Perhaps a capital punishment thread can be started to discuss this further.- Sal

During the BTK discussion on another thread in this section of the site, Sal brought that up.

So what do you think of the penal system? the death penalty? life sentences? gravity of various felonies (rape, homicide, etc)? mindsets of criminals? alternatives to prison? labor camps? guinea pigs for testing?

Lets hear your thoughts on capital punishment, i posted a few questions to get it started off.

Capital punishment is a punishment filled with hypocrisy. I don’t support our government committing the same crime in which we are punishing the murderer for. It’s a direct contradiction. “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” ~ Gandhi

Some say it’s “cheaper” to just dispose of a human life, but after you go through all the appeals, court cases, lawyers, etc. etc. it totals in the millions of dollars. It’s a myth that killing murderers is cheaper than just locking them up in a cell for their entire life.

Not to mention, there have been cases where a man or women has been proven innocent after they were already killed. If we cannot be 100% sure that a person is guilty of murder, then I don’t think we should offer such a harsh punishment.

Many say murderers aren’t remorseful in jail, and some aren’t, but many are and being killed and being allowed to escape the guilt of killing another human is an easy way out.

And personally, I find most murderers to be mentally inept, and to kill them for a mental disorder is totally immoral. Not all are mentally corrupt, but I’m betting most are.

Although, I’d like to see some things change. I don’t think parole should be allowed. I don't think someone can be "fixed" after they kill someone and "fixed" to never do it again.

I don't think someone can be "fixed" after they kill someone and "fixed" to never do it again.

a la "A Clockwork Orange" :D

That was an interesting piece on capital punishment and criminal behavior, lets bring that into discussion if need be.

I think that sometimes it's very difficult for ordinary, rational people to fully realize or comprehend what some killers are capable of. This is cruelty beyond human understanding:

Bundy--whose last victim was a 12 year old girl, literally strangled in the mud and muck of a pigsty

BTK---killed 9 year old Joseph Otero by placing tape and then a bag over his head, then calmly sat by the little boy's bed watching him struggle until he died

Joseph Duncan--killed his first 3 victims with repeated blows from a hammer; later abducted, tortured and molested 2 children from the same house, finally shot to death 9 year old Dylan Groene because Duncan didn't want him around anymore

Albert Fish---raped, beat, tortured, and cannibalized children


Lawrence Bittaker and Ray Norris---who used pliars, coathangers, screwdrivers, and other tools on their teenaged victims, then tape recorded their agonies so they could replay them again and again

The Ogden, Utah "Hi-Fi" Murderers--who herded five employees and customers of a record store into a back room, forced them to drink Drano and then drove ballpoint pens into their ears, finally shot them because "the acid wasn't working fast enough" (from trial testimony)

Bill Benefiel--abducted young mother Delores Wells off the street in broad daylight, kept her captive in his attack for weeks during which he repeatedly tortured her, later took her to an isolated farm area where he made her dig her own grave, then put Crazy Glue in her eyes, mouth, and nostrils, thus killing her


The Manson Family---hung, shot, and repeatedly stabbed their victims, including a preganant woman who pleaded for her life. "Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you" one of her killers replied; family members later wrote "pig" on the wall in the victims' own blood

Alton Harris--shot to death two teenagers, then calmly ate their McDonald's hamburgers

John Wesley Dodd--hung a 3 year old boy in his closet

The list goes on and on, ad nauseum, literally.

I would like to ask anyone on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, to give me one reason why killers of this kind should live. Did they not show, by their own actions, that they support the death penalty? Yet their victims had not the benefit of a trial, or even one chance to defend themselves...they should get the same sentence in return.

"Aanyone who doesn't think the devil walks this earth has not seen the things I've seen."
Dade County, Florida coroner to John Walsh, father of 6 year old murder victim Adam Walsh

Many say murderers aren’t remorseful in jail, and some aren’t, but many are and being killed and being allowed to escape the guilt of killing another human is an easy way out. And personally, I find most murderers to be mentally inept, and to kill them for a mental disorder is totally immoral. Not all are mentally corrupt, but I’m betting most are Are you claiming that locking them up for the rest of their lives in a state of perpetual violence is any more humane?

I think Capital punishment is only acceptable when the presons guilt is 100% positive. That does not include "beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything else like that. The only case where this is OK is where all the evidence, witnesses and anything else in the case has been checked multiple times. If there is even 1 iota of doubt I am against it. This also means that there must be multiple witnesses or peices of evidence.

However that does not mean I think it is a good idea. OD makes a great point with the "easy way out." I do not hink it is humane to lock people up forever. But I do think it is a great punishment for murderers so that they have time to reflect upon their actions and why they are there. That is true punishment.

Personally I think the priso system is screwed up as well. There is no emphasis on rehabilitation for minor offenders. I think it would be great if prison funding/paychecks were dependant on stopping re-offenses by minor criminals.

I always beleived it should be up to the family of the victim what happens to the convicted killer. Some familys believe in the DP, some dont.

on the other hand, here in CA, the DP is a joke. It is nothing but a racket for the lawyers to get rich on. There has not been an execution for like 10 years, there are over 600 people on californias death row, and they all go through endless appeals, thats big money for lawyers, and endless cash flow. So, I say either start executing them or just take the DP off the table. almost all of the killers will die of old age before they make it to the chair.

Originally posted by Travh20
I always beleived it should be up to the family of the victim what happens to the convicted killer. Some familys believe in the DP, some dont.

on the other hand, here in CA, the DP is a joke. It is nothing but a racket for the lawyers to get rich on. There has not been an execution for like 10 years, there are over 600 people on californias death row, and they all go through endless appeals, thats big money for lawyers, and endless cash flow. So, I say either start executing them or just take the DP off the table. almost all of the killers will die of old age before they make it to the chair.

You make some valid points here. Often the families of the victims are not considered or consulted in any way. Yet in lesser crimes victim impact stories are heard before sentencing.

As for the endless appeals, this is the reason why it is cheaper for the system to keep the murderer alive rather than execute.

As for guilt before execution I agree with guerrilla, the evidence against the accused must be irrefutable. However, I have yet to hear of a case where it was not absolutely certain that a serial killer was guilty. So if the death penalty was only applied to the most heinous crimes guilt is not an issue.

I think the issue comes down to, what is the goal? If it is to ensure they never kill a citizen again, then life in prison accomplishes that.

If it is to save money within the system, then life in prison accomplishes that also.

If it is to punish for lives taken, the worst thing you can do to a human being is to take their freedom, not their life. People who live in countries where they are not free will risk the loss of life rather than live without freedom.

If we need to learn more and delve deeper into the psyche of these people in order to one day be able to avoid creating psychopaths we need to keep them alive to do so.

For a long time I waffled about the ethics of execution. The thing that cemented it for me was reading and seeing interviews with prison wardens and what they have seen over the years. One thing most said was that in their experience over the years the men who perform the executions suffer terribly later from one kind of mental illness or another. Bizarre but true. It is easy to say, "I will pull the switch"...to live with having done it, is a whole different thing. The taking of a life unless one's own is directly threatened does something to one's mind. Or for those of you who believe in soul, perhaps that is the part it damages. Regardless, damage is done. Which gives the killer even further power.

The other the thing they say is that the families of the victims always hope for closure with the execution. That never happens. There will never be closure when a loved one has been brutally murdered by a psychopath.

So.... execution accomplishes what? Revenge! While it may feel good for a moment, it doesn't last and the long term consequences are not worth it.

they could always starve them to death like old brain dead woman, i forgot her name now. I heard many times during that whole situation that it was painless and serene and quite euphoric, an no one has to pull any switchs or anything

Originally posted by ~Sal~
You make some valid points here. Often the families of the victims are not considered or consulted in any way. Yet in lesser crimes victim impact stories are heard before sentencing.

As for the endless appeals, this is the reason why it is cheaper for the system to keep the murderer alive rather than execute.

As for guilt before execution I agree with guerrilla, the evidence against the accused must be irrefutable. However, I have yet to hear of a case where it was not absolutely certain that a serial killer was guilty. So if the death penalty was only applied to the most heinous crimes guilt is not an issue.

I think the issue comes down to, what is the goal? If it is to ensure they never kill a citizen again, then life in prison accomplishes that.

If it is to save money within the system, then life in prison accomplishes that also.

If it is to punish for lives taken, the worst thing you can do to a human being is to take their freedom, not their life. People who live in countries where they are not free will risk the loss of life rather than live without freedom.

If we need to learn more and delve deeper into the psyche of these people in order to one day be able to avoid creating psychopaths we need to keep them alive to do so.

For a long time I waffled about the ethics of execution. The thing that cemented it for me was reading and seeing interviews with prison wardens and what they have seen over the years. One thing most said was that in their experience over the years the men who perform the executions suffer terribly later from one kind of mental illness or another. Bizarre but true. It is easy to say, "I will pull the switch"...to live with having done it, is a whole different thing. The taking of a life unless one's own is directly threatened does something to one's mind. Or for those of you who believe in soul, perhaps that is the part it damages. Regardless, damage is done. Which gives the killer even further power.

