View Full Version : Off with his head?
Gathercole
06-14-2006, 10:28 PM
This was inspired by a conversation I was having with my wife. We were talking about the University of Florida study that found lethal injection was often being applied in such a way that the condemned might be left paralyzed but conscious, and experience agonizing pain as the third drug stopped his heart. My wife said "But there is no more humane method!" Upon which I had this insight: a humane method is easy, just strap a block of high explosive onto the head. It's perfectly painless. The problem is, it would be rather gruesome. What do you think?
Xander
06-15-2006, 12:06 AM
As long as it's painless for the executionee. I don't think that anyone HAS to watch, 'cept prolly an official death certification person. I'm sure there's someone out there that wouldn't mind it. World's full of sick people. "Lethal injection: sometimes painful, but decorous" makes it look like they're trying to satisfy an audience.
BornOK1st
06-15-2006, 12:39 AM
BANG..SPLASH!!
Vaguely reminiscent of the two lads that tried to kill themselves with shotguns after listening to Def Leppard (and who wouldn't). They placed said weapons in their mouths and pulled the trigger. Bang. Unfortunately, one of them missed. Well, blew his face off but survived - and then sued the band for planting the idea in his head in the first place.
They stated that the band had placed subliminal messages on the album that made them do it. It came out in court that there were indeed devilish messages, recorded backwards. However, they simply said 'buy more DEf Leppard.' Case thrown out.
Choobus
06-15-2006, 01:50 AM
I don't understand why you have to use some elaborate drug cocktail for an execution, but the cia have drugs that will kill you stone dead if you even read the name aloud. It's all bollocks. A good old fashioned firing squad is perfectly adequate.
Coatsy
06-15-2006, 03:58 AM
I hate to be the one who sucks all humour out of the thread, but no method of execution is ethical. The state should never have the right to take someone's life. I realise that often the vitcim's family (in murder cases) often have strong feelings on the issue, but the idea of having a government decide who has the right to live and who doesn't creeps me out. The whole thing seems too 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' or 'V for Vendetta' to me.
The Judge
06-15-2006, 04:51 AM
BANG..SPLASH!!
Vaguely reminiscent of the two lads that tried to kill themselves with shotguns after listening to Def Leppard (and who wouldn't). They placed said weapons in their mouths and pulled the trigger. Bang. Unfortunately, one of them missed. Well, blew his face off but survived - and then sued the band for planting the idea in his head in the first place.
They stated that the band had placed subliminal messages on the album that made them do it. It came out in court that there were indeed devilish messages, recorded backwards. However, they simply said 'buy more DEf Leppard.' Case thrown out.
I thought that was Judas Priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Priest#Subliminal_message_trial) ;)
Professor Chaos
06-15-2006, 05:33 AM
I must be honest, I, like Coatsy, am against capital punishment. But not necessarily for the same reasons. I mostly agree with the ethical arguments surrounding it, but primarily I think it's letting our planet's finest get off too easy.
Just use a Muslim terrorist as an example. If Osama bin Laden were finally captured, would you rather:
A.) See him executed quickly, while the Islamic world rejoices at his martyrdom
or
B.) Imprisoned in New York.
I'd rather see him repeatedly anally raped by New York's "finest" than die a painless death.
BornOK1st
06-15-2006, 05:37 AM
BANG..SPLASH!!
Vaguely reminiscent of the two lads that tried to kill themselves with shotguns after listening to Def Leppard (and who wouldn't). They placed said weapons in their mouths and pulled the trigger. Bang. Unfortunately, one of them missed. Well, blew his face off but survived - and then sued the band for planting the idea in his head in the first place.
They stated that the band had placed subliminal messages on the album that made them do it. It came out in court that there were indeed devilish messages, recorded backwards. However, they simply said 'buy more DEf Leppard.' Case thrown out.
I thought that was Judas Priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Priest#Subliminal_message_trial) ;)
Fair play - Judas Preist it is.
Single Serving Jack
06-15-2006, 05:44 AM
I agree with Coatsy, but for the sake of argument surely the most humane method of execution would be a drug administered that causes death while sleeping, i.e. the person never regains consciousness.
RenaissanceMan
06-15-2006, 05:58 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
The reason the actual death part of the death penalty is so wierd is that it's set up so noone actually knows if they killed the guy or not... at least until it's too late. A firing squad has only one guy shooting live ammo, lethal injection has two doctors inserting needles (One with a 'placebo') etc. etc. It's so rube goldburg.
Coatsy
06-15-2006, 06:39 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
The reason the actual death part of the death penalty is so wierd is that it's set up so noone actually knows if they killed the guy or not... at least until it's too late. A firing squad has only one guy shooting live ammo, lethal injection has two doctors inserting needles (One with a 'placebo') etc. etc. It's so rube goldburg.
It's some rubbish about 'ethics' so that no one has to know they killed the offender.
My solution: don't bloody well do the execution (far more effective)
EDIT: Less profane
Tenspace
06-15-2006, 06:41 AM
I've heard that "Yellow Mama", the Alabama electric chair has one switch controlled by one guy. Can't confirm, though.
Here's a pic. It got its name after being painted with highway stripe paint.
http://www.annistonstar.com/news/2001/images/6chair.jpg
The Judge
06-15-2006, 06:54 AM
Why the hell would they do that? :/
anthonyjfuchs
06-15-2006, 06:57 AM
I'm another one to piss on the parade, but I've always had a problem with state-sanctioned murder. And it is murder, because it is "the wilfill ending of a human life with malice aforethought"; anyone who thinks that there is no malice to capital punishment is kidding themselves. Capital punishment is about vengeance, by the state and the victim's family and society as a whole; and that moves it out of the realm of justice.
I know that the death penalty isn't applied equally; a black suspect is morel likely to be arrested than a white suspect, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to get the death penalty after conviction. This is a major problem, but still not my major concern; my major concern is that the death penalty implies that some human beings are in a position to decide if and when other humans should die. It implies that politicians have the right to end your life if they feel they should; and it implies, therefore, that your life is worth less, and at the ultimate whim of, theirs.
