The Death Penalty

Seconded.

The short version: we are not blank slates.

Those born with the biology that would let them survive the battlefield and other hostile person-on-person politics? Can't always dial it back, even though quite a lot of them can see the problems in an intellectual, theoretical way. But, you can see why those neurological set-ups have had (and continue to have) evolutionary advantages, despite the current social disadvantages.

Having said all that, one technique for trigger-management is a simple one — stay away from what triggers the behaviour that gets you in deep trouble. Imprisonment is one way of doing that... even if it's not the most pleasant way. -_-

edited 17th Aug '15 11:10:17 AM by Euodiachloris

My understanding was that we cannot remove the compulsion and that the morality of actions may well not be learnable. However that's not the same as the person being unable to not act on the compulsion.

So our hypothetical toddler eater will always want to eat toddlers, he will never understand why society consider toddler eating wrong, correct? However does that mean he is unable to learn that society is not okay with him eating toddlers and that it will punish him for doing so?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Either they can control or not. If not, we would basically kill them for something they're not even responsible for. Punishing someone for a disease is just pointless.

Control what though? The desire or the action of fulfilling the desire?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

No. He will fully and completely understand that toddler eating is wrong, that it causes an enormous harm to others, and that there is a very obvious punishment expecting him for eating a toddler.

He however, does it anyways.

Why? There are theories. Some say that such acts are the only ones that are able to trigger certain centers in the brain which release a rush of endorphin. I think you may be bale to find it in wikipedia if you browse around a bit, the stages through which a serial killer goes by when murdering, since it is documented as well.

Fantasizing. Planning. Commiting. Keeping mementos. Reliving. And doing it again. How he dissasociates himself in the act given to the pure pleasure be it a sadistic one, a fetishistic one, or both.

The guy I refered to on another post of mine, Robert Hare, refered to them as literally alien to humanity, given how they are simply incapable of responding emotionally normal to events like these. We might as well be dealing with something not human.

But they are perfectly aware, perfectly knowledgeable and completely aware in what they are doing and why it is wrong. They just don't care, and sometimes, they cannot control it (another differentiation made between psycopaths. organized types vs disorganized).

edited 17th Aug '15 12:54:27 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

What do you mean by "Cannot control it"? Does their mind lose active control over their limbs or something?

Also how many of them "do it anyway"? Isn't there a big thing about how many of those with desires that we have criminalised acting upon do not act upon them because society has told them no?

The ones who act don't care, the ones who choose not to act obviously do care, what's the differential factor?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Think of it as a craving. You just couldnt help eating that ice cream even though you are on a diet. They just couldnt help skinning that guy alive. And after you eat the ice cream you go OH WELL. And after the psycopath skins the guy and realizes they will go to prison (or not) they will go OH WELL.

It is not mind control, or something horribly dissociative. To them, it is quite literally But for Me, It Was Tuesday.

As for "how many", Hare (via wikipedia) mentions this, if it helps oslve your question a bit

We know not enough an not enough studies to tell how the brain works to tell exactly what makes one act in a certain way and others in another. But in either case, the differential factor is hard to determine. Can be opportunity. Can be genes. Can be that they just felt like it.

We don't know yet.

edited 17th Aug '15 1:17:03 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

That.

My BFF is a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic, one of the most heavily demonized mental illnesses in modern culture. She hears voices when nobody's talking, voices that tell her terrible things she doesn't want to hear. She sees motion in stationary objects, particularly walls which ripple and flow like water. She sometimes has severe hallucinatory episodes where reality around her seems obtrusively different, like viewing all humans as Bug People. She has nightmares that follow her into the waking world and continue to torment her visually and audibly for hours after the fact.

She's dealt with it since she was a toddler and will continue to deal with it for the rest of her life. It is a permanent fixture of her reality. Medication helps to make the symptoms less obtrusive but does not eliminate them altogether, and her ability to function requires a certain level of willfully continuing onward despite it all.

