Share this topic on FacebookShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on Twitter

Author Topic: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row  (Read 12228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Henrik - Sweden

  • Fanatic
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Karma: +373/-2
  • Go pro? No!
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2008, 06:17:43 AM »
Extreme selfishness in the sense that you really could kill someone without remorse to get what you want, that's the same thing as I call psychopathy. It's a personality disorder that can be diagnosed but not cured (but it vanishes somewhat with age for some unknown reason). It's not however a sickness in the sense that you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions. Psychopaths have a full grasp of reality. Why they lack or almost lack emphaty and conscience we don't know. Many of them had an upbringing with both neglect and abuse, but far from everyone. Not everyone is violent, but they all are manipulative and impossible to trust.

I see violent psychopaths as incurable and their disturbance shall not be regarded as "mitigating evidence" - in fact they are the ones who we need to keep away from society the most and be very careful about even when they're in prison. Many other prisoners aren't dangerous as long as you keep them calm, prevent them from taking drugs and perhaps give them some medication. But a psychopath can't be medicated and can always be dangerous. They are hugely overrepresented in the prison population compared to their amount of the total population.

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2008, 12:41:38 PM »
Do you know if there's any psychological testing performed on her? If she is guilty - which the evidence seems to support - I would expect her to score very high on tests for psychopathy. For a mother to perform such a heinous act on her own children I see only two explanations:

1) She is seriously mentally ill with some kind of psychosis/schizophrenia that has led her to totally lose her grasp on reality

2) She is a psychopath of the worst kind with no really feeling towards any other human being. In the mind of such a person another human beings are just things that could be tossed away if you don't need the anymore or if they prevent in some way of doing another things you want to do. A typical example of this kind of murder is Lowell Lee Andrews who murdered his own parents and sister and is described by Truman Capote in "In cold blood" because he was on Kansas DR at the same time as Dick Hickock and Perry Smith.

Now #1 isn't supported in this case by anything I've read so far, so therefore it must be #2. If she didn't fit this description it would left me very puzzled.


Why can't she just be a selfish arrogant bitch?  I mean, yea, I said I have doubts-or at least think she deserves an oscar-BUT if she is guilty, it could just be good old fashioned selfishness.


that's ALL it was.  no more, no less.

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2008, 12:49:02 PM »
Extreme selfishness in the sense that you really could kill someone without remorse to get what you want, that's the same thing as I call psychopathy. It's a personality disorder that can be diagnosed but not cured (but it vanishes somewhat with age for some unknown reason). It's not however a sickness in the sense that you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions. Psychopaths have a full grasp of reality. Why they lack or almost lack emphaty and conscience we don't know. Many of them had an upbringing with both neglect and abuse, but far from everyone. Not everyone is violent, but they all are manipulative and impossible to trust.

I see violent psychopaths as incurable and their disturbance shall not be regarded as "mitigating evidence" - in fact they are the ones who we need to keep away from society the most and be very careful about even when they're in prison. Many other prisoners aren't dangerous as long as you keep them calm, prevent them from taking drugs and perhaps give them some medication. But a psychopath can't be medicated and can always be dangerous. They are hugely overrepresented in the prison population compared to their amount of the total population.


Bs, with a capital B.  my mom used to try to get by with the lunacy that you have to be crazy to murder someone, and she meant insane.  she was wrong then, just as you are wrong now.
of course there are a few psychopaths that commit murder, but the overwhelming majority of murderers do NOT have a legitimate mental illness.  the majority of murders are committed during the commission of other crimes, such as robbery.  there is no mental, environmental, or societal cause of that whatsoever.  it is due SOLELY because of the inherent worthlessness of the individual, period

Offline Granny B

  • Administrator
  • Fanatic
  • *****
  • Posts: 9032
  • Karma: +5616/-18
  • I'd like to help U out. Which way did U come in?
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2008, 05:56:14 PM »
Due to the language barrier, Henrik being Swedish, may have meant Sociopath when he said psychopath.  She does fit this profile.

Profile of the Sociopath

Summary of some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.


    * Glibness and Superficial Charm

    * Manipulative and Conning
      They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    * Grandiose Sense of Self
      Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

    * Pathological Lying
      Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    * Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
      A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    * Shallow Emotions
      When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

    * Incapacity for Love

    * Need for Stimulation
      Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

    * Callousness/Lack of Empathy
      Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

    * Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
      Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

    * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
      Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

    * Irresponsibility/Unreliability
      Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

    * Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
      Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

    * Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
      Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

    * Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
      Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:

   1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
   2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
   3. Authoritarian
   4. Secretive
   5. Paranoid
   6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
   7. Conventional appearance
   8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
   9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
  10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
  11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
  12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
  13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
  14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
  15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world


(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
" Closure? Closure is a misused word in the English language.  There is no such thing as closure for the family of a murder victim.  There will never be any closure for the death of our loved ones until we are dead ourselves.  The families have a lifetime sentence of anguish and sadness." 
Susan Levy

gabmat

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2008, 06:38:36 PM »
I agree with some of the points you make, iamjumbo. And I definitely agree with Grandmother on most points, as I've shown before on many topics.

