INTRODUCING THE RELEVANCE OF A NARRATIVE FRAMEWORK IN THE CRIMINOLOGICAL FIELD
In recent decades, narrative criminology has entered the scientific landscape by identifying itself as a theoretical paradigm centred on individual life stories, attributing a fundamental role to them as a key aspect in the unveiling of criminal dynamics and in the studies on the aetiology of crime (Canter Reference Canter1994; Canter, Kaouri, and Ioannou Reference Canter, Kaouri, Ioannou, Levy and Elizur2003; Canter and Youngs Reference Canter and Youngs2012; Ioannou et al. Reference Ioannou, Canter, Youngs and Synnott2015; Ioannou, Canter, and Youngs Reference Ioannou, Canter and Youngs2017; Maruna Reference Maruna2001; Presser Reference Presser2009, Reference Presser2016; Presser and Sandberg Reference Presser and Sandberg2015, Reference Presser and Sandberg2019; Youngs and Canter Reference Youngs and Canter2009, Reference Youngs and Canter2011, Reference Youngs and Canter2012). More precisely, narrative criminology corresponds to an inquiry that considers the narrative of life stories as a “key instigator of action” (Presser Reference Presser2009:177), as a real architect of the implementation of criminal behaviour. In this sense, doing narrative criminology means understanding the motives of crime through a complex interweaving of the multiple narratives of the perpetrators and victims, the justice realm and society, trying to identify and analyse the factors that influence and provoke a violent act (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018a, Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b). This means that a narrative criminologist cannot disregard the fact that the world, understood in its individual, relational and social meaning, is constituted and shaped by stories within which every human being considers him or herself and others as characters that actively participate in the forming and development of complex individual plots (Presser and Sandberg Reference Presser and Sandberg2019). In identifying and understanding the factors that contribute to the execution of criminal behaviour and the motivations that push an individual offender to commit a crime, an expert accordingly considers the crime as a relationship phenomenon (Monzani Reference Monzani2013), where the perpetrator and the victim are an integral part of a story in which each of them plays the role of a particular character who has a very precise function in the evolution of the events and even in the plot modification of individual life which, in this case, can lead to the committing of a crime. Within this framework, criminology embodies, in a certain sense, the very act of narrating stories. As a result of this consideration, the criminologist is configured as a storyteller (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018a, Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b; Monzani Reference Monzani2016), or as an expert able to grasp the different ways individual life history takes place (in this case that of the offender), trying to go in-depth and somehow even becoming an integral part of the story. In this context, the narrative as a structure within a criminological investigation based on individual life histories coincides with that single device capable of promoting dialogue and deep listening of the so-called “narrative of evil” (Verde and Barbieri Reference Verde and Barbieri2010) through which it is, therefore, possible to focus on the subject’s unique and unrepeatable interpretative modality, on the one hand with the aim of understanding the complex and intricate phenomenological substratum and on the other in an attempt to attribute meaning to the dark part of individual reality. Ultimately, in fact, doing narrative criminology allows the expert to identify the constitutive elements of a personal life story that make up and institute the functioning, understood as a particular way of behaving and being in the world typical of a specific individual plot, which sometimes can fall apart to the point of shattering the entire existence of the subject, resulting in a deviation from normality and materializing into a criminal and/or violent act (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2013).
NARRATIVE AND LIFE STORIES: WE ARE OUR OWN STORY
The act of telling is a particular aspect of the human being, and for this reason, it has always had a highly significant influence on the existence of each person. Many authors including Bruner and Sartre, in agreement with Fisher, define the human being as “homo narrans, the storytelling animal” (Fisher Reference Fisher1987:62), emphasizing the importance of the dimension of narration and narrative thought as preferential tools that allow the organization of an experience and the construction and transmitting of meanings, representing events and transforming them into objects of analysis and reflection. Hence, a human being is history, or rather, is one’s story, a dense, complex and unique plot that each individual creates and develops throughout their entire life.
