So laws are self-justified by their existance? That logic is a bit circular.

Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that it IS the law. While it's the law, any infractions of it will result in the prescribed penalty.

Sidhe

From Roy Hazelwood, who helped to create the FBI's Serial Crime Profiling unit:


"In my experience this climate of tolerance is having two important social consequences: First, as deviant behavior becomes more common in the material we read, hear, and see, parallel behaviors quickly appear in sexual crimes, particularly those acted out against strangers. Second, an increasing number of serious injuries and/or deaths are occurring during "rough sex." When criminal charges are filed, defense attorneys try to portray the injurious behavior as "consensual and accidental....In our "anything goes" society, it can be difficult to convince a judge or fury that any behavior is necessarily involuntary."

"Violent crimes committed by the severely disturbed tend to attract a disproportionate amount of attention from the press. In fact, the mentally ill are responsible for less than 3% of sexual crimes."


Here are two crimes that he worked on that are mentioned in his book:

A 14-year-old girl is kidnapped while hitchhiking with a young male companion. Her abductor immedietely kills the youth, then keeps the girl as his captive. He tortures her, binds her with chains, and forces her to pose for photographs in heavy makeup and suggestive clothing. After several days he strangles her with a bailing-wire garrote, then dumps her body in the loft of an abandoned barn.


Thre male children, ages seven, nine, and ten, take a female playmate to an isolated building where they forcibly undress her and demand that she perform oral sex on them. They insert sticks, rocks, and bottles into her vagina and rectum before releasing the little girl with a threat to kill her if she tells. The three are later identified and arrested after assaulting another young female playmate.

(these kids are already evidencing criminal behavior. The threats against the girl show that they know the difference between right and wrong and are trying to evade capture, and the second assault shows that they will keep doing it as long as they learn that they can get away with it. I wonder how many times they did it before they were caught? Deviant kids turn into deviant adults. They have to be stopped before they graduate to murder. Most sexually-motivated murders begin with things like flashing and window-peeping, and yet these crimes are misdemeanors --LS)



Source: Dark Dreams, by Roy Hazelwood and Stephen G. Michaud


Sidhe

Hey now, I didn't kill anyone. :)

Here's more from Hazelwood that I thought bore passing on. Bear in mind that this man has interviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of murderers and sexual deviants, and helped to create the FBI's BSU, better known as the serial crime profiling unit.


The following are direct quotes, from the same book I cited earlier.


"Any purported explanation for why an individual commits violence is incomplete if it ignores the most important variable, the criminal himself. Each person is a unique product of nature and nurture, genetic destiny, and environmental influences....so while a number of factors seem to contribute to the genesis of an offender, no single element is the cause of deviant behavior."

Here are some of his thoughts on the more common theories:

POVERTY: A great number of offenders come from poor families, and a great number of them don't. For every criminal raised in a poverty-stricken environment, we can find countless law-abiding citizens who overcome that disadvantage to lead honest lives.

CHILDHOOD ABUSE: My research on serial rape supports the view that a large number of sexual criminals have been childhood victims of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse. Yet, as is true with poverty, there are many more abused kids who do not become violent as adults.

VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA: Movies and television often are blamed for glamorizing violence. In 1977, a 15-year-old Florida youth named Ronny Zamora claimed in court that he killed an elderly female neighbor because of "television intoxication." Zamora's attorney said his client had become addicted to violence by watching television. Fortunately for society, the jurors didn't buy into that theory.

Books, magazines, and music have also been faulted for promoting violence. Rap music, especially, has been accused of objectifying women and using gender-demeaning terminology in the lyrics. While I might not personally appreciate certain kinds of music or films, behavioral studies do not suggest that men who watch or listen to them are, as a result, driven to commit crimes. Certainly offenders with preexisting fantasiesmight seek out such stimulation and even attempt to incorporate some of its elements into future crimes. But to say that a cause-and-effect relationship exists is simply not supported by scientific inquiry.

PORNOGRAPHY: Speaking as a professional, I have to say that I don't believe that it causes sexual violence.
In my experience, education, and training led me to believe that pornography contributes, both passively and actively, to sexual violence in some individuals, in that it it may play an important role in the process that leads to violent sexual assault by providing offenders with a continuous source of new ideas.
From my interviews with rapists, sexual killers, child molesters, sexual sadists, and the wives and companions of these sexually violent men, I know that ritualistic sexual offenders not only own pornography, but they typically collect it. They pore over it, spending endless hours with a favorite picture or video, all the while reinforcing the aberrant fantasy.

GENETICS: Some years ago, a new theory connected the presence of an extra "Y" chromosome in a male's genetic material to a superabundance of testosterone, which was believed to result in violent behavior. No one has ever developed scientific evidence to support this theory, and it is largely discounted today.
A more recent, and also unsubstantiated, hypothesis holds that individuals can inherit a gene that predisposes them to commit criminal acts. This genetic explanation of criminality poses an interesting dilemma for sociologists, psychologists, criminologists, and penologists.
If such behaviors are determined from birth, professionals could do little to prevent them; rehabilitation would be a hopeless task. I believe that this theory will prove to be another false lead in the quest to understand violence in our society.
Still another theory, recently advanced by so-called Evolutionary Psychologists, takes the radical view that rape is a natural biological phenomenon. To paraphrase one adherent, rape is an unfortunate but nonetheless adaptive strategy for passing on one's genes. In my view, this reasoning will go the way of the extra Y chromosome theory.

INSANITY: It's all too easy to dismiss the offender as being "sick," "perverted," or "deranged." However, this assumption does not explain the 97% of crimes committed by individuals who are not psychotic (insane).
One of the more esoteric explanations for criminal behavior I have heard is brain shrinkage. This theory says that one should not be held responsible for one's acts because the brain has shrunk, thus affecting the ability to discern right from wrong. (it was used in a case of embezzlement, and was not accepted by the jury--LS)

BLOOD SUGAR IMBALANCE: Even junk food has been blamed for causing violence. In San Francisco in November of 1978, Supvr. Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were gunned down at city hall by Supvr. Dan White. At the trial, the attorney for White blamed his client's violent behavior in part on the inordinate number of twinkies that White had consumed.


"I'm confident that no single factor of any sort will ever suffice to explain the millions of variations that occur among individuals. No two peole are alike, and the factors that combine to cause people to turn to violence will always be unique.

