Is it really the murderer's fault that they are murderers? | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Is it really the murderer's fault that they are murderers?

Murder is Predetermined Killing.
Killing is the taking of life.

It doesn't matter what any arbitrary rules say. Definitions are Definitions.

Murder isn't always bad.
 
Unless it was an accident, then it was the murderer's fault, as far as I could say. I mean, if they have a mental illness, they should have gotten help - or their family/friends should have gotten them help (so maybe it's their faults?). If they kill someone in rage, it's still their fault (unless, as I said, it was an accident).
But then, it's very unlikely anyone but the murderer would know if their crime was an accident or not.
 
Definitions are Definitions.

Yes, and I quoted the legal definition above. "Murder is an unlawful act of willful killing, not in self defense or defense of those in your care."

Unless it was an accident

...in which case it wasn't murder, it was an accident, and at worst could be considered negligent homocide, aka manslaughter.
 
Yes, and I quoted the legal definition above. "Murder is an unlawful act of willful killing, not in self defense or defense of those in your care."



...in which case it wasn't murder, it was an accident, and at worst could be considered negligent homocide, aka manslaughter.

Which is wrong. My version is correct because it doesn't change when the borders change.
 
Which is wrong. My version is correct because it doesn't change when the borders change.

That's pretty much legal precedent anywhere in the civilized world. aka Common Law.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

If you want to define murder in some other way that doesn't jive with reality as the rest of the world knows it, then you need to get your Shaitatorship under way soon.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty much legal precedent anywhere in the civilized world. aka Common Law.



If you want to define murder in some other way that doesn't jive with reality as the rest of the world knows it, then you need to get your Shaitatorship under way soon.

They define it that way so that it doesn't put them in the shit for making war, or utilising the death penalty.
 
Murder, by definition, is guilty.

Anything else is manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, insanity, etc.
 
No, murder does not always imply immorality.

However, I reread what you said FA, and you're correct.
 
I thought that as long as you did it through the hole in the sheet everything was ok.
 
I don't know. It depends on your perspective regarding free will and self-determination. Are we solely products of our environment, or do we shape ourselves?

In any case, all our laws and social structures are based upon the assumption that all individuals are responsible for their own actions, regardless of whether that's true or not. Society as we know it could not be held together without that assumption.

In short, I don't know if it's their fault, but I think we have to hold them accountable so that the victim's family can vent their anger in a specific direction and feel vindicated.

It could also be argued that even if the murderer is not to blame, keeping them apart from society serves the common good, because the people as a whole would be less safe if a known murderer was among them, rather than being imprisoned or executed.

It may not be so much that it's their fault, so much as that society needs them to be expelled for it's own health, and that that trumps their rights as individuals.

Do you care if a cancerous growth is responsible for the fact that it became cancerous, or do you simply remove it because it's now a danger to the rest of the body, regardless of how or why it became that way?
 
Last edited:
Escalation into Murder of humans

For the majority of you who have not read my "About me" page, I am a Psychiatric Social Worker, though I am now disabled by a serious progressive illness, which is why I have time to hang out on forums. There is certainly some debate about the part of this post that is just my opiniojn, and it's healthy, but I just wanted readers to know that I am not just pulling a rabbit out of a hat here. I have some background. In fact, I was planning to do my PhD thesis on this exact subject, but never got enough money saved to go that far in school.

The killing of animals in childhood is usually accompanied by at least one of the following: setting fires, and/or bed wetting. This is known as the homicidal trio, and is the mark of a budding psychopath. It almost always is well underway by age 15. There is no known effective treatment and no known prevention.

IMO, once this trio is noticed, the person should be removed from society. Harsh, but I don't believe in waiting until animals no longer provide enough stimulation, and the person, almost always male, graduates to humans. I also love animals and feel that killing them is more than enough grounds for taking action.

Very well done studies with twins and their families show a very strong genetic tendency in psychopathy, which is not the same as psychosis at all. It can skip generations, so parents should not automatically be blamed for bad parenting, which seems to be the current assumption most often made.

Brain studies show extremely high levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin in psychopaths. Without going into a long, boring explanation of how the parasympathetic nervous system works, this means they will require a great deal more stimulation to feel anything at all, compared to normals. (Kind of the opposite of the INFJ, who feels intense emotion with less stimuli than average). I don't think they can help this part of their problem. The brain's hardwiring is not their fault.

We can correct some software problems in the brain with therapy or drugs, and there is some preliminary evidence that sustained thought practices, like meditation, may be able to change neurotransmitter levels over time, but so far the research that I am aware of is just showing momentary change with each thought a person has.

BTW, similar hardwiring of the brain to be attracted to kids has been found and proven in pedophiles, so while they should be kept out of society permanently, IMO, since they are not curable, we need to stop blaming, as disgusting as their actions may be to us.

Then there is the anti-social personality disorder part of the equation of the type of murderer who starts out with animals. These types have no empathy and no conscience. They do have a moral code. It is very simple. What they want is good and what gets in the way of it is bad. You are not a being. You are a thing to them.

