Serial Killers: What is to be done?

[Weezer]

How should serial killers be dealt with in revolutionary societies?

While normally I'm against the death penalty, I wouldn't mind seeing serial killers being shot.

However, at the same time, the good majority of serial killers are insane. I guess they could be rehabilitated or put in mental institutions, but what good would come out of it?

[Sosa]

oops. meant to vote Rehab/prison instead of other

[Kenco Smooth]

What good would be done of it? We wouldn't risk executing an innocent person or degrading the individual more than is necessary.

[Thirsty Crow]

Prison/rehabilitation (we can expect that the character of coercive institutions will change in that it will actually not function as a means of dehumanization and degradation) for life. That is the most responsible thing to do.

[Cencus]

Rehab. If we kill people because they are ill are we any better than animals?

Would you kill a man for having flu? If not then why would you kill someone who had a mental illness?

[Black Sheep]

Rehab.
Pathological killers should be treated medically for mind/psychological disorders .

[Widerstand]

Rehab of course.

[4 Leaf Clover]

well if serial killer kills 40 people , i really can't give an honest answer. i don't know how would family of victims feel

[mikelepore]

They should spend each day strapped to a laboratory table with electrodes and scanners attached to their heads, while brain researchers try to figure out what caused them to be that way. To do anything else with them is a waste of scientific data.

(Checking "other." Thank you for being one of the few poll creators who remember to include an "other" option.)

[Nolan]

I believe it should be handled on an individual case by case basis. The families of victims should decide in most murder cases, and in cases of extreme brutality to victims or high body count, execution. Some criminals simply can't be reformed without fundamental change to how their brains work, and the ability to do that would bring with it a lot of other issues.

[Manic Impressive]

The causes for someone developing a psychological condition which would cause them to become a serial killer would be diminished in a post revolutionary society. Many serial killers start out as victims of abuse and if you can deal with the cause of the problem the chances of it happening will decrease. Any discussions in this thread will most likely be between people unqualified to speak about the subject and I am definitely one of those people.

[Thirsty Crow]

The families of victims should decide in most murder cases, and in cases of extreme brutality to victims or high body count, execution.
There are at least two serious problems here:

1) why should the family get to decide if the man/woman will have to die? Why legally (formal or informal) sanctioned murder? Why would someone want to provide the desire for revenge with a possibility of realization?

2) Extreme brutality/high body count: just how extreme should violence be in order that the criminal may face capital punishment? And just how high should the body count be? If a community, hypothetically,agrees on, let's say, the number 10, what would make a difference important enough that a serial killer who has killed nine people does not get killed himself/herself?

[Barry Lyndon]

Serial killers are invariably pathological- it is their internal mental makeup that is their problem, not external circumstances. To be sure, some have had abusive and/or traumatic childhoods, but many have not. This vulgar Marxism which states that it is always the larger society's fault for criminals condition is inadequate for dealing with such cases.

One example of this flawed aproach is the following case-In the Soviet Union there was a serial killer Andrei Chikatilo who murdered over 50 women and children from 1978-90. The Soviet authorities were slow to respond. Why? Partly because of their insistence that the string of murders couldn't be the work of a single serial killer as such things only happened in 'decadent' capitalist countries.

Rehabilitation would be pretty much impossible for such people. I would opt for execution, with the permission of the victim's families of course. Too many completely innocent people suffer in this world all the time for revolutionaries to moan and groan and whine about the sanctity of these scumbags lives. I'm not going to put such a person in a prison where they might escape and harm more people all over again.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Like Red America said, it depends frome case to case, many times being locked up for the rest of youre life is probably much more painful then many belive. I also agree with Barry that not all cases can be solved with rehabilitation, which seems to be the absolute solution for many leftists. I have friends working at a menthal institution, who claims that some patients are hopless cases and are just keept there waiting to theire dying day, example one man a pedophile/murdere has been there since the late 40s! So lifetime prision/prision-like institution sentence and maybe execution in rare cases, is my option.

[Thirsty Crow]

Rehabilitation would be pretty much impossible for such people. I would opt for execution, with the permission of the victim's families of course. Too many completely innocent people suffer in this world all the time for revolutionaries to moan and groan and whine about the sanctity of these scumbags lives. I'm not going to put such a person in a prison where they might escape and harm more people all over again.
So, you don't envision something like prisons in a socialist society?

[apawllo]

I don't believe a society has the right to take a person's life regardless of his/her actions (within the context of this thread). With that said, the major issue I'd have with murdering a murderer is not that an eye for an eye is inherently right or wrong, but that perhaps the society which has been formed isn't working properly for that person. Even if they've murdered 50 people, like the aforementioned Soviet guy, the person who has been formed is a product of generations of social conditions. So who really is more to blame? The person, or society? I'm not sure that I can answer that question with proof enough to take his/her life. Should he/she be rehabilitated? If possible, yes. Beyond that, I'm honestly not sure what should be done. I suppose the society should take a look at itself as well though.

[Thirsty Crow]

So who really is more to blame? The person, or society?
I think we can conclude with certainty that there were instances of "pure" pathology with regard to serial killers...but the question remains: why should a person, whose real "fault" was that he/she was born this way, be murdered?

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I think some people are missing that rehabilitation would only end once the person is absolutely deemed to be able to re-enter society.

I don't think that separating people from the community is helpful for the perpetrator, for the victims, or for society in general. I think that they should retain involvement with the community. They should see the suffering they've caused. They should be able to talk to people. They should continue to engage in "community service" alongside the rest of their society.

Committing a crime isn't a get-out clause, either for a criminal to abandon society or for society to abandon the criminal.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Many serial killers start out as victims of abuse and if you can deal with the cause of the problem the chances of it happening will decrease.

That's actually not really true. Many serial killers actually came from fairly comfortable backgrounds...Jeffrey Dahmer for example frequently stated that he had loving parents and a fairly good childhood. Richard Ramirez reported the same.

Also, the brains of serial killers have actually been studied in the past, and guess what researchers have found? Absolutely nothing, with only one or two exceptions (such as Charles Whitman, the Texas UT sniper, who was discovered to have a brain tumor).

I've posted this a while back, but I think it's really interesting, especially when he (Kemper) talks about the crazy workings of his mind:

ZUWQ7d-jr9Y

Finally, has anyone ever seen the movie called Citizen X (or read the book called The Killer Department)? It's about the "Rostov Ripper" Andrei Chikatilo, a serial killer who was active in the Soviet Union and killed over fifty people. His arrest was supposedly hampered by the USSR's criminologists, who classified serial killing as a "decadent phenomenon" of the West, which led to crackdowns on homosexuals and the mentally ill. (edit: ah, BL has beat me to it)

[DaComm]

Prison/rehabilitation (we can expect that the character of coercive institutions will change in that it will actually not function as a means of dehumanization and degradation) for life. That is the most responsible thing to do.

What purpose does rehabilitation serve if they are to be locked away for life, I must inquire?

[Victus Mortuum]

I think that what really needs to be discussed here is the distinction between two types of murderers:

Those who kill for revenge/out of anger/drunkenness/etc.
and
Those who kill because they get immense pleasure from it and/or they have no empathy for other human being (psychopaths, that is)

The above class could enter long-term rehab and maybe one day reenter society. The latter are psychologically incapable of caring for others, for feeling the pain or anguish of another person. These people cannot be fixed, these people cannot be allowed to reenter society. They must be removed somehow for the protection of the people.

Either:
a) Execution
b) Exile (dropped on an uninhabited island or something)
c) Life Imprisonment

[Magón]

If they have a mental illness, which not all Serial Killers do (let's just make that clear right now), then I say some sort of rehabilitation. But if they're fully aware of what they did, had all the intent and purpose to do what they did, then I say a simple execution. I have no sympathy for Rapists or Murders (Male or Female) and think that it should be a case to case system of dealing with these types of people.

Not only have they hurt their victim(s), but they've also hurt the families of those people who will never have that person back to how they were, or ever again. In a theoretical Communist or Anarchist Society, I'm not willing to give any form of support (whether it be a home to live in, food, the basic essentials,) I'm not willing to give them anything for their actions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The general public has the right to be truly safe, rather than be exposed to some psychologists' latest experiment. We put down dangerous animals, why not also people who have proven themselves beyond doubt to be dangerous?

[Quail]

If they have a mental illness, which not all Serial Killers do (let's just make that clear right now), then I say some sort of rehabilitation. But if they're fully aware of what they did, had all the intent and purpose to do what they did, then I say a simple execution. I have no sympathy for Rapists or Murders (Male or Female) and think that it should be a case to case system of dealing with these types of people.

Unless it was a murder of passion, I would imagine most serial killers who were fully aware of what they were doing must have some kind of personality disorder. I'm not entirely sure whether they could be rehabilitated, but I think we should always try. I don't support the death penalty in any circumstances, but if it turned out that there was no other way to keep society safe then I would have to reconsider my position.

[gorillafuck]

Even if they've murdered 50 people, like the aforementioned Soviet guy, the person who has been formed is a product of generations of social conditions. So who really is more to blame? The person, or society? I'm not sure that I can answer that question with proof enough to take his/her life. Should he/she be rehabilitated? If possible, yes. Beyond that, I'm honestly not sure what should be done. I suppose the society should take a look at itself as well though.
Almost every serial killer ever has had the exact same brain abnormalities, which indicates that it is not societal conditioning.