The other the thing they say is that the families of the victims always hope for closure with the execution. That never happens. There will never be closure when a loved one has been brutally murdered by a psychopath.

So.... execution accomplishes what? Revenge! While it may feel good for a moment, it doesn't last and the long term consequences are not worth it. Good point, yet our system of justice needs to be impartial. Having the evidence heard by 12 impartial jurors ensures a more balanced punishment. Many of these appeals are ridiculous, IMO. they serve little purpose except to tie up the courts with meaningless hearings. bundy was, without a doubt, guilty of his charged offenses, and many more. He confessed to his acts just days before his execution, hoping to postpone his date with old sparky. this sickened the families and cops who had worked this case for years. See ridiculous appeals. In this day and age of DNA testing, etc. there should be no need for appeals of this kind. Many killers do very well in prison, corresponding with various fans, having numerous visitors, having books to read. I have never heard tell of an executioner becoming mentally ill. they see it as a job to do, nothing more. The are merely obeying the laws of their state and the wishes of the jury. true, "closure" will never come. They prefer to call it "justice." A true psychopath tells the truth about nothing. any "fact" a researcher would be given should be most suspect--they are merely playing games again.

I don't think our legal system should be in the business of taking lifes. I've seen our legal system fail too many times to trust it with a life or death situation. OJ would be pushing up daisies if our legal system worked.

Don't misunderstand, I think if we can prove 100% that they are guilty then we can put them to death. Otherwise we should lock them up for life with minimal comforts and lots of hard work, even if it is just digging holes and then refilling them.

No more cushy prisons. No TV's, no radio, no cigarettes, no coffee, just basic slop food. No air conditioning, no workout equipment, no sports equipment, no visitors, nada.

Originally posted by Echo2
No more cushy prisons. No TV's, no radio, no cigarettes, no coffee, just basic slop food. No air conditioning, no workout equipment, no sports equipment, no visitors, nada.

While I know why you are saying this, you have to understand that there have to be some basic human comforts in order to control them. This is for the guards sake too. Removing any semblance of comfort makes the prison population next to impossible to control.

Plus I think the prison system is pretty harsh for the most part anyway.

Originally posted by rendova
Good point, yet our system of justice needs to be impartial. Having the evidence heard by 12 impartial jurors ensures a more balanced punishment. Many of these appeals are ridiculous, IMO. they serve little purpose except to tie up the courts with meaningless hearings. bundy was, without a doubt, guilty of his charged offenses, and many more. He confessed to his acts just days before his execution, hoping to postpone his date with old sparky. this sickened the families and cops who had worked this case for years. See ridiculous appeals. In this day and age of DNA testing, etc. there should be no need for appeals of this kind. Many killers do very well in prison, corresponding with various fans, having numerous visitors, having books to read. I have never heard tell of an executioner becoming mentally ill. they see it as a job to do, nothing more. The are merely obeying the laws of their state and the wishes of the jury. true, "closure" will never come. They prefer to call it "justice." A true psychopath tells the truth about nothing. any "fact" a researcher would be given should be most suspect--they are merely playing games again.

rendova I don't think executioners have total meltdowns where they in turn kill civilians...also with the way the system works there really are not that many of them...but studies have been done on their marriage survival rate etc... The same goes for wardens in prisons with the death penalty. They do not do well socially afterward. Killing is not social.

Having said that however, probably anyone who would volunteer for such a job would in my opinion already have issues. It would be hard to put someone to death and walk away saying "it's just my job". If you are a soldier it is also just "your job". Killing leaves scars even when done in war. We can not get around it.

As for justice being served that is of course relative. If you are saying some people would view that justice was served via execution I would concur. That only makes it so however if one views it that way. One could also say justice was done via life incarceration.

As for the web of deceit woven by a psychopath that may well be true. They also usually have an above average IQ. That does not disqualify learning from them, it only means one must be capable of distinguishing truth from fiction.

Labor Camps in Alaska! that will scare the dickens out of them, worse than death :D :D

Originally posted by Evakian
Labor Camps in Alaska! that will scare the dickens out of them, worse than death :D :D

I kinda like the idea from the movie "Escape From New York". We could turn the entire city into a prison and let the criminals kill each other.

Living in New York City would be right up there on my list of a fate worse than death.

HA, put them on some island in micronesia and see how long they last. They made a movie like that too

Mike Royko once had an idea that I thought was very sensible. Don't know if he was kidding about this or not--
He thought all convicted murderers should be airdropped over the Amazon, armed with only a hunting knife, and having only the clothes they had on. If they could survive the piranhas, crocodiles, army ants, tarantulas, anacondas, and headhunters til they made their way to civilization, then they went free.
If not--well....
Sure would save the taxpayers a lot of money!

But alaskan slave camps are more beneficial to us :D

No more cushy prisons. No TV's, no radio, no cigarettes, no coffee, just basic slop food. No air conditioning, no workout equipment, no sports equipment, no visitors, nada. Wow youre cold hearted Echo.

I think prisoners should be denied workout equipment and AC. radios should be a privilidge. TVs should only get educational programs and they can have unlimited access to a library. Visitors should always be allowed and the same with recreation. Prisoners should have to work for their food at minimum wage and forced into nothing else.

Ideally the modern prison should die and be replaced by a wilderness camp sort of situation. Force the prisoners to rely on themselves to grow food and survive. It will make them appreciate society much more (or not, either way a problem is solved).

He thought all convicted murderers should be airdropped over the Amazon, armed with only a hunting knife, and having only the clothes they had on. If they could survive the piranhas, crocodiles, army ants, tarantulas, anacondas, and headhunters til they made their way to civilization, then they went free. If not--well.... yeah except the most ruthless, cut throat and burly ones, ie: precisly the ones you don't want back, will be the only ones to survive.

I'm in favor of the death penalty.

The idea of the State committing the crime of murder by executing a convicted murderer is completely ludicrous. I mean, look at it. As it is, the State has the authority to take away all of a persons rights and freedoms as it is when someone is thrown in prison. Is that, in itself, not a crime?

Also, it's not so much about revenge as it is retribution. A killer takes away someone else's life, therefore, under a true system of justice, he will give up something of equal value, that is his own life.

Dammit.

I have to say there is nothing wrong with the death penalty except that it is not used enough nor is it used in a timely fashion.

With that said I also believe that our whole justice system needs to be put back in the garage and have a complete overhaul. We can not pass judgement when judgement is not fair. What we call justice today should be changed to bull shustice.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Also, it's not so much about revenge as it is retribution. A killer takes away someone else's life, therefore, under a true system of justice, he will give up something of equal value, that is his own life.

Dammit.

If someone murdered a loved one, the death penalty would most definitely be revenge and short lived. I would prefer they have to live and lose their freedom...that to me is retribution. Particularly so when a serial killer is involved. They did not just take that person and inject them and allow them to die a nice quiet death. They tortured them. I want them to live for there is always hope that they will suffer equally in one way or another over the course of years. In fact, I would bet on it.

Sal, your idea would be great if they did suffer and never get let out, but the facts are there that show killers do get out of jail. The other thing to think about is lets say Joe gets busted for having pot, Bob gets busted for killing and torturing people. Now throw these two together who to you think will make the other suffer? I would bet Bob would beat up on Joe{and probably enjoy it} instead of the other way around

Originally posted by mad dog
Sal, your idea would be great if they did suffer and never get let out, but the facts are there that show killers do get out of jail. The other thing to think about is lets say Joe gets busted for having pot, Bob gets busted for killing and torturing people. Now throw these two together who to you think will make the other suffer? I would bet Bob would beat up on Joe{and probably enjoy it} instead of the other way around

mad dog, I agree that some killers do get out of jail, but not all circumstances are the same. A woman who kills her abusive lover/husband should in my estimate get out of jail at some point after receiving counselling. Serial killers recieve life or the death sentence...they are never going to see daylight as a free man/woman again.

Also, serial killers do not just kill randomly. Everyone is assuming they are just going to pick on others for the sheer pleasure of it. But that is not so. Serial killer have very specified types of victims and most will not be their cell-mates. How often do you actually hear of a serial killer murdering another inmate. Seldom.

Now, what if instead of prison, we adopted a system of corporal punishment? I believe that would be much more effective as a deterrent, and it would also be much cheaper than prison.

From my own childhood: My mom would send me to my room. I'd be unhappy, but it wasn't that bad. My 6 foot tall 230 lb Dad would tower over me and get really loud and angry. He never hit me, but just that image of. to me, the wrath of God, was terrifying. I quickly learned not to piss off my dad...or my mom, ally of dad.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
mad dog, I agree that some killers do get out of jail, but not all circumstances are the same.

agreed

A woman who kills her abusive lover/husband should in my estimate get out of jail at some point after receiving counselling.

self defence and a torturing, killing piece of scum are two totally different things.