From the earliest authors who considered narrative as a crucial aspect in the life of a person (Bruner Reference Bruner1987, Reference Bruner1991; James Reference James1890; Polkinghorne Reference Polkinghorne1988; Sarbin Reference Sarbin1986; Tomkins Reference Tomkins, Howe and Dienstbier1979), to the most recent contributions (McAdams Reference McAdams1988, Reference McAdams2001, Reference McAdams2006, Reference McAdams, John, Robins and Pervin2008; Schiff Reference Schiff2012), which not only underline the continuity between narrative and personal identity, but also the importance and value of individual life history within the psychological context, there have been a series of fundamental steps leading to the so-called “narrative turn” (Punday Reference Punday2002; Herman, Jahn, and Ryan Reference Herman, Jahn and Ryan2005). Many authors have in fact been concerned with describing how narrative affects the development of the identity and the Self, and how this enters so deeply into the life story of an individual. Among the most influential, we mention Sarbin (Reference Sarbin1986), who reassumes the theories of James, affirming that in each individual there would be a “narratory principle” (Sarbin Reference Sarbin1986:8), organizing thoughts and experiences according to narrative structures; Tomkins (Reference Tomkins, Howe and Dienstbier1979), who proposes the script theory of personality, where a human being can be compared to a sort of playwright creating one’s own emotional life in terms of salient scenes and recurring scripts based on how these events are effectively taken on by the individual Self; Polkinghorne (Reference Polkinghorne1988), who states that the plot of the individual Self is held together by what he calls “emplotment” (Polkinghorne Reference Polkinghorne1988:152), consisting of all those episodes of life within the context where a person expresses oneself, together with the schemes, possible fantasies and imagination that derive from their life history and have the purpose of reunifying the life events of the subject into a single global meaning. Finally, Bruner (Reference Bruner1987, Reference Bruner1991), considered by the entire scientific scene as one of the precursors of the centrality of narrative theory within psychology, states that the individual organizes their own experience and memories of past events using above all the narrative form, emphasizing the relevance of culture as an essential aspect for the creation of individual meaning attributed to life history and one’s own Self, as well as cultural cohesion. Among the most recent contributions regarding the importance of the narrative of life stories within the psychological discipline is undoubtedly that of McAdams (Reference McAdams1988, Reference McAdams2001, Reference McAdams2006, Reference McAdams, John, Robins and Pervin2008), indicating a new defined personality model, the life story model of identity: this underlines the correspondence between self-identity and internalized individual life story. Personal life story is therefore made up of a series of critical chapters and segments where existential events take on new meanings like “nuclear episodes” (McAdams Reference McAdams1988:63), that is the particularly significant life events that we consider solely ours, through which individuals dynamically construct and re-construct their own story, giving a certain sense to their existence first of all in the here and now of the life story while allowing the reinterpretation of the past with an imaginative capacity directed into the future.
Ultimately, narrative can be considered as the “imprecise metaphor for understanding life” (Schiff Reference Schiff2012:33). It is therefore intended as a dynamic existential plot that aims to create and assign a specific meaning to the Self and the external world, particularly to each individual’s life history, making it consistent with the development of the Self and identity, keeping it stable over time and subsequently directing one’s actions towards certain objectives in the achievement of a specific life direction. Narrative, therefore, appears not only as a metaphor for understanding human existence more deeply but also as an essential aspect for the creation of personal meaning. Thanks to the construction of one’s own individual life story, the subject is able to make meaningful attributions not only to others and the world around them but also to oneself.
There is no doubt that narrative of life stories now covers a role of fundamental importance in understanding human behaviour and experience: a subject’s life story, in its dynamism and continuous becoming, is certainly a key component of what constitutes a person’s individuality. A life story is, hence, an intrinsically present dynamic process that continues evolving in a human being and which in turn integrates the different narratives within a specific historical, socio-cultural and family context. Narratives are understandable and legible by virtue of the cultural framework of reference within which they are intercalated, and at the same time, they differ from one another because of the uniqueness that characterizes each individual subject in terms of individual life story.
CRIMINOLOGY: A NARRATIVE-BASED APPROACH
Narrative constitutes the dynamic aspect shaped by the experience that contributes and at the same time influences the development of individual life story, reflecting in turn on human behaviour. Premised on this assumption, many authors (Canter Reference Canter1994; Maruna Reference Maruna2001; Presser Reference Presser2009, Reference Presser2016) have affirmed that there is a strong correlation between narrative device and criminological discipline, intrinsically linked by an interdependence bond: narrative constitutes the macro-category where criminology operates when it aims to identify and analyse factors and motivations that lead an individual to commit a crime. It is, therefore, clear how the close relationship between experience and narrative is the key to understanding the ways narrative criminology theorizes a close relationship with actual narrative.