As for the question, I do not know.

[Magón]

Unless it was a murder of passion, I would imagine most serial killers who were fully aware of what they were doing must have some kind of personality disorder. I'm not entirely sure whether they could be rehabilitated, but I think we should always try. I don't support the death penalty in any circumstances, but if it turned out that there was no other way to keep society safe then I would have to reconsider my position.

I'm not so sure. Usually here in the US, if there's a "Crime of Passion" it just involves two people. (A Man and a Woman; both of who often end up dead anyway.) I consider a Crime of Passion different from Serial Murders. Like I said, a Crime of Passion is usually between two people, while Serial Killers target several victims, often going above two or three victims. In that scenario, where someone (man or woman) has killed multiple people with the full intent to, like say David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), I see no problem with killing them out right. They didn't give their victims a choice, why should they be?

But again, if they're mentally ill, then rehabilitation and a more calming commune is where they should be placed. If they act out violently again, then either a more strict form of rehabilitation can be issued or they can be taken out of society for good.

[Amphictyonis]

Almost every serial killer ever has had the exact same brain abnormalities, which indicates that it is not societal conditioning.

ol2i_Hax0HY

[thriller]

Uhh "Dexter", hello??

He's given me a whole new respect for serial killers :)

Via la Dexter :D

[Thirsty Crow]

What purpose does rehabilitation serve if they are to be locked away for life, I must inquire?
I made a mistake. I meant to write: rehabilitation (in milder cases)/prison for life (in more extreme ones).
Imprisonment for life serves to protect the community. Execution is not necessary, not at all.

[Magón]

I made a mistake. I meant to write: rehabilitation (in milder cases)/prison for life (in more extreme ones).
Imprisonment for life serves to protect the community. Execution is not necessary, not at all.

But why should we have to somewhat "excuse" the serious offender(s) actions, by keeping them in a prison, locking them up for life and feeding them from the work that those who make the food do? I see the only reasonable action to this, being execution. If the crime is seen as serious enough, then why imprison them for life and turn them into a leech?

Someone will come along and take their place soon enough, if not immediately, and probably for the better if they don't turn out to be a serial killer or serious offender as well.

[Thirsty Crow]

But why should we have to somewhat "excuse" the serious offender(s) actions, by keeping them in a prison, locking them up for life and feeding them from the work that those who make the food do? I see the only reasonable action to this, being execution. If the crime is seen as serious enough, then why imprison them for life and turn them into a leech?

Someone will come along and take their place soon enough, if not immediately, and probably for the better if they don't turn out to be a serial killer or serious offender as well.

I've written a post on the problems of such an argument on the previous page.
To summarize: there are cases of obvious neurological pathology. Why should a society kill off essentially sick individuals, whose capacity for taking responsibility is seriously diminished? In the last instance, their only fault is that they were born that way.
As far as food producers' are concerned, why would that be a problem if we consider a socialist society as the society of abundance? How many people should become serial killers in order that this be a problem?
And there is another solution possible...they (the perpetrators) may perform labour of sorts within the coercive institution (i.e. the prison). If they do not wish so, they could be stripped of some of their "privileges" (like watching TV once or twice per week, or taking out a book from the improvised library for a duration of a week).

[Peace on Earth]

It depends on the circumstances. A mass-murderer with no chance to be rehabilitated should not have to waste the public's money to live. And, assuming that the criminal justice system would be much better at this time, there would not be the chance of executing an innocent person for those crimes.

[Thirsty Crow]

It depends on the circumstances. A mass-murderer with no chance to be rehabilitated should not have to waste the public's money to live. And, assuming that the criminal justice system would be much better at this time, there would not be the chance of executing an innocent person for those crimes.

Money in a socialist society (a society which entails a post-scarcity economy, to a lesser or larger extent)?
Waste of resources for human reproduction within a system of abundance?
C'mon, get real.

[Decolonize The Left]

The general public has the right to be truly safe, rather than be exposed to some psychologists' latest experiment. We put down dangerous animals, why not also people who have proven themselves beyond doubt to be dangerous?

Actually, the general public has no rights what-so-ever, neither do you. Rights are contextualized and temporary privileges granted to citizens by the government, to be revoked whenever they choose. There is no such thing as a 'right to safety,' and to claim that an ambiguous group of people has such a right is lunacy.

If what you claim is true, where did this right come from? Who granted it? Who controls it and makes it a 'right?'

As for the OP, it is unreasonable to say that 'for all serial killers we will do X, or Y.' Each case is unique and ought to be treated as such. We should not be inclined to declare the future one way or the other as the future is uncertain and to think otherwise is to limit oneself.

- August

[Triple A]

Life in prison if they killed many people.
I can imagine how the family victims would feel but i am against death penalty.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, the general public has no rights what-so-ever, neither do you. Rights are contextualized and temporary privileges granted to citizens by the government, to be revoked whenever they choose. There is no such thing as a 'right to safety,' and to claim that an ambiguous group of people has such a right is lunacy.

If what you claim is true, where did this right come from? Who granted it? Who controls it and makes it a 'right?'

Fair enough, I'll revise my statement; the general public should have the right not to be exposed to dubious rehabilitative methods. When one weighs up the proven danger to the general public vs the uncertain prospect of rehabilitation, the answer is obvious, to me at least.

[Decolonize The Left]

Fair enough, I'll revise my statement; the general public should have the right not to be exposed to dubious rehabilitative methods. When one weighs up the proven danger to the general public vs the uncertain prospect of rehabilitation, the answer is obvious, to me at least.

I guess the question then centers upon 'what is the public?' How is this term defined?

For it could be that in one geographical area, or one community, a killer is rehabilitated and moves to another where s/he is sentenced to death. How does one mediate among the two?

- August

[chegitz guevara]

There is general conflation of different types of killers in many people's minds.

Charles Whitman was not a serial killer. He was a spree killer. Spree killers generally act out of rage or some underlying organic mental defect.

The accepted definition of a serial killer is someone who kills three or more people over a given period of time. Soldiers and hit men actually fall into this category. What we're really talking about are psycho/sadist/sexual predators who kill (as opposed to those who "just" rape or kidnap).

I have, personally, met two such people in my life, one who was caught before he killed a third victim, but who would otherwise have continued to kill until caught. While I lived in Jacksonville, a cab driver, Paul Durousseau, who drove my wife and I home twice was caught and tried for six murders (more about this later). Interestingly, both men were either army or former army.

In addition, I have been tangentially involved with two other such killers: Brian Dugan, who drove past my house on his way to dump his first victim (and he put her in a friend's abandoned car), and Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed a young man I had met only a few weeks prior (the son of the owner of a cafe my roommate managed and where I frequented).

Personally, lock 'em up and throw away the key. There's no indication that they can be rehabilitated (though a certain subset of serial killers do just stop killing, look at BTK). Killing 'em does no one any good.

[The_Cruekid]

I voted 'other'. I really do not know which side of the fence I am on. The liberal in me says that they should be rehabilitated in prison, yet the sociopath in me says that some 'targets' or 'kills' are justifiable e.g politicians, royal family, corporate ceo's etc etc.

[Noinu]

Rehab. If we kill people because they are ill are we any better than animals?

Would you kill a man for having flu? If not then why would you kill someone who had a mental illness?

I rather wonder how many other animals than humans actually do this. Personally I would be surprised to see a bunny kill another for being ill. (And no, I'm not saying they don't exists, ants for example, but still. I wonder).

[Decolonize The Left]

I rather wonder how many other animals than humans actually do this. Personally I would be surprised to see a bunny kill another for being ill. (And no, I'm not saying they don't exists, ants for example, but still. I wonder).

Well in the animal kingdom animals prey on the weakest and kill them for food. Lions always choose the weakest of the herd to chase and kill for obvious reasons and most other animals do the same.

We, on the other hand, have no natural predators and hence our weak are kept alive through technological advances, as well as our will as we often don't want them to die and hence work to keep them alive. Yet the mentally insane and psychotic (in the case of serial murderers) are not our 'weakest' human beings, rather, they are a danger to those members of society.

Hence it's an entirely different question. The question of who survives in the animal kingdom is easily determined by evolution via natural selection (i.e. the strongest survive). The question of who survives in the human condition is a moral question - and it has no definite answer.

- August

[Peace on Earth]

Money in a socialist society (a society which entails a post-scarcity economy, to a lesser or larger extent)?
Waste of resources for human reproduction within a system of abundance?
C'mon, get real.
I was sort of meaning a society right after, or not too far into the future, after capitalism has been overthrown, i.e. before post-scarcity economies. However, in a post-scarcity economy, what is the benefit of keeping the man alive? If there is no chance he can be rehabilitated, he only poses a danger to others.

[Rousedruminations]

Rehabilitation of the highest calibre and degree should be used, i think the quality of rehabiliation matters here. You can get absolute poor rehab methods and excellent ones.In continued research If the best rehab methods are applied then ameliorating their present condition should occur.

[Thirsty Crow]

I was sort of meaning a society right after, or not too far into the future, after capitalism has been overthrown, i.e. before post-scarcity economies. However, in a post-scarcity economy, what is the benefit of keeping the man alive? If there is no chance he can be rehabilitated, he only poses a danger to others.

