology seeks to comprehend phenomenon and to investigate severe and serial crimes by building typologies and to study these behaviors independently. Efforts continue, but the typologies have lacked any comprehensive innovation for over a century (Blumstein, Cohen, & Moitra, 1996; Clinard & Quinney, 1967; Conklin, 1986; Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Davis, 2001; Doley, 2003; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Holzman, 1983; Kocsis & Cooksey, 2002; Lombroso, 1911; Mitchell, 1997).
One of the main reasons for this failing is the absence of a common theory and agreed-upon bases. Scholars use different notions in reference to the same phenomenon or the same notions to describe the different phenomenon concerning the most severe criminal and harmful behaviors in society.
In this article, our aim is to make sense of and to offer some new definitions for “old” notions to bring scholars around to an agreed-upon theoretical basis. This alliance can help to clarify the area of theoretical thinking and to get a better understanding of these phenomena.
Brief Review: Developing the Main Concepts
Western societies documented professional crime as early as the 15th century. Many descriptions of professional criminals in 19th-century London exist, including prostitutes, robbers, gamblers, and shoplifters (Inciardi, 1975). Five main events can link to develop criminology's theoretical approach to this phenomenon.
First, Sutherland's essay from the late 1930s on the “professional thief” is to this day the best known reference for concepts such as professional crime and professional criminals (Sutherland, 1939). His important insights formed the basis for later concerns distinguishing professional and nonprofessional criminals and those with and without a criminal career (Blumstein et al., 1996; David, 1974; Gould, Bittner, Messinger, Powledge, & Chaneles, 1966; Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Klein & Montague, 1975; Klockars, 1974; Levi, 1995; Mawby, 2001; Messinger, 1966; Miller, 1978; Prus & Sharper, 1977; Roebuck & Windham, 1983; Schlesinger, 2001; Walsh, 1980, 1986).
Second, Becker's essays on occupations and careers (Becker & Carper, 1956; Becker & Strauss, 1956) provided another theoretical basis for exploring similarities between criminal and lawful careers. Scholars started to consider and explore criminality as “occupation” or “profession” (Becker & Carper, 1956; Becker & Strauss, 1956; Best & Luckenbill, 1996; Coombs, 1996; Farrington, 1997; Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Gould, 1966; Greenberg, 1996; Inciardi, 1975; Klein & Montague, 1975; Klockars, 1974; Letkemann, 1973; Miller, 1978; Prus & Sharper, 1977; Walsh, 1980, 1986).
Third, Wolfgang's famous research on criminality in a birth cohort (Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972) found that a small percentage of criminals were responsible for most of the offenses. These findings resulted in the demand that criminologists, as well as the authorities, focus attention on hard core or “career” criminals. The assumption was that this focus would lead to a drop in crime throughout society (Blumstein & Cohen, 1996).
Fourth, neoclassical theory in criminology introduced the viewpoint that criminals had the motivation, will, and cognitive capacities to choose to be a chronic, professional, or career criminal (Cornish & Clarke, 1986).
Finally, the term “serial offenders” was another label in the 1980s linked to serious criminals such as rapists and murderers, but its definition is problematic on various levels. For example, how many offences defines seriality? Two, three, or ten? Who decides and what is the logic for this decision? Does seriality occur in immediate succession or do the offences occur over time? (Davis, 2001; Egger, 1985; Hale, 1998; Hickey, 1992; Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Kocsis & Cooksey, 2002; Leyton, 2000; Mitchell, 1997; Roebuck & Windham, 1983; Vronsky, 2004).
Partial innovations in criminological theory brought several new concepts such as “professional criminal,” “serial criminal,” “chronic/habitual criminal,” and “career criminal.” No clear distinction exists between these concepts; predictably, a conceptual confusion ensued when scholars used different names for the same concepts or used the same names for different concepts. For example, De Lisi (2005) argues that career criminals are habitual criminals.