To me, all humans exist on an even sociocultural level; no one higher, no one lower. The only thing "above" a human being, then, is the law that groups of humans agree to live by. Breaking those laws, therefore, does not mean that anyone has the right to kill the offender; it means that the offender has lost the right to live in that society. Today, this is generally dealt with by incarcerating the offender; but inexplicably, the government seems to think that if the crime is ugly enough, it warrants ending the life of the offender.
I'm not defending murders, rapists and terrorists. I'm just saying that the death penalty undermines the entire premise of making murder illegal in the first place; it's like the government saying, "don't kill each other; that's our job." It's hypocritical. Put them on a guarded island somewhere in the middle of the Pacific if they're so bad that we can't even allow them to exist in the country. But don't murder them back.
The Judge
06-15-2006, 06:59 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
I agree with most of that, but how is it more expensive? Surely e.g. a bullet costs less than keeping a child rapist alive for the rest of his life behind bars at the tax payers expense?
myst7426
06-15-2006, 07:02 AM
Nuclear bomb would be painless.
The Judge
06-15-2006, 07:05 AM
Likewise I gree with AJF, but capital punishment is surely more than state-sanctioned vengence - it is an efficient (cheaper and effective) means of controlling the prison population /and enfocing a deterrant (admittedly not very effectively).
I don't mean to sound cold-hearted here; I hold many of the same objections as others., but I'm just trying to play devils advocate by saying that there are possibly justifiable reasons for the death penalty.
Admittedly, my frame of reference is different, not having thought deeply about it since it really doesn't really affect me in the UK, but hey that's my "2 cents."
The Judge
06-15-2006, 07:06 AM
Nuclear bomb would be painless.
Only in the immediate blast zone - but that's a hell of a lot of devastation and centuries of irradtiated and unusable land for generations of others. ;)
anthonyjfuchs
06-15-2006, 07:11 AM
Nuclear bomb would be painless.
"Thermonuclear suppositories: Preperation H-Bomb. He won't know if he's coming or going." -- George Carlin
BillDaCaTT
06-15-2006, 07:27 AM
I have always thought that the execution of criminals was not a punishment for the criminal, but a relief for the innocent. It is very hard to commit a crime if you are dead.
I do agree that it is very difficult in a society to administer a death penalty fairly and impartially.
What if, on the first time around for a muder conviction, you got 20 years in prison. Once released, if you are ever convicted of another murder, you are put to death the following day.
There would be no possibility of getting "the Chair" until you had been incarcerated for 20 years and then released. Nothing would change in the current proccess. If the judge threw the book at you the first time and gave you life in prison. You could not be executed.
Feel free to refine my idea if it appeals to you.
Philboid Studge
06-15-2006, 07:35 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
I agree with most of that, but how is it more expensive? Surely e.g. a bullet costs less than keeping a child rapist alive for the rest of his life behind bars at the tax payers expense?
The reason cap punishment is more expensive (than, say, a life sentence) is that capital-crime defendants are permitted extensive constitutional 'safeguards': a longer, more extensive jury selection procedure; more motions filed (on average, 4x that of non-capital cases); in most states some version of a dual trial process -- one to establish innocence or guilt, the other to determine whether the death penalty is warranted; more investigators, expert witnesses, and lawyers; and, in most states, mandatory or automatic appeals following a guilty verdict.
Some people (and by 'people' I mean drooling mouth-breathers who can't be bothered to think about complicated issues for more than two minutes at a time because 'American Idol' might be on the tv) think that the above provisions are frivolous and should be abandoned or streamlined. But the point to is to make you sure you get it right -- there are no do-overs after an execution -- and even with all these expensive safeguards, the failure rate among prosecutions is atrocious. It's probably true that executions in China are cheaper than incarceration would be, but who knows many innocent Wangs or Dongs are killed every day?
One of the depressing things about reinstatement of the death penalty in the US in the 1970s was not merely the fact of it, but that it was a step backward toward barbarism. Its sole function appears to be to pander to our worst impulses.
The Judge
06-15-2006, 07:45 AM
I agree. Sorry, I think I took the idea of the actual execution and ran with it rather than judicial process leading up to the death penalty. I see now what RM meant - thanks Phil.
Rocketman the Sequel
06-15-2006, 08:15 AM
It has to do with the multiple appeals-the cost of ensuring that the execution is accurate-that they are not killing an innocent man--ten years on average--millions in legal costs and court time.
But I have always found the concept of the cost of human life in terms of executions as a non issue.
You derive benefits from a society--you pay the cost of having a society.
And the whole closure thing for the victims family? I understand that--but what about the family of the murderer?
They did not commit the crime--perhaps they have a s great anattachment for the murderer as the family fo the victim does to the victim.
Say the murderer is an eighteen year old--is his mother supposed to sit back and say-hey i did a bad job of raising my son so go ahead and kill him--it's okay?
No one is excusing the murderer--but to place one innocents pain over that of another--is unjust and unfair and if it is the essental rationale behind executing soeone---then it is an unjust foundation for that action.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-15-2006, 08:34 AM
I didn't vote, because I think the gas chamber is the best legal method of execution.
And I definitely think there are some criminals that are worthy of execution. People like Kevin Ray Underwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ray_Underwood), who kidnapped, murdered, and planned to eat a 10-year-old girl.
thenormalyears
06-15-2006, 09:09 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
I agree with most of that, but how is it more expensive? Surely e.g. a bullet costs less than keeping a child rapist alive for the rest of his life behind bars at the tax payers expense?
Making like 15 appeals to court cost us obscene amounts of money. There is the added expense of keeping someone on death row for 15 + years as well. It costs more than keeping regular prisoners.