Perhaps the most obvious (and most frightening) explanation of all is that some offenders commit crimes simply because they want to! They like it! And they have no regard for what the rest of society thinks.

This is the dark mind's most disturbing corner of all."



Sidhe

That we know of.

Yet.

;)

Sidhe

Yeah but it was grand jury...indictments.

The only "problem" I have with that is this: how long will you wait for that to happen? Some people hold grudges (yeah petty, but real), and personally, it would take a v.e.r.y long time for me to calm down and think "rationally".

However, as I said before, because *I* would not be the one to issue the final punishment, then why should it matter in the long run? Shouldn't these non-emotional suggestions be put to someone who would be on a jury regarding a murder case?

Some could easily bring up the argument that many people come from dysfunctional homes and are just fine. With that being the case, then maybe society should focus on trying to educate people to not procreate so quickly (or even at all) if the home isn't as stable as it can possibly be. That's just my take on a possible "solution", because after the damage is done and the crime has been committed, in many cases, it's just too late after that to do much of anything about it except to punish the person for the crime committed.

And those of us who have had to help the abused know as well. I told the story in another thread about how I had to beat the living fuck out of the man who was abusing my best friend. Long story short: she had dated him for 2 years. One night, she decides she was going to leave him, and asked me to help her move her things out of his apt. Ok fine. Ended up being a big old throwdown...him hiting her, and me hiting him to get him off of her. I beat him down then, and I'd sure as fuck beat him the hell down now if I ever saw his punk ass again. :mad:

Quote:

IMO, they're as bad as murderers. They destroy something in you, and you never REALLY trust again, not like you used to. And that's for the people who, for whatever reason, are better able to deal with the memories. For those who are more traumatized, and can't deal very well, the abuser has destroyed their lives. And those are just the ones who get through the ordeal with their lives.

I saw that in the eyes of the second person I had to help get out of an abusive situation. She had been through so much with this particular man (and even before she met him), that there were times that you could tell that she had just given up on life, and here she was with a 6 year old daughter to raise. Oh yeah: he beat her while she was pregnant with that daughter too. Lovely. I say death to him just for that alone, I don't give a flying fuck WHO doesn't like it! :rar:

Quote:

Even if kevin HAD been abused as a kid, I wouldn't feel sorry for him. He was a grown man, and he made his choice to do what he did, over and over, to more than one person. He'd been in jail for it before (I spoke at length with his ex-wife), and apparantly he wasn't able to learn from his experience.

Ah hm...repeat offender. Yeah, jail really rehabilitated him.

Quote:

It seems to me that these criminals who are blaming abuse for the way they act, wouldn't want to treat someone the same way, because they know how awful it is. Like someone who was beaten as a child choosing to use other methods to discipline their own children, because they don't want to repeat the pattern. Many people are abused as kids. They don't all grow up to kill or abuse, because they make the CHOICE not to. It's all about power. Murder is about power. Rape is about power. Abuse is about power. Choices we make as adults (and as children) should have consequences. When they don't, all that is shown is that one can get away with bad behavior. The DP is all about consequences for the ultimate in unacceptable behavior. If we're going to start somewhere, start with rewarding good choices, and punishing the bad ones. We learn as children what is and is not acceptable social behavior. When these little juvenile delinquents get slap on the wrist after slap on the wrist, they learn that bad choices don't have consequences that outweigh the pleasure of the bad behavior. I, personally, think we should bring back public humiliation for lesser crimes and first offenses (this is in reference to non-violent crimes, property crimes, and the like, not for murderers, rapists, abusers or child molesters). Bring back the stocks and the canes. Don't put a thief in jail, put him in the stocks in the public square for a couple of days and sell rotten fruit to throw at him (that'll pay for his food and water); don't stick the little gangsta wannabe in jail for robbery--cane his ass in front of his friends (I say this because a few years back, when the caning issue came up because of the American delinquent who got caned...there was a town in the states--I can't remember the name of it offhand--in which they had a problem with defacing public property. The Elders of the town suggested caning instead of jail time. When reporters interviewed some of the gang members in jail, the gang members said that they'd rather have jail time than be caned.) It hurts like a bitch, but it does no lasting damage and doesn't cost the state a thing. I'm sure someone would do the caning for free. People are very sensitive to humiliation. I think public humiliation would do some good. All that's hurt is pride, and maybe someone's butt, and it would keep our jails and prisons free for the murderers, rapists, abusers and other violent criminals. Sidhe

Couldn't snip a word of that. Glad to see that you made it out of that hell (and to everyone else that had to come through hell).

Lsyc,

who would be deciding when a home is stable enough? I agree that the overpopulation of underprivelaged portions of our society is troubling, and I understand that you do not want kids for yourself. You say it all the time. I wonder, though, how much of that is brought about by your unfortunate health situation and the fact that childbirth, for you, may not be an option. I repeatedly get the sense that you actually DO want kids, and are telling yourself that you CHOOSE not to. I'm sorry to be so direct about this, but this is not the first time this has occured to me, and i thought I should ask you.
feel free to ignore me, i mean no offense, but CAN you have kids if you change your mind?

Ah well, best to be childfree. No genetics, no problem! :D

*only half-joking folks...well, maybe...*

Here's something interesting I found. It's from Confessions, by St. Augustine, and concerns sin. Replace the word sin with the word crime, and it describes exactly the process that profilers have found is used by the criminal. Comments in parentheses refer to the criminal, non-parentheticals are from St. Augustine:

1. The mind conceives of an action... (fantasizing, for the criminal)

2. ...which is referred to the senses (perhaps videotaping or photographing possible victims)

3. The individual considers the possible consequences ("What I'm doing is illegal, and blah, blah, blah)

4. He decides to commit the sin (crime) ("It may not work, but I want to try it anyway")

5. He then rationalizes the act. ("I did this because I was abused as a kid")




Sidhe

Here are some more reasons I support the dp. Again, gleaned from observations made by profilers:


"The sexual offender is never fully inactive. He may not be acting out against a specific victim, but he will be making plans, selecting new targets, acting out against other victims, or gathering materials. He is never dormant."

