Sadism a mitigating factor in rape/murder?

[madanthonywayne]

This is, to me, unbelievable. Judge Robert Chatigny, an Obama judicial nominee for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is under scrutiny for his handling of a case involving Michael Ross (aka the Roadside Strangler).

Judge Chatigny presided over the original appeal of the conviction and death sentence of Mr Ross and ruled that the fact that Mr Ross was a sexual sadist should be a mitigating factor in his sentence for the rape and murder of at least eight women and girls. He even went so far as to say that Mr. Ross should never have been convicted, given that he was a sadist.

Judge Chatigny's rulings were overturned by the Second Circuit. However, once Mr Ross himself had decided to stop filing appeals and accept his death sentence, Judge Chatigny threatened the law license of Mr. Ross's lawyer for not appealing against his client's wishes.

Ultimately the Riverside Strangler was executed and Judge Chatigny was accused of judicial misconduct for his actions (he wasn't convicted).

So, what do you think? Is sadism an excuse to rape and murder with impunity? Should a serial killer be given a lesser sentence because he is a sexual sadist? Should Obama have nominated this guy?

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/28/judicial-activist

 

[quadraphonics]

To the extent that the sadism is a genuine mental disorder, and not simply a description of the perpetrator's malice, it should be treated like any other mental disorder that can produce criminal outcomes: sentence the offender to confinement in a mental hospital until such a time as he's cured or doesn't present a threat to anyone.

In many cases the length of such a sentence is longer than what would be handed down for the regular crime, since many of these disorders are effectively incurable. So it works out to confining them until they're too old and feeble to harm anyone, if not actually dead. Generally, we should feel very sketchy about executing the mentally ill.

 

[visceral_instinct]

What the fuck?

The very fact that he's a sadist means he should never be allowed out with the rest of society.

 

[quadraphonics]

The very fact that he's a sadist means he should never be allowed out with the rest of society.

Which is why releasing the criminally insane back into the population is not the standard alternative to sending them to prison/executing them. Instead they are sentenced to psychological treatment facilities where they can be confined and monitored until harmless.

Which, in turn, is why the OP is such a risible piece of partisan propaganda: it accuses Obama of wanting to allow sadists to rape and murder with impunity, when in fact it's only a question of exactly where they should be confined and under what terms. Nobody is suggesting letting them go free. And I expect that the author of the OP is perfectly well aware of this, and so his misrepresentation is offensive. Either that, or he's an idiot.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

To the extent that the sadism is a genuine mental disorder, and not simply a description of the perpetrator's malice, it should be treated like any other mental disorder that can produce criminal outcomes: sentence the offender to confinement in a mental hospital until such a time as he's cured or doesn't present a threat to anyone.

Generally, we should feel very sketchy about executing the mentally ill.

Sadism can be an aspect of a personality disorder but how is it a mental illness? Personality disorders are about who they are but it doesn't make them clinically insane. They know for example that psychopaths are actually born without the component for empathy and there is no therapy treatment that can 'cure' them. So why would you suggest a mental hospital and not prison?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Generally, we should feel very sketchy about executing the mentally ill.

The fact that one is a serial killer in the first place is evidence enough of some sort of mental defect. Nevertheless, the rape and murder of at least eight women and children is deserving of death.

 

[quadraphonics]

Sadism can be an aspect of a personality disorder but how is it a mental illness? Personality disorders are about who they are but it doesn't make them clinically insane.

Well, there's a reason I included a hypothetical qualifier in my earlier post. Sadism as such is not considered a mental disorder these days, above and beyond other disorders like antisocial personality disorder. So I'm somewhat puzzled by the wrangling over the question of sadism as discussed in the OP - presumably "sadist" there is referring to some specific legal terminology?

But as to the general question of how to deal with the criminally insane, I don't think that the specifics of this case really matter.

They know for example that psychopaths are actually born without the component for empathy and there is no therapy treatment that can 'cure' them. So why would you suggest a mental hospital and not prison?