But she handles it. She is capable of recognizing that she has a problem and can make logical assumptions about what is real and what is not based on her experience living with schizophrenia. On rare occasions, she makes mistakes in her judgment of the reality she lives with - for instance, she once blew out a tire running over a truck part that had fallen off in the highway because even though she saw it, she couldn't tell what it was and thought it was a hallucination - but those instances are few and far between, and relatively harmless when they occur.

It's one thing to suffer from an illness. It's another to be consumed by it. People can learn to identify what is wrong with their mind and worldview. Even if they can't make the problem go away, they can learn how to function as a normal person despite its presence in their mind.

The problem is that we only pay attention to the mentally ill when they're committing crimes, which creates the illusion that these illnesses can only result in committing crimes. We never see the schizophrenic with a normal life, or the well-adjusted pedophile who keeps his urges in check, or the social malcontent who never harms a single person in his entire life, because they aren't newsworthy.

But to judge the illness based solely on the actions of those who gave in and used it to justify their crimes is no different than judging all black people by the actions of those in prison, or judging all Muslims by the actions of terrorists. It's an unfair Sampling Bias to reinforce pre-existing prejudices.

edited 17th Aug '15 1:20:27 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

That explains what percentage of the criminal population they make up, not what percentage of them are part of the criminal population.

edited 17th Aug '15 1:20:21 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Ok, listen. I need to say this and it is going to make me sound like a real fucking asshole. Because it seriously makes me sound like too pragmatic over the point of trivializing people's suffering and difficulties. I need you to understand that I am not, that it is pragmatical, but it also follows the reason of public health and safety, ethical guidelines.

But the comparison of a schizophrenic case, with that of psycopathy hinges on really, vastly different results.

If the drug addict recedes into drugs, if the schizophrenic has a psychotic attack, if the depressive person gets sad, if the kleptomaniac stole something, if the person on a diet ate an ice cream...those are all things that are either expected, or setbacks that on the long run are pretty manageable and hopefully recoverable.

But if toddler eatin jim eats a toddler, we are not getting that toddler back.

That is NOT an acceptable risk. At all.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

And? How is that analogous to a personality type?

Never mind the many schizophrenics who don't respond to medication, because their biochemistry differs too much for the blunt tools we are using to be as affective as they are with others. There's a reason beyond "can't be bothered" that many actively choose to not take the medication. They are not dreaming up the side effects they suffer. And, in quite a few cases, may well not be seeing much benefit day-to-day. Wrong meds for you can mean no decent effects for you, too. -_-

Schizophrenia isn't just a one gene issue. But, at the same time, compared to antisocial personality disorder, it's vastly slimmed down in its genetic and epigenetic components.

Either way, I'd personally advocate locking up paranoid schizophrenics who cannot stay away from cannabis or take their meds... whether by circumstance or choice. Because they are ticking timebombs for something very unfortunate to occur. Mainly for themselves. -_-

edited 17th Aug '15 1:42:02 PM by Euodiachloris

A drug addict receding into drugs and a schizophrenic suffering a meltdown are just as capable of being a dangerous threat to themselves and others as Toddler Jim is. Which is why they're just as heavily demonized as Toddler Eating Jim.

But they shouldn't be, and neither should Jim. If Jim eats a toddler, that's his choice that he made. The illness didn't force him to make that choice. It was a factor in why he made that choice, but the illness didn't pull that trigger, Jim did.

Think about crimes of passion. Bob comes home and finds Alice is sleeping with Tom. Bob flips out and murders Alice and Tom in a frothing rage. This would be prosecuted like any other murder. The fact that it was a crime of passion and not a premeditated murder would be considered during the proceedings. What would absolutely never be considered, however, is whether this crime of passion is evidence that every person who has ever been in love should be considered a murderer waiting to happen.