Criminal Career and Professional Criminals: Definitions and Confusion
One reason for the conceptual confusion lies in the various definitions of “criminal career.” One set of definitions emphasizes the different phases of the criminal career, including learning and specialization (Farrington, 1997; Hale, 1998; Smith & Smith, 1996). Another set emphasizes the connection between professional criminals and career criminals (Clinard & Quinney, 1967; Holmes & Holmes, 1998); and others link careers and recidivism in crime (Blumstein et al., 1986, 1996; De Lisi, 2005); still others refer to the motive of material gain in a criminal career (Davis, 2001; Holzman, 1983; Inciardi, 1975; Klockars, 1974). Most scholars highlight that legitimate careers, as well as criminal careers, can only occur in an organizational setting.
These various definitions caused the confusion that resulted in some difficult questions. For example, is a habitual offender a career criminal? (De Lisi, 2005, claims that they are the same). Is it possible for a career criminal not to be a professional criminal? Is every professional criminal necessarily a career criminal?
At this point, I argue that, first, not every professional criminal is a career criminal, but all career criminals must be professional criminals. This argument follows from redefining “career” and “criminal career.”
Second, a habitual or chronic offender who is not a professional is not a career criminal. Finally, two conditions are necessary to identify or label a criminal as a career criminal, that is, material motives and professionalism. Most writers have overlooked these conditions in compiling their definitions.
Based on the definitions and typologies suggested by various scholars (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1982; Clinard & Quinney, 1967; Inciardi, 1975), we are able to compare professional and nonprofessional criminals (in the literature, they are both labeled “chronic,” “habitual,” and even “prone” (Holzman, 1983) as a first stage toward a better understanding of the various concepts (Table 1).
A Comparison Between Professional and Nonprofessional Criminals.
A Comparison Between Criminal and Legitimate Careers
Over the years, different scholars used their definition of criminal career in different ways giving various meanings. Some have used the concept as referring to a legitimate career, subsequently stressing the professional element (Blumstein et al., 1996, 1986; Farrington, 1997; Levi, 1995), while others have seen the criminal career as “a way of life,” devoid of professional aspects (Ditton, 1977), or what David (1974) called “a life in crime.”
Many scholars since Sutherland have tried to compare lawful and criminal careers. Roebuck and Windham (1983) claimed that a criminal career is a particular work or profession involving qualifications, tools, and time spent to make money. From these scholars’ view, we can analyze criminal careers in the same way we analyze legitimate careers.
In these comparisons, a criminal career mainly refers to a specific set of people: drug dealers, thieves, robbers, pickpockets, prostitutes, burglars, and white-collar criminals (Adler & Adler, 1996; Coombs, 1996; Mawby, 2001; Shover, 1996; Weisburd & Waring, 2001; West, 1996). These comparisons include the following six common elements: hard work, career rewards, status quest, a commitment to a common role and status, a distinction between specialization and professionalism versus nonprofessionalism and nonspecialization, and common values and similar behavioral standards.
These comparisons contributed some important insights on the similar characteristics and phases of recruitment, training, specialization, and commitment as crucial phases toward professionalism and a career (Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Gould, 1966; Greenberg, 1996; Farrington, 1997; Inciardi, 1975; Smith & Smith, 1996). For example, scholars have gained a better understanding of organized crime and its developments.
On the other hand, the idea of comparing legitimate and criminal careers generated much criticism. For example, Greenberg (1996) claims that a reference to continuity of crimes does not imply that all [serial] criminals have careers. Conklin (1986) claims similarly that a criminal career is a series of crimes committed over a long period, rather than an occupation.
Another criticism is that while the two kinds of careers may begin similarly, their development and completion (retirement) are very different (West, 1996). A legitimate career takes place within stable, organized surroundings with clear rules that define the different positions along the career, ways of mobility, and rewards (Best & Luckenbill, 1996).