Apart from the fact that Henrik's first language is NOT English (although I am pretty sure Swedish people have to take English in school for several years and that a big majority is at least pretty fluent in English... even to the point where English is their second language), yes, he may have chosen ONE WORD wrong. And you attack him on ONE word? So, tell me, do you speak any second language as fluently as Henrik does?

I'm not going to get into linguistics now, however. Although I could still probably bring up some very good points on that.

All I want to know now is why exactly you attacked Henrik? He's an anti. Yes. Grandmother and I are pros. Yet, we still spoke up for Henrik. Why? Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I'm so tired of antis lying about things. And Henrik DEFINITELY is not in that category. Henrik's post are VERY well-thought-out. He considers every point. He can see opposite views. He is an anti, yes, but in high regard of most pros here.

In addition, let's get into illness, sickness, psychology, for a moment. I hold a Master's in that. What, apart from your obvious very strong beliefs on the matter of "psychopaths" qualifies YOU for voicing such strong, SEEMINGLY qualified opinions? You just believe that there are people who are worthless. If I had to make a profile on YOU, I'd say that you believe that every African American is worthless in your eyes. You know NOTHING about other countries, obviously, and you know NOTHING about psychology, obviously.

But that's just my EDUCATED opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Antis lie, in general. No offence to you, Henrik. I'd hate to see pros falling to that level. You seem to do, iamjumbo. :(

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2008, 04:24:36 AM »
I agree with some of the points you make, iamjumbo. And I definitely agree with Grandmother on most points, as I've shown before on many topics.

Apart from the fact that Henrik's first language is NOT English (although I am pretty sure Swedish people have to take English in school for several years and that a big majority is at least pretty fluent in English... even to the point where English is their second language), yes, he may have chosen ONE WORD wrong. And you attack him on ONE word? So, tell me, do you speak any second language as fluently as Henrik does?

I'm not going to get into linguistics now, however. Although I could still probably bring up some very good points on that.

All I want to know now is why exactly you attacked Henrik? He's an anti. Yes. Grandmother and I are pros. Yet, we still spoke up for Henrik. Why? Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I'm so tired of antis lying about things. And Henrik DEFINITELY is not in that category. Henrik's post are VERY well-thought-out. He considers every point. He can see opposite views. He is an anti, yes, but in high regard of most pros here.

In addition, let's get into illness, sickness, psychology, for a moment. I hold a Master's in that. What, apart from your obvious very strong beliefs on the matter of "psychopaths" qualifies YOU for voicing such strong, SEEMINGLY qualified opinions? You just believe that there are people who are worthless. If I had to make a profile on YOU, I'd say that you believe that every African American is worthless in your eyes. You know NOTHING about other countries, obviously, and you know NOTHING about psychology, obviously.

But that's just my EDUCATED opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Antis lie, in general. No offence to you, Henrik. I'd hate to see pros falling to that level. You seem to do, iamjumbo. :(


well my boy, all the education in the world cannot prevent stupidity.  i did NOT attack henrick at all.  your desire to manufacture things that don't exist will cause you problems.  you certainly have the right to your opinion, although the adjective is clearly specious.
for the record, i went to school to be a lawyer, but never practiced professionally.  i would suggest that you not apply to be a profiler since you definitely are not good at it.
as with all those who have no rational point, you like to toss in race, especially when you have NO intelligent rationale for doing so.  i am fully aware of what you'd like to use as the basis for such a lunatical assumption, but it simply demonstrates the aptness of my first statement.
nonetheless, suppose you show where i attacked henrik.  i merely pointed out the fallacy of his thesis that all murderers have some mental illness, and the irrefutable fact that individuals murder for the sole reason that they are inherently worthless as human beings.  nowhere did i attack henrik.  as a rule, i try to go easier on the euros, at least at first, because i realize that they are merely repeating the stupidity that they've been taught.  they are indoctrinated in university with the abject stupidity of copenhagen physics and other such ignorant musings of a few demented individuals.  that is why europe has such a problem today.  so, until they have been given the correct information and chosen to reject rationality, i do not attack them.