The benefit of keeping the man alive is that the community does not fall into the trap of legally sanctioned murder. It is a remnant from different times and generally it functions not as a pragmatic option, but rather as a display of power/persuasion*. Call me idealistic if you will, but capital punishment is barbaric. If the goal is to protect the community, it is perfectly feasible and viable to imprison them for life. I don't think that one man poses an imminent threat to two armed prison guards.

Furthermore, I don't believe that there will be some sort of an outbreak of serial killings so I don't see your argument as valid. As far as antisocial behaviour is concerned, as well as a possible organized reactionary backlash, they could be exiled (if they do not wish to suffer the consequences).

Only under circumstances of civil war would I accept the possibility of capital punishment. And neither then would I be free from doubts and second thoughts.

*I should qualify this bit about persuasion: namely, if we agree on the fact that capital punishment functions as a display of social power, within class societies, although it is rationalized as a means of keeping society safe from extremely dangerous individuals, then one must conclude that another function of this display of power is to persuade the population - or rather specific groups of people or classes - that the power itself is just, just as it's claim that capital punishment is necessary intends to produce a social consensus whereby the existing structure of exploitation and domination would be affirmed, precisely because the power asserts itself, with success, as legitimate.

Now, how does this proposition, if accepted, relate to a possible society during the transition?
In my opinion, capital punishment is exclusively related to the phenomena I described previously in my post. And there is nothing that can justify the existence of capital punishment in this period, except one thing maybe: extremely hostile and aggressive behaviour while being incarcerated. This, meaning a possible threat to the physical well being of workers, is the only possible justification, except civil war, IMO.

[Peace on Earth]

The benefit of keeping the man alive is that the community does not fall into the trap of legally sanctioned murder. It is a remnant from different times and generally it functions not as a pragmatic option, but rather as a display of power/persuasion*. Call me idealistic if you will, but capital punishment is barbaric. If the goal is to protect the community, it is perfectly feasible and viable to imprison them for life. I don't think that one man poses an imminent threat to two armed prison guards.
Until every person on the Earth is fed, I do not think resources should be used to keep murderers alive who have been responsible for the deaths of numerous citizens alive if the murderer does not have a chance to become a productive member of society (which most serial killers do not).

Resources should be used to help others reach a productive potential, which is why the resources used to rehabilitate others can be justified. But to keep people alive when they will never become productive, or at least un-harmful, members are society is akin to keeping someone on life support for years when there is no chance of regaining consciousness. It is simply a waste.

Capital punishment does not have to be a sign of state power and control. It simply is a punishment like any other that is applied in certain circumstances.

[chegitz guevara]

Rehabilitation of the highest calibre and degree should be used, i think the quality of rehabiliation matters here. You can get absolute poor rehab methods and excellent ones.In continued research If the best rehab methods are applied then ameliorating their present condition should occur.

There is NO evidence to indicate that psycho/sadist killers can be rehabilitated.

[#FF0000]

Lock them up forever, really. They probably can't be rehabilitated but executions end up costing a ton in resources. It's cheaper to keep a guy penned up and fed for 70 years than to kill him.

And if someone responds to this by telling me how much a bullet costs I'm just going to ban them.

It wasn't clever the first time some idiot manning the Turner Diaries stand at the gun show said it to me and it isn't clever now.

[Peace on Earth]

Lock them up forever, really. They probably can't be rehabilitated but executions end up costing a ton in resources. It's cheaper to keep a guy penned up and fed for 70 years than to kill him.

And if someone responds to this by telling me how much a bullet costs I'm just going to ban them.

It wasn't clever the first time some idiot manning the Turner Diaries stand at the gun show said it to me and it isn't clever now.
A bullet costs....nah. :laugh:

But if you change the criminal justice system to eliminate the possibility of false convictions (especially in cases of murder), then the amount of appeals could be limited, thus lowering the cost of executions.

[Ovi]

I was sort of meaning a society right after, or not too far into the future, after capitalism has been overthrown, i.e. before post-scarcity economies. However, in a post-scarcity economy, what is the benefit of keeping the man alive? If there is no chance he can be rehabilitated, he only poses a danger to others.
What are the benefits of keeping those chronically ill and unable to work alive? We should exterminate them all.

[Victus Mortuum]

The chronically ill and those unable to work don't pose an active threat to others' lives.

I cannot rationally exercise empathy toward those who have no empathy of their own.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I guess the question then centers upon 'what is the public?' How is this term defined?

For it could be that in one geographical area, or one community, a killer is rehabilitated and moves to another where s/he is sentenced to death. How does one mediate among the two?

- August

I don't know; did the person in question commit a murder (or several) in the new community? If not, why did the new community accept into their number a known murderer? I'm not sure I understand you fully.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There is general conflation of different types of killers in many people's minds.

Charles Whitman was not a serial killer. He was a spree killer. Spree killers generally act out of rage or some underlying organic mental defect.

The accepted definition of a serial killer is someone who kills three or more people over a given period of time. Soldiers and hit men actually fall into this category. What we're really talking about are psycho/sadist/sexual predators who kill (as opposed to those who "just" rape or kidnap).

I have, personally, met two such people in my life, one who was caught before he killed a third victim, but who would otherwise have continued to kill until caught. While I lived in Jacksonville, a cab driver, Paul Durousseau, who drove my wife and I home twice was caught and tried for six murders (more about this later). Interestingly, both men were either army or former army.

In addition, I have been tangentially involved with two other such killers: Brian Dugan, who drove past my house on his way to dump his first victim (and he put her in a friend's abandoned car), and Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed a young man I had met only a few weeks prior (the son of the owner of a cafe my roommate managed and where I frequented).

Personally, lock 'em up and throw away the key. There's no indication that they can be rehabilitated (though a certain subset of serial killers do just stop killing, look at BTK). Killing 'em does no one any good.

re: Charles. Yeah, I actually thought about that after posting, but didn't think that it was important enough to go back and edit. Cuz I'm lazy.

[bloodbeard]

Well, if they are able to prove that it was out of revenge and there is real evidence that the victims "had it coming"..........this is the least likely scenarios btw, it really really doesn't happen in real life.....then just rehabilitate them.

If they enjoy killing for sport and cannot control their desire to kill, are plain anti-social, then Execution... but with rehab first, why rehab if you will execute them anyway? Because if they are mentally ill or defected, they deserve treatment, it's the right thing to do. Give them a chance to heal, treat them like a normal person, treat them with respect even especially if they never had it in their lives, but do not exempt them from Execution, for it is the price they have to pay for committing the crime they already did.

[Thirsty Crow]

Until every person on the Earth is fed, I do not think resources should be used to keep murderers alive who have been responsible for the deaths of numerous citizens alive if the murderer does not have a chance to become a productive member of society (which most serial killers do not).

But do you really expect that serial killers will multiply in number so that their very livelihood will hinder the goal of feeding everyone on Earth?
C'mon, I don't think you can seriously argue that them being imprisoned will materially hinder society. In fact, it seems to me that you're trying to justify a moral conviction of yours (and quite frankly, this conviction is...at best troublesome, for me) since you haven't addressed any of my arguments. For instance, you claim that CP does not need to bee a sign of state power...but it is. It is a sign of the power of a community to get rid of unproductive individuals who have committed serious crimes. To extinguish someone's life is the ultimate power of a community over the individual in question. It is not like other forms of punishment because these other forms are intended also to produce certain effects - rehabilitation through punishment. Here, there is no effect other than simply killing someone.
And the economic advantages are minute.

... but do not exempt them from Execution, for it is the price they have to pay for committing the crime they already did.
And who should decide that it is the price they have to pay?

[Kisiel]

Give them away as living speciments for research, or just send them to labour camps like gulags. Killing isn't right and rehab probably won't work, so I choose "other".

[#FF0000]

Forced labor camps and executions. How progressive.

EDIT: I'm also p. sure serial killers are mentally ill, so uh.

EDIT 2:


But if you change the criminal justice system to eliminate the possibility of false convictions (especially in cases of murder), then the amount of appeals could be limited, thus lowering the cost of executions.

Except there is never, ever, ever going to be a way to be 100% sure that someone wasn't falsely convicted. It's not worth killing a single innocent person to execute 100 serial killers.

[revolution inaction]

The chronically ill and those unable to work don't pose an active threat to others' lives.


and people in prison do?

[Thirsty Crow]

and people in prison do?

One could argue that they represent a threat to prison guards.
Well, then the prison guards might as well be armed to their teeth. Maybe a possibility of death penalty by means of a guard's self defence would be enough to prevent another murder.

[Peace on Earth]

What are the benefits of keeping those chronically ill and unable to work alive? We should exterminate them all.
They do not pose a threat to others. If someone does not have a history and/or does not pose a threat to others, there is no reason to execute them, as they can still enjoy life without harming others.


But do you really expect that serial killers will multiply in number so that their very livelihood will hinder the goal of feeding everyone on Earth?
For instance, you claim that CP does not need to bee a sign of state power...but it is. It is a sign of the power of a community to get rid of unproductive individuals who have committed serious crimes. To extinguish someone's life is the ultimate power of a community over the individual in question. It is not like other forms of punishment because these other forms are intended also to produce certain effects - rehabilitation through punishment. Here, there is no effect other than simply killing someone.
What is the effect of locking someone up for life without the possibility of parole? If someone does not have a chance to rejoin society, what is the effect of their incarceration?


