Sadism a mitigating factor in rape/murder?

@Quadraphonics

They are not put in prison for study they are placed there because they have committed a crime. The study aspect is useful in understanding their nature, just the same way they study pedophiles in prison to understand their nature.

WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY! YOU HAVE HARE THE FOREMOST EXPERT ON PSYCHOPATHY SAYING THAT TREATMENT ACTUALLY MAKES THEM WORSE! The have a higher rate of recidivism than others especially after 'treatment'. There is no treatment for psychopaths, no drugs. Talk therapy in prisons are utilized as a form of studying the psychopath but its not 'treatment'.

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

So you would place a criminal back into society so you can study them within society? A mental institution is no more of a 'normal' place of study than a prison.

Quad: 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.

Really? Show me what prison in the US is actively sedating prisoners when they don't need it? And by without need I mean if they are not suffering from some anxiety etc. Give me link that establishes drug treatment for say violent gang members, rapists and murderers? Drug therapy is given for a reason not to change the nature of an individual which is what you are suggesting. The experts in the field study violent psychopaths where they naturally belong which is in prison. You haven't given any evidence that giving drugs to a psychopath leads to them being any less of a psychopath. If this were possible they would be doing it right now. Drugs are for treatment, to improve not to immobilize. It seems as though you are suggesting drugging all violent criminals psychopaths or not into immobility and lack of coordination, like some Clockwork Orange scenario.

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

And have they proven the same works with psychopaths? Not all prisoners are psychopaths. Its like saying Ted Bundy would have been a more reasonable individual if he only had a little weed (LOL!)

Quad: 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.

Show me where it is legal to medically keep someone continually under sedation til they lack mobility and coordination under the assumption that they will behave badly in a prison setting? All psychopaths don't murder children, many of them don't even end up in prison. Some of them will remain in prison without being violent but that doesn't mean their nature has changed. They will still be a psychopath and the fact that they have been incarcerated for a crime doesn't mean they will never commit another crime. Look at Dahmer, was he violent in prison? No. What about Bundy? They are manipulative, intelligent and cunning. They use other's sympathies (people like you) to get what they want, sometimes that means their freedom. Cause you know 'they've changed'.

Quad: 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.

There is a lot that science doesn't know or will revise but I don't here too many people complaining about the inaccuracy of work by people like Hare. Also what they do know is significant to say the least, for example the biological component to the condition, the fact that it isn't brought on by environment nor childhood. Again I will remind you that a mental institution is not a 'natural social environment' nor are they necessarily more lax. The difference is that they are being treated by nurses and doctors. Psychopaths don't require nurses or doctors, they are not delusional nor do they move in and out of mental states, they know the difference between right and wrong and reason quite well, they are intelligent and not divorced from reality. They are also completely without care and empathy for others because they lack the component to feel for others. A mental institution can do nothing for someone like that.

Quad: 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?

Prison is not necessarily about punishment, its about taking dangerous people out of society. Its about making sure that society is safe from said people. Manson doesn't mind being in jail and also doesn't find it a punishment are you suggesting that he should be released from prison on the basis that he isn't suffering in prison? In some states they do practice the death penalty and some of them will indeed be psychopaths. Are they human? Sure but so is the guy who is serving life in prison for some heinous crime that isn't a psychopath. Psychopaths probably have more of an ability to learn a system and use it to their benefit, the 'affect' they use to manipulate and seduce. They probably will show more cunning than your average misguided criminal who really just needs some understanding and can be turned around. Mind you psychopaths are placed with those who are just as devious as they are so I would't worry about them too much.

You might find this excerpt interesting:


“There has been a long tradition of research on psychopathy that has focused on the lack of sensitivity to punishment and a lack of fear, but those traits are not particularly good predictors of violence or criminal behavior,” David Zald, associate professor of psychology and of psychiatry and co-author of the study, said. “Our data is suggesting that something might be happening on the other side of things. These individuals appear to have such a strong draw to reward—to the carrot—that it overwhelms the sense of risk or concern about the stick.”

To examine the relationship between dopamine and psychopathy, the researchers used positron emission tomography, or PET, imaging of the brain to measure dopamine release, in concert with a functional magnetic imaging, or fMRI, probe of the brain’s reward system.