The motives that drive an individual to commit a crime are unequivocally multiple, and at the same time, they derive and are influenced by multiple intertwining factors that form an intricate network of kaleidoscopic components that are often difficult to extrapolate and analyse separately. However, these elements are contained within a single device, the narrative one, able to give meaning to existence and, more specifically, to individual life story, making it coherent and stable over time.
Some of the most important theories for the criminological–narrative discipline – referring here to the theoretical contributions of Canter (Reference Canter1994), Maruna (Reference Maruna2001) and Presser (Reference Presser2009, Reference Presser2016) – underline how criminal narrative is considered a direct and instantaneous background of the criminal act. Canter was undoubtedly the first modern author to consider individual narratives as aspects that have the potential to shape future criminal actions, thus providing a completely different and interesting way to study and understand criminal behaviour. Emphasizing the concept of agency, the author, in fact, affirms that it is precisely the criminal’s own actions to disclose how they have individually decided to lead their life, or in this case to carry out a crime. And it is through individual narrative, albeit confusing and distorted, which the subject is nonetheless aware of in some way, that it is possible to know and analyse the different aspects and factors regarding the offender’s life story directly involved in the enactment of a crime and who acted as “turning points and climaxes” (Canter Reference Canter1994:303) within the personal narrative leading to a deviation from everyday life. The author, therefore, suggests that there are certain particular events in the life of the offender that contribute to the making of multiple small slips which, when accumulated, lead to the execution of the crime. Within this framework, the challenge for the criminologist, therefore, lies in identifying such slips, revealing the main plot of the criminal’s life story, and thus identifying and analysing those individual distinctive aspects that lead to the committing of the crime. Maruna (Reference Maruna2001) also emphasizes the use of the narrative approach in the study of the dynamics and causes that lead a subject to commit a crime. The author stresses the value of criminal narratives in a process of offender rehabilitation not simply as compared to the crime committed but especially before their own will to proactively give a different meaning to their life and make amends for the offence that was committed and for the criminal life that was lived.
Equally paramount are the contributions of Presser (Reference Presser2009, Reference Presser2016; Presser and Sandberg Reference Presser and Sandberg2015) concerning criminal narrative as an explanatory variable of crime execution and marking a turning point in the study of criminal acts. Through the re-conceptualization of the criminological discipline in a new paradigm called narrative criminology, the author identifies individual life stories “as antecedent to crime” (Presser Reference Presser2016:139), allowing all the processes elicited by the stories themselves to emerge. A framework constituted by the individual narrative is, therefore, able to clarify and explain in more detail the here and now of criminal behaviour, including the dynamic factors that occur when a violent act is carried out, thus contributing to a more in-depth analysis and understanding of the internal states that underlie the committing of a crime.
The importance of narrative within the context of criminological sciences and the study of criminal behaviour, therefore, emphasizes the importance of the study of criminal activity through thorough analysis and understanding of the offender’s personal life stories, the so-called “inner secret narratives” (Canter Reference Canter1994:321), which would lead directly to the committing of the crime, when considered as a direct and instantaneous fact of the criminal act. According to this approach, crime is considered both an aspect and a product of the individual life story of that particular subject to which it belongs. For this reason, criminology cannot disregard narrative device: narrative not only links the individual to their actions, but proves to be the only discipline able to reveal and interpret the plot of the “criminal shadows” (Canter Reference Canter1994) with the aim of not only understanding how the life story is reflected within the criminal act but also examining the different criminogenic dynamics more elaborately.