In our opinion, the question of stability and security in the legitimate career versus the criminal career, which these writers raise, is inaccurate: Insecurity and instability are likely to occur in both types of career. For example, will the medical student have a job in his area of specialization? Will a hi-tech engineer always have a secure job? On the other hand, a hit men or professional drivers have great chances to secure jobs in the criminal arena.
In any case, the debate on the possibility of comparing legitimate and criminal careers does not end here. The debate is minimized by considering two issues. First, various scholars mistakenly assume that criminal careers can and must exist only within organizations (Best & Luckenbill, 1996; Blumstein et al., 1996; West, 1996).
Current careers in the literature do not address criminals or legitimate professionals outside organizational settings and thus avoid a true comparison between the careers (Becker & Carper, 1963; Best & Luckenbill, 1996; Blumstein & Cohen, 1996; De Lisi, 2005; Farrington, 1997; Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Greenberg, 1996; Sutherland, 1939).
In reality, we can see many professional qualified criminals causing significant damage working alone or in ad hoc teams. These criminals do have criminal careers according to the definition I propose in this article. The same is true of lawful professionals such as doctors or lawyers who do not work in a formal organization but still have a career within society that validates their professions, supervises them, and so on.
Second, the existing definitions for legitimate and criminal careers suffer from ambiguity and contradictions. Therefore, we should redefine these ideas before attempting an improved comparison between the two.
Despite these criticisms, the professional literature claims several yet incongruent likenesses between the two types of careers: Both careers include professionals who are working with the primary motivation of achieving material gains. In both cases, recruitment, learning and training, values and norms characterizing the profession, self-esteem development, reputation building, and recognition of colleagues does exist. The final phase in particular—reputation and recognition—confirms an individual as “professional,” or “specialist,” and so on (Becker & Carper, 1963; Best & Luckenbill, 1996; Blumstein & Cohen, 1996; De Lisi, 2005; Farrington, 1997; Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Greenberg, 1996; Sutherland, 1939).
Redefinition of the Concepts of “Career” and “Criminal Career”
As aforesaid, some of the confusion that arose when linking career-related concepts to different kinds of offenders results from problematic definitions of the concepts of “career,” in general, and of “criminal career” in particular. I now propose my own definition of these two concepts.
Career
A career is the main occupation of an individual. This occupation is of a professional nature, its goal being more than sustenance and its motivation above momentary satisfaction. The appeal of the occupation can stem from various personal, physiological, psychological, and social factors. A career involves learning the occupation, or specialization, in other words, the passage from one professional stage to another along a hierarchy of knowledge, qualifications, and understanding. The qualifications and talents needed for a career are either innate or acquired. Upholding a career includes a long-term commitment and a way of life, with the aim of achieving the highest specialization and professionalism. Government supervisory systems, professional organizations, or the individual who sets goals or chooses role models for himself can formally control the specialization scale. This characteristic needs socialization that includes technical as well as normative and ethical learning within the occupational field. This learning may be formal or informal and takes place in an organizational setting or in an individual-social setting. A career must have a social recognition—this recognition can be either formal (diploma, license) or informal and come from professional authorities or from colleagues. In addition, public recognition further expresses the career via the media and personal account. A person’s career design is to supply him with material rewards while it can also supply some by-products of a social, emotional, or physical nature. Possible rewards stem from the individual's location on the career scale, his reputation, professional qualifications, and the strictness of his adherence to the ethical code.
This broad definition enables us to propose a new definition for criminal career. This definition may provoke some criticism at first glance, but I will support its logic later.
Criminal Career
A criminal career is a career of ‘serial criminality’ designed to gain material rewards, which can also provide the perpetrator with psychological, physical, social, and other rewards. The main characteristics of serial criminality are professionalism and specialization that require continued learning and perfecting skills throughout the career. The career criminal is obligated to this professional way of life and he views it as a destination (from a rational or pathological view). Some career criminals—mainly those focused on achieving material gains—may wish for a normal life after getting the “big prize.” The career of the professional serial offender can gain formal or informal recognition, in public or secret, and be familiar to the law enforcement agencies or only to his colleagues.