The Judge
06-15-2006, 09:33 AM
Thanks to all who have put me straight on the expense of the legal process and appeals following death sentencing in the US. Like I said, I am largely in agreement with most people's non-support of the death penalty but being in the UK it's not so much of an issue - always good to learn :)
calpurnpiso
06-15-2006, 09:57 AM
I think in this 21st Century we must update the Death Penalty. We are nothing more than mutated primates that sometimes turn vicious due to our animal nature. It is simply an outburst of our limbic system that overrides all of other controls of reason taught by society rules and its developed morality. We love to see blood and gore!! it is in our nature ( i,e bull fights, religious blood rituals of flagellations et al). Why not do it to psychotic criminals that deserve it?
So, when a person is found guilty of a heineus crime with DNA evidence, he must pay with his life by entertaining the sociey. Instead of the puerile ball chasing games. Death row inmates can be made to fight each other in stadiums as in old good Roman times. The criminal that raped an killed a child, must be administered the same punishment by been sodomized by a robot during these punishment games. Pictures of the victims of the criminals being punished must be placed on large screens a top of the punishment area.
These PG ( punishment Games ) will had 3 purposes.
1) deterrent. 2) vengeance & satisfaction provided to the victims families and 3) elimination of the threat to the society.
Only the christ-psychotics will say this punishment is no deterrent!..Alas, they want to bet?..When one of these potential sadistic criminals will see this on the PGs..they'll think TWICE before letting their limbic systems take over, go and kill another human being for the pleasure it brings!!. Romans were correct all along, but in those days they did not have DNA evidence and many innocent people were killed.......:)
minor crimes could be punished by public whippings, and NO JAIL terms on Punishment Sundays..:)
Choobus
06-15-2006, 10:08 AM
For the record, I didn't say I was for capital punishment, but if you're going to do it, don't be a wanker about it and say it's "humane". That's bullshit. And (there was a long thread about this a while back) as far as I'm concerned any debate about the validity of capital punishment is moot until a foolproof system for the application os such is developed. Since this can never happen, it should simply be banned.
RenaissanceMan
06-15-2006, 11:25 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
I agree with most of that, but how is it more expensive? Surely e.g. a bullet costs less than keeping a child rapist alive for the rest of his life behind bars at the tax payers expense?
Well, it's certainly cheaper to off the perp during the commision of a crime, but once that felon is behind bars... It's a whole new ball game. Guaranteed, state funded appeals, a special section of the prison set aside from the other inmates, etc. The process of executing someone takes years and involves the efforts of a lot of people. It's expensive.
Granted, it's expensive to keep inmates in jail, too. But like Jesus says, "The inmates you will have with you always."
Wait... he was talking about the poor. Eh! Whatever, it still applies.
Livingstrong
06-16-2006, 01:42 PM
Well, I do agree with the death penalty in some cases, like the one Evil_Mage_Ra explains here.
And I definitely think there are some criminals that are worthy of execution. People like Kevin Ray Underwood, who kidnapped, murdered, and planned to eat a 10-year-old girl.
My method for this type of criminal would be cheap and simple:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j232/cyclistfrommexico/DeathPenalty01.jpg
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 02:29 PM
I like it. It'd be ironic, too, since when they found the body, it appeared as if he were trying to saw the head off. Sick bastard.
EvelKnievel
06-16-2006, 02:38 PM
If you could kill a thousand killers but had to kill ten wrongly accused people, would you do it? That's how it's done in the U.S.
Kill people to show the survivors that killing is wrong. Not too bright.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 02:46 PM
Of course I wouldn't. But Kevin Underwood's is a pretty unambiguous case. He turned himself in to the FBI, and the investigators found his victim's almost-decapitated corpse in a plastic tub in his closet. The chance of him being innocent is precisely zero.
Choobus
06-16-2006, 02:49 PM
They should kill child molesetors: not because of how heinous their crimes are but because they are the worst recidivists. They can't help themselves so it is in the public interest to just kill them to make absolutely sure they don't do it again.
Livingstrong
06-16-2006, 02:53 PM
They should kill child molesetors: not because of how heinous their crimes are but because they are the worst recidivists. They can't help themselves so it is in the public interest to just kill them to make absolutely sure they don't do it again.
I TOTALLY agree w/ you Choobus.
I would only add a little bit of a nice, long and very, very scary and painful torturing method before cutting their heads off.
Choobus
06-16-2006, 02:56 PM
no, they should die by bukkakke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkakke)
that ought to take a while.
RenaissanceMan
06-16-2006, 03:09 PM
Of course I wouldn't. But Kevin Underwood's is a pretty unambiguous case. He turned himself in to the FBI, and the investigators found his victim's almost-decapitated corpse in a plastic tub in his closet. The chance of him being innocent is precisely zero.
You can't cherry pick a blatant case and set policy from that. The judicial process must be applicable in ALL cases.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 03:12 PM
Of course I wouldn't. But Kevin Underwood's is a pretty unambiguous case. He turned himself in to the FBI, and the investigators found his victim's almost-decapitated corpse in a plastic tub in his closet. The chance of him being innocent is precisely zero.
You can't cherry pick a blatant case and set policy from that. The judicial process must be applicable in ALL cases.
Fine. The death penalty applies to all "blatant cases".
EvelKnievel
06-16-2006, 03:36 PM
Is death really the worst punishment we can inflict? If you are stupid enough to believe in hell, then yes. If you believe the truth, death is simply freeing these fucks from any possible real punishment. Personally, I can think of many non-lethal, even non-violent sentences that I would rather die than suffer.
thenormalyears
06-16-2006, 03:39 PM
I didn't vote, because I think the gas chamber is the best legal method of execution.
And I definitely think there are some criminals that are worthy of execution. People like Kevin Ray Underwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ray_Underwood), who kidnapped, murdered, and planned to eat a 10-year-old girl.
I think we should let other prisoners in jail know exactly all about ole mr underwood and let him fight it out for himself. If he gets stabbed to death after being sodomized endlessly in the shower OOPS
looks like you shouldnt have been a fucking child killer.
but should we waste all that money on killing him in a non painful way?
no
Livingstrong
06-16-2006, 03:43 PM
Personally, I can think of many non-lethal, even non-violent sentences that I would rather die than suffer.
