This is an interview with that defense lawyer featured in that documentary {which was one of his first cases - it looked set in the early mid-80s from the attire/clothes/etc of people; and yes, it was a British film-maker who shot it.}
The different opinions on here, is the needle in my arm that keeps my working day moving on. If we all agreed it would be a boring place to come and read.
hmm....boring place to come....hey! that's what i've said to the person who quoted me. well, i agree with you, just don't steal what i've said copycat
i knew the $15 bullet thing was a joke, and it was funny at that. i've made worse myself round here. the women don't much like me.
as to the appeals, what do you see as the big benefit of execution? there are only a few options here:
1. keep it as it is and keep going with incredibly expensive executions rather than the cheaper life in prison. is it worth it? why?
2. drop the appeals process to make executions cheaper than life in prison. but since people are released from prison almost every month when it is found on appeal that they were actually innocent, this tactic is going to execute a lot of innocents. is it worth it? why?
3. abolish the death penalty and switch to life in prison with no parole. offenders don't get out of jail, ever, but they don't die either. is that not good enough? why not? what does execution add?
i would keep the death penalty in place. have a prison where there are nothing BUT death row inmates. but the condition would be that they could and would be (somehow) be a self supporting prison...try to escape, the die the next day. no exceptions.
i wouldn't drop the appeals process, but have a max number of times that it could be appealed. also (somehow) keep it from dragging out for 15 years before they fry.
somehow keep the abuse of the system down. hey, don't ask how many or whatever, i don't know...you're the almost lawyer.
if they get the penalty, the should die.
not to open up a can of worms (but i must) how many here that do not support the death penalty support abortion?
i would keep the death penalty in place. have a prison where there are nothing BUT death row inmates. but the condition would be that they could and would be (somehow) be a self supporting prison...try to escape, the die the next day. no exceptions.
i wouldn't drop the appeals process, but have a max number of times that it could be appealed. also (somehow) keep it from dragging out for 15 years before they fry.
somehow keep the abuse of the system down. hey, don't ask how many or whatever, i don't know...you're the almost lawyer.
if they get the penalty, the should die.
fair enough. they have certain procedures designed to expedite appeals. they just don't work very well. a judge has scant reason to speed up a case where the guy is going nowhere anyway. they're already overworked with a huge backlog of cases.
when it comes down to it, i just don't think the death penalty is worth the trouble it causes. life in prison keeps us just as safe and death penalty has been shown not to be an effective deterrent. so it's expensive, divisive, and puts us on a short list with some of the most reprehensible countries in the world (including iran). i see no benefit to keeping it, aside from a desire for vengeance which i don't think is good enough to outweigh the problems it causes.
not to open up a can of worms (but i must) how many here that do not support the death penalty support abortion?
eh, that's a bad question. it's not a contradiction, or if it is it's just as much a contradiction as pro-life, pro-death penalty. the people of your example don't believe a fetus is a life and thus not requiring the same protection as a potentially innocent condemned man. the latter group i mention believe life is sacred but if you fuck up bad enough we're allowed to kill you for it. so neither side wins on this one and it has no bearing on the capital punishment debate really. any combination of these opinions can be logically consistent. just depends on your base assumptions.
i oppose capital punishment chiefly on financial and practicality grounds. i support abortion on the same grounds. im not in the business of making my moral judgment calls national law.
i oppose capital punishment chiefly on financial and practicality grounds. i support abortion on the same grounds. im not in the business of making my moral judgment calls national law.
common ground on the capital punishment, different ways to go about it.
as for the abortion, you may not be in the biz of making moral judgment calls national law..a bunch are. it's how it got changed in the 1st place. (prayer in sch, etc)
common ground on the capital punishment, different ways to go about it.
as for the abortion, you may not be in the biz of making moral judgment calls national law..a bunch are. it's how it got changed in the 1st place. (prayer in sch, etc)
fair enough, though i think if you looked more closely the financial aspect falls on my side. as to practicality... that one is inherently kind of subjective, so to each their own.
on the second point, neutrality is not a moral judgment call. saying a christian prayer in a public school is making a moral judgment call... implying to kids "to belong you must be christian." not saying a christian prayer in a public school is not making a moral judgment call... it does not say anything other than "everyone that wants to pray to any god can do so at home."
fair enough, though i think if you looked more closely the financial aspect falls on my side. as to practicality... that one is inherently kind of subjective, so to each their own.
on the second point, neutrality is not a moral judgment call. saying a christian prayer in a public school is making a moral judgment call... implying to kids "to belong you must be christian." not saying a christian prayer in a public school is not making a moral judgment call... it does not say anything other than "everyone that wants to pray to any god can do so at home."
as far as prayer in school, it doesn't have to be a christian prayer...they say pray to your god, whatever that might be.
like banning christmas stuff....shit, i don't want to sidetrack completely, i was just making the point that some people are out to make their morals the law.
Just as long as you can console yourself with labeling a person 'a murdering thug', then you'll be o.k.
It's when you look at the whole person - their childhood, the life they've lived, the circumstances of their crime - that you may have a problem.
i think i just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
you're right. there is no such thing as personal responsiblity. in fact, the whole justice system is a sham. No one is really at fault for their own actions and no one should be tried, judged or sentenced.
i can console myself just fine, thanks.
If I've analyzed the childhood and circumstances of, say Stalin, can i still call him a murdering thug? If his dad beat him or his mommy didn't hold him enough, can I still say he's a worthless piece of shit and the world is better off without him?
i think i can. in fact, i just did.