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2008, 04:46:38 AM »
just for the record, ANY attempt to profile me fails miserably before it's begun.  it is an absolute impssibility to pigeonhole me.
i am extreme right on crime, as i'd support the death penalty for any third strike.  i know that singapore, malaysia, indonesia et al have the morally correct drug laws.  i firmly support our god given right to own guns.
however, i am extreme left in that i am adamantly anti big business, and comprehend the fact that the primary function of government is to provide for those who, through NO fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves.
so, the best advice is to not attempt a profile

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2008, 04:53:00 AM »
Due to the language barrier, Henrik being Swedish, may have meant Sociopath when he said psychopath.  She does fit this profile.

Profile of the Sociopath

Summary of some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.


    * Glibness and Superficial Charm

    * Manipulative and Conning
      They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    * Grandiose Sense of Self
      Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

    * Pathological Lying
      Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    * Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
      A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    * Shallow Emotions
      When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

    * Incapacity for Love

    * Need for Stimulation
      Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

    * Callousness/Lack of Empathy
      Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

    * Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
      Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

    * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
      Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

    * Irresponsibility/Unreliability
      Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

    * Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
      Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

    * Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
      Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

    * Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
      Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:

   1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
   2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
   3. Authoritarian
   4. Secretive
   5. Paranoid
   6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
   7. Conventional appearance
   8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
   9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
  10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
  11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
  12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
  13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
  14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
  15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world


(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html


i have no problem with henrik's semantics.  it really max nix whether darlie is a sociopath or a psychopath.  the point is that it doesn't matter.  i agree that darlie meets most of the qualifications of a sociopath.  it's conceivable that a large percentage of murderers do.  however, as with everything else, it is SOLELY by their choice. 

Offline Granny B

  • Administrator
  • Fanatic
  • *****
  • Posts: 9032
  • Karma: +5616/-18
  • I'd like to help U out. Which way did U come in?
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2008, 08:07:36 AM »
"i have no problem with henrik's semantics.  it really max nix whether darlie is a sociopath or a psychopath.  the point is that it doesn't matter.  i agree that darlie meets most of the qualifications of a sociopath.  it's conceivable that a large percentage of murderers do.  however, as with everything else, it is SOLELY by their choice.

Too true!  :-* :-*
" Closure? Closure is a misused word in the English language.  There is no such thing as closure for the family of a murder victim.  There will never be any closure for the death of our loved ones until we are dead ourselves.  The families have a lifetime sentence of anguish and sadness." 
Susan Levy

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2008, 12:08:03 PM »
"i have no problem with henrik's semantics.  it really max nix whether darlie is a sociopath or a psychopath.  the point is that it doesn't matter.  i agree that darlie meets most of the qualifications of a sociopath.  it's conceivable that a large percentage of murderers do.  however, as with everything else, it is SOLELY by their choice.

Too true!  :-* :-*


there is nothing difficult to comprehend about reality.  boo hooers want to blame everyone but the ONLY one TOTALLY responsible, which is the criminal.  there is no societal cause of crime whatsoever. 
of course, some people have difficult circumstances.  life isn't fair.  nonetheless, circumstances have no relevancy whatsoever.  the ONLY thing that matters is what the individual chooses to do with those circumstances.

Offline Henrik - Sweden

  • Fanatic
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Karma: +373/-2
  • Go pro? No!
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2008, 07:24:56 AM »
Interesting discussion, though not about the Darlie Routier case anymore it seems.

I will address a few points:

Sociopath/psychopath:

- In recent years the last one of this terms has been prefered here in Sweden for various reasons. It may be different in the US, but it doesn't matter if you ask me: I see them as almost eqvivalent

Quote from: iamjumbo
 
I merely pointed out the fallacy of his thesis that all murderers have some mental illness, and the irrefutable fact that individuals murder for the sole reason that they are inherently worthless as human beings


Well not bad - two classical argument fallacies in one sentence: straw man and question begging. But I'm not really interested in exchanging any more arguments with you iamjumbo/sam, since it's already well known in this forum how it will end. Let's agree that it's wasted time for both of us.

However for the rest of you hard-nosed stubborn pros  :P: I never once claimed that "all murderers have some mental illness". In fact I thought I explained that I do not definately see psychopathy as a mental illness. I agree with the principles that guides your legal system: If you're able to distinguish right from wrong and have a reasonable grasp of reality, then you're also responsible for your actions and belong in prison if you commit a crime that is not minor. I do however believe that personality disorders are common among murderers and other heavy criminals. The whole point of bringing this up in the Darlie Routier-thread was just this: If she didn't qualify as a psychopath/sociopath in such tests, then I might start to doubt that she's really guilty, given the other facts known in the case. Because I cannot see a mother who isn't either seriously mentally ill (which she obviously isn't/wasn't) or has a psychopatic personality committing this crimes. This is not a moral statement, but a psychological.