SOCIOPATHS do not feel remorse or shame, guilt or appropriate fear. THEY DO NOT LEARN FROM PUNISHMENT. They are easily bored. They like excitement. They find it difficult to delay gratification, no matter where their self-interest may lie. They are chronic liars, even when they have no need or reason to lie. They have no understanding of, or concern for, the harm they cause others. The only concern they have is for their own gratification.

Billy Lee Chad, a rapist, sexual sadist, and murderer, wrote a manuscript while in jail called "Dark Secrets." In this manuscript, he blames the criminal justice system for making him a sexual predator, but contradicts this claim when he says of his crimes, "I never had experienced such sexual pleasure." he also said, "I knew what I had done was wrong, but where was [sic] the feelings of guilt that were supposed to accompany such a deed? What was it that caused me to feel such elation? What was it that allowed me to take another human's life with no feeling of remorse?"
When describing an attack he made on his pregnant wife when she refused him sex, he said, "The fear she showed would fire me even more. I couldn't see her face, just those eyes, afraid and pleading. I felt myself slipping into the feeling of supremacy again. I wanted to kill." Describing his second rape-murder, he said, "she was writhing in pain, and I loved it. I was now combining my sexual high of rape and my power high of fear to make a total sum that is beyond explaining. I was alive for the sole purpose of causing pain and receiving sexual gratification. I have never experienced a high like this from any drug."
He described laughing on the way home in his car. Neither afraid nor sorry for committing the brutal act, he said he'd never felt more satisfied in his life, like a "supreme ruler." He even said that he relived the rape-murder in a wet dream that night.
Commenting on another murder, one that he masturbated in the midst of, he said, after he had "sanitized" the apartment of forensic evidence, that "I started to giggle as I walked away from the place. By the time I got to the corner, I was laughing hysterically. I calmed myself, and still smiling, hailed a cab."


According to profilers, peeping, obscene calls, and exposure, considered nusiance offenses, can be precursors to violent behavior.

Also according to profilers, the two types of sexual offenders with the most characteristics in common are sexual sadists and pedophiles.

--Both are ritualistic sexual criminals, with highly developed fantasy lives. They tend to carry out their crimes according to a script.

--Both are highly motivated (their crimes give them deep satisfaction) and they invest great amounts of time, money, and energy to their criminal behavior.

--Neither experiences remorse or guilt. The sexual sadist believes that his victims deserve to suffer, and the pedophile doesn't believe that he's caused harm to the child.

--Both are highly practiced at rationalizing their behavior and consequently are poorly motivated to change.

--Both recognize that society abhors them, and they take steps to study their deviant desires and behaviors to better understand them and evade arrest.

--Both collect theme-oriented pornography and/or erotica that serves to compliment their preexisting fantasies.

--They possess average or better-than-average intelligence and social skills. They mesh well in society.

--Both are likely to commit incest with their natural children and will molest stepchildren or other minor relatives.

--They record their criminal sexual acts. This provides them with means of reliving and improving on their criminal acts.

--Their rate of recidivism is much greater than for other sexual offenders. They tend to be model prisoners and consequently are released more quickly and, having learned nothing from their punishment, quickly begin practicing sexual deviance again.

--Both are highly narcissistic.

--Both have low threshold for sexual boredom and involve their victims in progressively offensive and demeaning behaviors.

--Most sexual criminals slow down with age. There is no known burn out age for these two offenders. Unless stopped, such men will offend well into their sixties or seventies.

--They have greater numbers of victims than other sexual offenders. Once these men begin to act out criminally, they will assault until they are caught.

--They are predominately middle-class offenders.

--They are determined.



Scary.


Sidhe

As far as who would decide...truthfully, I don't have an answer for that right now. However, as far as *what* will determine stable, then I would say the things that are obvious: excessive drug and alchohol abuse, violence in the home (against another person or witnessing abuse), mental, physical, emotional abuse, etc. As far as me stating my childfree status "all of the time"...ah, that may be a result of speaking with several "militant" childfree members on "alt.support.childfree". They can get a person amped up sometimes...;) My bad...

Quote:

I wonder, though, how much of that is brought about by your unfortunate health situation and the fact that childbirth, for you, may not be an option. I repeatedly get the sense that you actually DO want kids, and are telling yourself that you CHOOSE not to. I'm sorry to be so direct about this, but this is not the first time this has occured to me, and i thought I should ask you. feel free to ignore me, i mean no offense, but CAN you have kids if you change your mind?

Let me break some things down (you may get more than you bargained for): :p

1) I have never had an overwhelming desire to have kids...not even to be married. This would be the "main" reason, but I do have a few others.

As a young child, I didn't have dreams and fantasies about the man who would sweep me off of my feet, marry and have a family with (as society assumes all little girls do) and live happily ever after. I would hear various horror stories about pregnancy, birth, labor, etc. and truth be told: it turned me off completely about having kids. Everytime someone would even suggest that I have kids one day, I'd cringe and say, "no thanks" thinking of all of the various problems I might have being pregnant, and never mind the hours of labor and pain. I just saw an episode of "Starting Over" today where a young gal gave birth and I was practically on the floor writhing everytime she shrieked in pain. And then, they gave her an epidural...not pretty. A big old needle in the back...nah, not for me (*maybe* if I had to for some other reason such as life saving surgery..maybe).

I've always said that one should have at least 4 things in place before considering starting a family: stable finances, relatively good health, time and patience. I had none of those when I was a teen, in my 20s, or now. As a teenager, I didn't want to find myself a possible single mother, relying on my parents to help me out, and struggling to support myself and my child (plus, I didn't want to give up my swanky lifestyle...that's sort of a joke, but I really didn't want to give up my youth to become a mother).

Marriage I'm more receptive to, but that also takes some planning, and I do have to weight the pros and cons of that as well.


2) My health situation does make it somewhat dangerous to have kids, but again, because the desire isn't there, there *is* no danger for me. Why have a kid if I have no desire to be a parent? I strongly feel this is where some people "fail" as parents, because they just "follow the script" (as some CF people say), and deep down they are not willing to actually be parents (but what would the family say???). Family and social pressure can be pretty strong to fight for some, but not for me. Thank goodness my parents aren't hounding me to be grandparents. Many people have kids for all the wrong reasons, and it shows many times in the parenting.