Serial killers recieve life or the death sentence...they are never going to see daylight as a free man/woman again.

maybe in the land of lolly pops and suger coated sh**, but in America killers do get out, this is a fact. I can think of 1 case where a killer that was caught while eating the officers finger that he had just killed was let out 20 years later on good behaviour. This was not his 1st time killing either it was just the iceing on the cake. You should watch American justice, I think you would find it interesting, they have had many cases on about Joe Bob killer getting set free just to commit another killing.

Also, serial killers do not just kill randomly. Everyone is assuming they are just going to pick on others for the sheer pleasure of it. But that is not so. Serial killer have very specified types of victims and most will not be their cell-mates. How often do you actually hear of a serial killer murdering another inmate. Seldom.

Have seen many interviews over the years of killers killing while in jail. Jail is a kick a** or get your a** kicked world, killers are not going to roll over and sing mister blue bird on my shoulder while another inmate is giving them crap. Even Dohmer{sp} was attempting to kill others while in jail. Do you really believe that once these folks are locked up their killing switch gets turned off? Thats like saying once a child molester gets caught he/she will never do it again.

Evil Homer, you want us to send the killers to their room and have your dad get angry and loud with them? :D

Serial killers are a rare breed, thank god!
They get all the press, but make up less than 5% of all inmates who've received a death sentence, or even a general population of killers.
Most people on death row are sorts who have killed but once or twice, usually committing a felony murder (murder enacted when committing another felony, like armed robbery). Others are guys who've killed during some sort of drug deal gone wrong. And then there's the spree killers, who kill at random (like Charles Starkweather)--sometimes called thrill killers.
And last but not least, there's the louts who kill for sheer monetary gain, IMO, the absolute scum, like the Candy Man of Houston, who murdered his own son for insurance money by putting cyanide in a Pixie Stix , trying to make it look like the poor boy had gotten this by trick or treating. Or the guy, also in Texas and recently executed, who burned down his house with his little girls in it, hoping to collect the insurance money. Instead, he got the needle, and never was that put to better use. Was he repentant? His last words had to be blanked out as he died cursing his executioners, insisting he'd been "framed." (LOL, haven't they ALL? LOL)
Thugs and louts all and personally I am tired of hearing about them. Why is it that we all know their names, but not the names of their victims? We have all heard of Karla Faye Tucker, the murdering #$%$^ who killed her victims with an ice pick, and then later became "religious" in prison. WHAT WERE HER VICTIM"S NAMES???

Originally posted by mad dog

maybe in the land of lolly pops and suger coated sh**, but in America killers do get out, this is a fact. I can think of 1 case where a killer that was caught while eating the officers finger that he had just killed was let out 20 years later on good behaviour. This was not his 1st time killing either it was just the iceing on the cake. You should watch American justice, I think you would find it interesting, they have had many cases on about Joe Bob killer getting set free just to commit another killing.


But mad dog the ones that get out on probation were never up for the death penalty to begin with so it is a moot point. We just had one here in Canada actually. The case had run for over a decade without being solved. A few weeks ago they found the killer via DNA links. A travesty of justice. The guy had killed twice before and was out on probation when he killed his third victim, a young university student. Now they are protecting his name because he is dead. At least "life" in the States means life...here you are out for good behaviour practically before they slam the door behind you.

Have seen many interviews over the years of killers killing while in jail. Jail is a kick a** or get your a** kicked world, killers are not going to roll over and sing mister blue bird on my shoulder while another inmate is giving them crap. Even Dohmer{sp} was attempting to kill others while in jail.

AgreeDo you really believe that once these folks are locked up their killing switch gets turned off? Thats like saying once a child molester gets caught he/she will never do it again. No! The best predictor for anyone's future behavior is their past behavior. The system needs reform. That is not a valid argument for execution.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
But mad dog the ones that get out on probation were never up for the death penalty to begin with so it is a moot point. We just had one here in Canada actually. The case had run for over a decade without being solved. A few weeks ago they found the killer via DNA links. A travesty of justice. The guy had killed twice before and was out on probation when he killed his third victim, a young university student. Now they are protecting his name because he is dead. At least "life" in the States means life...here you are out for good behaviour practically before they slam the door behind you.

Sal, I think you missed my point{my fault for not explaning} the above guy was in for life. This is the problem the justice system locks these a** bags away long enough for most of society to forget about them then they get out. A life sentence should be just that but it does not work that way. Like I said There are many so called lifers that get out within 20 yrs{give or take} The sad part is alot go back to a life of toture and crime


No! The best predictor for anyone's future behavior is their past behavior. The system needs reform. That is not a valid argument for execution.

I listed a few reasons why I believe in the DP on the other thread, and I also feel at this time it still is a valid argument.

Originally posted by rendova
I would like to ask anyone on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, to give me one reason why killers of this kind should live.
Should we punish with death a man with cancer for his tumors, a blind man for being unable to see, a man with potent desires to torture and murder and with no conscience to inhibit him from following through for torturing and murdering?

Originally posted by ~Sal~
I waffled about the ethics of execution. The thing that cemented it for me was reading and seeing interviews with prison wardens and what they have seen over the years. One thing most said was that in their experience over the years the men who perform the executions suffer terribly later from one kind of mental illness or another. Bizarre but true. It is easy to say, "I will pull the switch"...to live with having done it, is a whole different thing. The taking of a life unless one's own is directly threatened does something to one's mind. Or for those of you who believe in soul, perhaps that is the part it damages. Regardless, damage is done.
The most compelling argument against capital punishment, for me, is not that society should not execute, but that society should not make anyone into an executioner.

--Roger Ebert

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Should we punish with death a man with cancer for his tumors, a blind man for being unable to see, a man with potent desires to torture and murder and with no conscience to inhibit him from following through for torturing and murdering?

I'm a little lost with your post here, are you putting someone with a disability in the same class as a criminal?

We don't kill the guy with a tumor, but we do kill the tumor so hopefully the guy will live. I quess you could look at society this way. The innocent would be the guy and the killers would be the tumor that needs to disapear

Originally posted by nagarjuna
The most compelling argument against capital punishment, for me, is not that society should not execute, but that society should not make anyone into an executioner.

--Roger Ebert

Thanks for the quote, that sums it up nicely.

I wonder how many of us have actually SEEN what some people are capable of--
Reminds me of a story about one of the producers of "Silence of the Lambs"--this guy was strongly anti-death penalty--spoke at symposiums, raised money, etc, etc.
In doing background research for the movie, he visited the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit at Quantico. There, he saw crime scene photos--dozens of them. He listened to and watched tapes and videos seized from perpetrators of the absolute worst crimes.. films of kids being tortured and murdered, crying, begging for their lives, begging for their parents. He finally SAW.
When he came out, he said,
"I have no problem with the death penalty. None at all."

Originally posted by mad dog
I'm a little lost with your post here, are you putting someone with a disability in the same class as a criminal?

We don't kill the guy with a tumor, but we do kill the tumor so hopefully the guy will live. I quess you could look at society this way. The innocent would be the guy and the killers would be the tumor that needs to disapear
As cancer is pathological cells, isn't the urge to torture and murder pathological desire? As blindness is the inability to see, isn't the absence of conscience the inability to feel empathy, compassion, and regard for other human beings? Why does one torture and murder in the ways previously described if not because he has the pathological desire to do it and no conscience to stop him? Why should someone be blamed and punished for the psychological symptom of sadistic and murderous desire, but not for the physical symptom of a cancerous tumor? Why should someone be blamed and punished for not feeling normal restraints of conscience, but not for being unable to see? In other words, why should someone be blamed and punished for psychological illness and disability, but not for physical illness and disability?

Should a human being who tortures and murders ever he compared to a malignant tumor afflicting the body of society, or should a human being always be seen as beyond comparison with any lesser or baser thing? Isn't violent desire what is analogous to a tumor that needs to be eradicated, and never the person afflicted with that desire?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
As cancer is pathological cells, isn't the urge to torture and murder pathological desire? As blindness is the inability to see, isn't the absence of conscience the inability to feel empathy, compassion, and regard for other human beings? Why does one torture and murder in the ways previously described if not because he has the pathological desire to do it and no conscience to stop him? Why should someone be blamed and punished for the psychological symptom of sadistic and murderous desire, but not for the physical symptom of a cancerous tumor? Why should someone blamed and punished for not feeling normal restraints of conscience, but not for being unable to see? In other words, why should someone be blamed and punished for psychological illness and disability, but not for physical illness and disability?

Should a human being who tortures and murders ever he compared to a malignant tumor afflicting the body of society, or should a human being always be seen as beyond comparison with any lesser or baser thing? Isn't violent desire what is analogous to a tumor that needs to be eradicated, and never the person afflicted with that desire?