Could you give us an example?
I like to learn some. :D
thenormalyears
06-16-2006, 03:47 PM
Personally, I can think of many non-lethal, even non-violent sentences that I would rather die than suffer.
Could you give us an example?
I like to learn some. :D
I bet we could ask the soldiers at GITMO because they seemed to have cracked that code.
woody
06-16-2006, 04:00 PM
Hey guys while your on the subject... What's your thoughts on executing kids!
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html
EvelKnievel
06-16-2006, 04:04 PM
Personally, I can think of many non-lethal, even non-violent sentences that I would rather die than suffer.
Could you give us an example?
I like to learn some. :D
Solitary confinement in a dark, smelly, barren, 6X6' cell devoid of any sort of toilet, bed, or windows (hence the dark, smelly, and barren). Rinse it out once a week. Oh, and human contact is nil.
20 hours a day on The Zipper or any other State Fair vomit-raising ride.
Non-stop tickling. Really vigorous tickling.
Being forced to listen to that fucking horrible song they play during that equally fucking horrible commercial (pick your least favorite).
Two words: naked paintball (somewhat violent).
I'm sure there are things that some people would claim are not too bad or even enjoyable that would make my list, but something tells me that after a few years of the life sentence, that tickling would be unbearable.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 04:05 PM
Hey guys while your on the subject... What's your thoughts on executing kids!
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html
You gotta show those little bastards who's boss:
Me: "Eat your vegetables."
Stupid kid: "NO!!!"
Me: "That's it, young man! You head straight up to the gas chamber right now!"
:D
On a more serious note, it depends on how old they are and what they did. I don't see how murder and rape become more acceptable just because the perpetrator is 17 years old.
Livingstrong
06-16-2006, 04:09 PM
Personally, I can think of many non-lethal, even non-violent sentences that I would rather die than suffer.
Could you give us an example?
I like to learn some. :D
Solitary confinement in a dark, smelly, barren, 6X6' cell devoid of any sort of toilet, bed, or windows (hence the dark, smelly, and barren). Rinse it out once a week. Oh, and human contact is nil.
20 hours a day on The Zipper or any other State Fair vomit-raising ride.
Non-stop tickling. Really vigorous tickling.
Being forced to listen to that fucking horrible song they play during that equally fucking horrible commercial (pick your least favorite).
Two words: naked paintball (somewhat violent).
I'm sure there are things that some people would claim are not too bad or even enjoyable that would make my list, but something tells me that after a few years of the life sentence, that tickling would be unbearable.
If I were the director of The Cruel Bloody For Life Punishment For Pedophiles Department, I wouldn't hire you EvelK, you are too nice. :)
EvelKnievel
06-16-2006, 04:20 PM
I'll accept the compliment.
snap crafter
06-16-2006, 05:19 PM
They should kill child molesetors: not because of how heinous their crimes are but because they are the worst recidivists. They can't help themselves so it is in the public interest to just kill them to make absolutely sure they don't do it again.
I TOTALLY agree w/ you Choobus.
I would only add a little bit of a nice, long and very, very scary and painful torturing method before cutting their heads off.
I mean really, would anyone actually come out and say, "Hey, don't kill those child-molestors. I mean, then who's gonna rape the kids?"
But I think killing them is a little much. Let'm stay in prison. Me being an atheist and all, I believe that life is far too precious for us to go around killing people all willy-nilly.
Tenspace
06-16-2006, 05:58 PM
Personally, I can think of many non-lethal, even non-violent sentences that I would rather die than suffer.
Could you give us an example?
I like to learn some. :D
Keeping Celine Dion's nose clean.... literally. Someone's gotta climb in there and do it.
Pat Robertson's towel boy probably suffers more than most, as well.
Victus
06-16-2006, 07:54 PM
They should kill child molesetors: not because of how heinous their crimes are but because they are the worst recidivists. They can't help themselves so it is in the public interest to just kill them to make absolutely sure they don't do it again.
I'm fairly certain psychopaths are the worst recidivists. They are more likely to get parole, convince the appropriate authorities that they've been 'cured' (manipulative and charming), and more likely to commit crimes shortly after being released. Furthermore, they defy the typical age-crime curve seen in typical inmate populations (peeks of antisocial behavior in late teens/early 20's, drops quickly afterwards as inmates receive successful treatment/are imprisoned for longer periods/become too old to commit some crimes/killed in the process of their crimes).
Psychopaths defy this, they're like the energizer bunnies of crime. They commit a crime, convince people they're cured, and go commit more crimes when paroled. Most of them do so within less than a day of being released. Their criminal behavior shows an extremely sharp drop off around the age of 49. Researchers suspect their behaviors has gotten them killed, imprisoned or they're just too damned old to murder people.
Further more, psychopaths are more criminally versatile than your typical innmate. Generally, without treatment; a thief will steal when released, a molester will molest (even the same demographic), wife abusers will abuse, etc. Psychopaths do it all, commiting whatever crime is avilable to them at the time (quite often they stick with petty crimes, occasionally a real sicko comes along and kills someone (or several persons).
[stops ranting]
snap crafter
06-16-2006, 08:55 PM
"Psychopaths defy this, they're like the energizer bunnies of crime. They commit a crime, convince people they're cured, and go commit more crimes when paroled. Most of them do so within less than a day of being released. Their criminal behavior shows an extremely sharp drop off around the age of 49. Researchers suspect their behaviors has gotten them killed, imprisoned or they're just too damned old to murder people."
You forget the most obvious answer: They're too clever to be caught.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 09:16 PM
It's not necessarily that they're too clever, but that their crimes don't follow any obvious pattern. Most crimes are committed against an acquaintance, not just whoever tickles your fancy, so it's harder for the police to generate a list of suspects.
snap crafter
06-16-2006, 09:24 PM
It's not necessarily that they're too clever, but that their crimes don't follow any obvious pattern. Most crimes are committed against an acquaintance, not just whoever tickles your fancy, so it's harder for the police to generate a list of suspects.