Why it is important also an a more general level:

What I think one has to remember with classical psychopaths is this: They choose their actions and they are intellectually aware what's right and what's wrong. But their total lack of empathy isn't a choose they made themselves. They lack the tools that stops the most among the rest of us from seriously hurting other people. And the problem is that the vast majority of them aren't on DR awaiting their executions, they are outside among us. How to deal with them? One of the reasons I'm so strongly opposed to the DP is that I see it as a part of a package where you lay all or almost all focus on the punishment part of the crime prevention problem. Execute a few murderers doesn't solve the problems that causes new murders to occur.

Even if it's true that an abusive childhood doesn't excuse a brutal murder you should ask yourself: What if this person who once was a kid (not so far ago since most murderers are quite young) had been given a better upbringing? What if more resources had been spent in his neighbourhood? What if there had been more options/alternatives to choose among than five dollar-jobs or a life as a criminal? What if the society wasn't so full of weapons in the wrong hands? Maybe this young man wouldn't have walked this path that eventually led to the death of one or maybe more innocent persons.

If you believe that social background bears absolutely no importance at all for crime; then what about the "irrefutable fact" that most murderers come from a bad social background? Is it just a coincidence? Or is it somewhat purely genetic that we cannot deal with? Scumbags always end up in the dirt and produce new scumbags no matter what? Or - the third alternative - could we perhaps do something to break the evil circle?

Now, this is a much harder question to handle than the question about punishment. As I see it focusing on tougher punishment and focusing on feelings of vengeance against murderers in general (I DO NOT INCLUDE THOSE PERSONALLY STRIKED BY MURDER AND THEIR FEELINGS AGAINST THE PARTICULAR OFFENDER IN THIS CATEGORY) results in neglect in the other area. As long as "justice is served" (by executing the murderer) everything is fine. But everything isn't fine. The desire for blood will make people blind for the other aspect of the problem. They will continue to vote for politicans who promise to "go tougher on crime" at the same time as they cut down social support and various programs that could have helped more young men (and women) onto the right track, thereby avoiding future victims for their crimes.

Antis and their moral

It has made me very displeased to see how many naive and ignorant persons who are engaged in the anti-DP movement. The way some trolls have behaved against the Baugh family is beyond all excuse. The way of presenting lies and misleading facts like on Kathy Henderson's website is unacceptable, even given the fact that they're trying to save a persons life. It's ridiculous to see DR inmates as some misunderstood boyscouts or innocent in most cases. On the other hand I could also say that it's ridiculous to see them all as totally evil, living murder machines, just waiting for a new opportunity to murder again.

Don't see me as some exception. There are many well educated, well informed and far from naive persons in both the US and Europe who holds basically the same position as I do. Elie Wiesel f.e said:

"I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don't think it's human to become an agent of the Angel of Death."

Elie is a nobel prize winner and holocaust survivor (most of his family were killed). You could call him and me a "soft hearted liberal" if you wish (whatever hell that means), but to call him stupid or naive wouldn't do anything more than to reveal your own stupidity.

The heated tone, the overexaggerations, the tendency to look away from obvious facts: I see this on both sides on the fence. It's no wonder: This is in many ways the ultimate moral issue and it involves life or death for many persons (both the victims and the offenders). I cannot say that one side is better than the other. The wisest thing I think is to look beyond the lunatics you will find on both sides and analyze the arguments with both your mind and your heart. I have done this to my best effort and I'm still convinced that the DP is wrong. But I do respect everyone who tries to produce arguments and tries to see the problem as a whole.

From the swedish summer which is at its peak right now I'll send some summer flowers to most of you!  :-* :-* :-*

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2008, 09:54:56 AM »
well lad, you actually did pretty good there.  however, the one place that, not just you, but ALL who wish to blame everyone but the criminal so miserably fail, is:

Even if it's true that an abusive childhood doesn't excuse a brutal murder you should ask yourself: What if this person who once was a kid (not so far ago since most murderers are quite young) had been given a better upbringing? What if more resources had been spent in his neighbourhood? What if there had been more options/alternatives to choose among than five dollar-jobs or a life as a criminal? What if the society wasn't so full of weapons in the wrong hands? Maybe this young man wouldn't have walked this path that eventually led to the death of one or maybe more innocent persons.

If you believe that social background bears absolutely no importance at all for crime; then what about the "irrefutable fact" that most murderers come from a bad social background? Is it just a coincidence? Or is it somewhat purely genetic that we cannot deal with? Scumbags always end up in the dirt and produce new scumbags no matter what? Or - the third alternative - could we perhaps do something to break the evil circle?

of course it's a fact that most murderers do come from a bad social background.  so what?  unless, and until, you can conclusively prove that all, or even a majority, of those who come from a bad social background become criminals, the notion that a bad social background causes criminality is totally without merit.  as always, it is SOLELY what the individual does with their background, NOT the background.
notwithstanding anything else, it is NOT society's responsibility to do anything to break the evil circle.  it is the inherently worthless individual who, alone, has the responsibility to act like a human being.  those who choose not to, are simply demonstrating their choice to show that they are no longer worthy of continuing in life.
at any rate, you are certainly entitiled to your opinion.  i have given mine, and, as justice scalia said on sixty minutes, "that's my view, and it's correct".  speaking of which though, justice scalia's best friend is ruth bader ginsburg.  one of the best known antis on the web and i get along famously.  you really do not need to run away.