Oh noes!!!! i just labeled somebody! somebody call tha police!
as far as prayer in school, it doesn't have to be a christian prayer...they say pray to your god, whatever that might be.
like banning christmas stuff....shit, i don't want to sidetrack completely, i was just making the point that some people are out to make their morals the law.
unfortunately, it doesn't end up working out like that. but in general, im ok with a moment of silent reflection to start the school day.
as to banning xmas stuff, i don't see a huge problem with it. the government should be spending its money doing things like providing services, not buying christmas decor. if citizens want to put up displays, i see no reason they can't.
anyway, you're right, we're veering off track. i don't have any moral opposition to the death penalty. personally, i don't go in for executing people for any reason, but i think it's an entirely reasonable punishment for a murderer. the problem comes in when i distrust our processes for ascertaining guilt and think it's too expensive to be worth doing. so i'd just as soon get rid of it.
Not to sound elitist or anything. But this should be a topic for more sophisticated people.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
People that have studied the criminal mind and know how a human being ends up as a murderer or other violent criminal.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is a list of factors in this article from the Australian Institute of Criminology.
Biological factors
In recent years, it has become apparent that biological and physiological factors are associated with violent behaviour. Some of these factors may be genetically transmitted from parent to child, others may result from peri-natal events, others still may occur randomly, and some may result from illness or injury over the course of one's life. It should be noted at the outset that violence is not a biological inevitability. Rather, human aggression and its expression through violence result from the complex interaction of physiological and social influences.
Congenital factors: inherited characteristics and peri-natal experiences
Aggressive parents tend to have aggressive children. The relative contributions of environment and heredity to this commonly observed parent-child similarity has been the subject of considerable debate.
Mednick (1988) has investigated whether violent behaviour is an inherited characteristic, and concluded, through a series of studies which compared the criminal histories of adopted children with those of their natural and adoptive parents, that no such relationship exists. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that certain inherited physiological properties are related to violence.
He has, for example, found a correlation between minor physical abnormalities (whether inheritable, arising from peri-natal trauma, or randomly occurring) and later violent offending, though only for those children raised in unstable, non-intact families. It thus appears that a stable family environment can compensate for the biological vulnerability represented by these minor physical abnormalities.
Mednick speculates that much violence, in the street as well as in the home, may be caused by less than optimal brain functioning. Aggressive behaviour in boys has frequently been reported as a very stable characteristic from an early age. Brain damage and consequent weakening of cortical control can occur very early in life. Peri-natal difficulties, whether naturally occurring or caused by illness, injury, or lifestyle, can be an important source of such damage. Again, this vulnerability can be amplified by unfavourable family circumstances or mitigated by supportive, nurturant parenting.
Mednick observes that this explanation is supported by repeated reports of a high incidence of brain damage in violent offenders (Nachson & Denno 1987). An increased incidence of epilepsy has been observed among prison inmates and juvenile delinquents (Gunn & Felton 1969; 1971; Loews 1976). It has also been suggested that impairment of frontal and temporal brain regions is associated with problems of self-control and with difficulties in comprehending the effects of one's actions (Pinches & Tucker 1978).
Mark and Irvin (1970) have observed that "an appreciable percentage of the relatively few individuals guilty of repeated personal violence are to be found in the 5-10 per cent of the population whose brains do not function in a perfectly normal way". They report that temporal lobe epilepsy was ten times more frequent in a population of 400 adult violent prisoners than would be expected in the general population. This has been supported by Monaro's finding (1978) that central nervous system dysfunction correlates with recurrent aggressive behaviour.
Abnormal patterns of electrical activity in the brain, as measured by EEG (electroencephalograph) readings, are believed to be linked to violence in some individuals. Mednick et al. (1982) have reviewed a number of studies, and conclude that between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of violent offenders manifest EEG abnormalities.
Certain locations in the brain are associated with aggressive behaviour, and with impulse control. Imbalances in the chemistry of the brain have also been associated with violent behaviour. Serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) are referred to as inhibitory neurotransmitters; low levels of these and related substances have been observed in highly aggressive patients and inmates (Lidberg et al. 1985).
Different neurological patterns underlie different forms of violence. The neurological basis of repetitive sexual aggression differs from that which underlies the actions of the professional "hit man". These in turn differ from those of the pub brawler.
Although it appears that a disproportionate number of violent offenders may suffer some sort of brain dysfunction, Nachson and Denno caution that such an association is likely to be indirect rather than direct: for example, brain dysfunction may adversely affect a person's intelligence, learning ability, impulse control, one's perception of the world, or ability to cope with frustrating events. It seems probable that the association between neurological dysfunction and aggressive behaviour is mediated by psychological processes and environmental factors. These provide the link between neurological and social explanations.
Autonomic nervous system responses
Mednick et al. (1982) have observed that some violent offenders, particularly those who appear remorseless or otherwise lacking in emotional responsiveness, manifest different physiological reactions to threatening situations than do "normal" individuals. Specifically, some violent offenders register lower pulse rates, blood pressure readings, and measures of galvanic skin response in response to impending threat.
Indeed, there are those individuals who actively seek risky situations for the sheer excitement of it. When such thrill seeking reaches a point which could be described as psychopathic recklessness, then an explanation for such behaviour may be found in the theory that such individuals are in fact searching for external stimulation to compensate for their low level of internal arousal. It seems that psychopaths suffer from "stimulation hunger", perhaps because of a physiological deficiency in the nervous system.
