Posted by underdark "I wonder what she'd look like dead."-Edmund Kemper, serial killer "God said he was a space alien and I had to kill him."-Vince Weiguang Li, schizophrenic murderer Help me out here...which of these statements is LESS crazy?

I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think crazy is a continuum. There's a difference between killing someone while knowing it's wrong (such as feeling a compulsion), and killing someone because you felt justified for whatever reason (God told you to, etc.)

Posted by MutantMandias Well, crazy is a meaningless term, but I would say that it is not at all unusual to wonder what someone would look like when they are dead. It is decidedly unusual to follow up on that thought by killing someone. However, a person believing that God has told them to kill someone for a nonsensical reason, and the person following up by killing people, is historically a pretty common occurrence, and many people consider this just good clean religion. That's cute.

Ed is a decidedly unusual fellow. And that's actually a quote he gave a reporter.
And the historical consistency of the religiously deluded to kill people because god told them too does not make it any more acceptable.

And good clean religion? Even without the decapitation and cannibalism I'm rather unsure any of that actually exists.

Underdark, you should read a book called The Psychopath Test. According to the 20-some-odd question test outlined in the DSM, CEO's and other business magnates pretty consistently qualify as being a diagnosed psychopath.

We're getting away from the fact that this man has a diagnosed mental illness, which is no less real than cancer or AIDS or the flu. It's a real thing. That man isn't just "crazy", he's legitimately ill. His brain cannot process the reality you or I experience.

Are serial killers mentally ill? Undoubtedly, but they kill out of desire and because they find it satisfying. They enjoy playing God; they get off on seeing the light go out of someone's eyes. This poor man killed out of fear, because he truly believed he was being spoken to by God and that his life was in danger. He probably didn't want to do it - his brain gave him no choice.

To dismiss him as just "crazy" is insulting to the sciences of psychology, neuroscience, psychiatry and it's also incredibly insulting to people with mental illnesses. I suppose people with extreme cases of depression, anxiety or obsessive compulsive disorder are nothing but loonies to you too?

This is the sort of mentality that led to state institutions locking up thousands of people in the 19th and 20th centuries who had curable mental illnesses or nervous breakdowns, but everyone was too afraid and couldn't be bothered. And we all know that these institutions were just shining beacons of good care and rehabilitation.

You suppose a great deal Lexi, not all of it correct.
I understand he has a mental illness. I also understand he killed a man because of it.

My opinion is that impairment, no matter the cause, does not free you from the consequences of your actions. Ever.

Drunk?
High?
Legally insane?
Conditioned by a crappy childhood?

Sorry about your luck. You have demonstrated the capability to do something mind-numbingly horrible when not properly medicated. This action will not be repeated. You stay in the facility for good. The universe isn't fair.

You will note I did not advocate his death. And not just because I know Canada has no death penalty. Because I recognize that he very likely had no control over his actions. His brain made him do it. I personally would be unwilling to risk it happening again.

On the topic of "his brain made him do it" though, an interesting point rears it's head...you and I are in agreement that serial killers are mentally ill. Just how culpable do you hold them since, when you get right down to it, "their brain makes them like it"? The same would apply to other mentally ill violent offenders whose crimes are caused by their compulsive needs.

In closing, I will point out that I am not in the mental health field. I don't maintain any working knowledge of the "correct" terms currently in use. I do have a great working knowledge of 1920's mental health terms and facilities (thank you thirty years of torturing Call of Cthulhu players). Not being at all politically correct I do have a tenancy to use archaic terms in regular conversation since those are the terms I use in most in-character discussions. Which are pretty much the only times I normally talk on the subject. Since this seems to offend you I'm attempting to clean up the language. This time.

Posted by underdark Ed is a decidedly unusual fellow. And that's actually a quote he gave a reporter.

Yes, I'm well aware, having recently attended a play based on his life, a degree in psychology, and personally knowing someone who has worked with sociopaths who have exhibited similar traits and behaviors.

Posted by underdark And the historical consistency of the religiously deluded to kill people because god told them too does not make it any more acceptable.

Right, but if we're talking about abnormal, killing because God tells you to is less abnormal than killing simply because you don't care that killing is a no-no.