“The really striking thing is with these two very different techniques we saw a very similar pattern—both were heightened in individuals with psychopathic traits,” Zald said.

Study volunteers were given a personality test to determine their level of psychopathic traits. These traits exist on a spectrum, with violent criminals falling at the extreme end of the spectrum. However, a normally functioning person can also have the traits, which include manipulativeness, egocentricity, aggression and risk taking.

In the first portion of the experiment, the researchers gave the volunteers a dose of amphetamine, or speed, and then scanned their brains using PET to view dopamine release in response to the stimulant. Substance abuse has been shown in the past to be associated with alterations in dopamine responses. Psychopathy is strongly associated with substance abuse.

“Our hypothesis was that psychopathic traits are also linked to dysfunction in dopamine reward circuitry,” Buckholtz said. “Consistent with what we thought, we found people with high levels of psychopathic traits had almost four times the amount of dopamine released in response to amphetamine.”

http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/new...eek-rewards-no-matter-the-consequences.109865

Like I said before if they ever find a drug that works on psychopaths they would use it but as the article points out their brains are actually different and will respond differently to drugs and environmental stimuli. At present there is nothing you can do but study them further in the facilities where they belong which is prison. If they ever find a way to manage the psychopaths there will be many a happy folk but for now there is no such management of their disorder.
 
Last edited:
There is no treatment for psychopaths, no drugs.

There are most definitely drugs that will address the criminal consequences of their disorder - heavy sedatives, as already mentioned.

So you would place a criminal back into society so you can study them within society?

No, I would confine him to a mental institution. That is not "back into society." That is confinement under the supervision of trained professionals.

A mental institution is no more of a 'normal' place of study than a prison.

It's not so normal as regular society, but it's substantially more normal than a prison.

Really? Show me what prison in the US is actively sedating prisoners when they don't need it?

The entire premise was to do with people who do need it - otherwise they'll harm others.

Another precedent would be the chemical castration laws for sex offenders.

Drug therapy is given for a reason not to change the nature of an individual which is what you are suggesting.

No, we agreed explicitly many posts back that the nature of these individuals is immutable. The sedation would be administered to control otherwise violent predators.

The experts in the field study violent psychopaths where they naturally belong which is in prison.

I've already addressed the question of why they do not belong in prison. Either present a counter-argument, or concede this point. Puffing your chest out and repeating unbacked assertions just makes you look pathetic.

You haven't given any evidence that giving drugs to a psychopath leads to them being any less of a psychopath.

Nor have I suggested that it would - again, we have already agreed that nothing can ultimately change that aspect of these people. The point is that sedatives will inhibit their ability to harm others.

If this were possible they would be doing it right now.

You mean, if it weren't more politically expedient (and probably cheaper) to just toss them in prison and not worry about it?

Drugs are for treatment, to improve not to immobilize.

Drugs are for lots of things, and in certain contexts sedatives are routinely used to immobilize people who pose a danger to themselves or others.

It seems as though you are suggesting drugging all violent criminals psychopaths or not into immobility and lack of coordination, like some Clockwork Orange scenario.

No, just the ones whose criminality has been determined to flow from an innate mental deficiency. Prison is just fine for normal criminals.

And have they proven the same works with psychopaths?

That was a tangent, not a recommendation - it went to your implication that systematically drugging convicts wouldn't be a good idea.

Show me where it is legal to medically keep someone continually under sedation til they lack mobility and coordination under the assumption that they will behave badly in a prison setting?

What does that have to do with anything? The entire point here is to change the laws that deal with this stuff.

All psychopaths don't murder children, many of them don't even end up in prison.

Well, then, we needn't worry about them. We were talking about psychopaths that do commit crimes, and get caught, and get convicted, remember?

Some of them will remain in prison without being violent but that doesn't mean their nature has changed. They will still be a psychopath and the fact that they have been incarcerated for a crime doesn't mean they will never commit another crime.

So what?

They are also completely without care and empathy for others because they lack the component to feel for others. A mental institution can do nothing for someone like that.

They can confine and monitor them - the point is that crimes stemming from a mental disorder don't merit punishment as such, and so a punitive environment (prison) is an unjust response.

Prison is not necessarily about punishment, its about taking dangerous people out of society.

For about the third time now, it's about both of those things, and about rehabilitation, and about deterrence.

