[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/30/baby-girl-cut-from-womb-alive ]A very disturbing story...[/url]
How on earth can people like this even exist in this world?
Expecting our first child in a few months, I find that even harder to read 😥
What is wrong with this world 🙁
thats ****ed up. 🙁
Expecting our first child in a few months
As a new father myself I am similarly upset - but jeez - it is one sick thing kidnapping a baby, but this one really stuns me.
The story, as it stands, does not actually provide evidence that the child belongs to the dead woman. Nor have the couple mentioned been convicted.
If it does all add up as the story suggests then it is a very sad reflection of one end of humanity.
A friend works in post-natal ICU at the local hospital and is often depressed about the prospects for newborns who have to be weaned off heroine from the very start of their tiny lives. No baby deserves that sort of start.
The woman is undoubtedly very very ill. Might be an idea to find out why bearing in mind its not the first case of its kind and I've got an empty Gel pack to bet that it won't be the last.
G
Indeed, it would suggest that the person is not exactly functioning correctly, rather than a reflection on society.
A friend works in post-natal ICU at the local hospital and is often depressed about the prospects for newborns who have to be weaned off heroine from the very start of their tiny lives. No baby deserves that sort of start.
🙁
And the point of this thread is?
heard that on the radio this morning, pretty disturbing stuff.
Low? Disturbed? Insane? Is there a difference?
I've read some sick shit in my time but that hits a new level.
Low? Disturbed? Insane? Is there a difference?
Seriously?
molgrips - Member
Low? Disturbed? Insane? Is there a difference?
Tell me you are taking the piss!
Yes, seriously.
What's the difference between so pathalogically evil that you do this stuff, and being mentally ill? It comes down to the definition and origin of free will, doesn't it?
[i]"And the point of this thread is?"[/i]
For people [b]who want to[/b] discuss a topic to do just that.....very tricky one that.
What's the difference between so pathalogically evil that you do this stuff, and being mentally ill?
I thought it would be self evident, but I'll go with it, one suggests that the individual is in someway in control of their actions whereas the other suggests that they really aren't.
Low? Disturbed? Insane? Is there a difference?
Clearly not on planet molgrips.
"What's the difference between so pathologically evil that you do this stuff, and being mentally ill?”
Are you some sort of fundamentalist god botherer? Do you actually beleave that Evil (as in not good - by your standards) is the same as some who is mentally ill?
And the point of this thread is?
Coming from the man who started a 'bring back Rudeboy' thread. pfft.
And the point of this thread is?
And the point of any thread is?...
Are you some sort of fundamentalist god botherer?
Lol.
I used the word evil as convenient shorthand, since it's in common use.
one suggests that the individual is in someway in control of their actions whereas the other suggests that they really aren't.
That's way simplistic. Is a schizophrenic who listens to the voices in control of his actions or not?
If you suddenly decide to become a serial killer, you are in control of your actions, but surely the [i]impulse[/i] to kill frequently and randomly is a symptom of a mental illness?
Not getting good answers...
You know when they say
? Well now isnt that time I guess.Keep your friends close but your enemies closer
deft - surely they have CCTV from the cinema?
Put them in the room with a couple of royal marines...
Double post type scenario! Soz
If you suddenly decide to become a serial killer, you are in control of your actions, but surely the impulse to kill frequently and randomly is a symptom of a mental illness?
Good grief!
Please tell me this is a troll....
Put them in the room with a couple of royal marines...
Now let's be sensible here...Para Reg surely
Troll or Idiot?
"If you suddenly decide to become a serial killer"
Its not a career choice.
Just as Paedophiles actually dont beleive they are doing wrong, someone with a severe mental illness will have vastly different conception of logic.
Fair point Hora, I should've said "the day you decide to act on your impulses"
The lack of proper answers on this thread tells me that you lot don't get my point. Apart from Hora 🙂
molgrips, I might look like everyone on this forum (apart from Jojo1 who is lush) 🙄 but I do think differently (dont know if thats good or bad)...
you lot don't get my point. Apart from Hora
Personally I wouldn't really shout about that..... 😯
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Is there any difference between some-one who's pathologically* evil, and some-one who's mentally ill?
*given that pathology is the study of diseases?
