What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of the Out of Character Crime
When a person commits a crime that seems completely out of character, people are shocked. Even those who think they know the perpetrator well cannot make sense of what has happened. In this book, follow a forensic psychologist, Stanton E. Samenow, as he unravels the personality of the person accused of the crime -- as he attempts to explain what seems unexplainable. Dr. Samenow helps place the crime in a context. His work demonstrates that, in fact, there is no such thing as an "out of character" crime.
- GenresPsychologyNonfiction
228 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2007
12 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
About the author
Stanton E. Samenow
18 books40 followersDr. Samenow received his B.A. (cum laude) from Yale University in 1963 and his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1968. After working as a clinical psychologist on adolescent inpatient psychiatric services in the Ann Arbor (Michigan) area, he joined the Program for the Investigation of Criminal Behavior at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. From 1970 until June, 1978, he was clinical research psychologist for that program. With the late Dr. Samuel Yochelson, he participated in the longest in-depth clinical research-treatment study of offenders that has been conducted in North America.
In 1978, Dr. Samenow entered the private practice of clinical psychology in Alexandria, Virginia. His specialty has continued to be the evaluation and treatment of juvenile and adult offenders. Dr. Samenow has delivered lectures, training seminars, and workshops in 48 states, Canada, and England. These presentations have been to a variety of professional groups including mental health, law enforcement, corrections, education, social services, and the judiciary. He has served as a consultant and expert witness for a variety of courts and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dade County (Florida) Public Schools, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Office of Probation. In 1980, he was appointed by President Reagan to the Law Enforcement Task Force and in 1982 to the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. In 1987, President Reagan appointed him as a Conferee to the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America.
In 1978, Dr. Samenow entered the private practice of clinical psychology in Alexandria, Virginia. His specialty has continued to be the evaluation and treatment of juvenile and adult offenders. Dr. Samenow has delivered lectures, training seminars, and workshops in 48 states, Canada, and England. These presentations have been to a variety of professional groups including mental health, law enforcement, corrections, education, social services, and the judiciary. He has served as a consultant and expert witness for a variety of courts and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dade County (Florida) Public Schools, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Office of Probation. In 1980, he was appointed by President Reagan to the Law Enforcement Task Force and in 1982 to the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. In 1987, President Reagan appointed him as a Conferee to the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 1, 2025
Status: I read most of it, and "deeply skimmed" the parts I didn't read
I guess this book is okay if you want to hear a forensic psychologist recount stories from the people, mostly criminals, who claim that a bad thing they did was out of character. Samenow's argument is that it wasn't out of character. In fact, it can't be. If somebody does something, then it's in character. If it was out of character, they wouldn't have done it. Full stop.
(Well, almost full stop. If you squint, you'll see he implies that some people might, sometimes, be insane, in the sense of "not knowing right from wrong," but otherwise, everything someone does is by definition in character.)
I guess it's true. Circular reasoning is by definition always valid. I'll concede the point. But how useful is it?
I suppose it's useful if you think people should be given leniency for acting "out of character." It's also useful in a way that Samenow doesn't seem to suggest. If I do something bad, maybe I should look deeply into my own self before I believe whatever self-justification I have to offer. If I do bad thing X, then I'm the type of person who does bad thing X. Same goes for you.
But the usefulness of Samenow's book can't be predictive value. A good number--maybe at least least half--of the people in Samenow's book who did bad things didn't do something as bad until they did the bad thing he's talking about. The bad thing would have been hard to predict, even though it's perfectly in character in retrospect.
Samenow does a couple of sleights of hand that are particularly annoying. He notes that friends/family/neighbors of a criminal caught doing bad thing like to say, for example, "this crime is so out of character." (Other examples: "He would never have hurt a fly," "I never knew him to be abusive.") The sleight of hand here is that Samenow strongly implies that he's disproving those testimonies, that they should've known better. But at a couple points in the book, he'll admit that the person who did the bad thing was very good at adopting a persona as a gentle, unassuming, non-harmful person. He even admits, toward the end of the book, that friends and neighbors (maybe not so much family) have good reason not to know the person was capable of doing a bad thing.
The other sleight of hand is the "most people in X bad circumstance don't do Y bad thing," or its cousin: "it's not only poor people who do bad things, people from all walks of life do it." The sleight of hand isn't that Samenow is wrong. I don't know that he is. It's that he's uninterested in whether he's right or wrong. I mean, what if people who grow up in extreme poverty are 20% more likely than someone in wealth to murder someone? That's a correlation that needs to be explained, not dismissed with the folksy "most people don't do..." aphorism. (For what it's worth, I'm positing that correlation based on ignorance. I have no idea if poorer people are 20% more likely to do that. Maybe there's no significant correlation. Or maybe it runs the other way and rich people are more likely. And of course, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
I guess this book is okay if you want to hear a forensic psychologist recount stories from the people, mostly criminals, who claim that a bad thing they did was out of character. Samenow's argument is that it wasn't out of character. In fact, it can't be. If somebody does something, then it's in character. If it was out of character, they wouldn't have done it. Full stop.