Offline Granny B

  • Administrator
  • Fanatic
  • *****
  • Posts: 9032
  • Karma: +5616/-18
  • I'd like to help U out. Which way did U come in?
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2008, 08:26:00 PM »
I was watching a program with 2 doctors on it a few days ago.  I don't remember their names, but she was a psychiatrist who had graduated with her doctorate in Psychiatry about 20 to 25 years ago.  For her thesis she studied juvenile criminals to see what made or drove them to commit their crimes.  She said as she examined these teen children, mentally she began to note that nearly all of them came from abusive backgrounds and had many physical injuries and scars from being abused as a child.  She stated she found cigarette burn marks, striped scarring on their back and head injuries in many of the children.

She thought about her findings a lot and wanted to know more.  For instance were there neurological damage or injuries to these kids as well?  So she called a man whom she had graduated with, who chose the field of neurology and was just starting out in his practice too.  She did not tell him why, or what she was looking for, she just asked him to examine these kids in the system she had been looking at. 

He stated that he was annoyed by her insistence that he look at these kids in the criminal justice system and did not want to be around them and did not know why she was asking him to take a look at them.  She pestered him into it and he finally said yes.  As he began looking into the kids and the crimes they had committed, he began to see a correlation in the types of crimes and the fact that most of them had at some time had head injuries as evidenced by scars on their head. 

Those with frontal scars around the frontal lobes of their brains were the ones who were the worst off.  The frontal lobes are the area of the brain that holds your conscience and tells you when you should or should not do things.  The ones who had the more severe injuries in the past to that area of their head were the worst offenders.

So in 2 independent findings, when these 2 doctors began to compare notes, they found the same thing, these kids who were abused as children had lost their ability to tell right from wrong with the head injuries and the further abuse they suffered as children.

Again, the majority of the findings are that children who are abused lose the ability to make good judgments and become the criminals of tomorrow.  Henrik is quite right about this.  We in the field of domestic violence and child abuse talk incessantly about stopping the cycle of abuse to prevent that child from growing up to be an abuser too.  We know that more people who are abused wind up in prison for violent crimes and murder, than those who have never been abused.

So those of you who are poo pooing what Henrik has said here are quite sadly wrong.  He is on the right track about the causes of criminal activity in a large segment of the prison population.  PREVENTION IS THE KEY to stopping the violence before it happens. 

However, I still believe in the death penalty for the worst of the worst, unlike Henrik who does not believe it should be used at all.  But I do admire his gentleman's stance against the odds here on this forum and hope he keeps speaking out.  He has some very good points on many things. :-* :-*

Sociology VS Psychopath:  I put the definition of Sociopath on here earlier.  Compare that to the below definition of Psychopath and you will see it is very close.

Psychopathy is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior.[1] The term is often used interchangeably with sociopathy[2]. Psychopathy has been the most studied of any personality disorder. Today the term can legitimately be used in two ways. One is in the legal sense, "psychopathic personality disorder" under the Mental Health Act 1983 of the UK. The other use is as a severe form of the antisocial or dissociative personality disorder as exclusively defined by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).[3] The term "psychopathy" is often confused with psychotic disorders. It is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths. They are overrepresented in prison systems, politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms, and in the media.[4][5][6]

The psychopath is defined by a continual seeking of psychological gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Using Freudian terminology, the psychopathic personality occurs when the ego can't mediate between the id and the super-ego, thus allowing the id to run off the pleasure principle, and the super-ego has no control over the actions of the ego. In other words, individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their aggressive, sexual and criminal impulses as well as lack a conscience.

Psychopathy is frequently co-morbid with other psychological disorders (particularly narcissistic personality disorder).  The psychopath differs slightly from the sociopath, and even more so from an individual with antisocial personality disorder.  Nevertheless, the three are frequently used interchangeably. While nearly all psychopaths have antisocial personality disorder, only some individuals with antisocial personality disorder are psychopaths. Many psychologists believe that psychopathy falls on a spectrum of disorders ranging from narcissistic personality disorder on the low end, malignant narcissism in the middle, and psychopathy on the high end. An almost all-pervasive misconception is that psychopaths are doomed to a life of violence and crime. It is possible for psychopaths to become successful in many lines of work, while many also become lazy underachievers. Psychopathy is frequently mistaken with other similar personality disorders, such as dissocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and schizoid personality disorder (as well as others).