Speshpaul is wudeboy.
samuri - MemberEvery being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Unfortunatly not. Its one of the characteristics of personality disorder IIRC for one. Psychopaths don't either nor do many folk with sever metal illness.
Its a very hard to judge the line for sure - at what point does either mental illness or developmental abnormality mean they don't have the ability to judge right from wrong?
this is why we have the "diminished responsibility" defense in courts.
Anyone watch the news coverage of Minny the Munter's multiple marriages the other day? If you did and were unable to spot even from that briefest of glimpses that she was not all there, and definately not in control of herself, then you might consider getting some help along with her IMHO.
Minny the Munter's multiple marriages
Very good....
[b]deft said;[/b]
Now let's be sensible here...Para Reg surely
If you want the teenage boys to be sexually assaulted then yes. 😉
If you want the teenage boys to be sexually assaulted then yes.
Depends where you rate naked rollmat thrashings on the punishment scale
*given that pathology is the study of diseases?
Pathology means the study of disease (path means to do with disease, from the greek for suffering) and logos means knowledge doesn't it? But pathological as applied to a mental or emotional process means disturbed or mentally ill:
"3. caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition"
[i]Its a very hard to judge the line for sure - at what point does either mental illness or developmental abnormality mean they don't have the ability to judge right from wrong?[/i]
Fair point but who's to say these people ever lose that ability? Plenty of people do terrible things despite knowing they're wrong, they just have stronger forces driving them.
There are plenty of people with mental illness who have abolutely no understanding of right and wrong - a close relation did a lot of work with Scope IIRC, and kids she worked with would intentionally do things to hurt people, yet have absolutely no idea why they were being punished. Hard for a normal person to understand how someone cannot see it's wrong.
Well it does seem that molgrips is possessed with the notion that we all have complete control and direction over our actions at all times. It is a bit sad that there are still people about who genuinely think like that.
Well it does seem that molgrips is possessed with the notion that we all have complete control and direction over our actions at all times
I was trying to imply the opposite in fact. Or at least that when we do make decisions they are often for reasons that others find repellent. Remember, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing in difficult circumstances.
Nope, sorry mate, you've lost me there.... not hard I accept, but definately lost by that one. Can you clarify please?
The question is, what is free will? When you choose to do something, it's a mental process that says 'this seems like a good idea'. If you are mentally ill, those processes are different to those of other people and the outcome is often pretty bad. But on some level it's no different.
In some people, the evaluation process that decides on the consequences of something (or even links actions with consequences) is what we would call flawed, so they do things without understanding or caring how it affects other people. In others, their brain is telling them to do things and they don't want to but can't resist. Now what is the difference between those two situations? Should one be dealt with differently?
Don't take empathy for granted. Some people are not capable of understanding the concept of other people's pain. Some other people also can't make a link between crime and punishment - so in that case, what would be the point of punishing them?
Just food for thought, really. These are questions that have been chewed over for hundreds of years I think.
Molgrips - it's not always about 'punishing people', it's sometimes about maintaining the safety of themselves and the people around them. I work in forensic psychiatry, specialising in personality disorder, and I honestly believe that people arent born 'flawed' - it's generally down to circumstance (yes I know, the old 'nature versus nurture' debate). Another one to throw into the mix is the oddly held belief that people are either 'mad or bad' - what's to prevent someone being both?
If you suddenly decide to become a serial killer, you are in control of your actions, but surely the impulse to kill frequently and randomly is a symptom of a mental illness?
This kind of threw me to be honest... basically the word "decide" tends to indicate a rational thought process. For example the first month of the trial of Peter Sutcliffe was given over to the debate of whether he was mad or not. They actually decided that this man who beat random women to death with a hammer and then hammered wooden wedges into their various bodily orifices was sane FFS!! After a short spell in prison, the prison service had him transferred to Broadmoor because he was self evidently a nutter and they couldn't cope with him.
My perspective is that we are all driven to a great extent by our life experiences. Somewhere along the way there is a line where that driven behaviour is deemed to cross a boundary from acceptable to unacceptable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that people either side of the line are totally in control of their actions. So the question is when people cross the line do we "punish" them, given that we know that their behaviour is not necessarily something that they can control, or do we attempt to give them experiences that will lead to a modification of their behaviour that takes them back behind "The line".