*shrug* My point still stands.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 09:28 PM
I'd say there's a difference between not getting caught because you're too clever and not getting caught because you're too unpredictable, unless you're intentionally being unpredictable in order to throw off the police.
snap crafter
06-16-2006, 09:31 PM
You believe sociopaths beyond being capable of doing these things off radar on purpose?
darwinfish
06-16-2006, 09:33 PM
BANG..SPLASH!!
Vaguely reminiscent of the two lads that tried to kill themselves with shotguns after listening to Def Leppard (and who wouldn't). They placed said weapons in their mouths and pulled the trigger. Bang. Unfortunately, one of them missed. Well, blew his face off but survived - and then sued the band for planting the idea in his head in the first place.
They stated that the band had placed subliminal messages on the album that made them do it. It came out in court that there were indeed devilish messages, recorded backwards. However, they simply said 'buy more DEf Leppard.' Case thrown out.
I thought that was Judas Priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Priest#Subliminal_message_trial) ;)
hey! my prof for Cognition and Perception did the first research on 'backmasking' so he was asked to testify in this trial. He went and cleared up the stupid idea that backwards messages can neither be read by the 'subconscious mind' and nor influence people's actions. I believe his name is...thinky thinky... Vokey! (he looks like he should be in Judas Priest!)
ahem.....anyway, I'd really see nothing wrong with a death penalty if there was a zero margin of error in the judicial system. I'm most concerned about the state possibly killing innocent people. Other than that, those who commit serious violent crimes are not worth spit.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 09:52 PM
You believe sociopaths beyond being capable of doing these things off radar on purpose?
Of course they are capable of it, though I don't think the average sociopath is thinking "Wow, this'll really throw them off!" as they select their next victim.
hey! my prof for Cognition and Perception did the first research on 'backmasking' so he was asked to testify in this trial. He went and cleared up the stupid idea that backwards messages can neither be read by the 'subconscious mind' and nor influence people's actions. I believe his name is...thinky thinky... Vokey! (he looks like he should be in Judas Priest!)
I always sum up "backmasked messages" as basically the audio equivalent of seeing shapes in the clouds.
snap crafter
06-16-2006, 09:54 PM
You believe sociopaths beyond being capable of doing these things off radar on purpose?
Of course they are capable of it, though I don't think the average sociopath is thinking "Wow, this'll really throw them off!" as they select their next victim.
hey! my prof for Cognition and Perception did the first research on 'backmasking' so he was asked to testify in this trial. He went and cleared up the stupid idea that backwards messages can neither be read by the 'subconscious mind' and nor influence people's actions. I believe his name is...thinky thinky... Vokey! (he looks like he should be in Judas Priest!)
I always sum up "backmasked messages" as basically the audio equivalent of seeing shapes in the clouds.
But if they're selecting their victims as such, and are thinking about it before hand, surely you see where I'm going with this.
Victus
06-16-2006, 10:08 PM
"Psychopaths defy this, they're like the energizer bunnies of crime. They commit a crime, convince people they're cured, and go commit more crimes when paroled. Most of them do so within less than a day of being released. Their criminal behavior shows an extremely sharp drop off around the age of 49. Researchers suspect their behaviors has gotten them killed, imprisoned or they're just too damned old to murder people."
You forget the most obvious answer: They're too clever to be caught.
I forgot that one, good catch.
"They've become so practiced at criminality, that they're rarely caught beyond the age of 49".
It's not necessarily that they're too clever, but that their crimes don't follow any obvious pattern. Most crimes are committed against an acquaintance, not just whoever tickles your fancy, so it's harder for the police to generate a list of suspects.
One of the unique characteristic of psychopaths is their talent for instrumental (goal-oriented) aggression, which is usually targeted at complete strangers or only partial aquaintances. Other disorders show reactive (hostile/hot/etc) aggression, usually targeted towards friends and family. While psychopaths do show much more reactive aggression than other criminals, much of their aggression is instrumental.
Most of their crime seems to lack real motive. They steal things that they don't really want/need, sometimes leaving home and going 'drifting' for no purpose
I'd say there's a difference between not getting caught because you're too clever and not getting caught because you're too unpredictable, unless you're intentionally being unpredictable in order to throw off the police.
For the most part, they're not actively trying to evade police. Quite often, actually, they fly under the radar by committing petty crimes, and moving on (see: The Mask of Sanity by Cleckley). Once and awhile some uber fuck up pulls something big, makes the headlines and what not.
I think it was Hare that called them 'intraspecies predators". Perfect description.
You believe sociopaths beyond being capable of doing these things off radar on purpose?
Psychopaths are born, sociopaths are 'made' by poor rearing (most of which are your generic criminals). It's the psychopaths you need to work out for. They're not just criminals, they're sadistic about it (take your wallet, then smack you around just for shits and giggles).
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-16-2006, 10:40 PM
"Psychopaths defy this, they're like the energizer bunnies of crime. They commit a crime, convince people they're cured, and go commit more crimes when paroled. Most of them do so within less than a day of being released. Their criminal behavior shows an extremely sharp drop off around the age of 49. Researchers suspect their behaviors has gotten them killed, imprisoned or they're just too damned old to murder people."
You forget the most obvious answer: They're too clever to be caught.
I forgot that one, good catch.
"They've become so practiced at criminality, that they're rarely caught beyond the age of 49".
It's not necessarily that they're too clever, but that their crimes don't follow any obvious pattern. Most crimes are committed against an acquaintance, not just whoever tickles your fancy, so it's harder for the police to generate a list of suspects.
One of the unique characteristic of psychopaths is their talent for instrumental (goal-oriented) aggression, which is usually targeted at complete strangers or only partial aquaintances. Other disorders show reactive (hostile/hot/etc) aggression, usually targeted towards friends and family. While psychopaths do show much more reactive aggression than other criminals, much of their aggression is instrumental.