The above definition contrasts with earlier definitions of criminal career in a few ways: First, not every serial criminal has a criminal career, but a criminal career must involve serial criminality (Becker, 1963). Second, not every professional criminal has a criminal career, but a criminal career must involve professional criminality (Roebuck & Windham, 1983). Third, a criminal career has its preliminary motive designed for material rather than pathological–psychological gains. In other words, career criminals venture toward crime as providing their main and primary source of income (Gould, 1966; Inciardi, 1975; Jackson, Glas, & Hope, 1987; Letkemann, 1973; Messinger, 1966; Roebuck & Windham, 1983). The assumption may seem radical because it contradicts earlier claims of monsters among us who wish to rape or kill for the sake of the act rather than as a means toward getting something else (Coombs, 1996; Egger, 1985; Hickey, 1992; Holzman, 1983; Kocsis & Cooksey, 2002).
The new definition infers career crimes: serial murder for material profit; serial arson for material profit; serial professional crimes of fraud, forgery, robbery, theft, breaking, and entering; membership in organized crime; and prostitution with purpose not limited to funding drug use (Blumstein et al., 1986; Clinard & Quinney, 1967; Coombs, 1996; Davis, 2001; Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Shover, 1996).
In contrast, and according to the new definition, we should discount those crimes motivated by psychological impulse such as serial murders, serial arsons perpetrated out of revenge, and serial rapes as examples of a criminal career. Criminals acting from psychological–pathological motives are not career criminals because their motives are pathological rather than rational—yet they may be professional criminals (Coombs, 1996; Egger, 1985; Hickey, 1992; Holzman, 1983; Kocsis & Cooksey, 2002).
Lifestyle Criminals Versus Career Criminals
Before advancing with our discussion, we need to deal with another confusion of concepts that appears in the literature stemming from equating “career criminals” with “lifestyle criminals.”
Walters (1990) deals with the thought process and choices that criminals make when entering the criminal world and when embarking on a criminal career. In his opinion, both concepts overlap. Walters (1990) also mentions that these criminals are irrational because they are unrealistic about their future success in the criminal world.
However, Walters does not distinguish between these criminals and the other kinds of criminals mentioned. The scholar treats them as career criminals before even professional criminal status is established. I argue that this lack of distinction is another example of the misleading confusion among the aforementioned ideas.
For him, career criminals are irrational, nonprofessional, and chronic offenders. In other words, for Walters (1990), the career criminal is a serial or habitual offender who lacks rationality and professionalism. Our question is what turns him into a career criminal? Is it the serial aspect of his crimes? Our answer shows the fact that he is not a professional offender, which denies him the title of career criminal.
We can now turn to a revised view of the different definitions mentioned earlier and summarize the various kinds of criminals described in the literature under one main conceptual title, that is, “serial offender.” The different subtypes of criminals under this title all share one main characteristic, that is, they all act serially in the crime world, until they retire freely or forcibly.
Serial Criminality
The concepts of “serial offenders,” or “serial crimes,” appeared in the 1980s and added to the conceptual–theoretical confusion. These concepts related primarily to such specific severe criminals as the serial killer, the serial rapist, and the serial arsonist (Davis, 2001; Egger, 1985; Hale, 1998; Hickey, 1992; Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Kocsis & Cooksey, 2002; Leyton, 2000).
“Serial crimes” as a category seems compatible with the criminal career in which a main characteristic is the continued committing of crimes. Therefore, the notions of serial crimes and continuity of crimes appear as identical. Becker (1963), for example, claimed that we can look at a “criminal career” as constant involvement in crime. This definition provided added confusion since some scholars opted to ascribe criminal careers to serial offenders even when they were not professional criminals.
This misattribution reinforces the argument we raised earlier, according to which a criminal career must include serial means of crime while not every serial crime need be the result of a criminal career.