Interesting post nagarjuna...Welcome to allforums...please stick around and post more. :)

Originally posted by nagarjuna
As cancer is pathological cells, isn't the urge to torture and murder pathological desire? As blindness is the inability to see, isn't the absence of conscience the inability to feel empathy, compassion, and regard for other human beings? Why does one torture and murder in the ways previously described if not because he has the pathological desire to do it and no conscience to stop him? Why should someone be blamed and punished for the psychological symptom of sadistic and murderous desire, but not for the physical symptom of a cancerous tumor? Why should someone blamed and punished for not feeling normal restraints of conscience, but not for being unable to see? In other words, why should someone be blamed and punished for psychological illness and disability, but not for physical illness and disability?

Should a human being who tortures and murders ever he compared to a malignant tumor afflicting the body of society, or should a human being always be seen as beyond comparison with any lesser or baser thing? Isn't violent desire what is analogous to a tumor that needs to be eradicated, and never the person afflicted with that desire?

Hmmmm...an interesting analogy. I do believe (for the most part) that sociopaths/psychopaths are made not born although there may be genetic components to the disease.

From your post you would seem to have an understanding of the human mind. What is your opinion on psychopathology? Is it made, or born or a combination of both?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
As cancer is pathological cells, isn't the urge to torture and murder pathological desire?

Yes, so what do we do, kill the cancer, the needs for the many{innocent} outweigh the needs for the few{bad/killer}. If we don't get rid of the disease it just keeps growing.

As blindness is the inability to see, isn't the absence of conscience the inability to feel empathy, compassion, and regard for other human beings?

I have compassion for others, this is one reason I feel so strong for the DP. I would rather protect the innocent then protect the killer. I quess it is how we each look at it. I don't hate the killer{unless maybe he/she hurt someone I knew}, but at this time DP is the only 100% full proof method of dealing with them.

Why does one torture and murder in the ways previously described if not because he has the pathological desire to do it and no conscience to stop him?

I wish I had the answer, then maybe I could come up with the miracle cure.

Why should someone be blamed and punished for the psychological symptom of sadistic and murderous desire, but not for the physical symptom of a cancerous tumor?

Here is the problem with your statement, lets say you have cancer, do you feed the cancer or try to get rid of it? A killer feeds his/her problem, they do not fix it.

Why should someone be blamed and punished for not feeling normal restraints of conscience, but not for being unable to see?

Mostly because the last I knew a blind person doesn't go around and inflict torture, pain and death on others.

In other words, why should someone be blamed and punished for psychological illness and disability, but not for physical illness and disability?

Once again lets say I have a disability, I will try to fix it, at the same time I will not be out toturing & killing others. A killer causes pain to others usually many others and they don't give a squat. BTK was on A&E he had no compassion at all for his victims or their loved ones. He called is victims projects like mice in a maze. He also was not without compassion his neighbors and family{children included} thought he was a great guy.

Should a human being who tortures and murders ever he compared to a malignant tumor afflicting the body of society, or should a human being always be seen as beyond comparison with any lesser or baser thing?

This is the problem folks can't get pass the whole "it's a human". I have seen dogs act better then alot of humans but for some reason we would have no problem with putting a bullet in their head. The answer to your question is {at this time} they should be put down. When someone can figure out the perfect cure then things can change, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Isn't violent desire what is analogous to a tumor that needs to be eradicated, and never the person afflicted with that desire?

Once again I ask where is the miracle cure that can stop this "disease" 100%? We only have certain tools that we can work with. In the stone age did the cave man sit around and say I'll wait for the gun to be made so hunting will be easier? NO, if he had humans would not be around. Today we have the stone tomorrow we may have the wheel but at the same time we stiil need to take care of the problem not just ignore it, work with the tools we have.

Thanks for a good post and I can somewhat see how you feel, but in my opinion we still only have the 100% problem solver at this time.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Is it made, or born or a combination of both?

Sal, if you don't mind I would like to take a crack at this question. I have seen science shows that show a violent person does have a different brain pattern. I think we have all seen people that were raised in a bad situation. So the answer could be both. What if we go with the brain idea, is this something that is being evolved out of us? Are we as a whole turning into a nicer race or are we changing into a mean race? Take the kid that grows up in a bad enviro, this possibly could be changed, but can the kid be changed once the damage is done? The end result of either case still leaves us with a killer, if he/she can not be fixed then what good are they for the rest of society????????? Lets say I have some sort of killer virus in a bottle the only one of its kind. Should I keep it around, after all it's alive, or should the risk be taken away?

Originally posted by ~Sal~
From your post you would seem to have an understanding of the human mind. What is your opinion on psychopathology? Is it made, or born or a combination of both?
The short answer to your excellent question is that I believe that both nature and nurture play roles in virtually all psychopathology. But nature seems to play a bigger role in some cases, and nurture a bigger role in others. Ted Bundy was probably born to turn out the way he did far more than he was raised to do it. Charles Manson may have been raised to turn out the way he did far more than he was born to do it.

A much longer and more complex answer can be found in the following article on the sociobiology of sociopathy:
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html

Originally posted by mad dog
Mostly because the last I knew a blind person doesn't go around and inflict torture, pain and death on others.
Yes, the blind don't torture and murder. But neither do sociopaths after they're incarcerated and managed carefully.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Yes, the blind don't torture and murder. But neither do sociopaths after they're incarcerated and managed carefully.

This could not be further from the truth, taxes, violence in the prison, let out because of a loophole, etc.... I enjoy reading your posts, they are interesting but I do disagree with this fully.

Ted Bundy was probably born to turn out the way he did far more than he was raised to do it. I don't agree with that. I think ever single person is born with a disposition against killing. Otherwise as soon as one is able to support themselves they would kill their parents. Prior to that their playmates who take their toy.

I think everyone inherently knows killing is wrong (of course anomalies will always pop up).

I think is far more like an addiction thing. If the person isn't remorseful either through natural reaction or suppressed feelings then they have the ability to become a monster. Any killer will tell ou the first one is always the hardest. From there on out its easier and easier. Its an addiction, a rush, a power trip. It's playing god. Serial killer are just ego maniacs.

Originally posted by mad dog
This could not be further from the truth, taxes, violence in the prison, let out because of a loophole, etc.... I enjoy reading your posts, they are interesting but I do disagree with this fully.
If these individuals are watched carefully in prison so that they don't harm other inmates, and the loopholes are closed so that they're never allowed back into free society to harm the rest of us, why should we kill them for acting out of sickness and disability?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
The short answer to your excellent question is that I believe that both nature and nurture play roles in virtually all psychopathology. But nature seems to play a bigger role in some cases, and nurture a bigger role in others. Ted Bundy was probably born to turn out the way he did far more than he was raised to do it. Charles Manson may have been raised to turn out the way he did far more than he was born to do it.

A much longer and more complex answer can be found in the following article on the sociobiology of sociopathy:
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html

Thanks for the link. It looks like a heavy read for a lay person so I will get back to you on it. I found it interesting about the stats on % of crime committed in the population.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I think everyone inherently knows killing is wrong (of course anomalies will always pop up).
Almost everyone may inherently know or quickly learn that killing is SUPPOSED to be wrong. But does everyone actually FEEL the wrongness of it to the same degree? Don't some have innate defects or disorders in their brains or minds that interfere with their feeling the wrongness of it? In some, aren't these defects or disorders large enough that even relatively normal upbringings cannot prevent them from committing sociopathic murder? In others, aren't these innate defects or disorders small enough that only terrible upbringings can cause them to commit these terrible acts?

Originally posted by mad dog
Sal, if you don't mind I would like to take a crack at this question. I have seen science shows that show a violent person does have a different brain pattern. I think we have all seen people that were raised in a bad situation. So the answer could be both. What if we go with the brain idea, is this something that is being evolved out of us? Are we as a whole turning into a nicer race or are we changing into a mean race? Take the kid that grows up in a bad enviro, this possibly could be changed, but can the kid be changed once the damage is done? The end result of either case still leaves us with a killer, if he/she can not be fixed then what good are they for the rest of society????????? Lets say I have some sort of killer virus in a bottle the only one of its kind. Should I keep it around, after all it's alive, or should the risk be taken away?

mad dog I do not think that a human being's worth can be judged based upon what they contribute to society. Neither can a psychopath be equated to a virus in a bottle. Catch you after I read the link... it looks interesting and will likely spawn some further debate on other issues as well. :)

Almost everyone may inherently know or quickly learn that killing is SUPPOSED to be wrong. But does everyone actually FEEL the wrongness of it to the same degree?

Thats what I said...

I think is far more like an addiction thing. If the person isn't remorseful either through natural reaction or suppressed feelings then they have the ability to become a monster.

My personal view on this topic is that for some crimes (serial murder, rape, paedophilia) capital punishment is the only safe, just and sensible thing to do. Don’t get me wrong, there would have to be clear evidence of persons guilt and an evaluation of that persons intellect and state of mind. But if it is found there is nothing wrong with them and it is clear they committed the crime, then I’m all for them being put to death.

Take paedophiles, they’re sick animals and a lot of the time they are aware of what they’re doing and the only remorse they after afterwards is that they got caught. I mean what would you want to happen to a criminal that rapes your six-year-old sister? People like that definitely need to be stoned.