Mental illness does not murder people. People murder people. Mental illness may provide an encouragement, but there is always a choice.

edited 17th Aug '15 2:01:49 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

There is a severe misconstruction you are doing regarding culpability and elements that lead to behavior.

For starters: Both types of murder, wether it was Toddler eating jim, or the crime of passion, are judged by the law equally. Hence when we are talking about how to deal with them, we will be not making a difference in the punishments, justice, or security issues we will use regarding them (Since this thread is about one of those types)

Second: No one is saying that because all depressed people pose a small (if insignificant statistically speaking) chance of harming loads of people (like that germanwings thing), it means we are going to keep depressed people out of society.

No one is saying that because schizophrenic people pose a small (if slightly larger than depressed people) chance of harming themselves or others, we will keep them away from society.

We have tools for depression, and some tools for schizophrenia. We know about them a bit more, we can fight and we can try to better their lives. Whereas psycopaths have so far been impossible to keep them from thinking and acting as they are. There is nothing that we know of other than chaining them for life, or killing them, that will make them be a small, even if very, very small, chance of causing whitechapels, zodiacs, or BT Ks.

It is not worth it, and the comparisons and knowledge we have are also not as similar. Even if it sounds ridiculous that we might be judging people based on some sadistic whims, understand it goes beyond mere want, and that it is not worth it to take such risks because we have no countermeasures for it.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

I know there are treatments for many mental illnesses - but not all of those treatments are fully effective, and many of them rely on the person in question continuing to take their medication. And on top of that, some people just don't respond well to medication. When I say "will not", I mean exactly that - we attempted to rehabilitate them, and they refused/rejected the opportunity to change and become a better person. That's something we can all agree on. The difference I was looking at is that someone who commits a crime of passion, generally speaking, is a very low risk of committing additional crimes afterwards. Then there are people who decide to do something like rob a bank because they are bored. If we can't rehabilitate them, whether because their mental illness prevents it or just because they don't want to be normal good citizens ... now what do we do with them? We shouldn't let them out into society, and depending on what crimes they committed, a lot of people will feel that they don't deserve to be given back a normal life.

Think of it this way: if someone is convicted of a crime like embezzling, how many companies are going to turn around and hire them after they've served their sentence? Even if they claim to be fully rehabilitated? Damn few, because it's in human psychology to consider that person as forever a thief. When their crime is murdering someone, or even greater crimes, what's the acceptable risk for releasing them back into society?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Reading about this it is funny to me how many people order fast food, and KFC.

Props goes to the one person who asked for Buffalo steak, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and sugar-free pecan pie and sugar-free black walnut ice cream.

KEEP THAT SUGARY SHIT AWAY FROM ME. THAT GIVES DIABETES AND CAN KILL.

edited 26th Aug '15 11:11:49 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Allow me to introduce my opinion. I'm of a mind that the death penalty has its place, but, like some have stated, it should be reserved for the worst of the worst. For example, if Osama bin Laden had been taken alive, we'd probably have to consider him worthy of it.

At some point, you have to consider people like Timothy McVeigh incorrigible. At some point, they've come to hate you for reasons that involve the rest of society and therefore cannot be relieved by society (it's like a little sister trying to console a big sister who's big problem is the little sister). Throw this kind of rebel in prison and they'll just vow to break out, especially (like in the case of "El Chapo") if they have friends.

For others, they simply cannot relate. I believe some MRI studies have shown parts of psychopath's brains aren't working: in particular, the part that allows for empathy. Empathy is something that cannot be taught because it presents a Catch-22: you need to be able to understand someone else to learn from that person, and that requires empathy. Simply put, that means you need empathy to learn empathy from someone else: a paradox. For people, you either got it or you don't, end of. It's like trying to teach someone born blind to appreciate the Mona Lisa (something that requires sight to appreciate): a born-blind has never experienced sight so has no point of reference. Similarly for someone born without empathy.