Why would you suggest a prison and not a mental hospital for someone with a serious mental defect? Imprisoning a psychopath isn't going to reform him, nor is it going to deter other psychopaths. He gets confined and removed from society either way - and probably for longer, and at less risk to others, in the case of a mental hospital. And at the hospital he can be given proper medical treatment and supervision to minimize the danger he presents to those he's confined around.

 

[quadraphonics]

The fact that one is a serial killer in the first place is evidence enough of some sort of mental defect.

No it isn't. It could be simply a moral defect.

Nevertheless, the rape and murder of at least eight women and children is deserving of death.

If committed by someone who understands the difference between right and wrong, has a grasp on reality, etc. you mean. If it were done by some kind of paranoid schizophrenic that believed the victims were all lizard people that he was ordered to kill by the Aztec deity that inhabits his television and controls his thoughts via CIA microwave transmitters, then we'd probably have a different opinion. Or if someone with multiple personalities committed the crimes - then what?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Is sadism an excuse to rape and murder with impunity?

Hell NO!

 

[pjdude1219]

somehow I get the feeling this is completely partisan based lets test this hypothesis. Mad, do you think Nancy Grace when working as a prosecuter should have been disbarred for with holding exculpatory evidence from the defense in violation of the ethics and rules for the profession?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Sadism as such is not considered a mental disorder these days, above and beyond other disorders like antisocial personality disorder. So I'm somewhat puzzled by the wrangling over the question of sadism as discussed in the OP - presumably "sadist" there is referring to some specific legal terminology?

I don't think so. Consider this quote from the judge:

"But looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor... ​

He seems to be of the opinion that sexual sadism alone, which I do not think is a legal term, is a mitigating factor in rape and murder. Enough of a mitigating factor to even avoid conviction.

This guy most definitely does not deserve a promotion.

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't think so. Consider this quote from the judge:

"But looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor... ​

He alone seems to be of the opinion that sexual sadism alone, which I do not think is a legal term, is a mitigating factor in rape and murder. Enough of a mitigating factor to even avoid conviction.

Nothing in that quote supports your conclusions. It's simply a statement of his view on the case: there is nothing that addresses what sense the term "sadism" is being used in (technical or otherwise), nor is it implied that sadism should have prevented conviction - the comments on sadism are applied specifically to sentencing, following the qualifier "Or if convicted." We can't tell what factors that guy thinks should have prevented conviction (under the most favorable interpretation) without all the context that you failed to include.

You should stop with all the weak attempts at exaggeration and misrepresentation. It's dishonest, petty, undermines reasoned discussion, and you aren't even particularly good at it. As it is, much of your posting activity falls into this propaganda type, wherein you go out of your way to debase reasoned understanding of the issue at the outset, in favor of emotional appeal and personal attack - slanted for partisan edge, naturally - and then follow through on that with a series of spurious "rebuttals" (i.e., refusals to honestly engage, dressed up as responses).

In short, your a (partisan) propaganda troll. You should stop behaving like this, or resign from your mod duties. As it is, you're an embarassment.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Why would you suggest a prison and not a mental hospital for someone with a serious mental defect? Imprisoning a psychopath isn't going to reform him, nor is it going to deter other psychopaths. He gets confined and removed from society either way - and probably for longer, and at less risk to others, in the case of a mental hospital. And at the hospital he can be given proper medical treatment and supervision to minimize the danger he presents to those he's confined around.

Yes I would suggest prison as their condition is a manifestation of their lack of empathy, empathy isn't something you can instill in a psychopath. Prison is a sentence based on the severity of the crime not as a measure to 'reform' (which isn't possible) nor to deter other psychopaths (which also isn't possible), nor is it possible to treat them! Psychopaths don't suffer they simply don't care, one can say the same for the average gang member etc. But studies have shown that the actual number of criminals that are classified as psychopaths already in the prison system is actually low, nevertheless a sociopath or a psychopath is irredeemable given the skills and knowledge we have at the present time.