I *do* know of some who have kidney failure and have had kids...My mind boggles over this, because not only would it complicate the pregnancy, but to know that you may have possibly passed that along to the child...unless they did some genetic testing, and I highly doubt many people are even doing this, much less know about it. Kidney failure, diabetes and other things run in my family to some degree, so I sure wouldn't want any child of mine to live like I am right now...many aspects of it sucks ass royally (remember how much trouble I was having trying to walk around at the car convention? One of the sucky aspects...). However, my choice to not have kids came way before I discovered my kidneys failing, as I pointed out in point #1.


3) To answer you question: No. There is no changing my mind because of the reasons stated above. So no, I am not secretly harboring thoughts of having kids, but choosing to not have them because of my chronic illness. In fact, that just put the nail in the coffin about not having kids (not that the nail *really* needed to be hammered in more).

4) Having kids is not something I feel I "have" to do in order to be a well rounded, decent person. Some people have said that children makes them complete and so on, and that's swell..for them, but not for me (and Syc).

So actually, you were right in saying that childbirth may not be an option, but it was an option that I chose before I became ill.

Hope that cleared things up for you.
:D

PS: Didn't want to necessarily hijack the thread folks, but he asked. ;)

This is in response to the racial and socioeconomic aspect of DP-worthy crimes. According to the FBI:


The vast majority of sexual sadists in the FBI study (these are the ones who turn into serial killers)--29 out of 30--were whites of european descent.

Blacks and Hispanics are statistically underrepresented, not only among sexual sadists, but among most classes of ritualistic serial criminals. Robert Ressler and John Douglas, in their serial killer survey, interviewed 36 murderers responsible for 118 deaths. Of these, 33 were white males. When Ann Burgess and Roy Hazelwood studied 41 serial rapists (responsible for 837 rapes and more than 400 attempted rapes) there were 36 whites and five blacks. In Hazelwood's study of twenty compliant wives and girlfriends of sexual sadists, 17 were white, 2 were hispanic, and only one was black. In his later study of 150 autoerotic fatalities, 139 of the victims were white and only 7 were black.


Notice how few individuals were responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes: 36 murderers responsible for 188 deaths, and 41 rapists responsible for 1,237 assaults!

A mere 77 people responsible for 1,425 life-destroying acts. These are people who will continue to offend until they're stopped. As they were recidivists, prison had apparantly not rehabilitated them. I'll bet a rope would rehabilitate them....

The white v. black deviant offender also have other differences:

Black rapists cross the racial line much more frequently than do white rapists, and tend to assault elderly women much more often.

As cases of black ritualistic sexual offenders came to Hazelwood's attention, he found that these offenders tended to come from middle-class or higher families. He believes that "as more blacks and hispanics move into the middle class, they will begin to display more of the ritualistic behaviors currently associated with white offenders."


So what this is saying is:

Most serial murderers and rapists will tend to be WHITE.

The HIGHER up on the socioeconomic ladder, the more minorities will engage in the serial, ritualistic types of sexual criminal behavior. So all this "poor" talk holds less water than it would first seem when it comes to serial sexual assault-murders.

Also, it has been found, in a study of 30 sexual sadists, that over half had no arrest record prior to the crimes for which they were imprisoned. (This means that they were probably slapped on the wrist for minor crimes such as peeping, flashing, or obscene phone calls since most sexual assaulters begin small and work their way up the violence ladder. Often these offenses are dropped, or happened during childhood, and the records were expunged or sealed, making it appear that the person had no previous instances of deviant behavior. This is why these offenses should not be taken lightly--they can indicate future behavior, and show previous bad behavior when the offender finally DOES harm someone)

According to Hazelwood, "The fact that some of the most heinous offenders operating in North America had no arrest history is a strong testament to their planning and intelligence."


These are the people we're taking care of, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Remind me again why they deserve luxuries that many law-abiding citizens can't afford?? Remind me why they deserve the state's mercy when they didn't feel their victims deserved the same? Remind me why they deserve to live?

Being a human being didn't keep their victims alive, and therefore shouldn't be an excuse to keep them alive either, IMO.



Sidhe

When it comes to evolution, I don't think that it can be used as an excuse for bad behavior. I mean hell, even a wolf will stop mid-attack when its opponent wolf shows submission. HUMANS don't do that. You show submission and a human criminal will beat the living shit out of you, then rape and kill you.

Animals seem to be more evolved than humans when it comes to stable societies.


Sidhe

And the one reason I'll take science over religion any day is that in time the bad ideas go out the window instead of us being stuck with them.

In theory...

That's because they are less encumbered by intellect.

There are some people who have a real problem with sapience.

Children exhibit the surrender reflex. I suspect that it's a society-reinforcing thing.

Would a wolf stop mid-attack if it's opponent were from a different pack? Would a wolf surrender if it was not part of the same society as it's opponent?

............because nobody ever abdicates responsibilty for their lives to God......Nobody ever claims God told them to do it, or it was God's will that prostitues should die.....Nobody ever uses religion as an excuse or rationale for killing. In my experience evolutionists consider themselves more responsible for their actions not less. We *know* there's nobody else but us to answer to.

Damn straight they do ... and have since there has been religion. Just look at the crusades. Or the suicide bombing a day in Israel.

"God told me to" is not as popular a defense as "some other dude did it" but it's there.

It's used as an excuse ... it's also a real, strongly held belief. I had a patient who killed his mother and father and damn near killed his brother (who escaped and called the cops) because his family had been replaced by demons and god told him to kill them all. He didn't keep this a secret from his family, btw ... he told them, flat out, "God is telling me to kill you."

It was his first break. His parents didn't believe him.

One of the rare genuine Not Guilty By Reason of Insanities.

Lady Sidhe: The only real answer I can give to that is the fact that the penalties for crimes are well-known. We have established punishments, agreed upon them, and codified them as law. The individual, as part of the society, accepts those laws, and when s/he violates one or more of those laws, s/he knows the penalty.

Agreed.

What we are talking about here is establishing a set of rules - a consensus - for society to abide by. In a democracy, this is ruled by the majority. But what if a majority is wrong?

Quote: Happy Monkey
So laws are self-justified by their existence? That logic is a bit circular.

Ideally, potential punishment should = deterrent. A more likely equation is:

Payoff - (Punishment + level of psychosis + desire for instant gratification) = oh fuck it I'll do the crime anyway.