Scholars addressing serial crime (Best & Luckenbill, 1996; Egger, 1985; Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Mitchell, 1997) define this notion based on two conditions. First, a minimal time range of 3 days must pass between one crime and the next—this factor is most important in defining serial murders (Holmes & Holmes, 1998). Second, a serial offender must be a criminal who has carried out at least three crimes of the same type; otherwise, we cannot talk about seriality (Best & Luckenbill, 1996; Egger, 1985; Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Mitchell, 1997).
We would like to raise at least two objections to this definition and to the conditions they require. First, according to the current definition, we can ask the following question: Is a killer who kills 3 times at 20-year intervals defined as a serial killer? If the answer is negative because there is no real continuity in his behavior, then the definition is illogical. On the other hand, if the answer is positive simply because the definition fits the two conditions, then the definition suffers from arbitrariness. Therefore, we should add a third condition to the current definition that specifies a reasonable maximum range of time between the three crimes required.
Second, the second condition (a minimum of three crimes) is even more arbitrary than the first. Indeed, one crime may represent a one-time phenomenon; by definition, serial crimes cannot occur at once. Moreover, this condition lacks an argument to fix the minimum of three crimes. On the same weak basis, we could suggest as a condition that four or even five crimes qualify an offender as a serial criminal.
Serial Offenders: Professional Versus Nonprofessional
Here, we describe the differences between the two kinds of serial offenders. First, we recall the various serial offenders. One subtype is the professional serial offender. These criminals pick up skills and expertise over the years, so the chances of finding them are slim. As a result, they can act uninterruptedly in furthering their criminal career.
As an example, most female serial offenders who killed their husbands to collect the life insurance (black widows) were caught years after the killings, as were nurses who killed old people in their charge and collected the social security benefits (angels of death).
In contrast, we see a second subtype of serial offender—the nonprofessional serial offender. Their lives display a cycle in which they alternately and repeatedly commit crimes and face arrest. These criminals are neither professional nor do they specialize in crime. Their behavior lacks careful planning, they leave many pieces of evidence at the crime scene, and, as a result, they are more easily captured, so the idea of career does not apply to them. For them, criminality is only “moonlighting” (Holzman, 1983) or a way of life.
Thus, in the professional literature, they are “habitual” or “chronic” offenders. While the professional criminal may live a double life to hide his criminal career, the nonprofessional criminal essentially lacks a double life. These criminals commit crimes to support an addiction such as drug abuse or gambling, or for the extra income.
One can object to this argument by stating that a habitual or chronic offender can be a professional or even a career criminal. This statement is true but incomplete and needs proper argument. In addition, the title of “habitual/chronic offender” used by the criminologist to describe a whole range of serial criminals does not offer the fundamental differences between them.
Preliminary Motives in Serial Offenders
The distinction between professional and nonprofessional serial criminals is necessary, yet we must further distinguish between pathological versus material gains as a preliminary motive among serial professional criminals. Some scholars will argue this distinction is not necessarily a dichotomous one; their argument is irrelevant at this stage as long as we can point out the main motive. Moreover, this distinction is a critical one for understanding serial criminality as a criminal career, following our theoretical model.
As we have seen, the work of professional serial offenders reflects specialization and professionalism. These criminals may act following a rational professional choice or because of some pathological or mental disorder (not including the criminally insane). The latter motivates criminals to reach a psychological gain (e.g., relief and satisfaction) by committing their crimes. In such cases, the criminals are aware that their behavior is wrong and they do not have the legal defense of insanity (Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Vronsky, 2004). In our opinion, some or most of these criminals use techniques of “neutralization” (Sykes & Matza, 1957) to deny blame or shame.
We stress the distinction that the two types of serial professional offenders may act from different motives (material vs. psychological); yet they follow a life of serial criminality provided these motives exist. We now make yet another important distinction between primary and secondary motives. A criminal may have material and pathological motives—one viewed as the primary and the other as secondary (Doley, 2003). For example, a prostitute killing her client because of a pathological hatred for men (primary, pathological motive) may also rob her victim to gain material profit (secondary, material motive). The difficulty is to distinguish the priority of motives. Furthermore, either motive may be present in serial professional offenders who are members of an organization or who act outside an organization, alone, or in ad hoc teams. Such motives do not form sufficient grounds for categorizing either of them as career criminals.