THE ROLE OF A NARRATIVE CRIMINOLOGIST FOR INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL
In a narrative framework, when integrating a criminological discipline that studies and understands the different dynamics that the offender sets in motion upon committing a crime by analysing their personal life story, we wonder how narrative criminology, and in particular the figure of the narrative criminologist, can provide a contribution within a criminal case. To date, the Italian legal system contemplates the figure of the criminologist in a very residual way during the phase of the execution of the sentence (Art. 80 Italian Penitentiary Law 354/1975). Differently, clinical criminologists working as forensic psychiatrists or forensic psychologists work more effectively in the criminal justice system performing forensic and insanity defence evaluations (Art. 88 Italian Penal Code), with the aim of re-educating the offender with observation and the help of a treatment team. However, in the current Italian penal system, some rules in favour of the role of the criminologist have entered into force through fact in issue over the last twenty years. In particular, law 397/2000 (Disposizioni in Tema di Indagini Difensive; Instructions on Defensive Investigation) imposes and emphasizes the principle of equal treatment between prosecution and defence by means of defensive investigations, effectively assigning a role to the criminologist also during other phases of the trial. In this context, the criminologist can therefore operate during the trial phase, through the drafting of evaluations and being asked to testify on some procedural aspects such as the incrimination of the alleged offender, the assessment of the social dangerousness or the capacity to stand trial (from art. 220 to art. 233 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure). Finally, the criminologist can also operate during the investigation phase in the area of pre-trial hearing for gathering evidence before a criminal trial (art. 392 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure) or as an external consultant who actively collaborates with law enforcement agencies in analysing evidence (from art. 220 to art. 233 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure). It is therefore clear that the role of a criminologist consultant (in this case one who uses a narrative approach) becomes fundamental, making it necessary to train an expert able to support the private parties of the process (defence and plaintiffs) in addition to the prosecution. The task of criminology is, hence, to be a technical–operational science capable of contributing effectively and concretely to the functioning of the criminal justice system, bringing their specialized knowledge to the different judicial contexts and various procedural moments (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2010).
In the light of the Italian regulatory references regarding the criminologist’s contribution in the criminal fact in issue together with the importance of the use of narrative criminology within the Italian legal view, the present work proposes the use of the narrative approach and the contribution of a criminologist as an expert in two different moments of the criminal incident: during the investigation phase, through preventive methodological–narrative training of forensic experts, with emphasis on the importance of supporting the expert, thus, teamwork, and in the trial phase, through the use of the criminological interview for the purpose of drafting an insanity defence evaluation so as to assess criminal liability and dangerousness.
The Narrative Criminologist During the Investigation Phase
In the investigation phase, the task of the criminologist (in this case of the narrative criminologist) must not be confused with that of the criminalist or the technical expert of the investigation which, during the technical–judicial inspection, searches for the physical evidence of the crime through the use of knowledge and methodologies of mathematical, physical, chemical and natural sciences, as well as technology, for the purpose of ascertaining the crime and identifying the perpetrator. The criminologist has the task of attributing intrinsic and absolute value to the factual evidence, and this evaluation, mainly of a technical nature, has a value directly proportional to its objectivity. However, the different phases of choice, gathering, analysis and evaluation of the evidence are not immune to prejudices, inferential errors and subjective expectations of the criminalist. Therefore, forensics is identified as a science of the evidence, in which the first object of study is a physical piece of evidence. However, evidence of a crime does not only mean the physical evidence, since it is also the mnestic evidence of an event that occurred, such as a testimony, that is evidence present in the memory of people who participated in the crime, namely witnesses or particularly the victim who, having survived, plays a fundamental role in the investigation progress and success. Hence, in our view, the importance of the role of the narrative criminologist during the investigation phase, which has the task of assessing whether, how much and how a particular fact emerging during the investigation is useful for the purposes of such. The narrative criminologist is the one who not only should provide a distinct and authentic contribution to the evaluation of the evidence that emerged during the entire investigation (whether physical or mnestic) but is also and above all the one who attributes an extrinsic value to the pieces of evidence, linking them and giving each a particular meaning, a relative weight derived also from the complete assessment of the absolute weight of each single element (Monzani Reference Monzani2011). All the collected evidence must, therefore, be included in a context, comprising relationships and stories, precisely the narratives which the investigator (in this case the narrative criminologist) cannot disregard. The task of the latter is therefore to provide a narrative framework, an interpretive key that makes it possible to link together and subsequently evaluate the individual evidence emerging not only singularly but especially reciprocally and as a part of a story, a narrative of which both the offender and the victim are part, in order to provide them with both extrinsic meaning and relative importance, dependent also on the weight of the other individual elements, and, ultimately, an initial notional postulation from which it is possible to start constructing the narrative of the crime and the characters who have actively participated in it, all done by means of applying a rigorous falsificationist approach to scientific method (Monzani Reference Monzani2011). Its function is to link the different sources of evidence by placing them in a single story that acquires coherence in terms of the temporal dimension of the crime. The construction of the crime plot by the narrative criminologist leads in fact to the disclosure of the underlying relational dimension, considering the crime as a relational phenomenon in which the perpetrator and victim are intrinsically united via the individual narratives that are somehow intertwined within the crime plot. From this emerges the figure of the narrative criminologist as a true storyteller who arranges the various sources of evidence and the narration of events and experiences in a coherent plot that ensures the unveiling of its profound meaning and underlying dynamics (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b).