Description

This trait in conjunction with an inability to defer gratification in criminal, sexual and aggressive desires, leads to the psychopath to constantly engage in antisocial behaviors. Psychopathy (in its extreme form) does not necessarily lead itself to criminal and violent behavior (although such tendencies are likely). Instead, psychopaths high in social cognition may be able to redirect their aggressive and sexual desires in a more positive manner.[citation needed]

Psychopaths (and others on the pathological narcissism scale) low in social cognition are more prone to violence against others, failure in occupational settings, and problems maintaining relationships. All psychopaths differ in their impulse control abilities, and overall desires. Psychopaths high in the pathological narcissism scale are more equipped to succeed, but pathological narcissism does not in any way guarantee success. Those that fall into the category of psychopath are vulnerable to a life of crime, poverty, and extremely poor interpersonal relationships.

Hare's items

    Main article: Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)

The following findings are for research purposes only, and are not used in clinical diagnosis. These items cover the affective, interpersonal, and behavioral features. Each item is rated on a score from zero to two. The sum total determines the extent of a person's psychopathy.[3]

Factor1: Aggressive narcissism

   1. Glibness / superficial charm
   2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
   3. Pathological lying
   4. Cunning / manipulative
   5. Lack of remorse or guilt
   6. Shallow
   7. Callous / lack of empathy
   8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions


Factor2: Socially deviant lifestyle

   1. Need for stimulation / proneness to boredom
   2. Parasitic lifestyle
   3. Poor behavioral control
   4. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
   5. Impulsivity
   6. Irresponsibility
   7. Juvenile delinquency
   8. Early behavior problems
   9. Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor

   1. Many short-term marital relationships
   2. Promiscuous sexual behavior
   3. Criminal versatility

In practice, mental health professional rarely treat psychopathic personality disorders as they are considered untreatable and no interventions have proved to be effective.[14]In England and Wales the diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder is grounds for detention in secure psychiatric hospitals under the Mental Health Act if they have committed serious crimes, but since such individuals are disruptive for other patients and not responsive to treatment this alternative to prison is not often used.[15]

Because an individual's scores may have important consequences for his or her future, the potential for harm if the test is used or administered incorrectly is considerable. The test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled conditions. [16][17]

Hare wants the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying that psychopathy has no precise equivalent[16] in either the DSM-IV-TR, where it is most strongly correlated with the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, or the ICD-10, which has a partly similar condition called dissocial personality disorder. Both organisations view the terms as synonymous. But only a minority of what Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths who are in institutions are violent offenders.[18][19] The manipulative skills of some of the others are valued for providing audacious leadership.[20] It is argued that psychopathy is adaptive in a highly competitive environment, because it gets results for both the individual and the corporations[21][22][23] or, often small political sects that they represent.[24] However, these individuals will often cause long-term harm, both to their co-workers and the organization as a whole, due their manipulative, deceitful, abusive, and often fraudulent behaviour.[25]

Hare describes people he calls psychopaths as "intraspecies predators[26][27] who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, sex and violence[28][29][30] to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".[17] "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."[31]
" Closure? Closure is a misused word in the English language.  There is no such thing as closure for the family of a murder victim.  There will never be any closure for the death of our loved ones until we are dead ourselves.  The families have a lifetime sentence of anguish and sadness." 
Susan Levy

iamjumbo

  • Guest
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #43 on: July 01, 2008, 12:13:56 PM »
I was watching a program with 2 doctors on it a few days ago.  I don't remember their names, but she was a psychiatrist who had graduated with her doctorate in Psychiatry about 20 to 25 years ago.  For her thesis she studied juvenile criminals to see what made or drove them to commit their crimes.  She said as she examined these teen children, mentally she began to note that nearly all of them came from abusive backgrounds and had many physical injuries and scars from being abused as a child.  She stated she found cigarette burn marks, striped scarring on their back and head injuries in many of the children.

She thought about her findings a lot and wanted to know more.  For instance were there neurological damage or injuries to these kids as well?  So she called a man whom she had graduated with, who chose the field of neurology and was just starting out in his practice too.  She did not tell him why, or what she was looking for, she just asked him to examine these kids in the system she had been looking at. 

He stated that he was annoyed by her insistence that he look at these kids in the criminal justice system and did not want to be around them and did not know why she was asking him to take a look at them.  She pestered him into it and he finally said yes.  As he began looking into the kids and the crimes they had committed, he began to see a correlation in the types of crimes and the fact that most of them had at some time had head injuries as evidenced by scars on their head. 