Originally posted by Saladin
Take paedophiles, they’re sick animals and a lot of the time they are aware of what they’re doing and the only remorse they after afterwards is that they got caught. I mean what would you want to happen to a criminal that rapes your six-year-old sister? People like that definitely need to be stoned.

Lock them away forever. Pedophiles are usually in the category of ones that are released and there is no cure for pedophilia unlike other sex crimes which in some cases can be cured.

Originally posted by Saladin
Take paedophiles, they’re sick animals and a lot of the time they are aware of what they’re doing and the only remorse they after afterwards is that they got caught. I mean what would you want to happen to a criminal that rapes your six-year-old sister? People like that definitely need to be stoned.
We agree that these individuals are sick, and perhaps we agree that part of their sickness is that they know emotionally that what they're doing is wrong but lack the emotional appreciation of that wrongness to restrain themselves from acting out their desires. But we seem to disagree on what should be done with them for being sick. Of course, if one of them raped and murdered a child dear to me, my rage would undoubtedly overwhelm my convictions. But does this refute those convictions?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
We agree that these individuals are sick, and perhaps we agree that part of their sickness is that they know emotionally that what they're doing is wrong but lack the emotional appreciation of that wrongness to restrain themselves from acting out their desires. But we seem to disagree on what should be done with them for being sick. Of course, if one of them raped and murdered a child dear to me, my rage would undoubtedly overwhelm my convictions. But does this refute those convictions?

I do not agree that they are sick in the medical meaning of the term. They are attracted to children. Sexual attraction runs the gamit; same sex, opposite sex, child sex, animal sex, dead sex, we are born with our sexual attraction and cannot change it. Sex is a basic instinct and one that cannot be ignored without a whole lot of work and a strong belief supporting it, i.e. priests - and they fail more often than one would think.

We cannot change a pedophiles attraction to children. Thus we must lock them up for life or put them to death to insure t the safety of our children.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
The short answer to your excellent question is that I believe that both nature and nurture play roles in virtually all psychopathology. But nature seems to play a bigger role in some cases, and nurture a bigger role in others. Ted Bundy was probably born to turn out the way he did far more than he was raised to do it. Charles Manson may have been raised to turn out the way he did far more than he was born to do it.

A much longer and more complex answer can be found in the following article on the sociobiology of sociopathy:
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html You weren't kidding when you said more complex... I think I only understood a 1/3 of what I was reading and that may be a generous guess. None the less I found it quite fascinating and emerged with some ideas from the paper that I found interesting:

* there are two varieties (so to speak) Some are likely our neighbours, or a relative and while highly manipulative will likely never commit a crime leading to their incarceration

* white collar crime such as insider trading is likely done by white collar psychopaths


* the threat of some possible future impending punishment does not affect a psychopath in the least.


* Environmentally produced ones if caught early enough and given behavioral training intervention, while not curing them or giving them a conscience, will adjust their behavior if they can be made to understand that it is in their best interests reward wise.

* small or closed societies do not breed psychopaths in the same numbers that an open or vast populace will

* psychopaths will leave small communities because once identified they can no longer successfully operate

So, there is a genetic component. There is an environmental component... Some times it is one, sometimes the other, sometimes both.

Originally posted by Echo2
I do not agree that they are sick in the medical meaning of the term. They are attracted to children...We cannot change a pedophiles attraction to children. Thus we must lock them up for life or put them to death to insure t the safety of our children.
If a body is sick when it functions abnormally enough to produce symptoms causing harm to onself or others, why isn't a mind sick when it does the same? And why wouldn't someone's having sex with children be a symptom of psychological sickness?

Why must we put them to death if they can be incarcerated for life? Why incarcerate for life those who don't need this in order to be prevented or to prevent themselves from molesting more children?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Why must we put them to death if they can be incarcerated for life?

Nagarjuna, I think this statement is the problem, I believe we would all consider a perfect life lock up without candy coated treatment. BUT it does not happen this way and there are enough folks out there that will keep it from happening. So what are we left with, the 100% protection method, or the lets take a gamble of another death happeneing by the same killer?

I've also noticed EVERYONE agrees that these killers will not change, they will allways have the drive to kill. So society either has to come up with a miracle cure or they have to weed out the bad. At this time there is no cure, so for the absolute protection of society DP is the only choice left. I didn't bring up the perfect lock down because it does not exist and I highly doubt it ever will.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Almost everyone may inherently know or quickly learn that killing is SUPPOSED to be wrong. But does everyone actually FEEL the wrongness of it to the same degree? Don't some have innate defects or disorders in their brains or minds that interfere with their feeling the wrongness of it? In some, aren't these defects or disorders large enough that even relatively normal upbringings cannot prevent them from committing sociopathic murder? In others, aren't these innate defects or disorders small enough that only terrible upbringings can cause them to commit these terrible acts?

Interesting question. answered fully, I believe, in Dr. Samenow's groundbreaking work, "Inside the Criminal Mind."

Also, please see my post on "insanity" on another thread. I believe it's in the "Spaghetti-O's" thread in Chat Central.

Do they know it's wrong? Of course they do, 99% of the time--plain fact is, they just don't care, and it never even occurs to them that they'll even be caught, and, if they are, they are sorry about THAT, little else.

John Douglas said once,
"If you wish to study the criminal, then you must study his crime."

He compared the lack of this kind of research amongst many psychologists tantamount to studying Mozart without wishing to learn about his music, or "learning" about Rembrandt without seeing a single one of his paintings.

This is something that other individuals like Sister Helen Prejean do not wish to do, I'm sorry to say.She is a genuinely good woman, but horribly misguided, IMO. She shows little interest in wanting to know exactly what it was that landed the individual on Death Row to begin with..this is a critical error on her part, and many others...... She thinks there is good in everyone.
Poor woman, nothing could be further from the truth.

Also yr statement concerning upbringing is very interesting. In some cases, not all, a terrible upbringing contributes to the making of the psychopathic personality. Yet, in others, for example, John Wesley Dodd's, this was not a factor. He described his childhood as "idyllic."

Certainly, more study and work needs to be done on this explosive topic. This is far from an exact science.....I tend to agree with Douglas' and Samenow's assessment--that killers of this kind are mainly suffering from a narcissis-type personality --that is, where the entire world revolves around themselves, and their victims exist for the sole reason of gratifying their own selves. Frightening stuff indeed.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Why must we put them to death if they can be incarcerated for life?
Because then we have to pay their incarceration, and I'm not wild about that idea.
Originally posted by nagarjuna
Why incarcerate for life those who don't need this in order to be prevented or to prevent themselves from molesting more children?
You honestly think there's a cure for pedophilia? I believe that a person afflicted with such an anomalistic, deviant, pathosis needs to be put out of their misery, period.

Originally posted by mad dog
Nagarjuna, I think this statement is the problem, I believe we would all consider a perfect life lock up without candy coated treatment. BUT it does not happen this way and there are enough folks out there that will keep it from happening. So what are we left with, the 100% protection method, or the lets take a gamble of another death happeneing by the same killer?
How many people who go to prison for the terrible crimes we're discussing are released and end up repeating these crimes? How much would it take to make sure that none of these individuals are ever released? Why not focus our efforts on justly preventing these dangerously sick and disabled individuals from being released back into society rather than on unjustly executing them for the symptoms of their sickness and disability?

Originally posted by rendova
Certainly, more study and work needs to be done on this explosive topic. This is far from an exact science.....I tend to agree with Douglas' and Samenow's assessment--that killers of this kind are mainly suffering from a narcissis-type personality --that is, where the entire world revolves around themselves, and their victims exist for the sole reason of gratifying their own selves. Frightening stuff indeed.
Yes, these sociopathic killers seem to be "suffering" from sickness and disability that need to be studied and understood much more thoroughly.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Because then we have to pay their incarceration, and I'm not wild about that idea...You honestly think there's a cure for pedophilia? I believe that a person afflicted with such an anomalistic, deviant, pathosis needs to be put out of their misery, period.
Would you be more willing to pay for the lifelong quarantine of someone afflicted with a deadly communicable disease?