Earlier, we argued that a criminal career must involve seriality but not all serial criminality constitutes a criminal career. The same logic holds for defining professionalism. Moreover, we argue that to consider a professional serial offender as having a criminal career, they must have a preliminary material or financial motive and not a psychological or pathological one.
Notably, one of the historical difficulties when comparing lawful and criminal careers shows some comparisons made on career criminals who acted for gain, and some on professional criminals motivated by pathological reasons.
Since this argument or condition for primary motive may appear at first as arbitrary, it demands further clarification. Maslow (1943) defined the hierarchy of human needs as follows: Primary physiological and security needs must be met to survive. Only after can we address other needs.
Based on this theory, professional workers in legitimate and in criminal spheres (whether in an organizational or private setting) preeminently aspire to arrive at conditions that will guarantee their survival and security needs. Such conditions are only possible by having a high and steady income.
Some people with mental problems see a psychological threat as an existential one, which gives more credibility to the perspective that career criminals act mainly for material gain rather than for psychological relief or satisfaction. Only after people meet these needs can they aspire to fulfill other needs such as social recognition, belonging, and self-fulfillment.
The serial professional criminal and the legitimate professional worker aspire to maximize the material benefits that their profession can provide. These professionals wish to specialize and to continue with their work to increase these material benefits.
People make rationalizations to justify their growing ambitions and to increase their material benefits for their deeds. For example, a professional female escort will claim that she helps men who have difficulty engaging in emotional relations with women. Alternatively, their professionalism offers satisfaction of psychological and social needs that support their professional position (honor, reputation, and power). Thus, by embarking on a professional career, legitimate, or criminal, professionals receive social recognition (whether formally or informally).
In contrast, the professional serial offender and the legitimate professional worker, motivated by pathological motives, cannot be compared to the career owners even if they succeed in camouflaging their deeds. Indeed, they can specialize as time goes by and refine their work methods, but their core pathological motives distinguish them from the career criminals and from legitimate workers.
Their psychological rewards or gains are neither permanent nor high. The perpetrator feels disappointed and frustrated with the expectations he developed during the fantasy phase, which occurs before his criminal act. The continuity of the acts that these offenders perform does not raise their gains; on the contrary, they “burn out” over time, until they eventually retire.
In addition, the satisfaction the criminals receive is of relatively short duration (even for serial killers who abuse the corpses); and the positive recognition they receive is minimal, even from other criminals—the number of “copycat” incidents is relatively small.
This criminal reaches a peak or plateau in his professional life, beyond which he cannot refine his criminal skills or career. For example, the professional–pathological serial killer (the hedonist) does not refine selecting his victims because his pathology causes him to look repeatedly for the “ideal victim” (Hickey, 1992; Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1998; Leyton, 2000).
In contrast, the professional serial offender acting to achieve material gains, who is a career criminal, is constantly searching for “bigger” targets. For example, the “hit man” who dares to choose his targets (victims) increases his material gains and his reputation. In turn, this reputation will increase his fees in the future. Another example is the “black widow” carefully choosing her husbands to gain increasing material benefits once she murders them.
Accordingly, the constant pattern presented by the pathological professional serial criminal limits his capacity to aspire progressively to stable and higher psychological gains. In contrast, the career criminal is freer and more creative in his search for higher material gains. This nonbinding pattern enables him to perfect and develop his actions and career in different directions without limits.
However, a problem arises because professional and career criminals share many features, which has led to the confusions discussed earlier. As we have seen, a closer analysis of the primary motive may help clarify this confusion.