Most of their crime seems to lack real motive. They steal things that they don't really want/need, sometimes leaving home and going 'drifting' for no purpose
I'd say there's a difference between not getting caught because you're too clever and not getting caught because you're too unpredictable, unless you're intentionally being unpredictable in order to throw off the police.
For the most part, they're not actively trying to evade police. Quite often, actually, they fly under the radar by committing petty crimes, and moving on (see: The Mask of Sanity by Cleckley). Once and awhile some uber fuck up pulls something big, makes the headlines and what not.
I think it was Hare that called them 'intraspecies predators". Perfect description.
You believe sociopaths beyond being capable of doing these things off radar on purpose?
Psychopaths are born, sociopaths are 'made' by poor rearing (most of which are your generic criminals). It's the psychopaths you need to work out for. They're not just criminals, they're sadistic about it (take your wallet, then smack you around just for shits and giggles).
Ah, I see. Good information.
snap crafter
06-16-2006, 11:27 PM
"Psychopaths defy this, they're like the energizer bunnies of crime. They commit a crime, convince people they're cured, and go commit more crimes when paroled. Most of them do so within less than a day of being released. Their criminal behavior shows an extremely sharp drop off around the age of 49. Researchers suspect their behaviors has gotten them killed, imprisoned or they're just too damned old to murder people."
You forget the most obvious answer: They're too clever to be caught.
I forgot that one, good catch.
"They've become so practiced at criminality, that they're rarely caught beyond the age of 49".
It's not necessarily that they're too clever, but that their crimes don't follow any obvious pattern. Most crimes are committed against an acquaintance, not just whoever tickles your fancy, so it's harder for the police to generate a list of suspects.
One of the unique characteristic of psychopaths is their talent for instrumental (goal-oriented) aggression, which is usually targeted at complete strangers or only partial aquaintances. Other disorders show reactive (hostile/hot/etc) aggression, usually targeted towards friends and family. While psychopaths do show much more reactive aggression than other criminals, much of their aggression is instrumental.
Most of their crime seems to lack real motive. They steal things that they don't really want/need, sometimes leaving home and going 'drifting' for no purpose
I'd say there's a difference between not getting caught because you're too clever and not getting caught because you're too unpredictable, unless you're intentionally being unpredictable in order to throw off the police.
For the most part, they're not actively trying to evade police. Quite often, actually, they fly under the radar by committing petty crimes, and moving on (see: The Mask of Sanity by Cleckley). Once and awhile some uber fuck up pulls something big, makes the headlines and what not.
I think it was Hare that called them 'intraspecies predators". Perfect description.
You believe sociopaths beyond being capable of doing these things off radar on purpose?
Psychopaths are born, sociopaths are 'made' by poor rearing (most of which are your generic criminals). It's the psychopaths you need to work out for. They're not just criminals, they're sadistic about it (take your wallet, then smack you around just for shits and giggles).
Is that really the only difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?
ocmpoma
06-16-2006, 11:48 PM
I find the position of 'being okay with the death penalty if we knew with certainty that the convicted was in fact guilty' rather odd.
Basically, this position maintains that society, or the government, can in fact legally do what it denies individuals the ability to legally do. Which is, as I said, a position that I find quite odd.
Victus
06-16-2006, 11:52 PM
Without writing a book, yes. (According to The Handbook Of Psychopathy, edited by Christopher Patrick, 2006). Sociopathy is commonly presented in the literature as "acquired sociopathy". It can be caused by failed socialization (the process by which offspring of social species learn to interact appropriately within their 'troop'). An example given by Patrick was that of the white rhino. During the cullings, most of the adult population was killed off. This left many orphan rhinos roaming about. The greatest threat to these rhinos, next to humans, was the young bulls who had had their parents These young males went around killing other rhinos where they encountered them. This continued until adult male rhinos from another population were introduced into the area ("Big Daddies", as Patrick deemed them). This describes a sort of 'natural' sociopathy.
Acquired sociopathy often describes a person who has received damage to their orbitiofrontal cortex (OFC), and is linked to an extreme increase in reactive aggression and general personality changes which mimic, but are distinct from, psychopathy.
Psychopaths, it is generally posited (but still argued about sometimes), are born, rather than made. While it is undoubted that environment plays some role in how severe or in what manner their condition manifests, they are psychopaths. They may even be successful in whatever field they work, provided their symptoms are not extreme. They are the cold hearted bastard, the manipulative ass at the office. It is believed that amygdala dysfunction from early childhood/birth is the cause of psychopathy. It seems to account for the 'fearlessness' factor of the personality disorder. The developmental nature of psychopathy is evidenced by children who show symptoms eerily similar to adult psychopathy. Later on, reduced imput to/from the amygdala is believed to be cause deficincies in the OFC. This model is used to account for some of the discrepancies in empirical findings between child and adult psychopaths (note: governments and nonresearch types tend to find the idea of 'child psychopaths' to be taboo).
snap crafter
06-17-2006, 12:01 AM
Without writing a book, yes. (According to The Handbook Of Psychopathy, edited by Christopher Patrick, 2006). Sociopathy is commonly presented in the literature as "acquired sociopathy". It can be caused by failed socialization (the process by which offspring of social species learn to interact appropriately within their 'troop'). An example given by Patrick was that of the white rhino. During the cullings, most of the adult population was killed off. This left many orphan rhinos roaming about. The greatest threat to these rhinos, next to humans, was the young bulls who had had their parents These young males went around killing other rhinos where they encountered them. This continued until adult male rhinos from another population were introduced into the area ("Big Daddies", as Patrick deemed them). This describes a sort of 'natural' sociopathy.
Acquired sociopathy often describes a person who has received damage to their orbitiofrontal cortex (OFC), and is linked to an extreme increase in reactive aggression and general personality changes which mimic, but are distinct from, psychopathy.