Research shows that the penalty is not given rational consideration in crimes such as these. So how do we deter? Punishment, reparation, retaliation - these are futile. They do not compensate, they do not resolve. I suggest, and this is the basis of my argument, that not enough is known about the phenomena of murder. Until we understand its root causes, we cannot respond to it. Let us take the time at whatever economical cost to get this one right, and then abolish it forever. Idealist? Yes. Impossible? It was once deemed impossible that the world could be round, that there wasn't a god, and that the earth revolved around the sun.

"Violent crimes committed by the severely disturbed tend to attract a disproportionate amount of attention from the press. In fact, the mentally ill are responsible for less than 3% of sexual crimes."

"Perhaps the most obvious (and most frightening) explanation of all is that some offenders commit crimes simply because they want to! They like it! And they have no regard for what the rest of society thinks."

--Roy Hazelwood (who has worked with violent serial criminals for twenty years)


SOCIOPATHS do not feel remorse or shame, guilt or appropriate fear. THEY DO NOT LEARN FROM PUNISHMENT. They are easily bored. They like excitement. They find it difficult to delay gratification, no matter where their self-interest may lie. They are chronic liars, even when they have no need or reason to lie. They have no understanding of, or concern for, the harm they cause others. The only concern they have is for their own gratification.



Catwoman: "Payoff - (Punishment + level of psychosis + desire for instant gratification) = oh fuck it I'll do the crime anyway.

Research shows that the penalty is not given rational consideration in crimes such as these...."


The level of psychosis isn't something that has to be placed in the equation all, or even MOST, of the time. Despite the nature of the crimes, these people aren't psychotic. A personality disorder is not insanity. Legal insanity and medical insanity are two different things. Being a sociopath does not mean you're insane, and it's not an excuse.

It's not my problem if they don't consider the consequences of their actions. That's just too bad for them if they get caught. And many serial criminals DO consider the consequences. Why else would they try to cover their tracks if not to prevent capture? Evasion indicates knowledge of right and wrong, and that knowledge means that they do not want to pay the consequences, and are taking steps to prevent it.

People who go around indulging in violent whims, and who cannot be rehabilitated (sociopaths), don't garner any sympathy for me. They enjoy what they do, and as long as they're free, they'll continue to do it. There's no point in warehousing them.

As was said before, if the justice system would treat minor offenses, such as window peeping, exposure, offensive, repetitive crank calling, and animal cruelty with more concern, we might be able to catch these guys before they graduate to killing. However, once these people have gratified their urge, they don't go back. How do you rehabilitate someone who cares only for his own desires, and thinks the rest of the world is there for him to use in order to fulfill those desires?


Sidhe

And God said "Let there be rape"

It's not my problem if they don't consider the consequences of their actions.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY YOUR PROBLEM! If a murderer possessed a true, rational and *sane* sense of consequence they would not kill. Isn't that the problem here? We do not want people to kill. We want murder not to exist. Can you see that far? Can you imagine the possibility?

You're not listening. I am not validating, excusing or justifying murder in any way. We are already agreed on that one. You don't need to keep telling me how wrong it is. You don't need to keep telling me how society shouldn't have to pay for or accommodate them, that they don't 'deserve' to live or that insanity is no excuse to kill.

I am trying to look for a way to progress. To take steps to ensure that, at some point, there will be no need for discussions like these. The dp is PROVEN ineffective as a deterrent. States that do not have the dp have LOWER murder rates. It serves no purpose. It is barbaric and futile. We need to collect and correlate social, environmental and physiological factors into some kind of profile to help us establish the CAUSE of violent crime and then treat the reason, not the symptom. And logistics, while important, should not present any barrier to something so fundamental.

Despite the nature of the crimes, these people aren't psychotic.

Can that statement possibly hold any truth?

Evasion indicates knowledge of right and wrong, and that knowledge means that they do not want to pay the consequences, and are taking steps to prevent it.

Yes, assuming these people are in a sane, logical and rational frame of mind (see above).

How do you rehabilitate someone who cares only for his own desires, and thinks the rest of the world is there for him to use in order to fulfill those desires?

If this is the case (and forgive my ignorance - but I happen to think the circumstances surrounding a murder are a little more complex than this), then rehabilitation is not the most important issue. I am sure there are cases where it will never be possible to reintroduce such an individual into society. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from them. Aileen Wuornos was interviewed by a psychologist for 15 minutes before determining that she was sane, and was subsequently sentenced to death. Our criminal research facilities are horribly inept, both here and the USA. I keep reiterating that not enough is known and we should establish reason before dictating solution.

If they knowingly, willfully murder someone - not in self defense - kill them. Quickly, not after years on death row, wasting tax payers' money on their existence and their legal appeals. In a clearly unapologetic manner - end them.

If they are "insane" and they commit the same crime - end them. Why is "not being in the right frame of mind" an acceptable defense?

Maybe if the punishments were a little closer to "an eye for an eye" and were swiftly and strictly enforced, the dipshit down the street might think twice about committing a violent crime. Many violent crimes are committed by cowards who may be deterred by the knowledge that there are real and really painful consequences to their actions.

Psychological studies have unequivocally shown that increased punishments are a very low deterrent, but increased chances of getting caught are a very high deterrent.

Think of it this way: would you rather gamble $100 with only a 10% chance of winning, or gamble $1000 with a 90% chance of winning?

The fact that you might lose $1000 is lost to your brain, doesn't matter if it's a hundred thousand. You look and say, "I have a 90% chance of winning! I'll do it!" whereas with the first option you say, "That sounds like a great way to get screwed out of $100. No thanks."

Human beings are risk-takers. It's all about what you think your chances are, not what the possible losses are.

Just tossin' that onto the fire.

Is it possible to carry that same point back to the risks/outweighing the benefits. If i do x, and am caught there is a 60% chance i will spend 10 years in prison vs. if i do x, and get caught i WILL be executed.

I don't know that you can prove a right or wrong view on this one. But I still fall on the side of extreme, swift, consistant penalty for crimes.

I do speed because the consequence is a piddly ticket
I don't drive while intoxicated because i don't like going to jail.

OK depmats. If I said to you - you are free to commit a murder. You can kill anyone you like. There will be no imposed punishment, jail sentence or other penalty. Go ahead.

What would you do?