Mental institutions are places where you not only hold the insane or criminally insane its a place for treatment such as therapy or pharmaceutical treatment. The psychopath are not insane, they simply have a skewed personality make up. Not something I believe worthy of mental institutions. As for some other personality disorders such as 'borderline PD' they do now have treatment for these cases but its a different criteria.

You might find this interesting (48min) but the relevant information is given in the fist 10 (oh sod it! Just watch the whole thing):

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/psychopath/

Gives a compelling case why mental institutions are not the appropriate place for these kind of folks.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes I would suggest prison as their condition is a manifestation of their lack of empathy, empathy isn't something you can instill in a psychopath.

Ergo, they have a major mental deficiency. They cannot experience a normal human mental state, and this has direct consequences in terms of anti-social behavior.

Prison is a sentence based on the severity of the crime not as a measure to 'reform' (which isn't possible) nor to deter other psychopaths (which also isn't possible), nor is it possible to treat them!

The penal system has many goals in mind. One is justice for the victims. One is deterrence of other crimes. One is rehabilitation of the offenders. Another is the protection of society from offenders. Since deterrence doesn't apply to psychopaths, we're left with justice, rehabilitation, and protection of society. Since we can't rehabilitate psychopaths, we're down to justice and protection of society. If we take your assertion that psychopaths don't suffer at face value, then we also have no way to punish them, ruling out justice. That leaves only confinement to protect society from them.

So the only real consideration is where the best place to keep them locked up is. And since their disposition is the result of a severe mental disorder, I suggest that a mental hospital is the best place, since they'll be supervised (and presumably, drugged) by professionals who understand how to deal with them. Mixing them in with prisoners represents a danger to the other prisoners, without any need.

Mental institutions are places where you not only hold the insane or criminally insane its a place for treatment such as therapy or pharmaceutical treatment.

There's no reason we can't have separate facilities for the criminally insane/psychopaths/whatever, than for non-criminal mental healthcare seekers.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Quadraphonics: Ergo, they have a major mental deficiency. They cannot experience a normal human mental state, and this has direct consequences in terms of anti-social behavior.

Yes.


Quadrophonics: The penal system has many goals in mind. One is justice for the victims. One is deterrence of other crimes. One is rehabilitation of the offenders. Another is the protection of society from offenders. Since deterrence doesn't apply to psychopaths, we're left with justice, rehabilitation, and protection of society. Since we can't rehabilitate psychopaths, we're down to justice and protection of society. If we take your assertion that psychopaths don't suffer at face value, then we also have no way to punish them, ruling out justice. That leaves only confinement to protect society from them.

They are imprisoned to keep them away from society, its also a good way to study psychopaths. The problem with mental institutions is that there are easier paths of fooling 'cure' as a way to get back out into society. The fact that they are restricted is punishment enough but they will not cry over their crime nor will they suffer guilt.

Quad: So the only real consideration is where the best place to keep them locked up is. And since their disposition is the result of a severe mental disorder, I suggest that a mental hospital is the best place, since they'll be supervised (and presumably, drugged) by professionals who understand how to deal with them. Mixing them in with prisoners represents a danger to the other prisoners, without any need.

Why would you drug a psychopath? They don't suffer from depression or hallucinations. Please watch the link I provided for you, you will find it insightful. All prisoners represent a danger to other prisoners. You can study a psychopath as easily in a prison as you can in a mental health facility.


Quad: There's no reason we can't have separate facilities for the criminally insane/psychopaths/whatever, than for non-criminal mental healthcare seekers.

We do have a separate facility for the insane or for the schizophrenic who cracks from delusions and commit a crime. Psychopaths are not classified as insane. Psychopaths is a disorder based on personality characteristics that are INNATE, schizophrenia or bi polar are not.

 

[quadraphonics]

They are imprisoned to keep them away from society, its also a good way to study psychopaths.

If the object is study, then they need to be under the supervisions of actual specialists - the obvious place to do that is at a mental health facility. Prison guards are not psychological researchers.