People classified as psychopathic on personality inventories have been found to pass lie detection tests, for example, because their autonomic nervous system is not aroused by experiencing the test. Likewise, the kind of EEG abnormalities found in these subjects is consistent with their being less alarmed than a non-psychopath by the procedures involved in conducting the test - indeed, despite electrodes dangling from their heads, they may fall asleep altogether (Wilson & Herrnstein 1985). Such findings have important implications for the criminal justice system in dealing with psychopathic offenders, as they are unlikely to respond to the deterrent aspect of sentencing if the threat of punishment holds no fears.
To be sure, there are many individuals with low arousal levels who are not violent criminals. A wide range of socially acceptable vocations or pastimes are available to them. A variety of other factors determine who becomes a bank robber, who becomes a war hero, and who becomes a Grand Prix racing car driver.
Hormonal Responses
It has been suggested by some researchers that a positive relationship exists between levels of plasma testosterone (a male hormone, or androgen), and aggressive and antisocial behaviour in the human male (Olweus 1988a, Burrowes et al. 1988). Olweus found that behaviour involving a response to provocation and threat had the clearest correlation with testosterone levels, and that unprovoked physical or verbal aggression also showed positive but weaker correlations. The underlying assumption here, based on experimental studies with animals, is that testosterone somehow acts as to cause aggressive behaviour. However, Olweus concedes that testosterone is only one out of many possible causal factors operating in his study.
Denno (1988), in a detailed review of the literature concerning hormonal influences, states that prisoners with histories of more violent crimes in adolescence have been found to have significantly higher levels of testosterone than prisoners without violent histories; that the most violent rapists in a prison population were found to have significantly higher levels than other subjects, including others convicted of rape; and research on teenage boys has shown a substantial correlation between testosterone level and self-reports of both verbal and physical aggression.
However, it appears that the evidence regarding the influence of testosterone in violent crime is not conclusive, possibly because of factors such as differences in the types of hormone measure used, the influence of the prison environment and the types of offenders examined. In addition, it is interesting to note that aggression may be linked to sex hormones generally, rather than only to androgens, as indicated by Michael's finding (1968) that oestrogens (female sex hormones) as well as androgens can trigger aggression in monkeys.
Sex
In Australia, men are at least ten times more likely than women to be charged with violent offences. While this might represent a certain degree of selectivity in the operation of the criminal justice system, it strains credulity to suggest that this differential does not represent real sex-based differences in violent behaviour, especially when it is characteristic of Western societies generally, and is probably a universal phenomenon; Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) observe that males are more aggressive than females in all societies from which reliable information is available, and that in general, sex differences in temperament and aggressive behaviour appear too early in life to be solely attributable to socialisation.
Eagly and Steffen (1986) found that the tendency for men to behave more aggressively than women was more pronounced for aggression that produces pain or physical injury than for aggression that produces psychological or social harm. Eagly and Steffen believe that sex differences in aggression are a function of perceived consequences of aggression that are learned as aspects of gender roles and other social roles.
These findings are supported by a study of 11 and 12-year-old children by Lagerspetz et al. (1988) who found that the social life of girls in this age group was more ruthless and aggressive than had been suggested by previous research. This was because in this study the researchers were looking for indirect social aggression rather than outright violent behaviour, and it was found in abundance. The researchers speculate that girls of this age are "practising' for the social life of adults, which is also potentially quite ruthless and cruel, while boys are still using more childish, hence directly violent, coping strategies.
Intelligence
Researchers have found that the average IQ of offender populations is about 10 points below that of the general population, and that the difference between the two groups is particularly apparent on verbal as opposed to performance scores (Glueck & Glueck 1950; Prentice & Kelly 1963). Furthermore, offences such as assault, homicide and rape are associated with lower IQS than the average within the offender population (Caplan & Gligor 1964).
Of course, IQ levels of offender populations in prisons may not accurately reflect the criminal population as a whole, if one assumes that a degree of intelligence is required for a criminal not to get caught. In any event, violent crimes have a much higher likelihood of arrest than property offences, and it seems likely that perpetrators of "risky" crimes, on the basis of arrest probabilities, consequently have lower IQ scores than perpetrators of "safer" crimes. Hence violent offenders may be disproportionately represented in prison.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Crimes of violence are usually crimes with an immediate payoff, in contrast to crimes requiring planning and preparation and possibly a deferred payoff. Impulsiveness itself is a negative correlate of intelligence and there is evidence to suggest that low IQ scores are in fact associated with impulsive crimes (Heilbrun 1979).
Camp (1977) has found that a deficiency of "internal speech", or the inability to use language constructively in problem solving is a predisposing factor towards aggressive behaviour in children, even after IQ is held constant. This indicates that aggression may be related more to personality than to intelligence, and the same might be said for impulsiveness as well.
Age
Whilst aggressiveness is a trait which can endure over the course of one's life, violence tends to be the province of the young. With some exceptions, most acts of criminal violence are perpetrated by persons, indeed by males, between the ages of 15 and 30. Although this may to some extent reflect the influence of culture and socialisation, it no doubt indicates a biological basis as well.
Diet
In recent years there has been a good deal of interest in the concept of a direct link between diet and behaviour, including violent behaviour. Generally, it has been postulated that certain substances increase arousal beyond the individual's capacity of control. Plesman (1985), for example, has suggested that hypoglycaemia (a sudden drop in blood sugar) can result in a number of physical symptoms, including irritability and uncontrollable Violence, and that this condition can be brought about by over-consumption of junk foods containing simple sugars.