Arguing from fiat statements - especially ones on questions under debate - is a childish thing to do. Coming from an adult, it's disrespectful. That, or stupid.

Its about making sure that society is safe from said people.

If the point is simply confinement, what difference does it make whether it's in a prison or a mental institution? Either way, society is not exposed.
 
@Quadraphonics

Quad: There are most definitely drugs that will address the criminal consequences of their disorder - heavy sedatives, as already mentioned.


So you have no ethical issues with that? You claim that these types should be studied in a 'natural environment' but you want them studied under sedatives heavy enough to tranquilize them into loss of coordination? Its isn't legal Quad. Check for yourself.

You keep mentioning confining psychopaths to a mental institution but give no good reason why its a more appropriate option than prison. Psychopaths have a personality disorder but they are not insane, nor do they go in and out of mental states that render them detached from reality or disable them to the point where they don't know what they are doing. So please at least offer some evidence that would show what a mental institution can offer to those who don't need med's and are not candidates for therapy nor medical treatment.

Definition: mental institution - a hospital for mentally incompetent or unbalanced person


Psychopaths are neither incompetent nor unbalanced so why a mental institution? These people are simply criminal coupled with other anti-social behaviour. They are morally disinterested in regards to their own actions. The purpose of a mental institution is to stabilize the mentally ill but psychopaths cannot be treated and there is nothing to stabilize as they are not going in and out of states of unreality. Henry Weihofen, professor of law wrote a piece called 'The Definition of Mental Illness' for the Ohio State Law Journal:

'mental illness is a medical concept, and so it would seem self evident that its definition should come from the medical profession and not from either legislators or judges. But mental illness is a phenomenon that the law does recognize and that may have various legal effects. It may render a person irresponsible for his criminal act; it may justify a court order for his involuntary hospitalization; it may render him incompetent to make a will or binding contract…however, mental illness in and of itself does not have any of these legal effects. There must be mental illness; but there is always a second requirement, that the illness be of such a form or degree as to meet some legal criterion. In a will contest, where the question is whether the testator was "sane" when he made his will, the question is not merely whether he then had a medically recognized form of mental illness. If not, then of course he was not "insane" in any sense. But even if medical experts agree he was mentally ill, the law sakes him a further question, which is, broadly, did his mental illness DEPRIVE him of sufficient mind to know what he was doing?'

(OSLJ volume 21, 1960)

These are the same issues which legally arise when it comes to placing someone in a mental institution as opposed to prison. Regardless of the disorder the question is whether the person is 'insane' or were in a mentally unbalanced state when they committed their crime. Psychopaths are fully aware of reality and fully aware of their actions. In short they just don't give a shit, and not having any empathy for other human beings, being a pathological liar and a sadistic manipulative violent person doesn't de facto translate into 'insanity'.

Quad: It's not so normal as regular society, but it's substantially more normal than a prison.

Now you speak as someone who has never even seen the inside of a psych unit never mind a mental institution. A mental institution is part nursing home, part medical facility and part prison. Here is an article for you:

Sometimes, mental health treatment means having to go into a modern psychiatric hospital. Unlike psychiatric hospitals of old, modern facilities are meant to help stabilize an individual and provide a safe and protected environment for a person to heal with around-the-clock care.

But modern psychiatric hospitals still have their share of troubles, as illustrated in an in-depth piece today in the Los Angeles Times which examines Psychiatric Solutions Inc (PSI), a chain of psychiatric hospitals across the country. In the article, the problems with the chain are laid out:

Since 2005, the 10 hospitals PSI has owned longest have compiled almost twice as many patient-care deficiencies as 10 similar hospitals owned by its closest competitor, Universal Health Services Inc.

The PSI hospitals were cited in three patient deaths and for placing patients in immediate jeopardy four times, the inspection records show. The UHS hospitals received no equivalent citations.Among private psychiatric hospitals in California, Sierra Vista had the single highest rate of state and federal deficiencies — about eight times the statewide average.

It has twice been fined $25,000 for endangering patients — accounting for the only such penalties levied against psychiatric hospitals under a 2006 state law establishing the sanctions.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/24/psychiatric-solutions-hospitals-under-fire/

Is this the kind of environment you believe that can confine and drug a psychopath considering that they cannot be 'healed'? Mental institutions are not legally allowed to keep someone sedated 24/7. If a patient is violent they can be sedated but it usually means being confined in a room without a bed or strapped into a bed. They do this to control the mentally ill who are either out of control or out of reality, psychopaths are not insane nor unstable.