Is it possible to carry that same point back to the risks/outweighing the benefits. If i do x, and am caught there is a 60% chance i will spend 10 years in prison vs. if i do x, and get caught i WILL be executed.

No it isn't, you missed my point. What I am saying is that statistically the statement you made does NOT hold true for human psychology. Though it may make sense, it simply isn't what people respond to--the only statistic people psychologically respond to in any meaningful way is the chance they will get caught.

Fair question - but I haven't run into a situation yet where I would really benefit yet from someone else's death at my hands. There have been people that I would have liked to cause physical harm - but in each case I looked at what the long-term consequence would be to me. Jail? there goes my career.

I know that my view of acceptable punishment wouldn't eliminate crime. I believe it would lower crime rates though. The dead cannot cause injury to another. SOMe people will be deterred by the guarantee of severe penalty. But we would definitely thin the heard of those who do commit violent crimes. Murder and rape top my list of crimes worthy of execution... But as people have pointed out elsewhere I am just a thug.

(The death penelty.)
 

Here in the fine state of Texas,U.S.A., the death penelty works just fine.

No convicted felon excecuted by the state of Texas has ever gone on to kill again.

What if they were reincarnated and killed again? If you keep them in prison for a couple decades, you put that off for a while!

(Monkey.)
 

Iff a bull had calves you wouldn't need cows.


I did not believe in reincarnation the first couple of times i was here either.

Settle down, Beavis.

Re: (The death penelty.)
 

Rick Halperin, president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said Texas once again is inviting the scorn and ridicule of human rights observers from throughout the United States and around the world. “We have a Court of Criminal Appeals that does not even recognize the right of death row inmates to effective legal counsel during habeas appeals,” Halperin said. “We have a parole board that does not take seriously its statutory responsibility to hold legitimate clemency hearings. We have a governor who is beginning to look like he might upstage his predecessor as the state’s executioner-in-chief. We have a flawed and broken execution system in Texas, and even more tragically, there is no political will or moral leadership from either party in the state to stop and critically examine what is happening here.” - http://www.ncadp.org/html/may7.html

Sounds like you people down in Texas have everything going right for them. Since the death penalty is a state controlled policy the national government is going to let them handle it how they want to. The national government cannot take a stance because they need to be re-elected. I believe that it is morally acceptable to take the life of someone who has taken someone elses, but I would rather have the system be flawless unlike it is today. Texas is a state that seems to be doing things the wrong way, while other states like Illinois are trying to use a more intelligible approach on the subject, but then again morals and values differ for every single person so an overall conclusion that will make everyone happy is infeasible.

There is no perfection in humanity.)
 

You are correct,there is no perfection in the Texas exsecution system,on the otherhand many convicted fellons sentenced to life in prison have gone on to kill again in prison.

(Nothing perfect about that either.)

Re: There is no perfection in humanity.)
 

Well if they are killing people in prison, isn't that just making more room for different criminals to come in? :rolleyes:

Re: There is no perfection in humanity.)
 

So quit wasting time and wack 'em sooner. The good news is that if they kill someone in prison... I know it won't be me.

dude, don't tempt fate like that. :eek:

Who believes in fate anyway? :confused:

Thanks for the warning, but if i end up there it is my own dumbass fault.

Re: Re: There is no perfection in humanity.)
 

Perhaps not today,but who knows when some lawyer may decide to stick his finger up your ass and turn you inside out.

To the lawyer the words ill eagle represent nothing more than a sick bird and outragious fees.

Re: Re: Re: There is no perfection in humanity.)
 

If I keep my shit straight I won't have to deal with the bloodsuckers.

Sidhe: Despite the nature of the crimes, these people aren't psychotic.

Catwoman: Can that statement possibly hold any truth?



Why is that so hard to believe? Why is it so hard to believe that people can be JUST that calculating? I don't believe that someone who commits murder for hire is insane. He knows what he's doing, and he has a good reason for doing it, as far as he's concerned.

I don't believe that a mother who drowns her children, to accomplish a specific purpose, is insane. She's just self-centered, and cares for no one other than herself.

I don't believe that an armed robber or rapist who kills the victim is insane. They also kill for a completely logical purpose: to leave no witnesses so that they will not get caught.

I don't understand why people feel the need to believe that anyone who commits a crime, especially a heinous crime, must not be sane. Sanity is not exclusive of crime, and the most dangerous of the criminals tend to be the logical, intelligent ones.



Sidhe:Evasion indicates knowledge of right and wrong, and that knowledge means that they do not want to pay the consequences, and are taking steps to prevent it.

Catwoman:Yes, assuming these people are in a sane, logical and rational frame of mind (see above).



Legal insanity, insanity as defined by law in reference to law, is: A defect or disease of mind that renders the individual incapable of knowing that what they were doing was wrong. That means that if they make attempts to evade capture, then they knew that the action was wrong, and are therefore sane.




Sidhe: How do you rehabilitate someone who cares only for his own desires, and thinks the rest of the world is there for him to use in order to fulfill those desires?

Catwoman: If this is the case (and forgive my ignorance - but I happen to think the circumstances surrounding a murder are a little more complex than this), then rehabilitation is not the most important issue. I am sure there are cases where it will never be possible to reintroduce such an individual into society. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from them. Aileen Wuornos was interviewed by a psychologist for 15 minutes before determining that she was sane, and was subsequently sentenced to death. Our criminal research facilities are horribly inept, both here and the USA. I keep reiterating that not enough is known and we should establish reason before dictating solution.



Why don't we put more emphasis on helping the people we CAN help?
Personality disorders are not curable. That's the simple fact. One must WANT to be cured of a personality disorder, and since the engagement in the behavior satisfies something in the person with the disorder, they do not want to be "cured." Personality disorders are NOT considered insanity, under the law OR psychiatrically.

Wolf could probably tell you about those wonderful personality disorders. I'm sure she sees them more often than she'd like. And those are the more dangerous, I'd say, because they're calculating and devious in getting what they want.



Sidhe

Re: Re: There is no perfection in humanity.)
 

*standing ovation* BRAVO! :rattat: :beer:

Greed is a big motivater for committing crimes regarding money. Being psychotic means losing touch with reality. Those ppl certain haven't done that at all.

Quote:

I don't believe that a mother who drowns her children, to accomplish a specific purpose, is insane. She's just self-centered, and cares for no one other than herself.