And the economic advantages are minute.
It troubles me seeing people being given that which they have taken from others. If I had to choose between someone who has taken several lives and a person who has a chance to contribute to society, I will opt for the latter being given food, shelter, medical care, etc.


And who should decide that it is the price they have to pay?
That question could be posed for any type of punishment.

[Thirsty Crow]

What is the effect of locking someone up for life without the possibility of parole? If someone does not have a chance to rejoin society, what is the effect of their incarceration? Well, I think that the answer is obvious: the effect is that the community will be safe when this threat is eliminated. Just unlike you, I would advocate permanent imprisonment for most serious cases. I even stated there is the possibility of those people performing labour of sorts in prison.



It troubles me seeing people being given that which they have taken from others. If I had to choose between someone who has taken several lives and a person who has a chance to contribute to society, I will opt for the latter being given food, shelter, medical care, etc. Look, I did not wish to come off as an asshole or something like it, it's just that I cannot conform to this sentiment of yours, which I understand, I assure you, because there is no immediate necessity for sanctioned murder. In my opinion, of course. But I have to note that you keep dismissing my points by not even addressing them. You haven't really provided any argument in favour of the impediment for immediate goals, such as feeding the world.


That question could be posed for any type of punishment.
Again, you haven't addressed the distinction between capital punishment and other kinds of punishment. So, I have to conclude that you are wrong and that indeed this question is most poignant and far reaching when it comes to the issue of capital punishment.

[Ovi]

They do not pose a threat to others. If someone does not have a history and/or does not pose a threat to others, there is no reason to execute them, as they can still enjoy life without harming others.

Peace on Earth's argument was that if criminals cannot be made to function in society like the others then there is no benefit for keeping them alive. That argument could stand for anyone who cannot live productively in society, whether they are violent or not.

The chronically ill and those unable to work don't pose an active threat to others' lives.

I cannot rationally exercise empathy toward those who have no empathy of their own.
Some schizophrenic people might also not show empathy. They might be violent at times. Should they be exterminated as well? Who deserves to live and who doesn't and who gets to decide that?

[WeAreReborn]

Until every person on the Earth is fed, I do not think resources should be used to keep murderers alive who have been responsible for the deaths of numerous citizens alive if the murderer does not have a chance to become a productive member of society (which most serial killers do not).

Resources should be used to help others reach a productive potential, which is why the resources used to rehabilitate others can be justified. But to keep people alive when they will never become productive, or at least un-harmful, members are society is akin to keeping someone on life support for years when there is no chance of regaining consciousness. It is simply a waste.

Capital punishment does not have to be a sign of state power and control. It simply is a punishment like any other that is applied in certain circumstances.
Punishment is reactionary though. At least how I feel on this is that you should educate and show compassion instead of hate and apathy. Who responds kindly to such feeling of malice and anger? Even if someone slaughters another they do not deserve to get killed. They deserve to be rehabilitated or at the least live in a humane and healthy prison where the environment is progressive and healthy as opposed to dehumanizing and depressing.

I see your logic in the resources but it is worth it to keep one's humanity. If a community is responsible for one's death everyone involved in directly or indirectly related to the murder of the other. If that is so why are they any better? You should instantly react with benevolence then look at the situation and details not instantly react with anger and malice.

[Peace on Earth]

Peace on Earth's argument was that if criminals cannot be made to function in society like the others then there is no benefit for keeping them alive. That argument could stand for anyone who cannot live productively in society, whether they are violent or not.
If someone has no chance to function without harming others in society, I see no reason why society should support them. Do you?


Punishment is reactionary though. At least how I feel on this is that you should educate and show compassion instead of hate and apathy. Who responds kindly to such feeling of malice and anger? Even if someone slaughters another they do not deserve to get killed. They deserve to be rehabilitated or at the least live in a humane and healthy prison where the environment is progressive and healthy as opposed to dehumanizing and depressing.

I see your logic in the resources but it is worth it to keep one's humanity. If a community is responsible for one's death everyone involved in directly or indirectly related to the murder of the other. If that is so why are they any better? You should instantly react with benevolence then look at the situation and details not instantly react with anger and malice.
Actually, unlike many of the knee-jerk conservative pro-death penalty nuts, I look at the cost/benefit of keeping someone locked up vs. ending the problem. Nothing in my argument is fueled by anger or malice.

[WeAreReborn]

Actually, unlike many of the knee-jerk conservative pro-death penalty nuts, I look at the cost/benefit of keeping someone locked up vs. ending the problem. Nothing in my argument is fueled by anger or malice.
I'm sorry if I offended you, no sarcasm, but you must realize why. Sure you can be calm about it now but if executions were allowed in a Communist society, then it would turn to mob justice. They would focus more on revenge then actual facts. That is the problem. Plus the whole moral dilemma where as who has a right to take a human life and how does it make you better? So it would just make for a healthier and more moral society to just ban executions overall.

[bloodbeard]

And who should decide that it is the price they have to pay?

They do, the moment they decided to commit those murders.

I don't believe in teaching murderers a lesson by locking them up in prison for life, I don't think this makes them learn anything or rehabilitate them, it is just a long drawn out psychological punishment which makes them worse, if they do get out, they will be 100 times worse because in prisons, the guards will harass them day in and out, the gangs in prisons will rape them for they have raped and murdered women, etc. Most people have a kind of judge-jury-executioner mentality towards the mentally ill individuals who have killed, especially because they are mentally ill, they are seen as being less then human because they are incapable of functioning like other people. This pretty much sets the stage for why they most likely won't ever be rehabilitated, people will never give them a chance to. By executing them you spare them the emotional torture they will otherwise face, it will take away the punishments dished out to them by other people, which is inevitable. From the start, everyone one in society should taught execution is the punishment for serial murderers. So then you are in fact treating them like human beings, with dignity. For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for the mentally ill and even for serial killers, even though, serial killers are predominately male and the victims are usually females.

[EvilRedGuy]

Ovi is a sick fuck, why does he want those who can't work productively to be executed? WTF. Sick fuck.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ovi is a sick fuck, why does he want those who can't work productively to be executed? WTF. Sick fuck.
Ovi is making an analogy since Peace on Earth is using a flawed argument: they are unable to be productive (serial killers) and therefore should be executed.

[William Howe]

Prison

Let the sick fucks rot for everything they've done, don't give them the easy way out.

[Rafiq]

Gulag.

[WeAreReborn]

They do, the moment they decided to commit those murders.

I don't believe in teaching murderers a lesson by locking them up in prison for life, I don't think this makes them learn anything or rehabilitate them, it is just a long drawn out psychological punishment which makes them worse, if they do get out, they will be 100 times worse because in prisons, the guards will harass them day in and out, the gangs in prisons will rape them for they have raped and murdered women, etc. Most people have a kind of judge-jury-executioner mentality towards the mentally ill individuals who have killed, especially because they are mentally ill, they are seen as being less then human because they are incapable of functioning like other people. This pretty much sets the stage for why they most likely won't ever be rehabilitated, people will never give them a chance to. By executing them you spare them the emotional torture they will otherwise face, it will take away the punishments dished out to them by other people, which is inevitable. From the start, everyone one in society should taught execution is the punishment for serial murderers. So then you are in fact treating them like human beings, with dignity. For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for the mentally ill and even for serial killers, even though, serial killers are predominately male and the victims are usually females.
Asides from rehabilitation centers there could be not really prisons but more of a detainment center in which the overall environment is healthy and caring. I do not advocate prisons at all and when I imagine a rehabilitation center I sorta view it as a prison/rehabilitation hybrid. With that said, if someone did not show signs of improvement I think one could still stay there in that environment. Any other detainment setting would be hostile and counter productive. But one thing is for sure executions is not the way it should be handled.

[EvilRedGuy]

Just because someone say "prison" dosen't mean they mean the stereotypic form of prisons we have today, they could mean a prison WHICH IS a rehabilitation center and is a sterile, environment friendly prison. I prefer the word 'rehabilitation center' more though.

[khad]

Most serial killers are severely disturbed individuals and should be studied carefully in order to prevent future cases. Their minds should be picked apart and their entire existence will become research material for whatever corrections system a future society would have in place.

Other than that, there's no real reason to keep them alive. I guess in the final analysis it will all come down to where resources can be most efficiently allocated. Let's just say that if there are critical needs that need to be filled in other segments of the population, these people would not be high up on the logistics schedule.

[Pawn Power]

Monetarily, it costs the state more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life. True story.

[Ocean Seal]

Being that the death penalty is routinely abused in most capitalist societies, I would be strongly against it. I'm for prison/rehab. If these people are sick, they should be treated in a mental institution. I'm not sure how I would feel about releasing someone who had killed six people if they could still be a threat. I say reform the prisons and reform the treatment that people get in society. If we eliminate, poverty, isolation, and individualistic supremacy I think that the problem of serial killers could be greatly reduced.

[WeAreReborn]

Just because someone say "prison" dosen't mean they mean the stereotypic form of prisons we have today, they could mean a prison WHICH IS a rehabilitation center and is a sterile, environment friendly prison. I prefer the word 'rehabilitation center' more though.
But you must realize the implication of prison. It is like taking the term gulag and expecting for people to think it means something positive. Prisons have a horrible history and I think we need to use a more appropriate term to get our point across.