This theory is not universally accepted, however. For instance, Ferguson (1987) states that behaviour in children has been observed to remain the same whether the food they eat contains sugar or sugar substitute. Indeed, he states that research indicated that sugar can induce drowsiness rather than increased activity.
Individual trace elements seem to have a definite influence on behaviour, however. Zinc, for instance, may be a natural tranquilliser, while a zinc deficiency can result in excessive absorption of cadmium, lead and copper, all of which can lead to behavioural problems (Schauss 1981). Quirk (1987) states that calcium deficiency has been implicated in a number of conditions where stress reactions have been excessive.
It would appear that much more research in this area is needed before any useful conclusions can be drawn. In fact, the American Dietetic Association has been so concerned at the volume of unscientific research and anecdotal material on the subject of diet and criminal behaviour which has been published that in 1984 it produced a position paper stating, amongst other things, the following points:
Valid evidence is lacking to support the claim that diet is an important determinant in the development of violence and criminal behaviour.
Valid evidence is lacking to support the hypothesis that reactive hypoglycaemia is a common cause of violent behaviour.
Inappropriate dietary treatment based on unfounded beliefs about the relationships between diet and criminal behaviour can have harmful effects (because) ... it can detract from efforts towards identification of effective treatment and prevention of the true causes of aberrant behaviour [and] it can lead to the dangerous belief that diet, rather than the individual has control over and responsibility for his/her behaviour (ADA Reports 1985).
Originally published:
Violence: directions for Australia / National Committee on Violence.
ISBN 0 642 14975 5
Canberra: Australian institute of Criminology, 1990; pp 64-69
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Is it justice to lethally inject a person with a dysfunctional brain?
Where do we draw the line? Schizophrenia, Autism?
When they commit a crime? Where is the line between sanity and insanity?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
People that have studied the criminal mind and know how a human being ends up as a murderer or other violent criminal.
yes, becos crime occurs in a vacuum. how about psychiatrists to talk about victim impact? attorneys and judges to talk about the realities of the justice system? police officers to talk about evidence collection? sociologists to talk about the impact of crime and the perception of its justice on the stability of a society? etc etc. you cannot isolate murder as being solely about the murderer and his childhood.
besides, what does it matter? in a deterministic world, the murderer had no choice, he's a born murderer. we should execute every murderer on principle becos we know there is no way they can choose to be peaceful. they're a murderer and have no choice about it. right?
It may sound impossible, but imagine you are a psychopath. What are your thoughts and feelings? Where is your conscience? What is going on inside your head?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It may sound impossible, but imagine you are a psychopath. What are your thoughts and feelings? Where is your conscience? What is going on inside your head?
from my understanding psychopaths are incapable of that kind of behavior. they lack empathy and cannot "put themselves" in someone else's place, so to speak. thus, it is easy for them to murder... they have no concept of the pain it causes or concern for another's feelings about dying. they are only capable of seeing from their own perspective and acting according to their wants or nees without regard for its impact on others.
Sex
In Australia, men are at least ten times more likely than women to be charged with violent offences. While this might represent a certain degree of selectivity in the operation of the criminal justice system, it strains credulity to suggest that this differential does not represent real sex-based differences in violent behaviour, especially when it is characteristic of Western societies generally, and is probably a universal phenomenon; Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) observe that males are more aggressive than females in all societies from which reliable information is available, and that in general, sex differences in temperament and aggressive behaviour appear too early in life to be solely attributable to socialisation.
Eagly and Steffen (1986) found that the tendency for men to behave more aggressively than women was more pronounced for aggression that produces pain or physical injury than for aggression that produces psychological or social harm. Eagly and Steffen believe that sex differences in aggression are a function of perceived consequences of aggression that are learned as aspects of gender roles and other social roles.
These findings are supported by a study of 11 and 12-year-old children by Lagerspetz et al. (1988) who found that the social life of girls in this age group was more ruthless and aggressive than had been suggested by previous research. This was because in this study the researchers were looking for indirect social aggression rather than outright violent behaviour, and it was found in abundance. The researchers speculate that girls of this age are "practising' for the social life of adults, which is also potentially quite ruthless and cruel, while boys are still using more childish, hence directly violent, coping strategies.
didnt you spend weeks last year trying to convince us all that it was bullshit that guys commit more violent crimes?
yes, becos crime occurs in a vacuum. how about psychiatrists to talk about victim impact? attorneys and judges to talk about the realities of the justice system? police officers to talk about evidence collection?
besides, what does it matter? in a deterministic world, the murderer had no choice, he's a born murderer. we should execute every murderer on principle becos we know there is no way they can choose to be peaceful. they're a murderer and have no choice about it. right?
That is ignoring sociological factors. The list includes biological factors which are typically catalyzed by some sociological events. The realm of collective responsibility.
What we have learned about criminals we have learned from criminals that are alive. Executing them puts an end to studying them. By studying them we can develop treatments and preventative measures. Also, if society by and large wasn't so damn selfish, they could learn some responsibility from criminology as well.
The matter of victims is entirely separate. It's understandable that a victim will want vengeance, but is that reason enough to end another life, a life that could have a chance? Especially when we know part of the responsibility for that life is ours.
Again, where do we draw the line?
If a rich woman impulsively steals items from a high-priced store. She will likely be diagnosed as kleptomaniac and absolved of the responsibility.
However, if a poor woman impulsively steals bread from a supermarket because she is hungry. She will be sentenced to jail.
Where is the continuity? How do we determine intended crime from unintended crime? If the schizophrenic kills someone because he thinks they are from the FBI to kill him, is it different than the hormonally imbalanced and physically abused 20 year old boy that murders someone in heat of an argument?