Those with frontal scars around the frontal lobes of their brains were the ones who were the worst off.  The frontal lobes are the area of the brain that holds your conscience and tells you when you should or should not do things.  The ones who had the more severe injuries in the past to that area of their head were the worst offenders.

So in 2 independent findings, when these 2 doctors began to compare notes, they found the same thing, these kids who were abused as children had lost their ability to tell right from wrong with the head injuries and the further abuse they suffered as children.

Again, the majority of the findings are that children who are abused lose the ability to make good judgments and become the criminals of tomorrow.  Henrik is quite right about this.  We in the field of domestic violence and child abuse talk incessantly about stopping the cycle of abuse to prevent that child from growing up to be an abuser too.  We know that more people who are abused wind up in prison for violent crimes and murder, than those who have never been abused.

So those of you who are poo pooing what Henrik has said here are quite sadly wrong.  He is on the right track about the causes of criminal activity in a large segment of the prison population.  PREVENTION IS THE KEY to stopping the violence before it happens. 

However, I still believe in the death penalty for the worst of the worst, unlike Henrik who does not believe it should be used at all.  But I do admire his gentleman's stance against the odds here on this forum and hope he keeps speaking out.  He has some very good points on many things. :-* :-*

Sociology VS Psychopath:  I put the definition of Sociopath on here earlier.  Compare that to the below definition of Psychopath and you will see it is very close.

Psychopathy is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior.[1] The term is often used interchangeably with sociopathy[2]. Psychopathy has been the most studied of any personality disorder. Today the term can legitimately be used in two ways. One is in the legal sense, "psychopathic personality disorder" under the Mental Health Act 1983 of the UK. The other use is as a severe form of the antisocial or dissociative personality disorder as exclusively defined by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).[3] The term "psychopathy" is often confused with psychotic disorders. It is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths. They are overrepresented in prison systems, politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms, and in the media.[4][5][6]

The psychopath is defined by a continual seeking of psychological gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Using Freudian terminology, the psychopathic personality occurs when the ego can't mediate between the id and the super-ego, thus allowing the id to run off the pleasure principle, and the super-ego has no control over the actions of the ego. In other words, individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their aggressive, sexual and criminal impulses as well as lack a conscience.

Psychopathy is frequently co-morbid with other psychological disorders (particularly narcissistic personality disorder).  The psychopath differs slightly from the sociopath, and even more so from an individual with antisocial personality disorder.  Nevertheless, the three are frequently used interchangeably. While nearly all psychopaths have antisocial personality disorder, only some individuals with antisocial personality disorder are psychopaths. Many psychologists believe that psychopathy falls on a spectrum of disorders ranging from narcissistic personality disorder on the low end, malignant narcissism in the middle, and psychopathy on the high end. An almost all-pervasive misconception is that psychopaths are doomed to a life of violence and crime. It is possible for psychopaths to become successful in many lines of work, while many also become lazy underachievers. Psychopathy is frequently mistaken with other similar personality disorders, such as dissocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and schizoid personality disorder (as well as others).

Description

This trait in conjunction with an inability to defer gratification in criminal, sexual and aggressive desires, leads to the psychopath to constantly engage in antisocial behaviors. Psychopathy (in its extreme form) does not necessarily lead itself to criminal and violent behavior (although such tendencies are likely). Instead, psychopaths high in social cognition may be able to redirect their aggressive and sexual desires in a more positive manner.[citation needed]

Psychopaths (and others on the pathological narcissism scale) low in social cognition are more prone to violence against others, failure in occupational settings, and problems maintaining relationships. All psychopaths differ in their impulse control abilities, and overall desires. Psychopaths high in the pathological narcissism scale are more equipped to succeed, but pathological narcissism does not in any way guarantee success. Those that fall into the category of psychopath are vulnerable to a life of crime, poverty, and extremely poor interpersonal relationships.

Hare's items

    Main article: Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)

The following findings are for research purposes only, and are not used in clinical diagnosis. These items cover the affective, interpersonal, and behavioral features. Each item is rated on a score from zero to two. The sum total determines the extent of a person's psychopathy.[3]

Factor1: Aggressive narcissism

   1. Glibness / superficial charm
   2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
   3. Pathological lying
   4. Cunning / manipulative
   5. Lack of remorse or guilt
   6. Shallow
   7. Callous / lack of empathy
   8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions


Factor2: Socially deviant lifestyle

   1. Need for stimulation / proneness to boredom
   2. Parasitic lifestyle
   3. Poor behavioral control
   4. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
   5. Impulsivity
   6. Irresponsibility
   7. Juvenile delinquency
   8. Early behavior problems
   9. Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor

   1. Many short-term marital relationships
   2. Promiscuous sexual behavior
   3. Criminal versatility

In practice, mental health professional rarely treat psychopathic personality disorders as they are considered untreatable and no interventions have proved to be effective.[14]In England and Wales the diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder is grounds for detention in secure psychiatric hospitals under the Mental Health Act if they have committed serious crimes, but since such individuals are disruptive for other patients and not responsive to treatment this alternative to prison is not often used.[15]

Because an individual's scores may have important consequences for his or her future, the potential for harm if the test is used or administered incorrectly is considerable. The test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled conditions. [16][17]

Hare wants the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying that psychopathy has no precise equivalent[16] in either the DSM-IV-TR, where it is most strongly correlated with the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, or the ICD-10, which has a partly similar condition called dissocial personality disorder. Both organisations view the terms as synonymous. But only a minority of what Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths who are in institutions are violent offenders.[18][19] The manipulative skills of some of the others are valued for providing audacious leadership.[20] It is argued that psychopathy is adaptive in a highly competitive environment, because it gets results for both the individual and the corporations[21][22][23] or, often small political sects that they represent.[24] However, these individuals will often cause long-term harm, both to their co-workers and the organization as a whole, due their manipulative, deceitful, abusive, and often fraudulent behaviour.[25]

Hare describes people he calls psychopaths as "intraspecies predators[26][27] who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, sex and violence[28][29][30] to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".[17] "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."[31]


undoubtedly, there are those who are so physically abused that they suffer physiological trauma that results in psychological abnormalities.  of course, what you are describing is legal insanity.  an individual who truly does not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong, is not punished for it.
however, absent the physiological symptoms, the abuse does not in any way mitigate criminal conduct.  with no physical reason for the abherration, it is simply the choice of the individual to be anti social.  the same goes for psychopathy.  it is the individual's decision to behave as such, and there is no environmental cause.

Offline Granny B

  • Administrator
  • Fanatic
  • *****
  • Posts: 9032
  • Karma: +5616/-18
  • I'd like to help U out. Which way did U come in?
Re: Darlie Routier - Murdering Mom on Death Row
« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2008, 02:43:00 PM »
undoubtedly, there are those who are so physically abused that they suffer physiological trauma that results in psychological abnormalities.  of course, what you are describing is legal insanity.  an individual who truly does not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong, is not punished for it.
however, absent the physiological symptoms, the abuse does not in any way mitigate criminal conduct.  with no physical reason for the abherration, it is simply the choice of the individual to be anti social.  the same goes for psychopathy.  it is the individual's decision to behave as such, and there is no environmental cause.


 "of course, what you are describing is legal insanity."

No that was not what I was describing in this post.  

What I was describing is what the legal and psychological advocates use for the mitigating circumstances in cases where they think the penalties are too harsh, such as for the death penalty.

What the experts are describing is the damage to the person's brain.  They are saying that during childhood, this person was so damaged from the physical abuse, that the prefrontal lobes of their brains do not work properly.  Meaning they have lost their physical and mental ability to properly process mental functions that allow their brains to say this is wrong or this is right and I should not do this.  The  portion of their brain that holds their conscience is damaged. They do not process right and wrong as you and I do. That function in them is short circuited if you please.   They are not physically nor mentally able to feel the emotion that you or I would if we hurt or maimed someone.  That does not make them mentally challenged!  I am not saying that. That's a whole other set of issues.

But coupled with the short circuit in their brain's conscience and brutal physical and mental abuse they endured as a child, they become a danger to society.  This is why the advocates plead mitigating circumstances for these murderers.

I am just saying, there are reasons for some of them to be this way.  Do I feel they should totally excused for the crimes they committed?  No, I do not.

Am I saying they should not be executed for their crimes?  No, I did not say that.  Those that are extremently violent and who are a continuing danger to society should be put down.

What I was trying to say, is that children who are in violent homes should be removed for their safety and to prevent this from happening to them.  We who work in the field of domestic violence have long known that children who grow up in violent homes have a bigger propensity to become violent, to become criminals, to wind up in jail, or prison, or become a suicide victim. Or if they are female to learn the role of the victim.

Where to put the abused children is another whole issue that has to be dealt with.  Sometimes the foster homes or the relative's homes they are placed in are just as bad or worse than the environment they came from.

On my soapbox:  Either we as a society began to change this trend towards a more and more violent society, where we tolerate and excuse those who are doing the abusing, or we just lay down and let them run over us.  It is up to us to say, NO, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.  WE HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ABUSE! And make it stick in courts, and the justice system.   But if society wants to continue making criminals at the pace they are going, soon we will be soon be outnumbered by the violent criminal element.
" Closure? Closure is a misused word in the English language.  There is no such thing as closure for the family of a murder victim.  There will never be any closure for the death of our loved ones until we are dead ourselves.  The families have a lifetime sentence of anguish and sadness." 
Susan Levy