[Peace on Earth]

Ovi is making an analogy since Peace on Earth is using a flawed argument: they are unable to be productive (serial killers) and therefore should be executed.
Not my argument whatsover. If they cannot be released due to danger to the public, and therefore will never have a chance to be productive, they should not be kept alive on the public's dime.

Don't use strawmen arguments like the mentally ill, disabled, etc.

[#FF0000]

hey i guess its impossible to falsely convict someone for being a serial killer right


Not my argument whatsover. If they cannot be released due to danger to the public, and therefore will never have a chance to be productive, they should not be kept alive on the public's dime.

Executing them is more expensive.

[Weezer]

Monetarily, it costs the state more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life. True story.

Not that I'm doubting you, but why does it cost more?

[Manic Impressive]

Is cost really a factor in a post revolutionary society? also is the cost due to capitalist inefficiency?

2 alternatives pay the executioner less or only pay them with the goods which they need to live or create a machine to do the killing for you

[Victus Mortuum]

I still stand by what I said at the top of the second page. If they fit into the second class of serial killers, we should do whatever is the least costly for society at large (and not simply reducing cost to monetary cost). It should be up to a jury in each case what particular to do in these circumstances. Either:

a) Exile
b) Execution
c) Life Imprisonment
d) Gulag/Labor Camp

There is no ethical problem with doing any of those to members of the second class of serial killers

[Victus Mortuum]

or create a machine to do the killing for you

...guns? :confused:

[Kléber]

Not that I'm doubting you, but why does it cost more?
If people being sentenced to death are entitled to a fair chance to defend themselves, it costs the state more to pay for the entire legal process. Of course, if the government has the power to summarily execute people, execution can be much cheaper than imprisonment, but there's a much higher risk of killing innocent people.

All socialists should oppose the death penalty.

[Manic Impressive]

lol no

I mean it's a harsh thing for someone to actually execute someone which I'm guessing is why it costs more than keeping them alive. Some kind of killing machine that does not need someone to operate it.

edit: like some kind of forced suicide machine :D

[Peace on Earth]

hey i guess its impossible to falsely convict someone for being a serial killer right



Executing them is more expensive.
In the current system, it is more expensive. However, a criminal justice system set up to truly find justice and not pit two sides against each other (as it does now) would make false convictions of serial killers (with punishment as death penalty) impossible. There would need be incredible DNA evidence, among other factors, to sentence to death.

As for the cost, it is more expensive now because inmates are given many appeals. In a CJ system that is much more efficient than the one in place now, the number of appeals could be reduced.

[9]

Originally Posted by Menocchio http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1915418#post1915418)
And who should decide that it is the price they have to pay?They do, the moment they decided to commit those murders.



Originally Posted by Karl Marx
...it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization. Punishment in general has been defended as a means either of ameliorating or of intimidating. Now what right have you to punish me for the amelioration or intimidation of others? And besides, there is history — there is such a thing as statistics — which prove with the most complete evidence that since Cain the world has neither been intimidated nor ameliorated by punishment. Quite the contrary. From the point of view of abstract right, there is only one theory of punishment which recognizes human dignity in the abstract, and that is the theory of Kant, especially in the more rigid formula given to it by Hegel. Hegel says:
“Punishment is the right of the criminal. It is an act of his own will. The violation of right has been proclaimed by the criminal as his own right. His crime is the negation of right. Punishment is the negation of this negation, and consequently an affirmation of right, solicited and forced upon the criminal by himself.” [Hegel, Philosophy of Right (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prwrong.htm#PRn100a)]
There is no doubt something specious in this formula, inasmuch as Hegel, instead of looking upon the criminal as the mere object, the slave of justice, elevates him to the position of a free and self-determined being. Looking, however, more closely into the matter, we discover that German idealism here, as in most other instances, has but given a transcendental sanction to the rules of existing society. Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious social circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of “free-will” — one among the many qualities of man for man himself! This theory, considering punishment as the result of the criminal’s own will, is only a metaphysical expression for the old “jus talionis” [the right of retaliation by inflicting punishment of the same kind] eye against eye, tooth against tooth, blood against blood. Plainly speaking, and dispensing with all paraphrases, punishment is nothing but a means of society to defend itself against the infraction of its vital conditions, whatever may be their character. Now, what a state of society is that, which knows of no better Instrument for its own defense than the hangman...?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

That good ol' Karl, just when I don't feel like addressing problematic position, here he pops out of nowhere with almost exactly the same thing I wanted to write (with a little help from 9, of course:)):D

[#FF0000]

In the current system, it is more expensive. However, a criminal justice system set up to truly find justice and not pit two sides against each other (as it does now) would make false convictions of serial killers (with punishment as death penalty) impossible. There would need be incredible DNA evidence, among other factors, to sentence to death.

As for the cost, it is more expensive now because inmates are given many appeals. In a CJ system that is much more efficient than the one in place now, the number of appeals could be reduced.

so you're telling me that one day it will be possible to achieve 100% certainty with every single conviction? Cause that's impossible, guy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

b) Exile (dropped on an uninhabited island or something)

Have you ever seen that movie No Escape, with Ray Liotta? They do what you're talking about in that film.

Or perhaps Australia, as a more contemporary example. :lol: (Although it certainly wasn't uninhabited when the first colonists got there.)

[WeAreReborn]

lol no

I mean it's a harsh thing for someone to actually execute someone which I'm guessing is why it costs more than keeping them alive. Some kind of killing machine that does not need someone to operate it.

edit: like some kind of forced suicide machine :D
Forced suicide isn't suicide.. lol. But it still is harsh to kill someone. Just because you push someone into a machine and push a button instead of a trigger doesn't really make a difference. Both are murder, even if it is more justifiable then say a random person. But like others have mentioned there are possibilities that an innocent person would be executed. I think we as leftists should revert to the most benevolent choice at our disposal by default. In this situation it is to just simply NOT kill anyone, after the revolution that is.. :lol:

[andrew]

i like the whole mental institution/prison idea. after all, prisons were supposedly made to reform inmates. even if there is only a small chance these people could be cured, i would take it.

[AnthArmo]

In this thread I've read about executions, gulags, exile and life imprisonment.

Hate to be a killjoy, but if these things cannot be done humanely without institutionalisation. You can have the mob randomly kill a serial killer, but that's a brutal way to die compared to a proper execution. But once you institutionalise thse things, they become the norm. We're looking at guards, prisons, cells....

Serial Killers are largely a fiction exaggerated by pop tv, we're looking at a category of people that constitute less than 1% of the population. The overwhelming majority of crimes, even murder, have understandable if not shaky motives driving them that the majority of us would be able to understand and sympathise with. Punishment is not an option, and often there is very little to rehabilitate. You need a community oriented method of dealing and understanding why each criminal has done what they have done. You need direct interaction between victims and families.

Of course, we're talking about Serial Killers here, those without empathy, who have no hope. Not only are these cases rare, but are of a largely individual nature. The only reasonable response we can make in regards to these cases is that they need to be dealt with on an individual basis.

If direct interaction and negotiation does not work, I would think a mix of social ostracism and societal non-compliance would be effective. An individual is dependent on their society, if that society refuses to offer that individual services, then they are forced to conform.

[People's War]

If insane, put them in an institution.

Otherwise, shooting.

[chegitz guevara]

The death penalty debases societies who use it.

[L.A.P.]

Fucking kill the assholes unless you want to do research then just fucking kill them. Trying to rehabilitate them would just be a waste of taxes even if you do rehabilitate they still killed 15 people so fuck it.

[Patchd]

How should serial killers be dealt with in revolutionary societies?
I put 'other' although I like the general idea of rehabilitation, I simply put 'other' in case by 'prison' you meant the existing prison industrial complex prevalent in most societies. You say that most serial killers must be insane, but would it not be fair to suggest that anyone who is so emotionally removed from the rest of society to as to want to kill others (as a hobby) has psychological issues?

This is not to excuse the crime, but to try and solve it. Currently, we seek retribution through the form of imprisonment or execution, this is not a solution to the problem. The problem exists because of existing conditions, regardless of whether communism can eradicate some of those conditions or not. If we are to solve that problem, then we must look at those conditions to see why or how people become so sociopathic and psychopathic.

I don't think we can concretely say what we will do in a communist/transitional society. Surely we must be in that situation ourselves to know what best to do. I am not a psychologist so I wouldn't be able to say what generally pushes someone to become a serial killer, but I hope that there would be rehabilitation care homes for these people to try and treat any problems that can be treated so these people can be allowed back into wider society with a greater (but not 100% - as is the case in capitalism already when prisoners are released) assurance that they will not commit the same acts. Anyone who cannot be treated should be given as much freedom and comfort as possible to live the remainder of their lives without causing physical harm to others, the current prison industrial complex does not cater for this.

[#FF0000]

jesus christ people in this thread

[EvilRedGuy]

If insane, put them in an institution.

Otherwise, shooting.

You're an idiot. Allso you mean the opposite.

[WeAreReborn]

If insane, put them in an institution.