The sexual abuse of children occurs in different forms and degrees, and many convicted of this crime do not repeat their offenses.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Yes, these sociopathic killers seem to be "suffering" from sickness and disability that need to be studied and understood much more thoroughly.
The only reason I think we should study their "sickness" is to expedite their capture before they're able to kill again. Why would you want to spend taxpayer dollars trying to fix someone who lacks any and all direction on a basic moral compass? I believe that if a 10 year old kills someone, then obviously they're damaged goods, and consequently, they should be put to death with no exceptions. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong by that age, then I say it's toe-tag time in Loonville. I don't know about you, but I have absolutely NO desire "to get to know or understand" my neighborhood serial killer.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Would you be more willing to pay for the lifelong quarantine of someone afflicted with a deadly communicable disease?
Apples and oranges, but in answer to your question - yes, I would. That's something worth studying.
Originally posted by nagarjuna
The sexual abuse of children occurs in different forms and degrees, and many convicted of this crime do not repeat their offenses.
If you can site sources, that would be appreciated, but my guess is those sick pricks are recidivists. I don't think they call it pathological for nothing. Essentially, a male kiddy rapist is the same type person who gets their kicks killing animals, or harming others. In other words, a truly broken individual.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Why would you want to spend taxpayer dollars trying to fix someone who lacks any and all direction on a basic moral compass? I believe that if a 10 year old kills someone, then obviously they're damaged goods, and consequently, they should be put to death with no exceptions.
It wouldn't be a matter of spending "taxpayer dollars" to fix what might very well be unfixable so much as to respect and justly preserve human life and gain greater understanding of the sickness and disability that produce these kinds of terrible crimes.

These individuals are not "damaged goods." They are damaged HUMAN BEINGS. People commit these terrible crimes because they are able to dehumanize their victims. Why follow their example?

i have no access to actual stats at this time, but I do know that many pedophiles, and other violent offenders, are, in fact, repeat offenders. In many cases of pedophilia, running into dozens, sometimes hundreds, of incidents.
Also, on another note, it's been shown that an average-IQ person knows what the term "murder" means, and what the taking of a life means, by age six.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Apples and oranges, but in answer to your question - yes, I would. That's something worth studying.

If you can site sources, that would be appreciated, but my guess is those sick pricks are recidivists. I don't think they call it pathological for nothing. Essentially, a male kiddy rapist is the same type person who gets their kicks killing animals, or harming others. In other words, a truly broken individual.
How is it "apples and oranges"?

Don't ALL human illnesses, disorders, and disabilities need to be studied? And isn't it true that the more dangerous they are, the more they need to be studied?

Not all who have molested minors are male. Not all are necessarily pedophiles. Pedophilia is more correctly defined as an adult preference for children before or right at puberty. Not all who molest children necessarily do so by threat or use of physical force. There are different types and causes of child sexual abuse and different recidivism rates for different types and causes.

Online and offline sources discussing various aspects of sexual abuse of children are too numerous to mention. You might begin with this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Not all who have molested minors are male.

I would be very interested in the numbers on this. .000000015%female and the rest male? I'll see what stats I can find on this.

Pedophilia is technically defined as an adult preference for children before or right at puberty.

In the world of psychology, a pedophile is anyone who has a sexual interest in a minor more than 5 years younger than they are. So a 19 year old doing a 17 year old is NOT pedophilia. A 17 year old doing a 12 year old would be considered a pedophile

Who are the child molesters among us?

Statistics on pedophilia are as difficult to come by as anecdotes are easy. The definition itself is misunderstood and often ill-used. Pedophilia is a mental disorder that belongs to a larger group known as paraphilias: sexual lust that is not connected to adult romantic love. Pedophilia is sexual contact between an adult and a child who hasn't reached puberty. Another disorder in the paraphilias group is ephebophilia — intense sexual interest in teenagers. According to the FBI, 61% of rape victims are under age 18, and 29% are younger than 11. Generally accepted academic studies say one out of every four women was sexually molested by an adult before she was 18. For men: 1 out of 10. Yet only one out of every 10 cases of child sexual abuse is reported to law enforcement, the FBI reports.

Whether more children are being molested today is a matter of debate, says David Burton, professor at University of Michigan School of Social Work in Ann Arbor. Some experts say the explosion of porn and access to the Internet have combined to increase the numbers; others say the public is simply more aware of pedophilia and more cases are being reported and prosecuted.

Pedophilia "has been here for a long time, only it's more well known today," says Ruben Rodriguez, director of the Exploited Children unit of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "The social stigma of being a victim is being overcome, and it's more acceptable to come forward. A lot of kids come forward to protect other kids, and society is better about saying, 'It's not your fault.' "

Whether certain professions — such as the clergy — draw sexual deviants isn't clear. But most agree that child molesters can be found in any environment. "I've known MBAs, CEOs, janitors, grocery clerks. The pure numbers indicate that they're everywhere," Burton says.

There is "no evidence that someone choosing to live a lifestyle that precludes sexual relationships has any bearing on them becoming a child molester," says Gail Ryan of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Colorado-Denver. "Many people don't have regular sexual relationships, and they don't go out and molest children."

But the clergy allows for a level of authority unparalleled in any other profession that deals with children, says Rodriguez, in which men are "in an environment with unrestricted access to and control over children. Children have been taught very early to respect authority, and how much respect and authority you have as a priest is almost all-consuming."

So who molests kids?

Only one characteristic is clear: Child molesters are predominantly men.

"It's virtually impossible to profile a child molester, because so many types of people are getting so many different needs met by getting sexually involved with a child," says Ryan. True pedophiles have sexual feelings toward children only. "But there are many people who molest children who are sexually interested in peers, too."

Most sexual offenders were sexually abused as children; 40% to 80% of pedophiles were raped as a child, Burton says. "The large majority of them learn to do what they do. Others we don't understand as well." Pedophiles often target and abuse children who are the same age the predator was when he was first sexually abused.

"It is a need-driven behavior of an individual that can't help themselves," Rodriguez says. "Some people live in the fantasy. Others go beyond the fantasy and have to abuse a child."

There is much disagreement, too, about whether child molesters can be treated. Burton says most studies show intense treatment is "phenomenally successful." "We help guys figure out dangerous situations, like being around children, what to do, how to plan and cope with distresses and avoid them."

The link between child pornography and child molestation is strong. "Not everyone who reads porn acts out, but everyone who acts out does read child pornography," Burton says.

The Internet makes it easier for sexual predators to act out, Rodriguez says. "It gets to the point when (porn) is not sufficient. ... Then they get on the Internet and find like-minded individuals who give them a lot of validation."

Originally posted by nagarjuna
How is it "apples and oranges"?
You said the disease in question was "communicable", whereas pedophilia isn't.

Pedophilia, murder, serial murder, the Big House, Death Row....
all topics on this thread! Interesting stuff.
Let me say that any freak who'd bother my kid would meet up with an "accident" like being pushed in front of a train. But first I'd write a "suicide" note stating that I simply can't live with myself anymore, seeing as how I'm such a freak.

Wouldn't get caught either. Why should I go to Old Sparky for something like this? HAHA, I don't read all this crime stuff for nothing.;)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You said the disease in question was "communicable", whereas pedophilia isn't.
I said what I did in reference to sociopathic murder, and I was suggesting that an underlying condition of psychological disorder and disability producing behavioral symptoms gravely harmful to others is analogous to an underlying condition of biological disease producing physical symptoms gravely harmful to others, as in deadly communicable disease.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
How many people who go to prison for the terrible crimes we're discussing are released and end up repeating these crimes?

I can't think of the # off the top of my head but it was enough to even surprise me. That's the ones that got out, lets not forget the ones that cause violence while still in.

How much would it take to make sure that none of these individuals are ever released?

Well the average criminal needs 40,000+ per year, violent criminals are higher, now you want to add even more, why? Haven't these monsters of society allready caused enough damage without taking more tax $ that could go too better causes?

Why not focus our efforts on justly preventing these dangerously sick and disabled individuals from being released back into society rather than on unjustly executing them for the symptoms of their sickness and disability?

I'm all for stoping the sickness if that is what it is, but at what cost? Your abusing the word disabled doesn't fly, you make it sound like they should be in the same catagory as a vet without legs, sorry that is true. These folks are aware of what they are doing and they keep doing even when they know it is wrong{they'll admit to that} A real disability is something that can not be fix or controled, CP, MS, Paralized, missing limbs, well you get my point.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
I said what I did in reference to sociopathic murder, and I was suggesting that an underlying condition of psychological disorder and disability producing behavioral symptoms gravely harmful to others is analogous to an underlying condition of biological disease producing physical symptoms gravely harmful to others, as in deadly communicable disease.
I understand, but treating something such as hepatitis isn't analogous to treating a sociopathic killer, and as a corollary, you're suggesting that we "learn" from people like Jeffery Dahmer, Albert DeSalvo, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, Andrei Chikatilo, David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, or worse yet, and probably the most appropriate given the topic of conversation, Albert Fish. These dudes are human defects, and no amount of psychological research is going to shed light on a miracle “cure” for their brand of insanity. However - I would be in favor of doing posthumous studies on their cadavers to see if their frontal lobes are different than a conventional person's cognitive center, but short of that - I don't find them interesting or curable, and neither do the authorities. Wasting taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what makes these nut-cups tick isn't fair to the community. Put them in their graves, and let’s be done with it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I understand, but treating something such as hepatitis isn't analogous to treating a sociopathic killer, and as a corollary, you're suggesting that we "learn" from people like Jeffery Dahmer, Albert DeSalvo, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, Andrei Chikatilo, David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, or worse yet, and probably the most appropriate given the topic of conversation, Albert Fish. I mean, seriously, what could they possibly teach us? These dudes are human defects, and no amount of psychological research is going to shed light on a miracle “cure” for their brand of insanity. However - I would be in favor of doing posthumous studies on their cadavers to see if their frontal lobes are different than a conventional person's cognitive center, but short of that - I don't find them interesting or curable, and neither do the authorities. Wasting taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what makes these nut-cups tick isn't fair to the community. Put them in their graves, and let’s be done with it.