Such a contribution by the narrative criminologist during the investigation phase is possible through a presence that does not interfere with judicial police work during the crime scene inspection, but, on the contrary, sees the narrative criminologist play a supervisory role in operations, with the functions of connecting the different subjects, verifying continuously and paying attention to the different emotional and behavioural dynamics, more or less evident, that can arise. This is possible through the relational–narrative training of the judicial police by the narrative criminologist (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2013, Reference Ciappi2015). First of all, because a knowledge of the inferential principles and errors that can occur in the phases of selection, gathering, analysis and evaluation of the physical elements of proof emerging during the investigation can considerably reduce the various possibilities of error. Then in the gathering and initial assessment of the mnestic evidence, that is the different testimonies concerning the crime, this training aims to make the police officers aware of how invaluable the memory element is as the first important factor in reconstructing the crime narrative for the subsequent identification of the offender. The different narratives that are constructed and that emerge more and more distinctly through the grouping of various elements and supporting evidence both by the police and the criminologist during the investigation phase are a source of specific evidence and at the same time fundamental for the correct investigation progress. This relevance inevitably leads not only to flanking by the criminologist during the investigation phase but also to an active collaboration between the police officers and the narrative criminologist, who has the purpose of correctly evaluating and assigning a precise significance to all the evidence that emerges in the investigation phase, inserting them into the narrative device. Relational–narrative training focused on the importance of the narrative of life stories as an influencing factor that actively contributes to the perpetration of a crime together with the teamwork of professionals specialized in this field, as well as law enforcement, not only allows police officers to formulate investigative hypotheses taking into account the narrative component of the evidence, with the awareness that each of them is inserted within a plot that must be constructed from scratch to reveal the underlying dynamics, but also gives the narrative criminologist and the police the time to evaluate the extrinsic value of these pieces of evidence and their relative weight within the investigation, linking them within a single coherent narrative and trying to attribute a particular meaning to the elements that have surfaced, taking into account the different individual factors present in the narrative of the offender or victim, leading to the committing of the crime.
The Narrative Criminologist in the Trial Phase
As seen during the trial phase, the role of the criminologist is fundamental since, in the psychiatric examination, they can be called to testify on various aspects of the criminal proceedings concerning the offender, such as imputability, social dangerousness, the capacity to stand trial and the ability to bear witness. In the face of the evaluation, which may concern both the assessment of mental capacity, or the offender’s power of judgement and legal capacity at the time of the fact, and the assessment of his or her social dangerousness, the criminologist is in a position to answer questions just as sensitive as they are fundamental to the success of the entire trial. Once called upon to give an answer to such questions, in order to write the report, the expert then needs to gather not only the various information regarding the crime (including the physical and mnestic evidence mentioned above) but also the different factors that make up the life story of the offender and that have in some way contributed to the execution of specific criminal behaviour. In our opinion, the role of the narrative criminologist is fundamental because, through the criminological interview and the use of a basic relational–narrative approach, the criminologist has the task of listening and carefully analysing the offender’s life story, trying to make sense of the obscure part of reality that sometimes takes the form of a criminal act, with the aim of assessing and establishing a fair and most correct criminal responsibility, respecting the victim(s) and, at the same time, reflecting the various facets of the offender’s narrative regarding the crime committed. In order to do this, the narrative criminologist first needs to identify the object of research in this area, or the person who committed the crime, and in particular, their unique and unrepeatable individual interpretative modality elicited by the narrative of the life story. Only through the use of the relational–narrative approach, which accordingly coincides with analysis and listening to