Otherwise, shooting.
So if they aren't insane you kill them? Doesn't really solve the problem does it? In a healthy society the ONLY people doing the crimes should be insane people. Sounds like the society you are pushing for isn't the best... On a more serious note institutions as they are today don't help. They don't really push for solutions. We need to build a rehabilitation system that not only can keep the patients healthy and happy but work to find a possible cure or prevention for any kind of mental illness. Shooting does nothing but make you a murder.

[chegitz guevara]

jesus christ people in this thread

It's about machoism and finding a group you're allowed to hate on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Keep them well away from fields of corn and wheat.

[Obzervi]

Serial killers are victims of an oppressive capitalist society, they should be rehabilitated.

[NGNM85]

Serial killers are victims of an oppressive capitalist society, they should be rehabilitated.

No, they are violent sociopaths with sadistic tendencies who derives sexual pleasure from brutalizing and killing people. Rehabilitation, at least as it has been historically practiced and understood is hopeless. This is not a neurosis, it is a personality disorder. Actually, traditional psychotherapy is actually discouraged with this type of offender. Not only does it have no theraputic value, but it actually makes them better criminals as they use therapy sessions to perfect their skills of manipulation and deceit. Presently, no drug or surgical remedy exists, either. The kind of 'treatment' these individuals require hasn't been invented, yet. However, I should mention some interesting MRI studies have been done recently, and this research should be pursued, precisely because, as I was saying, all we can do right now is warehouse them.

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. This behavior is largely the result of abuse or neglect, in early childhood, especially. There also seems to be a genetic componant, but no one is born a violent sociopath.

Because I don't want to be misunderstood, while I point out that treating these individuals is useless, that is not, by itself, sufficient reason to execute them, and I am, personally, opposed to the death penalty.

[WeAreReborn]

No, they are violent sociopaths with sadistic tendencies who derives sexual pleasure from brutalizing and killing people. Rehabilitation, at least as it has been historically practiced and understood is hopeless. This is not a neurosis, it is a personality disorder. Actually, traditional psychotherapy is actually discouraged with this type of offender. Not only does it have no theraputic value, but it actually makes them better criminals as they use therapy sessions to perfect their skills of manipulation and deceit. Presently, no drug or surgical remedy exists, either. The kind of 'treatment' these individuals require hasn't been invented, yet. However, I should mention some interesting MRI studies have been done recently, and this research should be pursued, precisely because, as I was saying, all we can do right now is warehouse them.

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. This behavior is largely the result of abuse or neglect, in early childhood, especially. There also seems to be a genetic componant, but no one is born a violent sociopath.

Because I don't want to be misunderstood, while I point out that treating these individuals is useless, that is not, by itself, sufficient reason to execute them, and I am, personally, opposed to the death penalty.
Well you could keep them in a healthy environment like a rehabilitation center and then study and observe their behavior. So we may not know too much about how to cure or treat it but we could learn while being humane and compassionate. Plus I think overall households would be healthier for the children, often times the father's or mother's are abusive due to economic or social reasons that could be contributed to Capitalism. Though some abuse shall remain, as it isn't a utopia, it will be minimal.

[Sentinel]

Interesting discussion. Imo, Victus Mortuum is correct:


I think that what really needs to be discussed here is the distinction between two types of murderers:

Those who kill for revenge/out of anger/drunkenness/etc.
and
Those who kill because they get immense pleasure from it and/or they have no empathy for other human being (psychopaths, that is)

The above class could enter long-term rehab and maybe one day reenter society. The latter are psychologically incapable of caring for others, for feeling the pain or anguish of another person. These people cannot be fixed, these people cannot be allowed to reenter society. They must be removed somehow for the protection of the people.

Either:
a) Execution
b) Exile (dropped on an uninhabited island or something)
c) Life Imprisonment

These are indeed the options. I would support either b) or c) before a).

Reason: a) would be premature as while there currently is no way to cure psychopaths, with the current pace of scientific progress there is at least a theoretical possibility that one may be discovered in the future. I'm also generally against capital punishment (except under special circumstances such as revolution, war etc), mainly because of it's irreversibility in error cases.

[9]

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. This behavior is largely the result of abuse or neglect, in early childhood, especially.

So abuse or neglect in early childhood has nothing to do with capitalism and class society?

[Palingenisis]

Execute them.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I disagree with executing them, though I can't blame others for disagreeing with me. It's my opinion the only people who should face the death penalty are those who purposefully spread aids with contaminated needles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They should spend each day strapped to a laboratory table with electrodes and scanners attached to their heads, while brain researchers try to figure out what caused them to be that way. To do anything else with them is a waste of scientific data.

(Checking "other." Thank you for being one of the few poll creators who remember to include an "other" option.)

At first I was for hard labour for serial killers. However, this lab rat treatment is equally outside the box, and I'm OK with this too.

Anyway, those that do serial murders for psychopathic pleasure should be society's work-to-death slaves or treated as lab rats.

[blake 3:17]

This is not a neurosis, it is a personality disorder.

I'd be pretty careful getting into this territory. The diagnoses of personality disorders are a claim that the individual is incapable of positive change. They've become an easy option for psychiatrists who have patients who don't respond well to particular therapies.


Anyway, those that do serial murders for psychopathic pleasure should be society's work-to-death slaves or treated as lab rats.

Gross. Given that most prisoners shouldn't be in prison in the first place, I don't see any reason why the few that do need to be isolated shouldn't have a comfortable isolation. Barbaric forms of punishment do nothing to deter anti-social behaviours and draw society as a whole into vindictive stupid cruelties.

What kind of doctors would be willing to treat people like rats? What kind of prison staff would treat people as "work-to-death slaves"?

[Torch]

Based on the original premise of this being a REVOLUTIONARY society it's safe to assume I've pulled the trigger on a number of people already up to this point. I imagine I'd have no qualms about putting down a truly depraved individual like a serial killer. Having said that I do like the idea of hard labor whenever possible.

[NewSocialist]

All of this talk about "rehabilitating" serial killers is very heart warming, but where is the actual scientific data which would lead us to conclude that such proposals could actually *work*? All of these vague notions that "we'll create rehabilitation institutions that will work after the revolution!" is childish mental masturbation. Why can't some of you simply understand that there is a tiny portion of humanity that is fundamentally incapable of feeling empathy and which derives pleasure from human suffering?

Contrary to what many of you think, not all serial killers are victims of traumatic childhoods, many of them grew up in totally normal surroundings and those which didn't beg the question: is it perhaps possible that the reason their parents abused them was because they too were born sociopaths (albeit ones which didn't go so far as to commit murder)? There are actually quite a few signs which predict whether someone will become a serial killer and one of them is the murder and/or torture of animals at an *early* age.

Capitalism cannot be faulted for this sort of psychotic behavior, otherwise there would be far more serial killers among us.

Now, how about we do a little thought expriement? You or a loved one is sitting at home one day, minding your own business, when a deranged man with a gun breaks in. He ties you (or your loved one) up and begins to decide whether or not to rape you, torture you, and/or murder you. At that moment, would you hope that should that piece of shit succeed in killing you (or your loved one), laws existed in society to ensure he or she would be executed if caught? When their knife enters your body, or when you're staring down the barrel of their gun, facing the final/brutal end of your existence, are you going to wish mercy onto them?

Serial killers are individuals who have succeeded in sending several innocent people to an eternity of nothingness, and some of you actually have the audacity to suggest we should let these people live in "humane" prisons while consuming valuable resources? I'm sorry, but fuck that shit and anyone who endorses it. If you get your jollies ending the lives of innocent people, you *deserve* to have your life ended, and in a gruesome manner. Bottom line.

Those of you who want to play nice with innately defective/murderous people should really consider volunteering some of your time to work with such people in the prison system and see for yourself what prospects lie for their rehabilitation.

[blake 3:17]

Now, how about we do a little thought expriement? You or a loved one is sitting at home one day, minding your own business, when a deranged man with a gun breaks in. He ties you (or your loved one) up and begins to decide whether or not to rape you, torture you, and/or murder you. At that moment, would you hope that should that piece of shit succeed in killing you (or your loved one), laws existed in society to ensure he or she would be executed if caught? When their knife enters your body, or when you're staring down the barrel of their gun, facing the final/brutal end of your existence, are you going to wish mercy onto them?

That's not what you base laws on.

[The Count]

That's not what you base laws on.
Sure you do. Retribution for the victim(s) of crimes is a major factor in sentencing decisions.

[IndependentCitizen]

Serial killers are victims of an oppressive capitalist society, they should be rehabilitated.

No, it's a psychological illness. Capitalism plays no part in psychological illnesses.

[The Count]

No, it's a psychological illness. Capitalism plays no part in psychological illnesses.
Aren't you aware that Capitalism is responsible for every ailment ever suffered by mankind?

[NGNM85]

So abuse or neglect in early childhood has nothing to do with capitalism and class society?

We should rightly expect to see this phenomena more often in communities that are deprived, or under stress, however, there isn't a one-to-one relationship. There are violent psychopaths who come from fairly wealthy families, as well as poor families.

[NGNM85]

I'd be pretty careful getting into this territory. The diagnoses of personality disorders are a claim that the individual is incapable of positive change. They've become an easy option for psychiatrists who have patients who don't respond well to particular therapies.