Good post, Praetorian, and I am in full agreement on this.
Also it should be noted that the killers you named, and many many others of their kind, have lived their lives as basically a lie. What makes a researcher think he could learn anything of value from a liar and/or con artist? They play mind games, are manipulative, and enjoy pulling one over on the law and society in general--always. Anything "learned " from such research should be most suspect,IMO.

Originally posted by mad dog
Your abusing the word disabled doesn't fly, you make it sound like they should be in the same catagory as a vet without legs, sorry that is true. These folks are aware of what they are doing and they keep doing even when they know it is wrong{they'll admit to that} A real disability is something that can not be fix or controled, CP, MS, Paralized, missing limbs, well you get my point.
How am I "abusing" the word "disabled" if sociopathic murderers have no conscience to inhibit them from acting out their aberrent desires? Yes, they can know that torture-murder is said to be wrong and is against the law, but if they have an extremely strong desire to commit such crime and their normal inhibitory mechanisms, including conscience, are disabled, what is to stop them from committing the crime if they can? Why is it wrong to say that they have a psychological disability of no conscience just as others have a physical disability of paralysis or of missing legs or arms, and that victims of either kind of disability should not be executed for the symptoms or consequences of their disability?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
These dudes are human defects, and no amount of psychological research is going to shed light on a miracle “cure” for their brand of insanity...Wasting taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what makes these nut-cups tick isn't fair to the community. Put them in their graves, and let’s be done with it.
No human beings are "human defects" or "monsters," but some are defective HUMAN BEINGS who do monstrous things because of their defects. And it is possible to elevate the importance of compassion and justice for the sick and disabled over that of saving "taxpayer dollars," no matter what the disease and disability.

Originally posted by mad dog
Evil Homer, you want us to send the killers to their room and have your dad get angry and loud with them? :D \

No, thats exactly the opposite of what I was saying. Prison = Sending to room. Dad = Corporal Punishment

While my dad never physically harmed me, the mere threat was more of a deterrent than the punishment of being sent to my room.

The threat of pain always sent a much stronger message than the threat of boredom.

A dead child molester,
is a good child molester. ;)

Originally posted by nagarjuna
How am I "abusing" the word "disabled" if sociopathic murderers have no conscience to inhibit them from acting out their aberrent desires? Yes, they can know that torture-murder is said to be wrong and is against the law, but if they have an extremely strong desire to commit such crime and their normal inhibitory mechanisms, including conscience, are disabled, what is to stop them from committing the crime if they can? Why is it wrong to say that they have a psychological disability of no conscience just as others have a physical disability of paralysis or of missing legs or arms, and that victims of either kind of disability should not be executed for the symptoms or consequences of their disability?

That's just it. They CAN control themselves. They just don't WANT to.
John Douglas has often wondered why these people never "Go berserk" in front of a police station.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
How am I "abusing" the word "disabled" if sociopathic murderers have no conscience to inhibit them from acting out their aberrent desires?

You are using the word so that society would feel sorry for these people. I'll try to explain again, a disabled person is someone that does{better word can} not function like the rest of us. Example they can't drive a car, write, feed themselfs, wipe their butt, clean themself, etc.... because they have some sort of disability. These killers have proven they are fare from disabled, heck Ted B was going to be in congress, BTK worked in law enforcement, John G owned a business, the list goes on. These killing machines may be sick, BUT THEY ARE NOT DISABLED in the least. Infact alot of these killers function better physically and mentally then some common humans. They also know what they are doing is wrong compared to someone with downs who may not be able to figure out the difference. Feel free to say it is a sickness but it is not a disability unless they are proven mentally insane which is a different topic all together. When they can not tell what is wrong or right then I would say they have a mental disability. With the way you use the word disabled I bet you think homosexuals must be disabled?????

Evil Homer, I did put a :D

Originally posted by rendova
That's just it. They CAN control themselves. They just don't WANT to.
John Douglas has often wondered why these people never "Go berserk" in front of a police station.
Yes, they can refrain from trying to commit torture murder or child rape in front of police stations because they know that they will be immediately injured or killed if they do try. They commit the crimes they do when there is no immediate threat of harm to themselves and there is only their disabled conscience to inhibit them from acting out their sick desires.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Yes, they can refrain from trying to commit torture murder or child rape in front of police stations because they know that they will be immediately injured or killed if they do try. They commit the crimes they do when there is no immediate threat of harm to themselves and there is only their disabled conscience to inhibit them from acting out their sick desires.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, they are diffinitely able to realize that what they do is wrong and will be apprehended in front of a police station.
They also know that in front of people they can not be in control of the situation.
IF, they are disabled. I would compare it only to the manner in which a rabid fox is disabled. A public threat, no cure available, just extermination.

Originally posted by mad dog
You are using the word so that society would feel sorry for these people. I'll try to explain again, a disabled person is someone that does{better word can} not function like the rest of us. Example they can't drive a car, write, feed themselfs, wipe their butt, clean themself, etc.... because they have some sort of disability. These killers have proven they are fare from disabled...Infact alot of these killers function better physically and mentally then some common humans. They also know what they are doing is wrong compared to someone with downs who may not be able to figure out the difference. Feel free to say it is a sickness but it is not a disability unless they are proven mentally insane which is a different topic all together. When they can not tell what is wrong or right then I would say they have a mental disability.
Let me try to explain again that there are different kinds of disability. "Disablity" means not able to function normally or at all. You refer to physical and mental disability. But there is also psychological disability in which a psychological faculty does not operate effectively or at all. Sociopathy is marked by a disabled empathy and regard for others on the one hand and a disabled conscience or desire to do right and avoid the guilt and shame of doing wrong on the other. Sociopathic sexual abusers, sadists, and murderers have, as you say, sick desires, but they also lack the normal faculties to inhibit them from acting out their desires. They may have normal or above normal intelligence, good social skills and jobs, and function at a rather high level in most respects, just as many who are "disabled" with visual and other impairments do, but they are disabled in their ability to refrain from acting out their sick desires when they are in situations where they think they can get away with it.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would compare it only to the manner in which a rabid fox is disabled. A public threat, no cure available, just extermination.
Are human beings equivalent to foxes, and violently sociopathic criminals to rabid foxes? And would you exterminate a human being for having a dangerously communicable disease if he could be safely quarantined from the general public?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Are human beings equivalent to foxes, and violently sociopathic criminals to rabid foxes? And would you exterminate a human being for having a dangerously communicable disease if he could be safely quarantined from the general public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you take time to re-read your post that I replied to, you will see that torture murder and child rape was being spoken of.
Communicable disease was not mentioned. Quite trying to dance.

The is no proof of rehibilitation of these people, hince the reoccurance rate after release, and, in my opinion, there is no need to feed, house and maintain the bastards for years to come. They will always be a threat to society as long as they live.

I say put them in old sparky and pull the handle. If god wants to save them he will stop the flow of electricity. But, I got a feeling their ass would be gone.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Let me try to explain again that there are different kinds of disability. "Disablity" means not able to function normally or at all. You refer to physical and mental disability. But there is also psychological disability in which a psychological faculty does not operate effectively or at all. Sociopathy is marked by a disabled empathy and regard for others on the one hand and a disabled conscience or desire to do right and avoid the guilt and shame of doing wrong on the other. Sociopathic sexual abusers, sadists, and murderers have, as you say, sick desires, but they also lack the normal faculties to inhibit them from acting out their desires. They may have normal or above normal intelligence, good social skills and jobs, and function at a rather high level in most respects, just as many who are "disabled" with visual and other impairments do, but they are disabled in their ability to refrain from acting out their sick desires when they are in situations where they think they can get away with it.
You seem like a fairly shrewd person, but in your continuing quest to exonerate lunatics based on sociopathic illness, I find your defense intriguing. In short, I think the real question is - are these people worth fixing? I guess it depends on the crime, but if someone truly can't determine right from wrong, then how are you going to impart the fundamental base necessary for them to differentiate between the two? Take, for example, murderer, rapist and sadist, Edmund Kemper. In one of my favorite quotes, his court appointed analyst asked him a simple question: "What do you think when you see a pretty girl walking down the street?" His answer positively chilled me to my core - "Well, one side of me wants to talk to her, you know, get to know her, date her..........The other side says I wonder how her head would look on a stick."

Do you seriously think that asswipe is fixable? I don't, and I'd just as soon not waste any time trying to figure out why he ripped his mother's larynx out, put it down the garbage disposal, and then raped her cold, dead corpse in a pool of her own blood. I, quite frankly, don't give a shit, and I have no mercy for a person capable of murdering 8 women only to decorate portions of his bedroom with their body parts. If you really want to "figure" people like Edmund Kemper out, then I feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you take time to re-read your post that I replied to, you will see that torture murder and child rape was being spoken of.
Communicable disease was not mentioned. Quite trying to dance.