Where do you draw the line of mental illness? When we now know that the brain is the device of which the mind is only a process. The mind is entirely at the mercy of the brain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
from my understanding psychopaths are incapable of that kind of behavior. they lack empathy and cannot "put themselves" in someone else's place, so to speak. thus, it is easy for them to murder... they have no concept of the pain it causes or concern for another's feelings about dying. they are only capable of seeing from their own perspective and acting according to their wants or nees without regard for its impact on others.
So, you recognize that it is not their fault. But can you really imagine what that is like?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
didnt you spend weeks last year trying to convince us all that it was bullshit that guys commit more violent crimes?
In particular that was in Ontario. But yes, it is true, for Ontario. As I recall it was a conversation I was having with Jeanie. So I can see why she believed it to be true, if it's true for Australia. However, somehow I think this article might be wrong on this point. I haven't investigated this particular claim.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
from my understanding psychopaths are incapable of that kind of behavior. they lack empathy and cannot "put themselves" in someone else's place, so to speak. thus, it is easy for them to murder... they have no concept of the pain it causes or concern for another's feelings about dying. they are only capable of seeing from their own perspective and acting according to their wants or nees without regard for its impact on others.
This book comes from the reflections and experience of more than forty years spent in court. Aside from the practice of my profession, the topics I have treated are such as have always held my interest and inspired a taste for books that discuss the human machine with its manifestations and the causes of its varied activity. I have endeavored to present the latest scientific thought and investigation bearing upon the question of human conduct. I do not pretend to be an original investigator, nor an authority on biology, psychology or philosophy. I have simply been a student giving the subject such attention as I could during a fairly busy life. No doubt some of the scientific conclusions stated are still debatable and may finally be rejected. The scientific mind holds opinions tentatively and is always ready to reexamine, modify or discard as new evidence comes to light.
Naturally in a book of this sort there are many references to the human mind and its activities. In most books, whether scientific or not, the mind has generally been more closely associated with the brain than any other portion of the body. As a rule I have assumed that this view of mind and brain is correct. Often I have referred to it as a matter of course. I am aware that the latest investigations seem to establish the mind more as a function of the nervous system and the vital organs than of the brain. Whether the brain is like a telephone exchange and is only concerned with automatically receiving and sending out messages to the different parts of the body, or whether it registers impressions and compares them and is the seat of consciousness and thought, is not important in this discussion. Whatever mind may be, or through whatever part of the human system it may function, can make no difference in the conclusions I have reached.
C. Darrow
In-fact, much of the scientific ideas expressed in this book in 1922 have since been confirmed and elaborated on. The central premises of the book hold true even today, even more so today now that the science supports it entirely.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, you recognize that it is not their fault. But can you really imagine what that is like?
somewhat. but what i'm saying it doesn't make a difference. that can't be fixed. wouldn't determinism say that? psychopaths/sociopaths are already mythically good at mimicking "normal" humane reactions to things. they are often described as very charismatic and sympathetic people. they already know what is acceptable and not. there is no amount of therapy that can convince them they should obey.
In particular that was in Ontario. But yes, it is true, for Ontario. As I recall it was a conversation I was having with Jeanie. So I can see why she believed it to be true, if it's true for Australia. However, somehow I think this article might be wrong on this point. I haven't investigated this particular claim.
funny how since you disagree with the book's conclusions on sex factors, it might be wrong on that point. but we're all supposed to just accept that it is right on every other point becos you agree with the rest of them.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1865864.stm
GRRR!!!! This is so annoying!! I remember clips from that show but not the title!!
I will get to the bottom of this ... I'm on a mission!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Days_In_May
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0188626/
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/191655/Fourteen-Days-in-May-The-Capital-Punishment-Debate/overview
hmm....boring place to come....hey! that's what i've said to the person who quoted me. well, i agree with you, just don't steal what i've said
i would keep the death penalty in place. have a prison where there are nothing BUT death row inmates. but the condition would be that they could and would be (somehow) be a self supporting prison...try to escape, the die the next day. no exceptions.
i wouldn't drop the appeals process, but have a max number of times that it could be appealed. also (somehow) keep it from dragging out for 15 years before they fry.
somehow keep the abuse of the system down. hey, don't ask how many or whatever, i don't know...you're the almost lawyer.
if they get the penalty, the should die.
not to open up a can of worms (but i must) how many here that do not support the death penalty support abortion?
i support a woman's right to choose.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
fair enough. they have certain procedures designed to expedite appeals. they just don't work very well. a judge has scant reason to speed up a case where the guy is going nowhere anyway. they're already overworked with a huge backlog of cases.
when it comes down to it, i just don't think the death penalty is worth the trouble it causes. life in prison keeps us just as safe and death penalty has been shown not to be an effective deterrent. so it's expensive, divisive, and puts us on a short list with some of the most reprehensible countries in the world (including iran). i see no benefit to keeping it, aside from a desire for vengeance which i don't think is good enough to outweigh the problems it causes.
eh, that's a bad question. it's not a contradiction, or if it is it's just as much a contradiction as pro-life, pro-death penalty. the people of your example don't believe a fetus is a life and thus not requiring the same protection as a potentially innocent condemned man. the latter group i mention believe life is sacred but if you fuck up bad enough we're allowed to kill you for it. so neither side wins on this one and it has no bearing on the capital punishment debate really. any combination of these opinions can be logically consistent. just depends on your base assumptions.