Examining “serial crimes” enables us to move forward toward our final goal. We will define and clarify the different kinds of serial criminals with criminal careers. This definition will enable us to determine which kinds of serial criminals are career criminals.
Serial Criminality in Relation to Criminal Career
A criminal career is by definition a series of criminal acts characterized by specialization and professionalism, its primary motive being material gains. The distinction made previously has helped lay the theoretical foundations necessary to describe the connections between a criminal career and serial criminality, two important concepts included in this article. We conclude by presenting a typology summarizing the insights gained so far.
Serial criminality may manifest itself in three kinds of criminals (according to the current definition of seriality). I will address each of them and its relation to criminal career.
Nonprofessional serial criminal activity
This criminal profile belongs to criminals with low or nonexistent obligations to crime. They may commit crimes and then withdraw to a legitimate occupation, or they meet repeated arrest. While in jail, their crimes stop.
These criminal profiles often end up with a history of repeated arrests. In addition, even if they want to become law-abiding citizens, their previous labels as criminals can impede their chances of finding lawful employment. Their obligation to crime is low because crime does not serve as a significant income or family support, and so defined as a form of moonlighting, providing a convenient way of preserving their standard of living, or continuing their habits or addictions.
Serial criminality such as this is not a criminal career but a “lifestyle.” The crimes these criminals commit are not much different from crimes of professional criminals, but they lack the trait of professionalism. These serial criminals fit the notions found in the literature as “chronic offender” or “habitual offender.”
Because the existing definition of serial offenders does not define a maximum range of time between crimes, these criminals preserve their category as serial criminals but can be in jail for long periods between their criminal acts.
Professional-pathological serial criminal activity
This criminal profile belongs to serial criminals motivated by a pathological urge with the purpose of a particular psychological reward. For example, visionary and hedonist serial killers, serial rapists, and pyromaniacs perform criminal acts for pathological motives. Professional or not, their primary motive is psychological rather than material, and listing them as career criminals is misleading.
Professional serial criminal activity—criminal career
This criminal profile belongs to professional serial offenders driven toward constantly higher material gains. In addition, secondary motives, such as a need for psychological, social, and other secondary rewards, may also exist. Their professionalism reveals itself in developing a criminal career in which they gain and improve professional skills that will enable them to chase after ever-growing material profits. Their commitment to their occupation and career in crime is high. These career criminals may commit the same crimes as those committed by serial criminals, but the main motives are different. Consequently, they will not rape their victims nor will they set anything on fire for any psychological satisfaction.
In addition, they will plan their acts meticulously and perform their crimes in a professional way to avoid arrest. Examples include serial killers for material profit (the hit man—Levi, 1995—or the contract killer—Schlesinger, 2001), serial thieves, “fences,” robbers, burglars, forgers, money launderers, professional escorts, and well-connected drug dealers and traffickers.
The following discussion presents a model based on the idea that serial crime is a common or mutual element shared by different types of criminals, namely, habitual, professional, and career criminals. Thus, the serial element of their activity should be the point of departure of the model.
On the other hand, the model also enables us to distinguish between these different criminals. To do so, we must add two other elements to the model: professionalism and primary motive. This extension enables us to show the relationship between the type of criminal and the presence and absence of a criminal career.
The model shows three crucial distinctions between the various serial offenders. First, habitual or chronic offenders must fulfill only one element or condition—they carry out their activities in a serial way. These criminals are not professionals and as such cannot be regarded as career criminals, regardless of their primary motive. Moreover, one may question whether these criminals are serial offenders at all. Their nonprofessionalism means they do not actively pursue crime.
Second, professional criminals must fulfill two elements or conditions to define seriality and professionalism. In addition, if their primary motive is a pathological one, they are not career criminals (serial rapists, sadistic serial killers). On the other hand, if their primary motive is a material one, they require the career criminal label.
Third, career criminals must fulfill three elements or conditions: seriality, professionalism, and a primary material motive (the hit man, the black widow, arsonist that collects insurance; Table 2, Figure 1).