the non-violent story, that is the individual life story constituted by experiences, relationships and moments particularly significant to the life of the offender, always ensuring to consider the reality they bear, is it possible to consider the offender, and consequently the violent action and crime they perpetrated, based on different points of view. Trying to analyse and understand the unique and very personal modalities of the subject through the criminological interview in fact allows the narrative criminologist not only to unveil the offender’s narrative, bringing out all those constitutive elements of their inner functioning but also to know and understand the more fundamental aspects of crime, understood here as a possible manifestation of the Self (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b). In this sense, the narrative framework has a very specific task, which is to give meaning to what is hidden and obscure, restore order to chaos, and bring together an individual plot that is sometimes ripped and disorganized. Hence, within this context, it is mandatory for the expert criminologist to refer to some fundamental assumptions, since deviant behaviour represents an aberration of normality, and the outcome of a way of behaving and being in the world (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2012, Reference Ciappi2019) refers to human cognizance that may be identified with the concept of “human agency” (Canter Reference Canter1994; Verde and Barbieri Reference Verde and Barbieri2010). Supporting the concept of human agency makes it possible first and foremost to consider the offender as an active agent, protagonist of one’s own story and, for this reason, able to intentionally make a conscious choice regarding one’s own path of life and individual narrative, and in this case even one’s choice to commit a crime. At the same time, this concept refers to another fundamental aspect without which it would not be possible to refer to a relational–narrative approach, that is the idea of the offender’s human nature. This means considering the offender before anything else as a human being through a sort of paradox, which concerns the ability of the narrative criminologist to accept that the complexity of life depends heavily on the degree of adaptation to the latter. Accepting the dark part of reality, or the crime, the offence or the behaviour that results in a violent act as an integral part of human existence thus becomes the only way that the narrative criminologist is able to really enter and be immersed in the so-called “narrative of evil” (Verde and Barbieri Reference Verde and Barbieri2010). This aspect, albeit difficult but necessary, not only gives the expert the chance to enter into the other’s world, revealing those dark meanders often hidden from others and forming an integral part of the individual narrative, which likely led to the execution of the crime, but also encompasses a way to reason within which the tear in the veil is revealed. This rip in the offender’s narrative is intended here as a maladaptive way to tell one’s own story (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2013). This means, by virtue of this viewpoint, listening to a story, interpreting in detail the uniqueness of the story being told, while at the same time trying to grasp those particular and exclusive details that make the entirety of individual events visible, and subsequently deconstructing and taking it apart by looking for a shared modality that has the purpose of disambiguating this fracture (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2012; Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018a). The narrative criminologist must therefore be guided to a certain extent by the subject’s story while trying to bear in mind the real and authentic common thread of the narrative in order to distinguish the internal coherence. Through dialogue with the offender, the narrative criminologist is, in our opinion, the only figure able to identify a meeting point with the individual who committed the crime, making sure to adequately conduct the expert inquiry expressed in the report, respecting the victim(s) and equally considering the unique and unrepeatable kosmos that coincides with the whole world the subject faces (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b). The criminal, in fact, acts by behaving while aware of the different narrative possibilities that may be carried out, and by such actions the offender stages a certain story, a particular plot that the narrative criminologist has the task of re-constructing in the most accurate way possible. The use of a relational–narrative approach supported and made explicit with the criminological interview therefore has the objective of linking the perpetrators to their actions through deduction, interpretation and meaning assignment of the respective story with the further task of rewriting it and trying to reconstruct the plot by stitching up the threads (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2012, Reference Ciappi2013).