i oppose capital punishment chiefly on financial and practicality grounds. i support abortion on the same grounds. im not in the business of making my moral judgment calls national law.
oh shit, here we go. start your own damn thread
ah shut up.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
common ground on the capital punishment, different ways to go about it.
as for the abortion, you may not be in the biz of making moral judgment calls national law..a bunch are. it's how it got changed in the 1st place. (prayer in sch, etc)
fair enough, though i think if you looked more closely the financial aspect falls on my side. as to practicality... that one is inherently kind of subjective, so to each their own.
on the second point, neutrality is not a moral judgment call. saying a christian prayer in a public school is making a moral judgment call... implying to kids "to belong you must be christian." not saying a christian prayer in a public school is not making a moral judgment call... it does not say anything other than "everyone that wants to pray to any god can do so at home."
as far as prayer in school, it doesn't have to be a christian prayer...they say pray to your god, whatever that might be.
like banning christmas stuff....shit, i don't want to sidetrack completely, i was just making the point that some people are out to make their morals the law.
i think i just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
you're right. there is no such thing as personal responsiblity. in fact, the whole justice system is a sham. No one is really at fault for their own actions and no one should be tried, judged or sentenced.
i can console myself just fine, thanks.
If I've analyzed the childhood and circumstances of, say Stalin, can i still call him a murdering thug? If his dad beat him or his mommy didn't hold him enough, can I still say he's a worthless piece of shit and the world is better off without him?
i think i can. in fact, i just did.
Oh noes!!!! i just labeled somebody! somebody call tha police!
unfortunately, it doesn't end up working out like that. but in general, im ok with a moment of silent reflection to start the school day.
as to banning xmas stuff, i don't see a huge problem with it. the government should be spending its money doing things like providing services, not buying christmas decor. if citizens want to put up displays, i see no reason they can't.
anyway, you're right, we're veering off track. i don't have any moral opposition to the death penalty. personally, i don't go in for executing people for any reason, but i think it's an entirely reasonable punishment for a murderer. the problem comes in when i distrust our processes for ascertaining guilt and think it's too expensive to be worth doing. so i'd just as soon get rid of it.
meaning?
Criminologists and Neuroscientists primarily.
People that have studied the criminal mind and know how a human being ends up as a murderer or other violent criminal.
Biological factors
In recent years, it has become apparent that biological and physiological factors are associated with violent behaviour. Some of these factors may be genetically transmitted from parent to child, others may result from peri-natal events, others still may occur randomly, and some may result from illness or injury over the course of one's life. It should be noted at the outset that violence is not a biological inevitability. Rather, human aggression and its expression through violence result from the complex interaction of physiological and social influences.
Congenital factors: inherited characteristics and peri-natal experiences
Aggressive parents tend to have aggressive children. The relative contributions of environment and heredity to this commonly observed parent-child similarity has been the subject of considerable debate.
Mednick (1988) has investigated whether violent behaviour is an inherited characteristic, and concluded, through a series of studies which compared the criminal histories of adopted children with those of their natural and adoptive parents, that no such relationship exists. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that certain inherited physiological properties are related to violence.
He has, for example, found a correlation between minor physical abnormalities (whether inheritable, arising from peri-natal trauma, or randomly occurring) and later violent offending, though only for those children raised in unstable, non-intact families. It thus appears that a stable family environment can compensate for the biological vulnerability represented by these minor physical abnormalities.
Mednick speculates that much violence, in the street as well as in the home, may be caused by less than optimal brain functioning. Aggressive behaviour in boys has frequently been reported as a very stable characteristic from an early age. Brain damage and consequent weakening of cortical control can occur very early in life. Peri-natal difficulties, whether naturally occurring or caused by illness, injury, or lifestyle, can be an important source of such damage. Again, this vulnerability can be amplified by unfavourable family circumstances or mitigated by supportive, nurturant parenting.
Mednick observes that this explanation is supported by repeated reports of a high incidence of brain damage in violent offenders (Nachson & Denno 1987). An increased incidence of epilepsy has been observed among prison inmates and juvenile delinquents (Gunn & Felton 1969; 1971; Loews 1976). It has also been suggested that impairment of frontal and temporal brain regions is associated with problems of self-control and with difficulties in comprehending the effects of one's actions (Pinches & Tucker 1978).
Mark and Irvin (1970) have observed that "an appreciable percentage of the relatively few individuals guilty of repeated personal violence are to be found in the 5-10 per cent of the population whose brains do not function in a perfectly normal way". They report that temporal lobe epilepsy was ten times more frequent in a population of 400 adult violent prisoners than would be expected in the general population. This has been supported by Monaro's finding (1978) that central nervous system dysfunction correlates with recurrent aggressive behaviour.
Abnormal patterns of electrical activity in the brain, as measured by EEG (electroencephalograph) readings, are believed to be linked to violence in some individuals. Mednick et al. (1982) have reviewed a number of studies, and conclude that between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of violent offenders manifest EEG abnormalities.
Certain locations in the brain are associated with aggressive behaviour, and with impulse control. Imbalances in the chemistry of the brain have also been associated with violent behaviour. Serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) are referred to as inhibitory neurotransmitters; low levels of these and related substances have been observed in highly aggressive patients and inmates (Lidberg et al. 1985).
Different neurological patterns underlie different forms of violence. The neurological basis of repetitive sexual aggression differs from that which underlies the actions of the professional "hit man". These in turn differ from those of the pub brawler.