The problem with mental institutions is that there are easier paths of fooling 'cure' as a way to get back out into society.

So fix those loopholes, or sentence them to remain in the institution for life if necessary.

Why would you drug a psychopath?

Same reason you'd drug any violent criminal with serious mental problems - to keep them sedate, and so harmless.

You can study a psychopath as easily in a prison as you can in a mental health facility.

I don't agree with that at all - in the first place, prisons are not set up for proper scientific work like that. And in the second place, the setting is so abnormal that you would only be able to learn about how psychopaths function in prison. Which is potentially interesting, but not nearly so useful as knowing more general things about them.

We do have a separate facility for the insane or for the schizophrenic who cracks from delusions and commit a crime. Psychopaths are not classified as insane. Psychopaths is a disorder based on personality characteristics that are INNATE, schizophrenia or bi polar are not.

So what? They're all mental disorders that - in these cases - result in criminality. What does it matter if it's "innate" or not?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Nothing in that quote supports your conclusions. It's simply a statement of his view on the case: there is nothing that addresses what sense the term "sadism" is being used in (technical or otherwise), nor is it implied that sadism should have prevented conviction - the comments on sadism are applied specifically to sentencing, following the qualifier "Or if convicted." We can't tell what factors that guy thinks should have prevented conviction (under the most favorable interpretation) without all the context that you failed to include.

This thread is a discussion of what role, if any, a criminal's sexual sadism should play in his conviction and/or sentencing. Also, of the appointment of Judge Robert Chatigny and whether his handling of the case of Mr Ross should disqualify him from the post to which President Obama seeks to appoint him.

Any comments directed at me (or any other member) personally are off topic at best. As such, your post should have stopped with the portion I have quoted. If you feel an irresistible urge to comment on my posting style, qualifications, or performance as a mod, take it up with an admin or send me a PM. Within the context of a thread, please stick to the topic.

As to the on topic portion of your post, I can see how you might interpret the statement in the way you have. My interpretation was that Judge Chatigny's comment regarding sexual sadism being a mitigating factor applied to both the sentencing and the conviction and that it was the reason he felt Mr. Ross should never have been convicted.

I will concede that Judge Chatigny could have felt Mr Ross should not have been convicted for some other reason not mentioned in the quote. However, the quote was from the article linked to in the OP and the context you're asking for is not there. We'd have to find the original material to be sure.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If the object is study, then they need to be under the supervisions of actual specialists - the obvious place to do that is at a mental health facility. Prison guards are not psychological researchers.



So fix those loopholes, or sentence them to remain in the institution for life if necessary.



Same reason you'd drug any violent criminal with serious mental problems - to keep them sedate, and so harmless.



I don't agree with that at all - in the first place, prisons are not set up for proper scientific work like that. And in the second place, the setting is so abnormal that you would only be able to learn about how psychopaths function in prison. Which is potentially interesting, but not nearly so useful as knowing more general things about them.



So what? They're all mental disorders that - in these cases - result in criminality. What does it matter if it's "innate" or not?

@Quadraphonics

Well study is not the 'object' of incarcerating someone in a prison. They are there because they are a danger to society not because they are ill. They suffer from a disorder but they do not suffer from said disorder, they simply abuse others.

Why fix anything? What is the purpose of keeping them in a mental facility when there isn't anything the facility can 'fix'?

Sorry to inform you but you cannot legally 'sedate' a prisoner deemed violent for the rest of his life just in case he may become violent in the future. That's what solitary and maximum prisons are for. Why not sedate all killers whether they be psychopaths or not? :shrug: They do not necessarily have to go into a violent rage in order to do harm, they can plot a murder as non-chalantly as others plan their lunch. If you had watched the short piece I linked you would see that they are without normal feelings. They rape for pleasure, sexually abuse and torture children and kill for the most trivial reasons so what exactly is it that you think you can sedate? Their basic biological personality structure?

You may not agree with it but most of the studies done on psychopaths are done in the prison system not in mental institutions. What general things do you think you would find out about them in a mental institution that you wouldn't know from having them in a prison?