CONCLUSION
In analysing the narrative, considered as a key for human beings to comprehend by organizing and attributing meaning to one’s own existence and the context they are in, and as a criminological discipline that is employed within this framework, ascribing to the individual narrative the fundamental importance of understanding not only the different dynamics and factors that contribute to the committing of a crime but also the different motives that drive an individual to commit a crime, this contribution aims to emphasize the role of the narrative criminologist within the criminal case, underlining its relevance not only to the support and training of police officers, but also to the use of a relational–narrative approach, made explicit by conducting a criminological interview, via assessment by an expert, in determining the criminal responsibility, social dangerousness and legal capacity of the offender. We consider the figure of the narrative criminologist as a qualified expert in the role of flanking and training during the investigation phase, while actively engaged in employing a narrative framework throughout the trial phase, of fundamental importance for a good and successful outcome of the investigation and the criminal case overall. The investigation, and in general the entire criminological discipline, in our opinion cannot dismiss the narrative device in identifying the offender but before all else in analysing and evaluating all the personal and unique aspects that are part of the offender’s individual narrative, which led to a criminal outcome of certain individual behaviour. The task of narrative criminology, and hence the expert criminologist, is not only to evaluate the pieces of evidence based on the value and relevance they have within a larger and more complex framework of events, or the subject’s life story, but also to personally engage in narration in order to trace characters, structure, internal coherence and possible narrative developments, where the internal coherence of a story is characterized by a precise and very personal meaning, which corresponds to what captures the manner in which the person tells the story (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018a, Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b). In this journey, the narrative criminologist inevitably bears a full load of personal experiences and ideas trying to realize a communicative situation through dialogue with the individual in question, or the offender. The goal, therefore, is not only to analyse the unsaid and reveal the more profound and sometimes obscure aspects of the individual plot in order to identify and understand the various factors contributing to the execution of the crime, thus explaining the here and now of crime, but also to reconstruct such stories in a critical way (Ciappi Reference Ciappi2012, Reference Ciappi2013; Presser and Sandberg Reference Presser and Sandberg2019). In the light of these considerations, crime can indeed be considered as the product of an existential plot, of a dynamic project to which the perpetrator tries to attribute a particular meaning. The collection and analysis of these narratives as valuable containers of relevant information about the factors prior to crime appears, in our opinion, to be the most suitable way of doing criminology, respecting the victims and the world of social justice (Monzani Reference Monzani2016). From our perspective, behind every crime or violent act that leads to an offence, there is a story, an individual life that is not always summed up behind that gesture, where that crime can be a metaphor or synopsis as well as accident, course detour or sudden deviation (Ciappi and Schioppetto Reference Ciappi and Schioppetto2018b). This is why the narrative criminologist’s task in the criminal fact in issue and more generally within the entire criminological discipline is essential: the criminologist is the only expert figure who, in the investigation and trial phase, can link all the elements together within a single coherent story, in a continuum that goes from the physical and self evidence in the investigation phase to the criminological interview with the perpetrator in the trial phase. In short, only this expert has the ability to construct, deconstruct and reconstruct stories.
Giulia Schioppetto is a Clinical Psychologist and Criminologist now specializing in Forensic Psychopathology and Neuropsychology at the University of Padua and a Member of the University Center of Studies and Research in Criminological Sciences and Victimology (Salesian University, Venice). She did several fieldwork experiences, working at the “Due Palazzi” prison in Padua and writing reports for the court. She is one of the winners of the UNODC – Education for Justice and ISC International Competition recognized at the 19th World Congress of Criminology (Doha, Qatar, October 2019), and she is the author of several scientific publications on Narrative Criminology.
Marco Monzani is Professor in Forensic Psychology, Deontology and Law, Investigative Psychology and Victimology at IUSVE (Salesian University, Venice, Italy) and Professor of Criminology at the University of Padua. He is President of the Italian Association of Criminology (AIC), Scientific Director of the Master in Criminology, Investigative Psychology and Forensic Educational Psychology and Director of SCRIVI (University Centre of Studies and Research in Criminological Sciences and Victimology). He is also member of the Italian Society of Criminology (SIC) and of the board of the International Society of Criminology (ISC).
Silvio Ciappi (Ph.D.) is a Psychotherapist and Supervisor. He is Professor of Criminology, Sociology and Forensic Psychology at the University of Verona; Professor of Criminology and Criminal Psychology at IUSVE (Salesian University, Venice) and at the Universities of Modena, Pisa, Messina and Reggio Calabria. He is also a European Union expert in crime prevention. He has published more than 100 publications. He is a member of several Associations and Societies including the Italian Society of Criminology (SIC), the American Society of Criminology, the American Psychological Association (APA), the European Association of Psychology and Law and the Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute (Canada).