Here is an example of what happens in mental facilities that are not even designed for psychopaths, you know, those 'nice' places where people go to get help for treatable mental ailments:

Physchiatric care's peril and profits:

In December 2005, Ramona Knapp, 51, was left fatally brain damaged after hospital workers restrained her improperly, pinning her to the floor.

In March 2007, an unidentified 29-year-old woman was mistakenly given six times the prescribed dose of a potent antipsychotic drug. Even after 15 hours, she was too weak to swallow.

When Steven Burton, 55, checked in for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression in February, he complained of chest pains. The intake nurse didn't notify a doctor because, as she later told regulators, "he didn't look sick."

Burton was discovered the next morning, facedown on the floor of his room, shaking and sweating. Staffers put him back in bed and paged a psychiatrist, getting no response. Two and a half hours later, a nurse found him blue and not breathing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-psi23-2008nov23,0,6992829,full.story


Is this the kind of facility that is prepared to deal with a violent psychopath? Do you think a mental institution has the protocols required by prisons to control a criminal? If you need the protocols of a prison to control a criminal then why would you place them in a mental institution? In other words since mental institutions are not equipped to deal with a cold calculating abusive and violent psychopath what is the point of placing them there?


Quad: The entire premise was to do with people who do need it - otherwise they'll harm others.

No Quad! No! Violent criminals go to prison precisely because they harm others personality disordered or not! That's what the facilities are for!! Mental institutions are there to STABILIZE the unbalanced. Psychopaths ARE NOT unbalanced!

Are these ideas of yours simply your own opinion or does it come from any understanding of psychopathy? Do you have any scientific or legal evidence to back up your opinions? Anything that has some bearing to the legal and psychiatric realities behind this issue?

Quad: The sedation would be administered to control otherwise violent predators.

How? What drugs are you thinking of? How do you know they will work with a psychopath who may not act on impulse alone? Would you keep them sedated everyday for the rest of their lives? Why not simply keep them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives instead of giving drugs for no medical reason? If it were as simple as administering a drug to 'control' a violent predator, which by the way isn't even legal for a variety of ethical reasons, why haven't the experts in this field suggested such treatment?

Quad: You mean, if it weren't more politically expedient (and probably cheaper) to just toss them in prison and not worry about it?

Quad go and find me even a slither of evidence that drug therapy works on psychopaths? Just one link. Please, give me one case study that shows that the psychopaths behavior is altered by one drug or another. Do you realize that sedating someone to the degree you suggest isn't even medically sound?

Most psychopaths never get into a therapists office if they are on the outside as they see nothing wrong with themselves (much like the clinical narcissist), most psychopaths are not even in prison. But the ones who are are there because they are CRIMINAL. Because they have knowingly and without conscience or necessity committed a crime. Psychopaths make up roughly 20% of the prison population, they are actually more dangerous than the normal offender. They are not going to change, they are not going to be remedied, not at this time! They commit sadistic acts without any compunction so why should they receive treatment different from any other violent criminal?

Quad: What does that have to do with anything? The entire point here is to change the laws that deal with this stuff.

It has everything to do with this. You cannot legally sedate someone for long lengths of time when it is unhelpful and unnecessary and then call it ethical treatment. The laws work just fine Quad. Show some evidence that the laws need to be re-written to allow psychopaths, who are not insane, to be sedated? And then explain to me how you would stop this from affecting other violent criminals who are also not 'insane' but otherwise do not qualify as psychopaths?

You ask "so what?" to the fact that a psychopath is untreatable at this point in time. Its practically everything! Its the reason why they study these types in prisons, so they can learn more about the condition. It is a personality disorder Quad not a debilitating mental illness! They don't harm themselves, they simply cause havoc in the lives of others as abusers even if they don't behave criminally. The cost on society is grave to say the least. What will you learn from a zonked out zombie? Nothing! What good will it do them? Nothing. Can you show one piece of evidence that it would do any good whatsoever other than your off the cuff opinion?

Quad: They can confine and monitor them - the point is that crimes stemming from a mental disorder don't merit punishment as such, and so a punitive environment (prison) is an unjust response.