That's why I see a reason for the Death Penalty: because there are basically random "rejects" of society: people who are continual threats to society so long as they continue living. How else can you deal with those kinds of people?

edited 18th Nov '15 1:11:25 AM by WhosAsking

Build prisons they can't break out of?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

So they should get killed for something they have no control over?

Yeah I call BS on the "psychopath" point. I read about an autistic person who learned how to process social signs and became a functional individual - I can't say normal because that kind of story is anything but. Autists lack the basic understanding of the thousands of little clues in everyday behavior, yet in some situations they can actually learn their meaning.

So if it is possible, I don't see why psychopaths would be beyond redemption.

They said that about Alcatraz, if I recall. And people still broke out.^note living to tell the tale? We don't know? Sooner or later, someone will break out of a Supermax. It's only a matter of time.

The same argument is made about fighting animals. The problem with that line of thinking is you have to think of the greater good. To quote Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So the question must be asked: "Is it at all possible for the imprisoned to ever be integrated back into society?" And this is a question that has to be done on a case-by-case basis because each person is different.

An autistic can still have the capacity for empathy but lacks the means to apply it properly due to mental retardation. That's a whole world of difference from not having the capacity at all due to for example not having a working amygdala.

But in both cases it means that a brain is unable to process what is considered to be basic information. In one case, empathy, in the other, social cues. If you can voluntarily learn social cues, why would empathy be different exactly?

I mean, the autist said that she (I think she was a woman) still had no "reflex". When you see someone smiling, you do not have a thought process - "she smiles, henceforth she is happy" - the information is instantaneous. This autist said that she always had to analyze the face of people she is talking too, it's just that she became more and more skilled with the years in gathering all the clues and reaching the proper conclusion.

So why wouldn't a psychopath willing to learn be able to basically teach him/herself empathy exactly? The same way - thought processes to learn. There are psychopaths who never killed or harmed anybody after all, they do not need to hunt, they just don't care if they do. "A child is crying, it is a sad event, I should not mock him/hit him". "People are grieving, they are sad, I should not say that the person that died was an asshole".

edited 18th Nov '15 2:55:53 AM by Julep

Death penalty should never be an option. I can understand it in times of war because of the circumnstances, but don't matter how incorrigible a person may see, ending her life should only be a option if she is threatening another life. In the moment, not as after a judgement.

You claim that God is opressing us, but I see you opressing others without needing a God.

Just as you get low function autism, you get low functioning antisocial personality disorder. Which means the poor sods whacked with that have about as much chance learning to fly under their own steam as "fit in". There's a point where the neural infrastructure doesn't exist for some pathways to even hope to form, regardless of how well the rest of the brain functions.

We are talking personality types, people. Which sometimes get a little too intense for the good of those who have them. Sure, many can learn to juggle what they've got without crashing and burning. That's what "high functioning" means — high IQ not required (but it can help). Having said that, it's not easy and can go badly wrong without either early intervention or decent training.

Which a lot of people and places suck at providing. Preventative mental health services are always the first things cut in any budget. And, 25 years down the line, some poor sod who might have functioned well can't because nobody worked out where they differed from "average".

Personally, I don't think you deserve a death sentence for being systematically screwed over, however badly you impact others with a borked sympathy-empathy issue you have never had full control over.

edited 18th Nov '15 4:53:54 AM by Euodiachloris

The Death Penalty must be an option because there are people who can be continually dangerous: even in prison (think of all the crazies who strangle their cellmates, all the murderers who broke out of prison—including the ones from New York earlier this year—the guys who were desperate enough to break off Alcatraz—and let's not start with the infamous Birdman—and finally "El Chapo," the guy with to many connection he managed to break out of probably the strongest prison in Mexico). There are people for whom their very existence is a threat to the rest of society. Harsh, but so is Nature.

Suppose we had taken Osama bin Laden alive? How would you handle his custody such that you don't invite some sort of breakout attempt: either from within or without?

"Crazies"... how objective of you.