In fact going one step further, surely to any rational person the concept of punishing someone who is not able to control their behaviour is barbaric surely??
Molgrips - it's not always about 'punishing people'
Yes of course. The extension of my argument is that simple punishment would be very unlikely to work for a lot of violent crime. I'd personally go for a kind of Orwellian re-alignment programme instead 🙂 So those that say 'how awful, lock them up, serve them right' really dont' understand the issues.
Of course, I'd lock up say fraudsters or thieves perhaps - different type of crime I think.
Another one to throw into the mix is the oddly held belief that people are either 'mad or bad' - what's to prevent someone being both?
Good point. I feel vindicated to see someone who works in the business acknlowedging the complexity of the issues 🙂
This kind of threw me to be honest... basically the word "decide" tends to indicate a rational thought process.
Yes, I admitted that was badly worded.
My perspective is that we are all driven to a great extent by our life experiences.
Yes. Did you watch 'Dexter' btw? Good programme in many ways (although a bit heavy on the actual killing/killer detective part). The idea of a born psychopath with a strong decent upbringing by a father who knew what he was was fascinating.
In fact going one step further, surely to any rational person the concept of punishing someone who is not able to control their behaviour is barbaric surely?
Absolutely! But whenever someone tries to change the system they get flamed for being all namby pamby bleeding-heart criminal sympathisers by the f*cking press (who I seem to hate more and more as I get older and understand the world more).
G - I actually worked with people who were involved with the Sutcliffe trial - If I wasnt bound by my code of professional conduct, I'd like to be able to discuss this further. However, and I have to stress that this is only my opinion, can you imagine how strong the public outcry would have been at the time if he had been declared unfit to plead and transferred straight to a special hospital?
Sometimes the general public need to see 'justice being done'.
Molgrips : Well I'm with you on that one. I can't understand why we keep locking people up for longer and longer when we know that it has no other effect than make the liklihood of reoffending a racing certainty. Now that is mad !
I can't understand why we keep locking people up for longer and longer
So what IS the solution?
didn't a similar thing happan to that blonde lady from that american tv show the munsters? Killied by some nutter?
Barnsley : That would be fantastic, shame you can't. What really bothers me about it is that the professionals know full well that with better funding and appropriate policies they could make a real impact with these people, but successive governments bend to the wind of ill informed public opinion and the Murdoch press and perpetuate an entirely ludicrous situation.
My brother ran a project in Tottenham aimed at taking young "joy riders" out of the loop. Long story, but it involved them doing education during the day and being rewarded with access to a banger racing project in the evenings if they performed. In a nutshell their recidivism rate was about 10% as opposed to 90% by conventional means. The funding was withdrawn as a result of pressure from the local electorate that seemed to be based on the concept that "my kid doesn't get rewarded for doing wrong so this is obviously unfair and will encourage kids to nick cars so they can join the project". So the crime rate went up and as far as I know they are still arresting kids and banging them up and basically sentencing them to a life of crime by so doing.
So what IS the solution?
Bloody good question. Time and time again it has been shown that rehabilitation programmes (like the car one - heard about that before - and many others) work, but the idiot electorate/paper-readers whine and then we're back to square one.
More realistic prison sentences (life sentences meaning life, not 7 - 8 years), greater funding for rehabilitation (where appropriate), increased public awareness of mental health issues, and perhaps most importantly, the daily mail et al should **** right off and keep their inflamatory opinions to themselves.
More realistic prison sentences (life sentences meaning life, not 7 - 8 years)
Why would that help?
perhaps most importantly, the daily mail et al should **** right off and keep their inflamatory opinions to themselves
Amenm to that. Unfortunately it's hard to square what I'd like to do to the press with the idea of freedom of speech.
molgrips - I'll just try and explain what I meant by that. In certain cases, my belief is that life should mean life. I'm not going in to specifics here, just trying to say that if there is no doubt that an individual has premeditated a crime which carries a severe enough sentence, and is in full control of their faculties, then that individual should have to, by law, serve that sentence. I have, in my career, seen cases where people have been released from a relatively short sentence and, somewhat predictably, reoffended. Sometimes, sad as it is, certain individuals need to remain incarcerated for as long as they are a danger to others. Sorry if I came across a little right wing or reactionary there.