Psychopaths, it is generally posited (but still argued about sometimes), are born, rather than made. While it is undoubted that environment plays some role in how severe or in what manner their condition manifests, they are psychopaths. They may even be successful in whatever field they work, provided their symptoms are not extreme. They are the cold hearted bastard, the manipulative ass at the office. It is believed that amygdala dysfunction from early childhood/birth is the cause of psychopathy. It seems to account for the 'fearlessness' factor of the personality disorder. The developmental nature of psychopathy is evidenced by children who show symptoms eerily similar to adult psychopathy. Later on, reduced imput to/from the amygdala is believed to be cause deficincies in the OFC. This model is used to account for some of the discrepancies in empirical findings between child and adult psychopaths (note: governments and nonresearch types tend to find the idea of 'child psychopaths' to be taboo).
So do both psychopath and sociopath act in the same way concerning crimes?
Victus
06-17-2006, 12:33 AM
So do both psychopath and sociopath act in the same way concerning crimes?
Sociopaths (garden variety criminals) tend to follow a specific career. For the most part, they stick with what they know (thieves continue to steal, batterers continue to assault, etc). There is definitely some variablility (they obviously don't generally, just commit one type of crime their entire lives, criminals are criminals), but there is a degree of stability. The numbers of instrumental and reactive crimes are about equal (50/50). They often have some measure of anxiety. Sociopaths have fairly good odds of becoming somewhat successful following treatment.
Psychopaths, to be candid, jump all the fuck over the place with their careers. Their instrumental/reactive crimes are scewed towards instrumentality (97/3), but when asked they often externalize the cause of their criminal behavior ("blaming the victim"), and they tend to report them as being more reactive than they actually were (as described by crime scene reports). They have more of both types of aggression, but it is scewed differently. Regular pedophiles tend to stick with a specific demographic of victim, though some switch around. Psychopaths seem motivated more by boredome than by a pathological attraction to their victims. They have high success rates in treatment, but have extreme rates of recidivism, as they are believed to be conning their way out and passing themselves off as cured (interestingly, psychopaths who complete treatment have higher rates of recidivism than those that do not). They are superfiscially charming and manipulative. Psychopaths tend to show excessive sadism in their crime. For example, they were going to kill you, but raping the body was totally uneeded for the crime. It's almost like their motivation is boredome, with nothing to stop them from doing whatever pops in to their heads.
As I understand acquired sociopathy, it's largely reactive aggression (no or little instrumental). Lying, conning, abuse, murder, etc. The reactive/instrumental dichotamy is a major factor here. Acquired sociopaths seem to be almost completely reactive in their aggression. I don't really know enough about this to detail it more accurately. Do a google search for 'Finnias Gage', or something to that effect. It's the name of a man who was injured in such a way to become the exemplar for acquired sociopathy.
Edit: More stuff
snap crafter
06-17-2006, 01:21 AM
So Hannibal Lecter was a psychopath by that definition?
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-17-2006, 07:48 AM
Yeah, I've definitely met a few of the "less extreme" psycopaths in my time. The fearlessness, the disregard for the feelings (and even the physical wellbeing) of others, the manipulativeness. One even admitted to biting a squirrel to death when he was younger.
HeathenLifer
06-17-2006, 10:25 AM
Unfortunately, the death penalty just doesn't work. It's too expensive and the safeguards are insufficient to prevent innocent people from getting convicted via coerced confessions and whatnot. Not to mention keeping the govornor up all night.
I agree with most of that, but how is it more expensive? Surely e.g. a bullet costs less than keeping a child rapist alive for the rest of his life behind bars at the tax payers expense?
To ensure fairness, the death row inmates can tie up court more times for appeals, movements, etc. It turns out to be more expensive to the taxpayer than to just keep feeding them and providing cigarettes.
While I'm against the death penalty, I am also against the suicide watch. That seems to be a wats of money, to ensure that we spend more money, making sure that the party thatr feels 'guilty' enough to kill themselves in the first place, gets proven guilty. I think if you get arrested, and kill yourself before trial, the judge should just be able to sign a paper to the effect of " suspect confessed by measure of death".
Victus
06-17-2006, 10:49 AM
So Hannibal Lecter was a psychopath by that definition?
*cringes*
I hesitate to diagnose a fictional character, but he would probably score highly on soome measures of psychopathy (though not as high as you might expect, because of his lack of impulsivity and other facets of the fisorder). Tell you what, watch the movie 'The Good Son". Macaulay Culkin's character would probably be a through and through psychopath, from what I remember of the movie, he fits the bill to a tee.
HeathenLifer
06-17-2006, 10:58 AM
Yeah, I've definitely met a few of the "less extreme" psycopaths in my time. The fearlessness, the disregard for the feelings (and even the physical wellbeing) of others, the manipulativeness. One even admitted to biting a squirrel to death when he was younger.
If I remember correctly, a hallmark of psychopathy is animal torture. There is a trident of personality markers, three things to look for in a child that are indicators of psychopathy. I can only rememder two: animal torture and fire-starting. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the third was compulsive lying.
You are legally insane if you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. You are a typical criminal if you know the difference btwn right and wrong, but have poor impulse control. And the ability to rationalize this later. You are a socio- or psychopath when you can tell the difference, but just don't care, specifically as it does not apply to you because you are ordained to live outside the boundaries of the game called society.
prayforit
06-17-2006, 11:07 AM
I would totally be for the explosive choice. The only problem is the same as for the death penalty in general. What if we were wrong to convict in the first place? There have been cases, as everyone knows, of people being sent to their deaths (or on death row) who were later found innocent. Oops!
But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (including DNA), I say blow the bastards up (for their own comfort of course)!
__________________________________________
My favorite laugh of the week:
http://www.subversiveminds.com/rant/2006/06/12/message-from-god-sent-via-email/
__________________________________________
Choobus
06-17-2006, 11:09 AM
I find the position of 'being okay with the death penalty if we knew with certainty that the convicted was in fact guilty' rather odd.