They do confine and monitor them…IN PRISON! Do you understand the difference between psychopathy and say bi polar disorder? Or schizophrenia? They are all conditions but the latter create mental states where the person is no longer responsible for their actions. Psychopaths are responsible for their actions, they simply don't care about the consequences of their actions. See the difference? You say its unjust but I believe that raping a four year old child is unjust. I believe that murdering someone is unjust and that prison is not so much of a punishment as much as a way to protect society from predators. Psychopaths are immune to punishment as you or I would think of punishment. Criminal psychopaths are placed in prison because its where they belong.

Quad: For about the third time now, it's about both of those things, and about rehabilitation, and about deterrence. Arguing from fiat statements - especially ones on questions under debate - is a childish thing to do. Coming from an adult, it's disrespectful. That, or stupid.

Now, Now! I haven't called you stupid even though you show no evidence to back up any of your opinions or claims or even show the slightest knowledge about psychopathy. For example you speak of rehabilitation, well it is a well known fact that there is at present no rehabilitation for the psychopath and that it even increases the recidivism rate among that group. Go and do some research before you start calling me stupid and childish. I could call you a bleeding heart dupe but I didn't. I simply asked you to go and find some evidence to back up your assertions which simply come across as an off the cuff opinion based solely on your 'feelings'. You do realize that my only statement to which you responded with the above was "Prison is not necessarily about punishment, its about taking dangerous people out of society." If you want me to qualify that statement by replacing 'necessarily' with 'solely' I can do that but the statement still remains valid.

Now go and show me how society or the psychopath would benefit from anything else other than prison.

Quad: f the point is simply confinement, what difference does it make whether it's in a prison or a mental institution? Either way, society is not exposed.

I have already answered that by illustrating the difference between the purpose behind a mental institution and a prison and the criteria for placing someone in a mental institution as opposed to prison.
 
Last edited:
@Quadraphonics

Here is another article from the National Post on Psychopathy and treatment by Norman Doidge:



What, other than our wish that it be otherwise, makes us think that every human vice is treatable by some form of psychotherapy?

That this wish is not just naive, but, at times, harmful is illustrated by a recent Canadian study on group treatment for 238 sex offenders (rapists, incest offenders) from Warkworth penitentiary in Ontario. These prisoners included some well-documented psychopaths. All were taught to "empathize" with victims, and understand their "offence cycle" as part of treatment. After their release, it was found that those who had scored highest in terms of "good treatment behaviour" and who had the highest "empathy" scores were the more likely to reoffend on release into the community. Hannibal Lecter Charm School teaches good manners, but not morals.

The important study by Seto and Barbaree replicated -- unintentionally -- a 1992 Canadian study that found treated psychopaths reoffend more than psychopaths who are not treated. A larger study, just completed in Britain, shows the same. It may be that all psychopaths learn, in our new ersatz empathy institutes, is how to manipulate better by appearing more caring. But should we be surprised at the duplicity, since such treatments are generally mandated? And are such mandated treatments really psychotherapy?

Just because a self-described "patient" is in a room with a self-described "therapist" doesn't mean psychotherapy is going on. Freud argued psychopaths are untreatable in psychotherapy precisely because having a conscience is a prerequisite for being able to use psychotherapy. It is the conscience, and the related capacity for concern for others, that drives the serious scrutiny of one's motives, which underlie one's behaviour. Yet psychopaths lack conscience and concern by definition.

But these new psychopath-friendly treatments focus only superficially on motives or matters of good faith by tracking attendance and overt co-operativeness. Mostly they focus on impulse control and teaching new behaviours and mindsets. Past naive, they hope that because a psychopath can appear remorseful, or change his behaviour at any given moment, his overall mindset or deeper intentions will follow suit. Three cheers for us: We have invented treatments based on theories that are less complex than the impoverished minds of psychopaths.

Psychotherapy doesn't just require a good theory and an astute clinician. It also requires a patient. The word patient comes from Latin, and means "to suffer." A patient, by definition, is bothered by something. Yet most treatments of prisoners originate not from the prisoner's suffering, but are mandated by the justice system. Corrections Canada knows many psychopaths will be released into the community eventually, so it attempts to change them, even though any psychotherapy for adults that has to be mandated is suspect.