I'd probably agree. Incarceration makes sense if it's the only way to ensure the public's safety.
Top STW thread anyway (unfortunate subject matter tho) - loving the way you often get actual experts on here.
I reckon the crime and punishment thing comes down to the three "R"s, which are Retribution, Removal and Rehabilitation.
Retribution really is the least important issue. Its the eye for an eye bit and serves little purpose, especially in making victims feel better. Its also as it happens the soft option for many offenders. Whereas being forced to address their behaviour is often very frightening and difficult for them.
For my money is someone needs removing from society because they endanger the rest of us, then so be it, remove them and until such time as they are totally safe. I could be persuaded that there is an argument for euthenasia here, but it does stick in my craw a bit, and I am by no means convinced. (The Moors folk, Sutcliffe etc)
Rehabilitation : Surely thats what we need to genuinely be seeking to do, and I'm pretty damn sure its the thing we expend least resource on. i.e. the cheap thing to do in fact is to resolve a problem once! Not keep repeatedly failing to resolve it.
G
G - I generally agree with you, particularly regarding rehabilitation, but I have to question your point that retribution serves little purpose, "especially in making victims feel better" - in my experience, people generally need some form of closure, and in cases such as this, that generally means feeling that justice has been done. Having said that, my earlier post on this thread calling for more realistic sentencing may explain why this is not often the case. Happy days!
Hi mitch,
I think different things float different peoples boats in this respect. However, generally, in my limited experience the thing that most people want more than anything is really an apology, an explanation, and an assurance that it can't/won't happen again. Imprisonment and the current legal process singularly fails to deliver this. Thats why I feel that the retribution element as is is worthless. As I said, many offenders are self evidently undaunted by prison, as they all too often reoffend, so in what way does that help the victims?? Not onl ythat the victim is rarely invovled in the process in any way at all. See my point?
G - I think were probably singing from the same hymn sheet here. One of the main reasons people arent assured that 'it wont happen again' is that more often than not, the current system in this country lets them down, either by handing out lax sentences and providing little or no rehabilitation during same, or by failing to provide adequate support or recognition of what the victims have been, or are, going through.
I'm not by any means some sort of fundamentalist, demanding an eye for an eye or any of that crap, I just believe that a life, or the ruin of one, deserves more than an eight year sentence for the person that carried out that act.
I just believe that a life, or the ruin of one, deserves more than an eight year sentence for the person that carried out that act
Mmm yes and that's why longer sentences are often handed out. The thing is that some people want those offending against them banged up forever out of revenge, which isn't a healthy emotional process. If I found myself stuck in a lift with the people that stole my bike collection, I wouldn't want to beat them up or steal from them - I'd want to make them see my point of view and make them genuinely regret what they'd done and not be likely to do it again. Even if that took drastic measures - I'd not be averse to actual violence if it helped (and that's a big if).
I do think that in many cases crimes deserve punishment mitch, but like I say for a lot of violent crimes it isn't that simple. After all, some crimes ruin the lives of the perpetrator as well - which is why you sometimes get lenient sentences for stuff like driving deaths.
The people handing out sentences don't just make them up after all. A judge doesn't just think 'oh I'm in a good mood this morning, make that 8 years for murder - after all I like your tie'. However I think the majority of people think like that.
There's a real difference between time handed out and time served. You also seem to be giving out a bit of a mixed message there, saying in one sentence revenge isnt a healthy emotional process, and then going on to say you'd not be averse to using actual violence if it helped.
you'd not be averse to using actual violence if it helped.
I wouldn't use violence for selfish reasons ie to make myself feel better. I'd only use it if it helped get my point across. Admittedly, it'd be an unlikely situation and on reflection, that's probably not a good idea to have in one's head. Maybe that's my evolutionary history as a male talking...
No worries molgrips, and for what it's worth, I'd want revenge - I think it's a perfectly normal response, or maybe that's just the Sicilian in me.
I do think it's selfish and futile - does revenge ever actually make you feel better? I try to improve on base urges wherever there's a better alternative.
does revenge ever actually make you feel better
Err, yeah 🙂
When I'm hot under the collar, revenge may well be the only thing on my mind, but having been through the process a couple of times myself, I have to say that the revenge thing fizzles out fairly quickly. To be honest a lot of what follows is "why me?" and as described above.