Peter Pettigrew —Wormtail— is, of all the villains in the world of Harry Potter, the least imposing and perhaps the most uncomfortable. He has neither Voldemort's charisma nor Bellatrix's fanaticism. He is a small, nervous man who in his youth scurried in the shadow of three brilliant, brave friends, and who as an adult handed those same friends —the Potters— to the most dangerous wizard of his time to save his own skin. Then he faked his death and spent years hidden, literally, as a rat. The question he leaves behind is not "why is he so evil?", because he is not, in the grand sense. The question is more unsettling: why did he give way? And for that criminology has a sharp answer —Walter Reckless's containment theory—, which explains not why people commit crimes, but why almost all people, even feeling the temptation, do not.
// The theoryThe two walls that hold us back
In the mid-twentieth century, the sociologist Walter Reckless —together with Simon Dinitz— turned criminology's usual question on its head. Instead of asking what pushes someone toward crime, he asked why the vast majority do not offend, if temptation is everywhere. His answer, in containment theory, is a clear image: between us and crime rise two walls. Outer containment is the world that holds us up —a family that supervises, a community, meaningful roles, bonds that give us something to lose—. Inner containment is what we carry within when no one is watching: frustration tolerance, goal orientation, a sense of responsibility and, above all, a favorable self-concept. Reckless stressed this last piece above all the others: whoever sees themselves as "someone who does not do that" resists; whoever lacks that firm image falls at the first serious shove.
The inner wall is not inherited: it is built
What is decisive about Reckless's theory is that the two walls can compensate for each other, but cannot replace each other indefinitely. A strong community can sustain for a while someone who is weak inside; a solid self-concept can hold out even when the family fails. The problem arises when the inner wall is hollow and only the external scaffolding keeps it standing. There the person seems contained —they behave, they resist, they even project an image of decency— but that firmness is borrowed: it depends on others continuing to watch, to hold up, to set an example. Wormtail is exactly that case. For years he passed for brave because he shared every moment with three friends who truly were; his inner containment was, in fact, the reflection of theirs. When the pressure really came and the scaffolding vanished —his friends were no longer at his side, Voldemort was in front of him—, there was nothing inside to hold firm. The wall that was never built cannot support anyone on the day it is needed.
Get the map of theories for free
Subscribe to the criminal archive —one case a week, no spam— and I'll send you The map of theories: the great currents of criminology on a single sheet.
// The subjectThe borrowed brave man who collapsed alone
In Reckless's terms, Wormtail accumulates pushes and pulls with hardly any wall to set against them. The inner push is fear: an anxiety and a need for survival that dominate everything else. The outer pull is Voldemort's power —the winning side, the protection of the strong, the promise of being safe if one switches sides in time—. Against that, what containment did he have? His outer containment collapsed: when it truly mattered, he chose to pull away from the group that held him up rather than cling to it. And the inner one was never his own. There is in Pettigrew no firm self-concept of "I do not betray my friends", no frustration tolerance, no sense of responsibility capable of weighing more than the terror of the moment. His compass was always that of the strongest in the room. That is why the betrayal of the Potters is not a surprising twist: it is what happens when someone with no inner wall is finally left alone facing pressure. The bravery he displayed in his youth was not character, it was mimicry; and mimicry fades the moment the model disappears. Containment theory would put it without drama: it was not a hero who gave way, but a dam that had in fact never been fully raised.
Colagusano
// The crackCowardice explains, but it does not excuse
Here is the limit, and it has to be said plainly. Containment theory explains why Pettigrew was vulnerable —a weak inner wall, an external scaffolding that fell away from him— but it does not turn him into a victim of circumstances. To explain is not to excuse. A fragile dam makes the fall more likely; it does not make it inevitable, nor does it remove his authorship. Wormtail chose: he chose whom to give up, he chose the moment, he chose to fake his death and let an innocent man bear the blame for years. None of that was done to him by fear. Fear was the push; the decision to sell out his friends was his own. And the theory itself upholds this: Reckless studies containment precisely to pinpoint responsibility more precisely, not to dilute it. That someone lacked an inner wall describes their fragility; it does not absolve them of what they did with it.
There is also a second crack, the opposite one. It would be easy to stop at "Wormtail is simply a coward" and close the case, as if cowardice were an essence sealed at birth. Containment says something more useful: courage and firmness are not only temperament, they are built —or left unbuilt— over the course of a life, in the bonds, the goals and the self-concept one cultivates. Pettigrew had decades and good company to raise a wall of his own, and he did not: he always preferred to lean on someone else's character. There lies his deeper responsibility. The memory that matters in this file is not that of the traitor who hid as a rat, but that of the Potters, whom his cowardice handed over, and that of the man who spent years imprisoned for a crime that Wormtail committed.
Build the wall before the pressure arrives
Wormtail's case matters because it dismantles a comfortable idea: that decent people are so by nature and will always hold out. Containment theory warns of the opposite —firmness that is never exercised is borrowed firmness, and it evaporates on the day one is left alone facing fear or power—. In prevention, this points to two fronts at once: sustaining the outer wall (bonds, supervision, belonging, roles that give something to lose) and, above all, helping to raise the inner one —a self-concept of one's own, frustration tolerance, a sense of responsibility that weighs more than the pressure of the moment—. The Pettigrews of the world are not recognized by their wickedness, because they hardly display any: they are recognized by their inner emptiness, by that firmness that only works while someone else holds it up. The lesson is not to wait for the fully formed traitor, but to notice who never built their own wall —while the pressure that will put it to the test has not yet arrived—.
Three key takeaways
- Wormtail embodies containment theory (Reckless): two walls hold us back, an outer one (bonds, supervision) and above all an inner one (self-concept, endurance, responsibility). His inner wall was hollow.
- His youthful bravery was borrowed: a reflection of his friends' character. When he was left alone facing fear (push) and the power of Voldemort (pull), with no external scaffolding and no wall of his own, he betrayed the Potters to save himself.
- To explain is not to excuse. A fragile dam makes the fall more likely, but Pettigrew chose: whom to give up, when, and to let an innocent man pay. The memory is for his victims, not for the traitor.
Sources · further reading
- Reckless, W. C. (1961). The Crime Problem. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
- Reckless, W. C., Dinitz, S. & Murray, E. (1956). «Self Concept as an Insulator Against Delinquency». American Sociological Review, 21(6).
- Reckless, W. C. (1967). «A New Theory of Delinquency and Crime». En The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency.
- Cullen, F. T. & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Oxford University Press.
Case-file questionsFrequently asked questions
¿Quién es Colagusano?
Colagusano («Peter Pettigrew») es un villano de Harry Potter, analizado en KRIMINIS con la lente de la criminología. He sold out the Potters to save his own skin and faked his own death, hidden as a rat.
¿Por qué Colagusano (Peter Pettigrew) se convierte en villano?
Peter Pettigrew, Wormtail, and containment theory: why a man with no inner wall gives way at the first pressure. When the character that held him up was borrowed, and his friends stopped watching.
¿Qué teoría criminológica explica a Colagusano?
El caso de Colagusano se analiza desde la Teoría de la contención. Containment theory (Walter Reckless) explains why almost no one falls to a temptation we all feel: two walls hold us back, an outer one (bonds, supervision) and above all an inner one (self-concept, frustration tolerance, a sense of responsibility). Peter Pettigrew, Wormtail, from Harry Potter, is the portrait of a hollow inner containment: while his powerful friends held him up, he passed for brave; when he was left alone facing fear and the power of Voldemort, he had no wall of his own to resist with, and he betrayed the Potters to save himself.