Well, in the case of Andrea Yates, wasn't she a paranoid schizophrenic? Susan Smith certainly was NOT insane, even though what she did would be considered something akin to insane by most people.

I was going to point out the same thing ... two mothers, both of whom killed their children. Very different reasons and cases, though.

Andrea Yates ... crazy murderer. Report regarding Defense Psychiatrist Assessment

Susan Smith ... manipulative, self-centered murderer

In the mother example, I was thinking of Susan Smith. Didn't Andrea Yates suffer from postpartum depression?

And thinking about her...I dunno. I think that if someone methodically chases her children down, and drowns them one by one....at the very least, if she IS psychiatrically ill, then she should be sterilized, because she could do it again.

I know that might sound harsh, but I'm just more concerned about the kids than I am about the killers. There's no reason for her to be able to kill more children because some psychiatrist says she's "cured." When I worked in the psych ward, it was a revolving door of people who were supposedly "cured." They were always brought back for medical noncompliance.


Sidhe

Reader's Digest, June 2004



There is a new DNA test that can determine a person's ancestry. Standard DNA tests can determine sex, but tell nothing about a person's appearance.

While prosecutors today routinely use DNA taken from a crime scene to convict an offender, the analysis does not tell police much about whom they should be looking for in the first place. Widely used tests today only reveal a person's sex, but that's changing. Using a huge database of of genetic information from people all over the world, scientists at Penn State University devised a test that looks for "markers" on DNA that give strong clues about a person's ancestry.

The test, known as DNA Witness, can determine whether a person is most likely European, African American, Asian or Native American (people of Hispanic heritage tend to have a mix of ethnic groups.) Crime researchers in Britain are currently working on a test that they hope will detect hair color and even facial characteristics.

Scientists at the University of Ottowa Heart Institute have a method for extracting DNA from the microscopic remnants of skin left behind when a person touches an object. The test can be performed in minutes at the crime scene. The process, which is not available yet, also works for blood, hair, saliva, or even a flake of dandruff.

Researchers are also perfecting ways to identify plant DNA, which would have many uses, including the ability to trace seized shipments of illegal drugs to a given distributor.
Forensic scientists are developing methods to identify animal DNA. One in three homes in the US contains a source of criminal evidence: a cat or dog. As pet lovers know, fur clings to clothing. In one celebrated case, police on Prince Edward Island, Canada, linked white hairs on a bloody jacket found near the scene of a murder to their prime suspect--who owned a cat named Snowball.

Police in Kirkland, Washington, were frustrated. They had a suspect in the murder of a 27-year-old Bible-studies student: her neighbor, Eric H. Hayden. They also had a bed sheet with a bloody hand print. But the pattern on the fabric caused the finger- and palm prints to be unclear, making it impossible to match them to Hayden's hand. Enter Eric Berg, a forensic field supervisor with the police department in nearby Tacoma. Berg took digital photos of the prints and, using a computer program, filtered out the background "noise," producing clear prints that helped convict Hayden, who is now serving 26 years in prison.

Looking for fingerprints remains an essential part of any crime-scene investigation. However, criminals rarely leave behind pristine impressions. Berg's innovative technique, which is now available in police departments in the form of software called More Hits, enables police to read smudged or partial prints.

There is also an FBI-run database called CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), which is a network that lets Federal, State, and Local crime labs exchange and compare DNA electronically. The genetic information in question merely has to be plugged into the system. Using this system, Kansas City police were able to trace the murder ofr a 39-year-old woman (in 2000) to a paroled rapist from Arkansas named Wayne Dumond, who is now serving a life sentence for the murder.

Using computers, scientists at the Heinz School at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburg tracked minor and major crimes for more than a decade in two cities (Rochester, NY, and Pittsburg, PA). After running extensive statistical analyses, the scientists discovered that an uptick in minor crimes such as vandalism usuallly precedes, by about a month, more serious property crimes, such as burglary and larceny.

When the researchers road-tested their program, they were able to predict crimes with at least 80% accuracy. What's more, they could narrow down where the crime would take place to an area as small as an individual police beat--about one square mile. By the end of this year, the researchers hope to begin distributing the software to precincts across the country.
While criminals often seem to strike in a random fashion, statistical analyses of crime locations can disclose patterns. That's useful when police are hunting for serial criminals, says Texas State University criminologist Kim Rossmo, who created a concept called Geographic Profiling. Rossmo notes that criminals tend to commit crimes close to home--but not too close ("comfort zone", in profiling terminology). He has developed software that analyzes an area where linked crimes have occured, then isolates a tiny section where the crook most likely lives. That allows police to focus on specific suspects. In one case, police in Midland, Ontario, used Geographic Profiling to nab a prolific burglar. The system nearly drew a circle around the suspect's home.

Analytical scientist Peter Nunes, of the Forensic Science Center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, part of the US Dept. of Energy, shrank a standard gas chromatographer-mass spectrometer (a bulky instrument, weighing between 200-250 lbs., used to identify organic compounds by vaporizing them and analyzing the resulting gas molecules.) However, transporting substances such as chemical weapons, explosive residues, fire accelerants, and drugs--to crime labe takes time and can be dangerous; therefore, the new and improved GC-MS has been shrunk to a a portable 75 lbs. It is already on the market and is in limited use by the Los Angeles County Sheriff' Dept.



Now that's interesting.....



Sidhe

A man in the crowd was acting strangely. Then, according to an article in the New York Times, he wheeled about and shoved Edgar Rivera, father of three, onto the tracks as the No 6 train screeched into Manhattan's 51st Street Station. The victim's legs were severed.

Police arrested Julio Perez, 43, a homeless man with schizophrenia and a long history of violence. The event, which occurred on April 28, 1999 was eerily similar to another subway attack in January. In that case, Andrew Goldstein, a 29-year old with schizophrenia considered by those who knew him as gentle but weird, pushed Kendra Webdale, who dreamed of being a writer, to her death in a subway station.

The subway attacks resulted in a public outcry that ended in an "assisted outpatient treatment" measure called "Kendra's Law". The legislation authorizes judges to issue orders requiring people to take their medicine, regularly undergo psychiatric treatment, or both. Failure to comply could result in commitment for up to 72 hours. Prior to Kendra's law, a psychiatric patient had to be considered dangerous to be forcibly committed.