Basically, this position maintains that society, or the government, can in fact legally do what it denies individuals the ability to legally do. Which is, as I said, a position that I find quite odd.
well, an individual can kill in self defense, so one could say that "society/govt" is simply defending itself by executing those who would kill its members. I wouldn't say this, but I'm sure some people might. As I said, sans a perfect (impossible) system that is never wrong, capital punishment is indefensible. Anyting else is irrelevent; ,ere;y intellectual mastturbation.
Victus
06-17-2006, 11:30 AM
If I remember correctly, a hallmark of psychopathy is animal torture. There is a trident of personality markers, three things to look for in a child that are indicators of psychopathy. I can only rememder two: animal torture and fire-starting. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the third was compulsive lying.
You are legally insane if you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. You are a typical criminal if you know the difference btwn right and wrong, but have poor impulse control. And the ability to rationalize this later. You are a socio- or psychopath when you can tell the difference, but just don't care, specifically as it does not apply to you because you are ordained to live outside the boundaries of the game called society.
Animal mutilation and fire starting are not, in themselves, facets of psychopathy. While it is true that children with psychopathic traits would be far more likely to commit these acts, they are not definitive of psychopaths. In short, many children will start fires or mutilate animals (especially insects), but very few are actually psychopathic, or will develop full blown psychopathy. Compulsive lying would be a good give away, but again, alot of nonpsychopathic children lie as well.
The method used to detect childhood psychopathy is to look for what are called callous-unemotional traits (CU). These relate to Factor one on the main measures of psychopathy for both forensic populations (PCL-R) and community samples (PPI). Factor one involves their affective and interpersonal deficiencies, Factor two involves their antisocial behaviors (their rap sheet, as it were). At such a young age, it is unlikely that a CU child has commited any major offenses which would significantly contribute to their F2 score. As such, the main measure would be to look at their F1 scores, which are the 'core' of psychopathy. The main difference between typical conduct problem affected children and children with CU traits is the absence of anxiety in the latter. ADHD/CD/ODD affected children (the latter two are by definition prone to conduct problems, the former is prone to such as an extension of their attentional problems) tend to have anxiety about their issues. CU trait children, however, don't really give a shit.
Your typical criminal is largely a matter of impulse control. They quite often internalize (guilt, regret) their crimes. Psychopaths don't do this. They blame the victim, the circumstances. They minimize the amount of damage done and aggression used. Basically, they can't (or won't, take your pick) internalize their actions.
Victus
06-17-2006, 11:33 AM
On topic, I opppose the death penalty. The C4 option would be the most humane. The time it would take for the auditory signal of the explosion to reach and be perceived by your brain is greater than the time it would take for the explosion to take your head off. You would feel nothing.
snap crafter
06-17-2006, 12:12 PM
So Hannibal Lecter was a psychopath by that definition?
*cringes*
I hesitate to diagnose a fictional character, but he would probably score highly on soome measures of psychopathy (though not as high as you might expect, because of his lack of impulsivity and other facets of the fisorder). Tell you what, watch the movie 'The Good Son". Macaulay Culkin's character would probably be a through and through psychopath, from what I remember of the movie, he fits the bill to a tee.
I remember that movie, liked it as a child. I thought he was a sociopath though, due to a lack of a father-figure...
Victus
06-17-2006, 12:17 PM
So Hannibal Lecter was a psychopath by that definition?
*cringes*
I hesitate to diagnose a fictional character, but he would probably score highly on soome measures of psychopathy (though not as high as you might expect, because of his lack of impulsivity and other facets of the fisorder). Tell you what, watch the movie 'The Good Son". Macaulay Culkin's character would probably be a through and through psychopath, from what I remember of the movie, he fits the bill to a tee.
I remember that movie, liked it as a child. I thought he was a sociopath though, due to a lack of a father-figure...
The types of behavior he showed (manipulation, sadism, impulsivity, pathological deception, lack of emotional affectivity, etc) are more typical of psychopathy, though this is just the first movie that came to mind. I'm trying to remember the movie example my boss uses.
Evil_Mage_Ra
06-17-2006, 12:33 PM
I haven't seen the whole movie, but from the clips I've seen, it's weird to see the "Home Alone kid" acting like such a bastard. :lol:
Choobus
06-17-2006, 02:23 PM
I haven't seen the whole movie, but from the clips I've seen, it's weird to see the "Home Alone kid" acting like such a bastard. :lol:
Why? He was a total prick in home alone. It makes perfect sense that a vindictive little bastard like that would grow up to be a psychopath.....
Livingstrong
06-17-2006, 02:42 PM
This guy murdered horribly a woman and her two daughters, and this is how the State of Florida executed him.
Did he deserved to die like that?
I'd say yes.
But anyways, I love psycopath movies.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j232/cyclistfrommexico/Execution01.jpg
The Judge
06-18-2006, 05:49 AM
"Psychopaths defy this, they're like the energizer bunnies of crime. They commit a crime, convince people they're cured, and go commit more crimes when paroled. Most of them do so within less than a day of being released. Their criminal behavior shows an extremely sharp drop off around the age of 49. Researchers suspect their behaviors has gotten them killed, imprisoned or they're just too damned old to murder people."
You forget the most obvious answer: They're too clever to be caught.
Not all the time, there are numerous cases of so-called psychopaths (n.b. not a psychiatric term - more a legalistic one) who have wanted to get caught for whatever reason. In these cases it is normally part of fulfilling a deep desire for recognition which is imbued with feelings of power. Ted Bundy was a case in point to the extent that he refused legal counsel at his trial for multiple murder so that he could basically be the centre of attention and direct / control the proceedings more easily. Clearly this was a dumb move since he ended up getting fried.
But like many - he got sloppy. If a serial killer is meticulous by nature it is initially through fear of getting caught - this would end or curtail their activities of self-fulfilling pleasure. Their planning and cunning keep them free, but as their confidence grows they become less fearful and give more priority to deriving pleaseure from their actions and care less about getting caught.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.