The "treatment" reported on in the Canadian study lasted 300 sessions. To their credit, the treaters didn't believe they could work their miracles overnight. Yet, more and more, mandated treatments are short-term: eight to 10 sessions. Most people can't quit smoking in eight to 10 sessions, never mind do a Karla Homolka make over.

Applying these self-esteem techniques to psychopaths requires an ability to get everything about the psychotherapeutic enterprise backwards. Psychopaths don't need lessons in clearing their consciences; if anything, it is they who ought to be teaching the rest of mankind how to be remorseless.

But mushy-gushy therapy is not just confined to therapists. It is part of a dangerous denial of the nature of psychopathy and evil that is sweeping through our correctional services. A recent federal task force on security, released on Nov. 2, advised getting rid of guards with guns, unseemly razor-wire fences and intimidating towers around prisons (National Post, Dec. 15). It even advised that inmates should carry the keys to their own cells so they could make "responsible choices." "Restorative justice" based on "a culture of respect" would be practised.

So here is a respectful way of framing things. Psychopaths constitute 1% of the population, but are so talented they conduct 50% of all crimes. Since it might be hurtful to say they are incurable, let's just say they are beyond therapy.

That much said, surprising as it sounds, not all sex offenders are psychopaths; some, who have been involved in incest, apparently have low rates of reoffending. Some may benefit, at times, from long-term intensive interventions and monitoring. But there is no empirical evidence that sex offenders who are psychopaths benefit from treatment.

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0001/np000107.htm



Get it now? Or do I have to throw more facts, articles, and evidence placed by experts in the field?
 
After their release, it was found that those who had scored highest in terms of "good treatment behaviour" and who had the highest "empathy" scores were the more likely to reoffend on release into the community. Hannibal Lecter Charm School teaches good manners, but not morals.

You cannot trust sociopaths, of course they will lie and use deception to pass a test like that. Why or how do you think they came to be sociopaths? BECAUSE[/] they can lie and used deception on tests like that.
 
You cannot trust sociopaths, of course they will lie and use deception to pass a test like that. Why or how do you think they came to be sociopaths? BECAUSE[/] they can lie and used deception on tests like that.


You'll have to ask Quadraphonics. I am still trying to figure out what forms his opinion.
 
your both incorect, there are treatments for personality disorders, if you dont belive me look up the DMS-IV. they may not have fantastic success rates but then nither does the treatment for small cell agressive lung cancer. the improvements of these treatments are hamped by a) the relitivly small numbers of cases and b) the legal system which restricts acess and treatment ( not to mention killing some of them)
 
your both incorect, there are treatments for personality disorders, if you dont belive me look up the DMS-IV. they may not have fantastic success rates but then nither does the treatment for small cell agressive lung cancer. the improvements of these treatments are hamped by a) the relitivly small numbers of cases and b) the legal system which restricts acess and treatment ( not to mention killing some of them)

This is beyond our abilities. Cases are also unique to the individual. Often times it is a case of improper\detrimental nurturing and some are seemingly born like that. Due to having childhoods that are very normal.

The main thing is that when these people make mistakes it isnt like just not going to work for a few days or something like that.
 
your both incorect, there are treatments for personality disorders, if you dont belive me look up the DMS-IV. they may not have fantastic success rates but then nither does the treatment for small cell agressive lung cancer. the improvements of these treatments are hamped by a) the relitivly small numbers of cases and b) the legal system which restricts acess and treatment ( not to mention killing some of them)

We're not speaking of 'personality disorders'. I have already written in a post that there is a treatment for say 'borderline pd' but there is no treatment for psychopathy at this time!!!

If you know something that Hare does not then stop blithering and show us the breakthrough:rolleyes:

Take a look at John's last post. He's correct that psychopaths are born with this disorder, it is not environmental.
 
Someone can definitely be a sadist and not a serial axe killer, so no there should not be a lesser sentence given for that. That's absurd. You know, I had really hoped Obama was going to make some good changes with his time in the presidency. So far I'm unconvinced.
 
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

Then insanity is the excuse for everything else. And one can logically argue that taking somones life unprovoked is a sign of insanity and i would go further...i would call it the benchmark. Now if we let all these people go there would be no mre people left and the judge would be out of a job.
 
Back
Top