yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/11/0142216&from=rss
San Francisco Chronicle: "Hans Reiser, 42, was taken into custody at 11 am, hours after Oakland police and FBI technicians searched his home in the Oakland hills. His estranged wife, Nina Reiser, 31, has been missing since Sept.
There are some other strange aspects to all this, the wife may have been having an affair, but (at least in UK) often divorce lawyers encourage clients to do a 'kitchen-sink' approach to try and wrest custody of the children, so her affair and his domestic violence are both suspect until we get more info. It will all come out if there is a body, or the wife turns up in Russia.
They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt. Jesus H Christ, can we PUH-LEASE leave this damned stupid argument behind once and for freaking all. SOME murderers, I am sure, feel guilty, but to state that MOST killers are wracked by guilt goes way, way, way beyond what evidence has repeatedly shown. Prisons are full of unrepentent murderers, as are the streets. In other words, a healthy percentage of killers don't care for one second what they've done. There are various reasons for this, but look around before assuming that "most" murderers are just good people who have done something bad. The world is full of assholes who are assholes just for the sake of being assholes, and there are countless examples of this extending into the realm of murder.
Are there plenty of people who feel remorse for killing people if it was a crime of passion or one that they didn't truly want to do but felt compelled to anyways? But it goes both ways, and there are plenty of people who quite honestly are so deranged that they don't feel any remorse for what they've done. A peer-reviewed scientific study showing that most killers aren't wracked with guilt? I doubt anyone has the time or inclination to play Search-Engine-Monkey for you. Go ahead and get evidence your evidence before you start demanding it from other people. There are plenty of cases where the fact of the matter is that these killers are remorseless, you only have to know an inkling about psychology to understand that. In fact, plenty of these murderers feel justified fully in their actions. Listen to elucido, he's trying to help you understand the situation. Most people who kill do it because they have serious problems.
org/) It is the general consensus in the psychological community that a conscience is something to be trained. Don't let the gravity of the accusations prevent you from running the classic experiment with this. Ask a 5 or a 6 year old child to kill his brother/sister/pet/... You will obviously need to stop the interaction between the "killer" and his "victim" shortly after. Child soldiers are a very clear illustration of what can happen if a child's conscience is badly trained. These children are trained to kill at an age of 5 or 6 (12 at the most) and they kill. Lots of people think this is related to the motivations of terrorists, where violent religious conviction takes precedence over rationality.
Contrary to popular opinion, most criminals aren't psychopathic. Moreover, those criminals suffering from it aren't automatically violent; a criminal psychopath can just as easily be an embezeller. In fact, one could argue that the best "white collar" criminal would be a clinical psychopath in a position of corporate power - they'd make a great CEO in the short term. Now, that isn't to say there aren't violent psychopathic criminals. Most serial killers, and violent sex offenders who target adult women, would qualify. And it is true that they are extremely hard to rehabilitate (some would say impossible). In fact, I'm not even convinced they represent a signifigant fraction of violent criminals - the numbers I've seen vary wildly, which suggest to me that nobody knows how many of them exist with any certainty. To give them as an example of the futility of rehabilitation is utterly ridiculous. It's like taking a rabid dog as a typical example of what most strays are like. the average person would never be able to kill their wife because they'd feel guilt, remorse, empathy, psychopaths don't feel this. The "average" person is quite capable of murder, given the right incentive, or the right lapse in judgement. Do you really think somebody who, to give an example, kills their wife after catching her in bed with another person is automatically psycho? Granted a psychopath put in that position is more likely to commit violence than an average person, but that doesn't make the average person incapable of murder, it merely makes him statistically less likely to commit it. To presume all who commit crimes are suffering from mental illness, or are in some way less human, is a common error. We wish to distance ourselves from those we consider evil, by claiming that we could never do such a thing. That's not to say that there aren't criminal psychopaths in the world; rather it is to admit that average, mentally healthy people, under the right conditions, can do things we as a society consider monsterous. For every psycho killing people at random, there are a dozen "average" people killing for revenge, for profit, for ideology, or for any number of other reasons.
Read precisely what I said, psychopaths do not feel guilt, remorse, or empathy, and there are a lot of people who don't feel guilt, remorse or empathy, enuogh that I'd say it's normal. I'd guess around 20% of the population, this is a guess and it could be wrong, but it's enough people that there are people in your family, friends, people at work (like your boss), and ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends who were/are psycho. It's as common as any other trait, like fat people, everyone knows a few, or like short people, or tall people, etc. The figure I got off a google search in all of about 5 minutes was 3% of men and 1% of women. Note that those were the high estimates, not the low ones. You're dreaming, or else you have a seriously negative view of humanity. Moreover, you're asking me to prove things while you are, by your own admission, presenting your wild aproximate guesses as fact. The average people almost always commit suicide immediately after they commit violent acts. There is a high suicide rate in prison, and for people awaiting trial. But that's a hell of a long way from "average people almost always kill themselves after commiting violent acts". And moreover, most of the murder suicides aren't exactly average either. Regardless of whether someone has commited a crime, most suicides are born of depression. This means that murderers who off themselve either planned suicide and decided in advance to take someone else with them (as in murder suicide, like the Columbine massacre), or else commited the crime, were driven to depression by guilt, and later killed themselves, which is not "immediately commiting suicide" as you phrased it. The impetus for self-preservation is stronger than guilt. A killer who does not also take their own life is not a de facto psychopath, which is what you seem to be claiming.
You will never deter 100% of murders through the death penalty. Check your statistics, there is a temporary decrease in the number of murders following the implimentation of the death penalty in a state - followed by a continuation of the general upward trend. The murder rate for the US is now higher than it was before the death penalty was reinstated. So, no, the death penalty does not significantly deter murderers.
com/) - Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing? I do think our system needs revamped in that a person who served their FULL sentence (not on parole / probation) honorably should, after a short time (say 5 years), have that issue expunged from their record. It is IMO unfair to continue to punish a person for things they did 20-30 years ago. I have a co-worker that was convicted of felony possession in Florida 25 years ago. He served his entire sentence without ever looking at another drug and in fact is so anti-drug today it is nauseating. The reason he is anti-drug isn't because of the drugs but bec...
|
http://csua.com/feed/