It does matter if its innate or not when it comes to treatment. If someone is criminal and kills their wife or child because they were in a state of mania, schizophrenic hallucinations etc. Then you have a direct act based on their mental state at the time of the crime, a state that can be altered or alters itself, in those cases there are some treatments for that. If someone is so mentally insane that they are not in touch with reality like someone in a state of mania or hallucination then they are not responsible for their actions. Psychopaths know what they are doing and why, they even know its wrong, their disorder amounts to not having the ability to care, empathize, have regard for others. That is something else entirely which is why psychopaths are not considered insane, they are not detached from reality. They are callous, without conscience, they violate without remorse or guilt and are pathological liars. They are manipulative and can be incredibly intelligent and charming, utilize the sympathy of others (which makes them even more dangerous and cunning). Why do those qualities in conjunction with violent or abusive behaviour not amount to one being deemed a psych patient as opposed to a criminal?

 

[quadraphonics]

Well study is not the 'object' of incarcerating someone in a prison.

Good thing I'm not suggesting putting people in prison for purposes of study, then.

Why fix anything? What is the purpose of keeping them in a mental facility when there isn't anything the facility can 'fix'?

Treatment. We treat lots of conditions that we can't actually cure. If you develop herpes, will you avoid seeking treatment because it's incurable? AIDS?

And, again: study, isolation from society, etc. I did just go over these purposes in explicit detail.

Sorry to inform you but you cannot legally 'sedate' a prisoner deemed violent for the rest of his life just in case he may become violent in the future.

But you can legally sedate people who are criminally disturbed, hence my recommendation. In particular, you can do this after sentencing them to a mental hospital under the care of experts in the field.

Why not sedate all killers whether they be psychopaths or not?

BTW, it's been demonstrated that distributing marijuana to prisoners greatly lowers incidents of violence in the facility.

They rape for pleasure, sexually abuse and torture children and kill for the most trivial reasons so what exactly is it that you think you can sedate? Their basic biological personality structure?

You can sedate them to the point where they lack the mobility and coordination to harm anyone (not to mention the attention and focus to plan anything). They aren't going to be torturing any children when they're under heavy sedation inside a secure mental hospital.

You may not agree with it but most of the studies done on psychopaths are done in the prison system not in mental institutions. What general things do you think you would find out about them in a mental institution that you wouldn't know from having them in a prison?

A lot, probably. People in prison don't act the same way as unincarcerated people do. It's indeed possible that many of your supposedly-ironclad scientific statements about psychopaths are completely wrong - products of studying them in a hostile, stressful environment rife with opportunity and motivation for anti-social behavior.

Psychopaths know what they are doing and why, they even know its wrong, their disorder amounts to not having the ability to care, empathize, have regard for others. That is something else entirely which is why psychopaths are not considered insane, they are not detached from reality. They are callous, without conscience, they violate without remorse or guilt and are pathological liars. They are manipulative and can be incredibly intelligent and charming, utilize the sympathy of others (which makes them even more dangerous and cunning). Why do those qualities in conjunction with violent or abusive behaviour not amount to one being deemed a psych patient as opposed to a criminal?

I think you have an extra "not" in that last sentence, but you answer yourself: they lack the ability to care. The primary mechanism for inhibiting anti-social behavior in humans is held to be totally, innately absent from these people. They are simply defective, in a way that leads to criminality, so what's the point of trying to "punish" them? Why not just kill them? After all, they aren't even really human. What's the point in subjecting all of your non-psychopathic prisoners to these people?

 

[visceral_instinct]

I disagree with executing anyone because people can be wrongly convicted.

I would rather 10 rapists were sitting in jail still alive than ONE innocent person executed.

Someone shoots me in the head tomorrow, you can lock him up, but I don't want him dead. Because there is that little chance that the one you caught and put on trial and dosed with KCl was actually innocent, and the one who did it is running around someplace else. You can let someone out of jail if he's found to be innocent. You can't bring someone back from the dead.