The is no proof of rehibilitation of these people, hince the reoccurance rate after release, and, in my opinion, there is no need to feed, house and maintain the bastards for years to come. They will always be a threat to society as long as they live.
Has anyone effectively explained how the crimes you mentioned are not rather similar to symptoms of a dangerous communicable disease? Not so far as I can tell. You may disagree. But let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that the comparison is valid. Would you kill people afflicted with a dangerous communicable disase because quarantining them would not be absolutely safe for others who are free of the disease and because it would be costly to "feed, house, and maintain" these diseased individuals?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In short, I think the real question is - are these people worth fixing?
To me, the real question is: Is it ethical to execute people for committing crimes resulting from sickness and disability, curable or incurable? To me, it is not.

If it's incurable, then why should that person become a ward of the state? Why should we pay to house, care for, and feed a violent criminal? I just don't understand your logic...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
If it's incurable, then why should that person become a ward of the state? Why should we pay to house, care for, and feed a violent criminal? I just don't understand your logic...
Again, do you think it would be wrong to "house, care for, and feed" a person with a dangerous communicable disease that is incurable?

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Again, do you think it would be wrong to "house, care for, and feed" a person with a dangerous communicable disease that is incurable?
I believe you make an interesting point with that question, and without doubt - that's rather slippery of you considering what we're arguing. In answer to your question, my logical and pragmatic side believes we have an obligation to protect the populous, hence - those infected should be quarantined, studied, and humanely eliminated. On the other hand, my sensible side preaches that we have an obligation to "treat" (and I'm using that word lightly, because by you're own admission - it's not curable) illness regardless of the risk involved. In short, if we're thinking with our heads, then obviously, care should be denied. If we opt to think with our hearts, even if it means exacerbating the situation - potentially killing doctors, nurses, or other hospital patients and staff, then I guess they should be treated. I suppose it all depends on what part of the body you think with...

Originally posted by nagarjuna
To me, the real question is: Is it ethical to execute people for committing crimes resulting from sickness and disability, curable or incurable? To me, it is not.

Yes, it is ethical.
These individuals are not "normal". But they are not, under the law and the legal definition, insane.
That is, they are not so "sick" (very loose term) that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
The true criminally insane individual is, thank god, a very rare breed. It would not be ethical to execute a person with this disorder. In fact, the governor in my own home state just days ago commuted the sentence of a guy due to be executed this week as it was ruled that he was indeed truly insane under the law. That is, he did not understand his actions, what they meant, and that they were wrong.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In answer to your question, my logical and pragmatic side believes we have an obligation to protect the populous, hence - those infected should be quarantined, studied, and humanely eliminated. On the other hand, my sensible side preaches that we have an obligation to "treat" (and I'm using that word lightly, because by you're own admission - it's not curable) illness regardless of the risk involved. In short, if we're thinking with our heads, then obviously, care should be denied. If we opt to think with our hearts, even if it means exacerbating the situation - potentially killing doctors, nurses, or other hospital patients and staff, then I guess they should be treated. I suppose it all depends on what part of the body you think with...
Suppose we could make virtually certain that the quarantined could not infect their caregivers or anyone else? Would not your head AND heart then want these diseased individuals to live, even at taxpayer expense, rather than be killed?

Originally posted by rendova
Yes, it is ethical.
These individuals are not "normal". But they are not, under the law and the legal definition, insane.
That is, they are not so "sick" (very loose term) that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
The true criminally insane individual is, thank god, a very rare breed. It would not be ethical to execute a person with this disorder.
If someone knows that an act he wants to commit is illegal or said to be wrong but is unable to refrain from committing that act because he lacks the ability to stop himself, would it be "ethical to execute a person with THIS disorder"?

Originally posted by rendova
Yes, it is ethical.
These individuals are not "normal". But they are not, under the law and the legal definition, insane.
That is, they are not so "sick" (very loose term) that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
The true criminally insane individual is, thank god, a very rare breed. It would not be ethical to execute a person with this disorder. In fact, the governor in my own home state just days ago commuted the sentence of a guy due to be executed this week as it was ruled that he was indeed truly insane under the law. That is, he did not understand his actions, what they meant, and that they were wrong.

The legal definition of insanity doesn't have its basis in medicine. In other words its not a definition of insanity as much as a definition of the law.

It is legally ethical to execute an insane person (using the legal definition of insanity), but I'm not sure it's morally ethical, and since I believe ethics has more to do with morality than it does the law, I'd have to say that I don't think it's right to execute anyone if their mental capacity is questionable.

Originally posted by nagarjuna
Suppose we could make virtually certain that the quarantined could not infect their caregivers or anyone else? Would not your head AND heart then want these diseased individuals to live, even at taxpayer expense, rather than be killed?
Yes, but only if you could guarantee the spread would be minimal.

In regards to equating this scenario with tending to the criminally insane, I believe our money would be better spent harvesting their organs for transplant patients. Of course, I don't think it would be all too settling if you were in need of an organ to receive Richard Speck's heart, but I digress.

Originally posted by mad dog
Evil Homer, I did put a :D

What is this strange expression you show? I do not recognize it. Nay, I have not encountered it in all my life.....:(

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The legal definition of insanity doesn't have its basis in medicine. In other words its not a definition of insanity as much as a definition of the law.

It is legally ethical to execute an insane person (using the legal definition of insanity), but I'm not sure it's morally ethical, and since I believe ethics has more to do with morality than it does the law, I'd have to say that I don't think it's right to execute anyone if their mental capacity is questionable.

You're correct, vile, the definition of "insanity", which I've discussed elsewhere on this forum. It's not a medical term, but a legal term.
I also agree it is unethical to execute a defendant who has been found insane under the law and by the law's definition, which is, if the defendant understands his actions and knows they're wrong, then that person is sane.
But the vast majority of violent defenders are NOT insane by ANY definition, anywhere. These should be dealt with harshly.
I feel very strongly on this matter. I have little sympathy for those who knowingly hurt others, esp kids, and gain pleasure from doing so..... these sorts need to be eliminated. Maybe I've read too much crime, maybe I feel this way because I'm a parent and it's my biggest fear, that someone would hurt, maybe kill, my kids, who are young, trusting, and believe that there's good in all...and to think what might happen to them, and then, what would happen to any who hurt them,,the idea that they hurt them, and then got away with it, would be more than I could bear. I am speaking honestly here..if I did not recieve justice for them in a courtroom, by that I mean a death sentence, if they took a life, then I would be waiting for them when they got out. Maybe this makes me barbaric, bloodthirsty, and uncivilized,..maybe I haven't "evolved: enough to feel differently. but these are my feelings. If they took a life, with malice aforethought and premeditation, then they should pay with their own. By legal means, or other means.

Originally posted by rendova
You're correct, vile, the definition of "insanity", which I've discussed elsewhere on this forum. It's not a medical term, but a legal term.
I also agree it is unethical to execute a defendant who has been found insane under the law and by the law's definition, which is, if the defendant understands his actions and knows they're wrong, then that person is sane.
But the vast majority of violent defenders are NOT insane by ANY definition, anywhere. These should be dealt with harshly.
I feel very strongly on this matter. I have little sympathy for those who knowingly hurt others, esp kids, and gain pleasure from doing so..... these sorts need to be eliminated. Maybe I've read too much crime, maybe I feel this way because I'm a parent and it's my biggest fear, that someone would hurt, maybe kill, my kids, who are young, trusting, and believe that there's good in all...and to think what might happen to them, and then, what would happen to any who hurt them,,the idea that they hurt them, and then got away with it, would be more than I could bear. I am speaking honestly here..if I did not recieve justice for them in a courtroom, by that I mean a death sentence, if they took a life, then I would be waiting for them when they got out. Maybe this makes me barbaric, bloodthirsty, and uncivilized,..maybe I haven't "evolved: enough to feel differently. but these are my feelings.

I understand what you are saying, and I probably would feel the same way. What I might do as a grieving relative isn't neccessarily what I want our justice system to do.


If they took a life, with malice aforethought and premeditation, then they should pay with their own. By legal means, or other means.

But if you execute someone out of anger and feelings of revenge, aren't you killing someone with mailice aforethought and premeditation? And if we are morally proscribed ourselves from committing such an act, how can we ask our government to do it for us?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The legal definition of insanity doesn't have its basis in medicine. In other words its not a definition of insanity as much as a definition of the law.
Yes, and is it not an archaic definition in need of overhauling? For even if it is not a medical definition per se, should it not be more solidly grounded on modern knowledge of how human beings actually think, feel, and behave?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In regards to equating this scenario with tending to the criminally insane, I believe our money would be better spent harvesting their organs for transplant patients.
So saving money is more important than doing what is right?