A Comparison of the Three Kinds of Serial Criminals.
Serial criminality and criminal career—the model.
Summary and Conclusions
Crime and criminals threaten the peaceful and secure lives of citizens.
Fear of crime harms many people's well-being and causes them to change their lifestyles. “Habitual criminals” are the main threat to the security and the wellbeing of people on a daily basis. We have a greater possibility to encounter these types of criminals routinely in parking lots, shops, and walking home from school, work, and so on. Serial criminals such as serial killers and rapists are rare, but the media tends to empower our fear from these criminals, as if we might encounter them every day.
The career criminals are the rarest. The chances we recognize them on the way home are minimal. These criminals cause great damage in society by drug and human trafficking and money laundering.
For these reasons, criminology seeks to understand and explain these types of behavior. Unfortunately, relevant research has suffered from confusion since scholars have been using different titles to explain the same concepts while others have been using the same titles to explain different concepts. This confusion hindered the possibility of reaching a common theoretical basis for further research.
This essay focuses on the confusion of criminological concepts and revises some of the main concepts in this area: “criminal career,” “professional crime,” “habitual/chronic crime,” and “serial crime.”
The point of departure of this reevaluation is that committing serial crimes is a characteristic shared by three types of criminals—nonprofessionals, professionals, and career criminals. In fact, these common traits, which formerly caused confusion, now enable us to distinguish them from one another.
Our analysis offers contributions to the current literature. First, this article proposes a new definition of “career criminal” to distinguish it from other kinds of criminals such as “professional criminals” and “chronic offenders.” This redefinition will enable a more fitting comparison between lawful versus criminal careers. Second, this essay proposes to distinguish between different kinds of criminals by two criteria: professionalism and primary motive.
From this perspective, we can easily distinguish the chronic/habitual offenders, who are not professional criminals, from other kinds of criminals such as career criminals. This differentiation will prevent further confusion between the concepts.
Third, this essay proposes to distinguish between two subcategories of professional criminals according to their primary motive. From this perspective, professional criminals whose primary motive is pathological cannot be considered career criminals. On the other hand, those who act for material motives are career criminals.
Fourth, we propose a hierarchical model that distinguishes between the three kinds of serial criminals mentioned earlier, thus preventing further confusion between them. Finally, the theoretical discussion, as well as the model, shows us that professional crime and criminal career may occur in organizational, team, or individual settings. This argument contradicts previous assumptions in serial criminology and broadens future theoretical and empirical research.
This article does not resolve all the theoretical problems, and at least two issues need further research. The proposed model does not resolve the problems stemming from the current definition of serial criminality, which suffers from two main drawbacks:
It lacks clear guidelines on the maximum time range between crimes performed by the same criminal. For example, is a criminal who performs three crimes at intervals of 20 years each a serial criminal? This question remains unanswered. It lacks a reasoned argument for the number of crimes necessary to distinguish serial criminality. The current definition calls for three crimes of the same kind committed by the same criminal. While clearly more than one crime is necessary to talk about a series of crimes, to require at least three crimes seems arbitrary and calls for further support.
In the future, scholars should consider redefining “serial criminality,” while considering the drawbacks mentioned previously.
Criminologists seek to define crimes and criminals to understand and explain various results. Clusters of crimes such as violence, sex, drugs, and vandalism help them in this mission. Clusters of criminals, as we have seen throughout this essay, represent another important area more difficult to categorize. One in-depth way of grouping criminals is by profiling their behaviors, background, family status, and other characteristic traits. For example, the literature shows that serial killers and serial arsonists share some common traits and motives. This particular categorization may provide a valuable contribution to law enforcement personnel.
On the other hand, aspiring to generalize may harm our ability to identify differences between various criminals. For example, when at first sight there may be some likeness in traits and motives between serial killing and serial arson, there must be fundamental differences between them revealed through the particular crime they commit. We conclude by stating that overgeneralizations may veil these fundamental differences.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.