No, it's an empirical, testable fact. Psychopathy isn't like depression or phobias, these can be treated and alleviated through medication, therapy, and behavior modification. Someone who is incapable of feeling empathy (Especially these psychopaths who are also violent sexual sadists.) can't learn it. It isn't just an idiosyncrasy, this is why we make the distinction of personality disorders, because there is a deeper level of disturbance, that they are fundamentally maladaptive. Personality disorders are incurable. Sociopathy isn't even really treatable, although, again, I fully support research into this as any such treatment, unlikely as it may be, wouldb be invaluable. However, such treatment does not exist today, and the technology required to perform such treatment probably doesn't even exist, yet.

[blake 3:17]

There are a few distinct questions that this discussion brings up that shoudln't be conflated. I think I've named the main ones below:

Are serial killers necessarily psychopaths? Are psychopaths necessarily serial killers? Should a serial killer and a psychopath receive the same fate? What should the role of prisons be: places of punishment, rehabilitation, or confinement? When is the death penalty acceptable? There's probably a couple key ones missing. Perhaps we could have some seperate discussions.

No, it's an empirical, testable fact. Psychopathy isn't like depression or phobias, these can be treated and alleviated through medication, therapy, and behavior modification. Someone who is incapable of feeling empathy (Especially these psychopaths who are also violent sexual sadists.) can't learn it. It isn't just an idiosyncrasy, this is why we make the distinction of personality disorders, because there is a deeper level of disturbance, that they are fundamentally maladaptive. Personality disorders are incurable. Sociopathy isn't even really treatable, although, again, I fully support research into this as any such treatment, unlikely as it may be, wouldb be invaluable. However, such treatment does not exist today, and the technology required to perform such treatment probably doesn't even exist, yet.

I'm not sure how scientific it is. The DSM establishes a bunch of characteristics, some behavioural and others much more subjective, which then qualify that set of traits as an innate disorder of the self. I do agree with you that that there are people that are profoundly disturbed and are probably unable to learn to be empathetic. I'd also warn against writing this stuff off as simply a symptom of a particular form of class society. How serial killers do what they do does reflect very particular aspects of the societies they are in -- the choice of victims, means of abduction and murder, and the means of avoiding being caught.

I'm unclear about why Personality Disorders aren't considered Syndromes -- My guess would be a turf war between the psychiatrists and the rest of the medical establishment. Anybody know where the distinction comes from?

The designation of Personality Disorder is much broader than just the Antisocial one deisgnated in the DSM. Borderline Personality Disorder is very widely diagnosed these days, generally to people who've experienced serious traumas. Many therapists refuse to work with people who've been diagnosed with BPD. Being diagnosed with a personality disorder can disqualify one from many of the most helpful therapies.

My suggestion would be to understand these diagnoses as a reflection of something that is real, but they're not eternal or absolute.

There is some work that would recommend that folks with Antisocial Personality Disorder should be excluded from talk, psychoanalytic, and cognitive type therapies. If someone is so nasty, cruel and sadistic, then therapeutic process may enable them to be more competent in their psychopathy -- basically they may become better and more convincing liars.

I took part in a process which had the aim to rehabilitate a serial rapist. It didn't work, although he got away with much less than he had before. He died a few years ago in a drunken accident, which I feel safe assuming was a suicide. In that process, he at least admitted to some wrongs he had done. Small victory.

Given the relatively few serial killers in the world I think they should get a fair bit of sensitive treatment and observation. If there are people who are too dangerous to be let loose at all, then let's keep them confined as humanely as possible.

There've been four big cases in the Canadian spotlight in the last while:Robert Pickton, Omar Khadr, Russell Williams and Ashley Smith. Pickton easily fits the diagnosis of a psychopath -- thoroughly disfunctional as a human being and guilty of commiting many many murders over a period of sometime.

The one good I see coming from the Pickton case is that for some time to come crimes against prostitutes will be treated more seriously. While I was in Halifax this summer, some creep was going around kidnapping prostitute in his car. A previous case against him fell apart because his victim was a drug addict and had no fixed address. I was happily surprised to hear that police were taking the abductions very seriously. That was due to Pickton case and the irresponsible behaviour of police in BC.

Williams is the only other serial killer of the four, and he doesn't fit the diagnosis. He's going to be in a cell down the hall from Paul Bernardo and that seems like a good place for him. Khadr's had his life ruined by his family and the War on Terror. Smith was killed by the prison system.

There's been a lot of public discussion over what should happen to Williams, with many arguing for execution, others saying his imprisonment should be as horrible and long as possible. I think he should be locked up forever and with limited access to communication ie direct communication with his lawyers and some communication with his wife. She may well refuse it -- we can't know, she's been extremely private since his arrest. I haven't seen anything which implied that she had any complicity in his crimes and shouldn't be made accountible for his wrong doings. If it were to turn out she did have something to do with it, then a lot would change.

I'm very curious to see how Khadr is treated. The US and Canada nearly martyred him.

A short report from the CBC on the Ashley Smith inquest: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/12/ashley-smith.html Corrections officials had lobbied to keep the inquest as narrow as possible, dealing only with the very immediate circumstances at the time of her death. The judge overseeing it agreed with Smith's advocates to expand the nature of the probe to get some answers about the penal bureaucracy managed to treat Smith as less than human. I suspect diagnoses of various psychiatric disorders played a significant role.

The Fifth Estate, a very probing news program on the CBC, apparently has video footage on their site which you can access through the link above. I don't have the stomach to watch it now.


There are two especially fine books on particular serial killers that I'd recommend to folks on this thread -- A Father's Story by Lionel Dahmer, Jeffrey Dahmer's father and Killing for Company by Brian Masters. The Masters book tells the story of Dennis Nilsen, a seemingly nice guy, a union activist and Labour supporter, who had the unfortunate habit of bringing guys home and killing them, and then hanging around with their corpses listening to art rock records.

There's an OK book on the Josef Fritzl case (he's the guy in Austria who kept his daughter and their offspring in the basement for decades). I can't recall the name of the book. The most astounding part of it is the confessional letter he wrote after he'd been exposed. Remarkably self serving and rationalizing knots of logic. Here's a BBC report of his guilty confession in court: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7949967.stm

Enough about horrible people for one night.

[NGNM85]

There are a few distinct questions that this discussion brings up that shoudln't be conflated. I think I've named the main ones below:

Are serial killers necessarily psychopaths? Are psychopaths necessarily serial killers? Should a serial killer and a psychopath receive the same fate? What should the role of prisons be: places of punishment, rehabilitation, or confinement? When is the death penalty acceptable? There's probably a couple key ones missing. Perhaps we could have some seperate discussions.

Well, let's get specific. Very broadly anyone who commits two or more murders is a 'serial killer.' However, that isn't what we're talking about. A serial Killer is an individual who murders two or more people in seperate incidents. (Individuals who commit many murders at once are 'Mass Murderers' or 'Spree Killers.' The murders are not committed because of personal/political greivance, the victims are usually strangers. (They used to be called 'Stranger Killings.') Serial killers do not kill for money, the act, itself, is the motivation. Murders committed by serial killers are almost invariably sexually motivated, and usually involve rape, either literal or symbolic. Essentially, all of the individuals designated as Serial Killers are psychopaths. However, they are much more than that. Most psychopaths are actually generally non-violent, although, not because they have any sympathy for other people.

Psychopathy is untreatable with existing medicine and psychiatry. These violent, sadistic offenders are especially unsuitable for rehabilitation.

I am opposed to the death penalty.


I'm not sure how scientific it is. The DSM establishes a bunch of characteristics, some behavioural and others much more subjective, which then qualify that set of traits as an innate disorder of the self. I do agree with you that that there are people that are profoundly disturbed and are probably unable to learn to be empathetic.


They are absolutely unable, that's what it means to be a psychopath.

Psychopathy actually isn't included in the DSM, anymore, they just have the more broad and nebulous 'Antisocial Personality Disorder.' However, supposedly, it will be reinstated in the next edition.


I'd also warn against writing this stuff off as simply a symptom of a particular form of class society.

That is highly erroneous, yes. I couldn't agree more.


How serial killers do what they do does reflect very particular aspects of the societies they are in -- the choice of victims, means of abduction and murder, and the means of avoiding being caught.

Well, what you're describing sounds like the Modus Operandi. This is circumstance-dependent. The killer has to choose what means are availible, and develop a stalking technique, hunting ground, find areas where he has access to his preferred victim. This is often confused with 'signiture' which is the actual method of murder. So, Jeffrey Dahmer's M.O. was to pick up guys in Milwaukee gay bars. His 'signiture' was strangulation and dismemberment. Some killers will deliberately prey on minorities or the disadvantaged because they make easier targets. However, serial killers tend to be very picky about type. They almost always pick victims of their own race, and within a specific age range, etc., on the basis of sexual attraction.


I'm unclear about why Personality Disorders aren't considered Syndromes -- My guess would be a turf war between the psychiatrists and the rest of the medical establishment. Anybody know where the distinction comes from?

I don't know, it seems psychology tends to shy away from the word.


The designation of Personality Disorder is much broader than just the Antisocial one deisgnated in the DSM. Borderline Personality Disorder is very widely diagnosed these days, generally to people who've experienced serious traumas. Many therapists refuse to work with people who've been diagnosed with BPD. Being diagnosed with a personality disorder can disqualify one from many of the most helpful therapies.