Recent data on its effectiveness show 75% fewer people arrested, and there was a 44% decrease in harm to others and a 45% reduction in harm to self.


This is a New York law. Unfortunately, it hasn't been adopted anywhere else that I know of.


Sidhe

Pennsylvania has had a similar law since 1974. I don't know all of the details of Kendra's law, though.

PA has long term involuntary outpatient commitments. If a patient is not compliant with the specified treatment (most outpatient centers consider missing three appointments as noncompliance) the case management office can file a petition for evaluation for the need to be returned to a higher level of care (inpatient, in this case). Doc evaluatest the patient, patient goes to court, court either commits the patient or the patient goes free.

Well, with any luck, it'll spread. Not all mentally ill patients, despite what people think, are harmless eccentrics. I see nothing wrong with forcing medication compliance on people who need it to keep from flipping out and possibly killing someone. I don't care if it's part of their delusion and they aren't doing it maliciously. It doesn't change the danger and it doesn't excuse it.

Here in Louisiana, there's nothing of the sort. It tends to go like this:

Patients are either indigent or committed by the courts, which ends up being the same thing--they get medicaid, and when it runs out, hey, they're cured! It's a MIRACLE!

And then we see them back in about two weeks for being dangerous because they refuse to take their meds....*sigh*


Sidhe

Remember how I brought up trying teenagers as adults for violent crimes such as rape and murder? A&E recently aired a program entitled "Teen Thrill Killers." Here are some of the kids they interviewed.


Fact: In the last 15 years, the incidences of teens killing strangers has doubled


Jason Koskovitch, 18, and cousin Jason Vreeland lured two pizza delivery men to an abandoned house and ambushed them when they arrived, shooting them point-blank while they were in the car. Neither boy had prior records, and Koskovitch said he "always wanted to know what it felt like to kill." They celebrated afterward.

he also said "I had no remorse because I didn't know them. When I don't know them, I don't care."


"The Lords of Chaos." Derek Shields, honor student; Christopher Black, honor student; Pete Magnati, genius IQ; Kevin Foster, 19. leader of the group.

17-day crime spree that included killing animals by burning them to death, theft, vandalism, armed robbery, car theft (Foster murdered the owner of the car), arson, and firebombs.

Chris Black suggested killing a music teacher who'd threatened to turn them in. Shields protested, because he knew the teacher and liked him. Foster planned the shooting, playing on the familiarity of the instructsor, Mark Schwebes (sp), with Derek, having Derek knock on his door. The teacher was murdered on his own doorstep with a 12-gauge shotgun by Foster. Afterwards, Foster bragged about how cool it was to "see [the teacher's] face blown off." to a friend, who reported him to the police and led to the arrests. Chris, Derek, and Pete pled guilty and testified against Foster. Foster received the death penalty, Chris and Derek received life, and Pete received 37 years.


Leopold and Loeb- both had genius IQ's and both were rich.
They lured a child into their car, killed him with a chisel, and stuffed his body in a drainpipe. They had no remorse for their act.


John McNeil, Dale Stewart, and Dan Angus (leader), murdered a bicyclist, Tony Batista. They drove around looking for a target; said they wanted to "draw first blood," They killed him for sport, shot at point-blank range in Aug 2000.


"Wilding"
Tacoma, WA.: a gang of 8 kids responsible for over 15 attacks, and planned the murder of 30-year-old Eric Tabes. In addition to over 20 blows to the head, one of the 11-year-old members of the gang bragged about kneeing Tabes 28 times in the face.


Rod Matthews, age 14: One of the first juveniles to be tried as an adult. Lured 14-year-old Shawn Duillette into the woods, and beat him over the head with a baseball bat from behind. Shawn's hands were still in his pockets when he was found. Rod bragged to his friends and led them to the corpse. Rod had told others of the planned murder, and said, "I've been wanting to kill people I hate, and set fires." He said that he wanted to know what it would be like to kill someone, and that he didn't think that Shawn would be missed. He showed no remorse, and was convicted of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to 15 years.

Todd Rizzo, 18: Waterbury Conn. said he "wanted to be famous.", and would preface statements with, "one day, when I'm a serial killer..." Prior to the murder, he rented a video called Paradise Lost, a documentary about child killings. In Sept 97, 13-year-old Stan Edwards was riding by Rizzo's house on his bike. Rizzo befriended him and lured him into the back yard, where he bludgeoned the boy to death with a 3 lb sledgehammer.

He said he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone, and "I decided I wanted to try to kill him, for no good reason." According to Rizzo's brother, Rizzo wanted to be as famous as Jeffrey Dahmer, whom he idolized.

According to quoted psychologists: "They know right from wrong, but just don't care."

And from a family member of one of the victims: "he's not a juvenile, he's a murderer; You can't be given a conscience."

That hits it on the head. You can't give someone a conscience.

One psychologist said that these kids can't see the consequences of their actions so far ahead. In other words, they know the person will die, but don't consider the effects on the families and friends involved. However, do you honestly believe that it would stop them if they DID? It doesn't stop adults, if THEY consider it at all either.

Research has shown that teenagers experience an increase in self-control and impulse control between the ages of 13-16. Research on the brains of teen thrill killers shows also that there is overactivity in the singulogyrus, which is involved in obsessive thoughts, and overactivity in the prefrontal lobe, which is involved in planning, judgement, and impulse control; personality traits include egocentrism, lack of empathy and lack of remorse and self-control.

Why is it, then, that they seem to have no problem in planning the murders in such a way as to evade capture for so long? If the impulse control is so bad, how is it that they have no problems waiting to appease those impulses until there are no witnesses?

All of this science fails to take into account one simple concept: There is evil in the world.

From the BBC news site

This is why children shouldnt be held accountable in the same way adults are. Just because they know right from wrong doesnt mean they understand that in the same way we do. Their cortex is not fully formed until they reach the age of 16/17. They do not have the same ability to conceptualise that we have as adults.

I was just listening to coverage of the Terry Nichols state trial in Oklahoma. The state of Oklahoma spent $5 million to try Nichols in state court, and there's no guarantee that he'll be given the death penalty.

I have no stake in this at all, but spending $5 million to try and give a guy the death penalty when he's already in prison for life seems like a waste of money to me.