(Well, almost full stop. If you squint, you'll see he implies that some people might, sometimes, be insane, in the sense of "not knowing right from wrong," but otherwise, everything someone does is by definition in character.)
I guess it's true. Circular reasoning is by definition always valid. I'll concede the point. But how useful is it?
I suppose it's useful if you think people should be given leniency for acting "out of character." It's also useful in a way that Samenow doesn't seem to suggest. If I do something bad, maybe I should look deeply into my own self before I believe whatever self-justification I have to offer. If I do bad thing X, then I'm the type of person who does bad thing X. Same goes for you.
But the usefulness of Samenow's book can't be predictive value. A good number--maybe at least least half--of the people in Samenow's book who did bad things didn't do something as bad until they did the bad thing he's talking about. The bad thing would have been hard to predict, even though it's perfectly in character in retrospect.
Samenow does a couple of sleights of hand that are particularly annoying. He notes that friends/family/neighbors of a criminal caught doing bad thing like to say, for example, "this crime is so out of character." (Other examples: "He would never have hurt a fly," "I never knew him to be abusive.") The sleight of hand here is that Samenow strongly implies that he's disproving those testimonies, that they should've known better. But at a couple points in the book, he'll admit that the person who did the bad thing was very good at adopting a persona as a gentle, unassuming, non-harmful person. He even admits, toward the end of the book, that friends and neighbors (maybe not so much family) have good reason not to know the person was capable of doing a bad thing.
The other sleight of hand is the "most people in X bad circumstance don't do Y bad thing," or its cousin: "it's not only poor people who do bad things, people from all walks of life do it." The sleight of hand isn't that Samenow is wrong. I don't know that he is. It's that he's uninterested in whether he's right or wrong. I mean, what if people who grow up in extreme poverty are 20% more likely than someone in wealth to murder someone? That's a correlation that needs to be explained, not dismissed with the folksy "most people don't do..." aphorism. (For what it's worth, I'm positing that correlation based on ignorance. I have no idea if poorer people are 20% more likely to do that. Maybe there's no significant correlation. Or maybe it runs the other way and rich people are more likely. And of course, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
June 6, 2020
If there's one book on criminal psychology that everyone should read, it's this one. We've all seen the news reports after a sudden act of violence. The family and neighbors all say the same thing. "There wasn't any sign that he could do something like this. He never even raised his voice."
Samenow dissects that premise, the premise of the crime that was completely "out of character" and finds it wanting. As he shows, there's simply no such thing as an "out of character" crime. The man who murders his wife suddenly fantasizes for years about getting into a fight and "putting her in her place." The supposedly peaceful man who snaps one day and murders a gym full of people is not peaceful. He's a man who fixates around interior fantasies of violence and revenge. He is a man who nurses personal grudges and remembers slights.
Furthermore, this is not all internal. There are signs that one can see in advance. Samenow illustrates this with numerous colorful examples of warning signs that were ignored or overlooked by friends and colleagues. For anyone who wonders why someone like the Las Vegas shooter happens, this book is an eye-opener.
Samenow dissects that premise, the premise of the crime that was completely "out of character" and finds it wanting. As he shows, there's simply no such thing as an "out of character" crime. The man who murders his wife suddenly fantasizes for years about getting into a fight and "putting her in her place." The supposedly peaceful man who snaps one day and murders a gym full of people is not peaceful. He's a man who fixates around interior fantasies of violence and revenge. He is a man who nurses personal grudges and remembers slights.
Furthermore, this is not all internal. There are signs that one can see in advance. Samenow illustrates this with numerous colorful examples of warning signs that were ignored or overlooked by friends and colleagues. For anyone who wonders why someone like the Las Vegas shooter happens, this book is an eye-opener.
April 8, 2022
Brilliant!
A realistic look at the true face of monsters hiding behind well-crafted masks. It is one of the best books on narcissistic personality disorder. If you have ever been abused you need to read this book for your own safety.
Combine this book with ''inside the criminal mind'' and you will have a deep understanding of the sick minds of these clowns ruining innocent lives.
A realistic look at the true face of monsters hiding behind well-crafted masks. It is one of the best books on narcissistic personality disorder. If you have ever been abused you need to read this book for your own safety.
Combine this book with ''inside the criminal mind'' and you will have a deep understanding of the sick minds of these clowns ruining innocent lives.
February 2, 2020
It sucks, as do all.
December 22, 2021
This book was a compelling yet difficult read for me to finish. I was interested in the author’s premise that people’s behavior -shocking as it may be for the rest of us, is not out of their true character. The many stories told we’re fascinating and made for a good read but I was left with the feeling the author made a blanket statement in regards to the many different crimes that were discussed. Overall, an interesting premise that leaves you with a lot to think about.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews