犯（非）行理論の統合のための一視点

<p>The author contends that crime and delinguency be defined in terms of the German concepts,‘Tatbestand’, ‘Rechtwidrigkeit’, and ‘Schuld’, in order to make up an integrated theory of crime and delinquency. If any given behavior does not meet all these requirements, it is not an act of crime or delinquency. Thus, all psychological factors which correspond to these respective requirements are neccessary to make up an integrated psychological theory of crime and delinquency. The psychological factors which correspond to ‘Tatbestand’ are motivation and its actingout, those which correspond to ‘Rechtswidrigkeit’are ciminal or delinquent readiness. In relation to this second requirement, social or prosocial behavior readiness and the structural and functional relationships between these two types of conflicting readinesses should be considered. In the personailty structure of a criminal or delinquent, these conflicting readinesses exist and work together. However, the criminal or delinquent readiness is nuclear and acts as ends, whereas the social or prosocial readiness is peripheral and acts as means or masks to these ends. The last psychological factor which corresponds to ‘Schuld’ is the relatively normal functioning of ego. Thus, any integrated psychological theory must include all these factors and grasp both the structural and functional relationships between these factors. Because these factors all exist in the actualization-inhibition field of a criminal or delinquent’s behavior, this field should be emphasized, and an integrated theory should be made up and tested by means of understanding the various mechanisms existing in this field. Secondarily, the various formation mechanisms of criminal or delinquent readiness should be understood in terms of formation-extinction field of such readiness, which clearly exists in the actualization-inhibition field.</p><p>Finally, the interrelationship of these two types of fields must be considered. Here, the author contends the meanings and functions of the former can be made clear, by testing how the actualization or inhibition of such behavior functions in the latter. Similarly, the meanings and functions of the formation-extinction field can be made overt by testing how the resulting configurations of this field are worked out in the future actualization-inhibition field. Consequently the inhibitioal countersteps should be taken, considering whether or not these will lead to the correction of the criminal or delinquent readiness. The correctional countersteps should also be taken, with considerstion of whether or not these are going to lead the actualizstion of a criminal or delinquent act.</p>