Although it appears that a disproportionate number of violent offenders may suffer some sort of brain dysfunction, Nachson and Denno caution that such an association is likely to be indirect rather than direct: for example, brain dysfunction may adversely affect a person's intelligence, learning ability, impulse control, one's perception of the world, or ability to cope with frustrating events. It seems probable that the association between neurological dysfunction and aggressive behaviour is mediated by psychological processes and environmental factors. These provide the link between neurological and social explanations.
Autonomic nervous system responses
Mednick et al. (1982) have observed that some violent offenders, particularly those who appear remorseless or otherwise lacking in emotional responsiveness, manifest different physiological reactions to threatening situations than do "normal" individuals. Specifically, some violent offenders register lower pulse rates, blood pressure readings, and measures of galvanic skin response in response to impending threat.
Indeed, there are those individuals who actively seek risky situations for the sheer excitement of it. When such thrill seeking reaches a point which could be described as psychopathic recklessness, then an explanation for such behaviour may be found in the theory that such individuals are in fact searching for external stimulation to compensate for their low level of internal arousal. It seems that psychopaths suffer from "stimulation hunger", perhaps because of a physiological deficiency in the nervous system.
People classified as psychopathic on personality inventories have been found to pass lie detection tests, for example, because their autonomic nervous system is not aroused by experiencing the test. Likewise, the kind of EEG abnormalities found in these subjects is consistent with their being less alarmed than a non-psychopath by the procedures involved in conducting the test - indeed, despite electrodes dangling from their heads, they may fall asleep altogether (Wilson & Herrnstein 1985). Such findings have important implications for the criminal justice system in dealing with psychopathic offenders, as they are unlikely to respond to the deterrent aspect of sentencing if the threat of punishment holds no fears.
To be sure, there are many individuals with low arousal levels who are not violent criminals. A wide range of socially acceptable vocations or pastimes are available to them. A variety of other factors determine who becomes a bank robber, who becomes a war hero, and who becomes a Grand Prix racing car driver.
Hormonal Responses
It has been suggested by some researchers that a positive relationship exists between levels of plasma testosterone (a male hormone, or androgen), and aggressive and antisocial behaviour in the human male (Olweus 1988a, Burrowes et al. 1988). Olweus found that behaviour involving a response to provocation and threat had the clearest correlation with testosterone levels, and that unprovoked physical or verbal aggression also showed positive but weaker correlations. The underlying assumption here, based on experimental studies with animals, is that testosterone somehow acts as to cause aggressive behaviour. However, Olweus concedes that testosterone is only one out of many possible causal factors operating in his study.
Denno (1988), in a detailed review of the literature concerning hormonal influences, states that prisoners with histories of more violent crimes in adolescence have been found to have significantly higher levels of testosterone than prisoners without violent histories; that the most violent rapists in a prison population were found to have significantly higher levels than other subjects, including others convicted of rape; and research on teenage boys has shown a substantial correlation between testosterone level and self-reports of both verbal and physical aggression.
However, it appears that the evidence regarding the influence of testosterone in violent crime is not conclusive, possibly because of factors such as differences in the types of hormone measure used, the influence of the prison environment and the types of offenders examined. In addition, it is interesting to note that aggression may be linked to sex hormones generally, rather than only to androgens, as indicated by Michael's finding (1968) that oestrogens (female sex hormones) as well as androgens can trigger aggression in monkeys.
Sex
In Australia, men are at least ten times more likely than women to be charged with violent offences. While this might represent a certain degree of selectivity in the operation of the criminal justice system, it strains credulity to suggest that this differential does not represent real sex-based differences in violent behaviour, especially when it is characteristic of Western societies generally, and is probably a universal phenomenon; Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) observe that males are more aggressive than females in all societies from which reliable information is available, and that in general, sex differences in temperament and aggressive behaviour appear too early in life to be solely attributable to socialisation.
Eagly and Steffen (1986) found that the tendency for men to behave more aggressively than women was more pronounced for aggression that produces pain or physical injury than for aggression that produces psychological or social harm. Eagly and Steffen believe that sex differences in aggression are a function of perceived consequences of aggression that are learned as aspects of gender roles and other social roles.
These findings are supported by a study of 11 and 12-year-old children by Lagerspetz et al. (1988) who found that the social life of girls in this age group was more ruthless and aggressive than had been suggested by previous research. This was because in this study the researchers were looking for indirect social aggression rather than outright violent behaviour, and it was found in abundance. The researchers speculate that girls of this age are "practising' for the social life of adults, which is also potentially quite ruthless and cruel, while boys are still using more childish, hence directly violent, coping strategies.
Intelligence
Researchers have found that the average IQ of offender populations is about 10 points below that of the general population, and that the difference between the two groups is particularly apparent on verbal as opposed to performance scores (Glueck & Glueck 1950; Prentice & Kelly 1963). Furthermore, offences such as assault, homicide and rape are associated with lower IQS than the average within the offender population (Caplan & Gligor 1964).
Of course, IQ levels of offender populations in prisons may not accurately reflect the criminal population as a whole, if one assumes that a degree of intelligence is required for a criminal not to get caught. In any event, violent crimes have a much higher likelihood of arrest than property offences, and it seems likely that perpetrators of "risky" crimes, on the basis of arrest probabilities, consequently have lower IQ scores than perpetrators of "safer" crimes. Hence violent offenders may be disproportionately represented in prison.
Camp (1977) has found that a deficiency of "internal speech", or the inability to use language constructively in problem solving is a predisposing factor towards aggressive behaviour in children, even after IQ is held constant. This indicates that aggression may be related more to personality than to intelligence, and the same might be said for impulsiveness as well.