My suggestion would be to understand these diagnoses as a reflection of something that is real, but they're not eternal or absolute.

The key is to get a proper diagnosis. Unfortunately, people sometimes get misdiagnosed. That is why the criteria are important.

BPD, in those who actually have it, is a very serious disorder that is incredibly difficult to manage. Again, like psychopaths they generally don't respond to treatment.


There is some work that would recommend that folks with Antisocial Personality Disorder should be excluded from talk, psychoanalytic, and cognitive type therapies. If someone is so nasty, cruel and sadistic, then therapeutic process may enable them to be more competent in their psychopathy -- basically they may become better and more convincing liars.

Exactly, that's why they don't bother trying to treat them, and why a treatment would be so helpful. Now, all we can do is warehouse them.


Given the relatively few serial killers in the world I think they should get a fair bit of sensitive treatment and observation. If there are people who are too dangerous to be let loose at all, then let's keep them confined as humanely as possible.

My perscription, exactly.


There are two especially fine books on particular serial killers that I'd recommend to folks on this thread -- A Father's Story by Lionel Dahmer, Jeffrey Dahmer's father and Killing for Company by Brian Masters. The Masters book tells the story of Dennis Nilsen, a seemingly nice guy, a union activist and Labour supporter, who had the unfortunate habit of bringing guys home and killing them, and then hanging around with their corpses listening to art rock records.

I haven't read Lionel Dahmer's book but I'm hesitent. He's far from unbiased, he very probably contributed to his son's pathology, based on what I know of him and interviews I've seen I'm just highly skeptical about the accuracy of his testimony. An American Nightmare by Donald Davis is very good. (Despite the sensational title.) Vince Bugliosi's Helter Skelter is a classic. Ann Rule's Stranger Beside Me is excellent. For sort of overall guides I'd recommend Brian Lane's Encyclopedia of Serial Killers or one of Harold Shechter's comprehensive books. I've meant to read Killing for Company.

[blake 3:17]

It seems we're on the same page. I will express a degree of skepticism about the diagnostic category of Personality Disorders. But humane confinement seems the route to go.

Did read any of the stuff on the Williams case? It's really bizarre and doesn't match any of the usual patterns. But... The basic problem I see with how he's been described makes out like there is an Iron Wall between psychopaths and successful military personnel. There are good reasons for psychopaths to go into the military.

Are you familiar with Dialectical Behaviour Therapy? It's had some success with folks diagnosed with BPD, and it seems to work for treating other psychological problems.

I don't take a radical anti-psychiatry position, but do question it as a science. I've known a few psychiatrists who did consider it to be more of an art. They might continue to use the DSM and prescribe medications, but the whole thing is a bit of a guessing game.

A slight drift: What do you think of the need for people convicted of violent crimes needing to express remorse for their actions? I can see point to it. There are numerous cases of people wrongfully convicted, and not considered dangerous, but kept in prison because they didn't express remorse (cuz they didn't do it).

Have you heard about Charles Smith? He's the Ontario forensic pathologist who had hundreds of people convicted, mostly for killing their own children, on his testimony, and often he was just making stuff up. A large part of why he was able to do this was that peole deferred to his "expertise". Here's a backgrounder from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/07/f-charles-smith-goudge-inquiry.html

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Ive always found it odd when serial killers are found to be sane, or fit to stand trial etc. Isnt the act of being a serial killer testament to a psychological disorder?

I voted prison/rehab, despite how angry some of them make me. Obviously "rehab" would still mean they would never be allowed back into society but theyd be put to work making toys for kids or growing food for the third world or something. Many of them absolutely deserve to die, but we dont have the right to take the life.

I dont think serial killers are created by capitalism, but that capitalism can play a part in mental illness, personality disorders and, in some cases, psychopathology. But capitalism is not exclusively to blame. There were serial killers before the industrial revolution.

[NGNM85]

Ive always found it odd when serial killers are found to be sane, or fit to stand trial etc. Isnt the act of being a serial killer testament to a psychological disorder?

Absolutely. However, simply having a psychological disorder does not necessarily relieve ones' culpability. The central issue is whether or not they have the mental faculties to appropriately judge the implications of their actions, to know right from wrong. In layman's terms; if they are 'mad' or bad.' Serial killers, unlike schizophrenics, for example, are most certainly psychopathic, but not psychotic. They understand what they are doing and that it is socially unacceptable, they just don't care. These individuals have an extremely profound personality disorder, no doubt, but that does not absolve them.



I voted prison/rehab, despite how angry some of them make me. Obviously "rehab" would still mean they would never be allowed back into society but theyd be put to work making toys for kids or growing food for the third world or something. Many of them absolutely deserve to die, but we dont have the right to take the life.

I concur.


I dont think serial killers are created by capitalism, but that capitalism can play a part in mental illness, personality disorders and, in some cases, psychopathology. But capitalism is not exclusively to blame. There were serial killers before the industrial revolution.

This is true.

[FreeFocus]

I voted execution, but in some cases rehabilitation might be more appropriate. We shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all punishment, but it should be nuanced for different magnitudes of crime.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What about effected communities deciding these things on a case-by-case basis?
Why the need to have overarching rules for every possible contingency?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I voted prison/rehab, despite how angry some of them make me. Obviously "rehab" would still mean they would never be allowed back into society but theyd be put to work making toys for kids or growing food for the third world or something. Many of them absolutely deserve to die, but we dont have the right to take the life.

I dont think serial killers are created by capitalism, but that capitalism can play a part in mental illness, personality disorders and, in some cases, psychopathology. But capitalism is not exclusively to blame. There were serial killers before the industrial revolution.

Why are you so light on serial murderers, and by "light" I don't mean your rejection of executions?

[TC]

I would like to see irredeemable offenders who could never be rehabilitated permanently exiled to a sealed off island community. Life in prison is a cruel punishment and the legitimate purpose of prison is public safety via exclusion of violent offenders from society, not revenge.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If anybody's interested, a more heated crime and punishment debate is going on right now on this subject from Page 4 onwards of the History thread "Stalin Poll" :)

[Ovi]

I don't support the capital punishment and I don't believe in the eye for an eye thing. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a clear correlation between whether one supports the capital punishment and whether it's legal in their own country.

[piet11111]

Execution but more as a way to protect society by permanently removing a clear threat.

Rehabilitation if it is possible.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Why are you so light on serial murderers, and by "light" I don't mean your rejection of executions?

I dont see the point in sitting behind my keyboard and getting irate about it. Opinions aside, I have absolutely no control over the matter and I've too much else to do. I think what they do is undoubtably unspeakably awful and were I to be personally affected it is conceivable that my mind would change. But as it stands this is how I feel. I don't see what else you can mean "light", aside from my rejection of executions? I said that "many of them absolutely deserve to die"... so aside from my rejection of executions, what else can you mean by light? Im not going to sit here, puffing out my chest, crusading like some Daily Mail columnist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring to corrective labour.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would like to see irredeemable offenders who could never be rehabilitated permanently exiled to a sealed off island community. Life in prison is a cruel punishment and the legitimate purpose of prison is public safety via exclusion of violent offenders from society, not revenge.

Emphasis added.

Have you seen Escape from New York?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VT0CZMNZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

- August

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I was referring to corrective labour.


aaaaaaaaah! I see!!!

Ok. Well I think if they were growing food for the third world then at least theyd be put to some constructive use. It would be hard work, and Id have them subjected to serious.... not test, but.... pranks. Like in the night id hold back on the sleeping pills for one of them and then loose a lion into the cellblock, then in the morning when one guy is trying to convince everyone he saw a lion, no-one will believe him. And then for another one i could get Robert De Niro to come in the middle of the night and talk to him. Then get all the guards to deny it in the morning. It would have to be a different prank for each inmate, though.

Things like that. Perhaps.

[Luís Henrique]

The families of victims should decide in most murder cases

What has the family of the victims to do with that?

Should the killer of a person who is on bad terms with his/her family have a less harsh punishment than the killer who is in good terms?

What about the cases when the individual is killed by family?

Luís Henrique

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

What about the cases when the individual is killed by family?



Something like 75% of cases.

[Luís Henrique]

Something like 75% of cases.

If they are 0.0001% of the cases, how does this changes the fact that it is absurd to give the family of the victim a voice on what the punishment should be?

Should it be allowed to kill people with no family at all?

Luís Henrique

[Optiow]

If they kill because they like to kill, execute them.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

If they are 0.0001% of the cases, how does this changes the fact that it is absurd to give the family of the victim a voice on what the punishment should be?

Should it be allowed to kill people with no family at all?

Luís Henrique


I was just quoting a stat, I wasnt making a comment on the matter either way.

[Sasha]

havent read the entire thread (i will as serial killers are an special intrest of mine) but i'll just give my answer to the OP.
i oposse the death penalty on both an priciple as an practical level (i oppose punishment, let alone captital punishment, and as people undoubtly have pointed out there is the whole you can never be completly sure of guilt anyway bit), i do recognise though that (99%) of serial killers are never going rehebilitate and are unsafe to keep in your comunity. so while oppose the prison system i am of the opinion that you need to remove these people permantly from your society, so an form of lockup (as humanly possible) should exist.
and, and people might find this strange considering my rejection of the death penalty, these people should be offered the choice for humane euthanisia.

so i voted other...