Posted by underdark Yyou from the consequences of your actions. Ever. Drunk? High? Legally insane? Conditioned by a crappy childhood? Sorry about your luck. You have demonstrated the capability to do something mind-numbingly horrible when not properly medicated. This action will not be repeated. You stay in the facility for good. The universe isn't fair.

Good point. So, should we put everyone in jail who has ever had a drink of alcohol, or just the people who have commuted a crime while drunk? Either way, they should clearly never be let out because there is a chance that they might commit a crime again.

Posted by underdark My opinion is that impairment, no matter the cause, does not free you from the consequences of your actions. Ever. Drunk? High? Legally insane? Conditioned by a crappy childhood? Sorry about your luck. You have demonstrated the capability to do something mind-numbingly horrible when not properly medicated. This action will not be repeated. You stay in the facility for good. The universe isn't fair.

This raises a very interesting question regarding culpability. Most people who get drunk or high know that their inhibitions will be lowered because of it, and depending on the degree of intoxication, they may do things they later regret.

I agree, though, that schizos can be dangerous, and need to be segregated from society, if not for society's good than for their own. But I would stop short of punishment.

On the topic of "his brain made him do it" though, an interesting point rears it's head...you and I are in agreement that serial killers are mentally ill. Just how culpable do you hold them since, when you get right down to it, "their brain makes them like it"? The same would apply to other mentally ill violent offenders whose crimes are caused by their compulsive needs.

I know you're not asking this of me, but I'll answer anyway. When they are aware of the wrongness of their actions, but either fail to control them or fail to seek help controlling them, then they can be held culpable, in my opinion.

I do have a great working knowledge of 1920's mental health terms and facilities (thank you thirty years of torturing Call of Cthulhu players).

+1!

Posted by MutantMandias Good point. So, should we put everyone in jail who has ever had a drink of alcohol, or just the people who have commuted a crime while drunk? Either way, they should clearly never be let out because there is a chance that they might commit a crime again.

The question is the body count. If you have murdered someone, once convicted you don't get out.

Let me ask you one MM...some theist shoots a doctor that provides abortions. He does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but he is sufficiently deluded to actually believe that his god directed him to do this based on his interpretation of scripture. Should this person ever be allowed back into the community after his conviction?

(Note-I know that the example screams christian right, but I didn't specify religion on purpose. I only specified gender since 90+% of convicted murders are still male IIRC)

Posted by underdark The question is the body count. If you have murdered someone, once convicted you don't get out.

What? Where do you live? Do you really think that's true?

Posted by underdark Let me ask you one MM...some theist shoots a doctor that provides abortions. He does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but he is sufficiently deluded to actually believe that his god directed him to do this based on his interpretation of scripture. Should this person ever be allowed back into the community after his conviction?

Exactly the same as this case and every other case... Every person should be given the opportunity to have evaluations of their fitness to return to society. As I have said, there are people who will never meet that requirement, but some people will. I have known and worked with people who have been convicted of murder. Most of them seemed like good people, but one did make me very fucking nervous as a person (and I think there's a chance that he may have simply escaped from prison).

Insanity is not a medical term, it is a legal one. It really has no connection to any specific mental health condition. It's been years since I've really looked at it, but if I remember correctly, the insanity determination is based on whether the person is able to predict that consequences of their actions. Ultimately, the purpose of the insanity ruling is to isolate people who can not be deterred by laws or social restrictions.

So, to your question, if someone kills for his religious beliefs, and knows that what he did was going to get him put in jail and be considered wrong by most people, and he continues to believe that he should kill again, then no, that person seems to be one of the nonredeemables that I have already discussed. He should be treated with respect and continue to be evaluated from time to time, but if that is where his mind is and it won't change, then he is not safe to return to society.

But, if he ever comes around a bit and feels that what he has done is not acceptable behavior in society, then we can talk. Maybe even if he continues to think that God should kill the kind of people that he killed, but as long as he joins the rest of us with the opinion that he shouldn't be out there killing people, then he can probably be set free.

Posted by underdark Let me ask you one MM...some theist shoots a doctor that provides abortions. He does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but he is sufficiently deluded to actually believe that his god directed him to do this based on his interpretation of scripture. Should this person ever be allowed back into the community after his conviction?

There is also a fair chance of recidivism in this case, so no, he should not get out.