Age
Whilst aggressiveness is a trait which can endure over the course of one's life, violence tends to be the province of the young. With some exceptions, most acts of criminal violence are perpetrated by persons, indeed by males, between the ages of 15 and 30. Although this may to some extent reflect the influence of culture and socialisation, it no doubt indicates a biological basis as well.
Diet
In recent years there has been a good deal of interest in the concept of a direct link between diet and behaviour, including violent behaviour. Generally, it has been postulated that certain substances increase arousal beyond the individual's capacity of control. Plesman (1985), for example, has suggested that hypoglycaemia (a sudden drop in blood sugar) can result in a number of physical symptoms, including irritability and uncontrollable Violence, and that this condition can be brought about by over-consumption of junk foods containing simple sugars.
This theory is not universally accepted, however. For instance, Ferguson (1987) states that behaviour in children has been observed to remain the same whether the food they eat contains sugar or sugar substitute. Indeed, he states that research indicated that sugar can induce drowsiness rather than increased activity.
Individual trace elements seem to have a definite influence on behaviour, however. Zinc, for instance, may be a natural tranquilliser, while a zinc deficiency can result in excessive absorption of cadmium, lead and copper, all of which can lead to behavioural problems (Schauss 1981). Quirk (1987) states that calcium deficiency has been implicated in a number of conditions where stress reactions have been excessive.
It would appear that much more research in this area is needed before any useful conclusions can be drawn. In fact, the American Dietetic Association has been so concerned at the volume of unscientific research and anecdotal material on the subject of diet and criminal behaviour which has been published that in 1984 it produced a position paper stating, amongst other things, the following points:
Valid evidence is lacking to support the claim that diet is an important determinant in the development of violence and criminal behaviour.
Valid evidence is lacking to support the hypothesis that reactive hypoglycaemia is a common cause of violent behaviour.
Inappropriate dietary treatment based on unfounded beliefs about the relationships between diet and criminal behaviour can have harmful effects (because) ... it can detract from efforts towards identification of effective treatment and prevention of the true causes of aberrant behaviour [and] it can lead to the dangerous belief that diet, rather than the individual has control over and responsibility for his/her behaviour (ADA Reports 1985).
Originally published:
Violence: directions for Australia / National Committee on Violence.
ISBN 0 642 14975 5
Canberra: Australian institute of Criminology, 1990; pp 64-69
Where do we draw the line? Schizophrenia, Autism?
When they commit a crime? Where is the line between sanity and insanity?
yes, becos crime occurs in a vacuum. how about psychiatrists to talk about victim impact? attorneys and judges to talk about the realities of the justice system? police officers to talk about evidence collection? sociologists to talk about the impact of crime and the perception of its justice on the stability of a society? etc etc. you cannot isolate murder as being solely about the murderer and his childhood.
besides, what does it matter? in a deterministic world, the murderer had no choice, he's a born murderer. we should execute every murderer on principle becos we know there is no way they can choose to be peaceful. they're a murderer and have no choice about it. right?
from my understanding psychopaths are incapable of that kind of behavior. they lack empathy and cannot "put themselves" in someone else's place, so to speak. thus, it is easy for them to murder... they have no concept of the pain it causes or concern for another's feelings about dying. they are only capable of seeing from their own perspective and acting according to their wants or nees without regard for its impact on others.
didnt you spend weeks last year trying to convince us all that it was bullshit that guys commit more violent crimes?
That is ignoring sociological factors. The list includes biological factors which are typically catalyzed by some sociological events. The realm of collective responsibility.
What we have learned about criminals we have learned from criminals that are alive. Executing them puts an end to studying them. By studying them we can develop treatments and preventative measures. Also, if society by and large wasn't so damn selfish, they could learn some responsibility from criminology as well.
The matter of victims is entirely separate. It's understandable that a victim will want vengeance, but is that reason enough to end another life, a life that could have a chance? Especially when we know part of the responsibility for that life is ours.
Again, where do we draw the line?
If a rich woman impulsively steals items from a high-priced store. She will likely be diagnosed as kleptomaniac and absolved of the responsibility.
However, if a poor woman impulsively steals bread from a supermarket because she is hungry. She will be sentenced to jail.
Where is the continuity? How do we determine intended crime from unintended crime? If the schizophrenic kills someone because he thinks they are from the FBI to kill him, is it different than the hormonally imbalanced and physically abused 20 year old boy that murders someone in heat of an argument?
Where do you draw the line of mental illness? When we now know that the brain is the device of which the mind is only a process. The mind is entirely at the mercy of the brain.
So, you recognize that it is not their fault. But can you really imagine what that is like?
In particular that was in Ontario. But yes, it is true, for Ontario. As I recall it was a conversation I was having with Jeanie. So I can see why she believed it to be true, if it's true for Australia. However, somehow I think this article might be wrong on this point. I haven't investigated this particular claim.
i think i dated her for awhile.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm
In-fact, much of the scientific ideas expressed in this book in 1922 have since been confirmed and elaborated on. The central premises of the book hold true even today, even more so today now that the science supports it entirely.
somewhat. but what i'm saying it doesn't make a difference. that can't be fixed. wouldn't determinism say that? psychopaths/sociopaths are already mythically good at mimicking "normal" humane reactions to things. they are often described as very charismatic and sympathetic people. they already know what is acceptable and not. there is no amount of therapy that can convince them they should obey.
funny how since you disagree with the book's conclusions on sex factors, it might be wrong on that point. but we're all supposed to just accept that it is right on every other point becos you agree with the rest of them.