There is also no sense of proportion. If they have to break down a door to get to the safe to steal your money or they have to kill you to get through the door to steal your money, there is no difference at all between the two to a psychopath. An obstacle is an obstacle. It is all equal, and they will consider it to be your fault, if you were blocking the doorway.

So, in this particular type of murder only, I do not think they can help it, but that does not absolve them of responsibility. They should be removed from society permanently and as repayment of their debt to society, their next of kin should not be allowed to refuse scientists the right to study their brains after death, as Jeffrey Dahmer's father did, which I thought was incredibly selfish.

The state should have the right to study them. We need to study them, so we can learn how to help them, which should be possible as we learn more about manipulation of neurohormones. We also need to study them to help ourselves, because we are making more of them all the time, especially west of the coastal mountains along the pacific coast, where the rate of people qualifying for a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder is 4 times higher than anywhere else in the U.S. While not all anti-socials will become psychopaths, a total lack of conscience is not something we want in a civilized society. Since our trends seem to come from the west coast now, that is very scary, at least to me.

Just my two cents. FWIW.
Pax,
klutzo
 
For the majority of you who have not read my "About me" page, I am a Psychiatric Social Worker, though I am now disabled by a serious progressive illness, which is why I have time to hang out on forums. There is certainly some debate about the part of this post that is just my opiniojn, and it's healthy, but I just wanted readers to know that I am not just pulling a rabbit out of a hat here. I have some background. In fact, I was planning to do my PhD thesis on this exact subject, but never got enough money saved to go that far in school.

The killing of animals in childhood is usually accompanied by at least one of the following: setting fires, and/or bed wetting. This is known as the homicidal trio, and is the mark of a budding psychopath. It almost always is well underway by age 15. There is no known effective treatment and no known prevention.

IMO, once this trio is noticed, the person should be removed from society. Harsh, but I don't believe in waiting until animals no longer provide enough stimulation, and the person, almost always male, graduates to humans. I also love animals and feel that killing them is more than enough grounds for taking action.

Very well done studies with twins and their families show a very strong genetic tendency in psychopathy, which is not the same as psychosis at all. It can skip generations, so parents should not automatically be blamed for bad parenting, which seems to be the current assumption most often made.

Brain studies show extremely high levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin in psychopaths. Without going into a long, boring explanation of how the parasympathetic nervous system works, this means they will require a great deal more stimulation to feel anything at all, compared to normals. (Kind of the opposite of the INFJ, who feels intense emotion with less stimuli than average). I don't think they can help this part of their problem. The brain's hardwiring is not their fault.

We can correct some software problems in the brain with therapy or drugs, and there is some preliminary evidence that sustained thought practices, like meditation, may be able to change neurotransmitter levels over time, but so far the research that I am aware of is just showing momentary change with each thought a person has.

BTW, similar hardwiring of the brain to be attracted to kids has been found and proven in pedophiles, so while they should be kept out of society permanently, IMO, since they are not curable, we need to stop blaming, as disgusting as their actions may be to us.

Then there is the anti-social personality disorder part of the equation of the type of murderer who starts out with animals. These types have no empathy and no conscience. They do have a moral code. It is very simple. What they want is good and what gets in the way of it is bad. You are not a being. You are a thing to them.

There is also no sense of proportion. If they have to break down a door to get to the safe to steal your money or they have to kill you to get through the door to steal your money, there is no difference at all between the two to a psychopath. An obstacle is an obstacle. It is all equal, and they will consider it to be your fault, if you were blocking the doorway.

So, in this particular type of murder only, I do not think they can help it, but that does not absolve them of responsibility. They should be removed from society permanently and as repayment of their debt to society, their next of kin should not be allowed to refuse scientists the right to study their brains after death, as Jeffrey Dahmer's father did, which I thought was incredibly selfish.

The state should have the right to study them. We need to study them, so we can learn how to help them, which should be possible as we learn more about manipulation of neurohormones. We also need to study them to help ourselves, because we are making more of them all the time, especially west of the coastal mountains along the pacific coast, where the rate of people qualifying for a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder is 4 times higher than anywhere else in the U.S. While not all anti-socials will become psychopaths, a total lack of conscience is not something we want in a civilized society. Since our trends seem to come from the west coast now, that is very scary, at least to me.

Just my two cents. FWIW.
Pax,
klutzo

This is very interesting, and while I'd love to discuss the core causes and effects of anti social personality disorders (Cluster B disorders) and the relationship to serotonin levels... I am much more interested if there have been any studies of cognitive function preferences in these individuals, and if so are there any trends? (heh, yes I'm interested if there is any correlation between behavioral, abnormal, and cognitive theories)
 
Last edited:
Personality typing and psychopathy

VH,

VERY interesting question, and I wish I had some scintillating research to present that would answer it. As far as I know, no such studies have been done. I think very little attention has been paid to possible Myers-Briggs patterns in any of the mental illnesses. At least I am not aware of any such studies. Do you know of any? You sound like you have a relevant background. I am off to read your About me page....

If I had to guess, I'd say most psychopaths would have a very hard time even taking a personality test and deciding between answers. I think they would be E and T types, but neither S nor N in any way we could really relate to. The serial killer type comes in two flavors: disorganized and organized, and I would guess the first to be more P and the second to be more J. Not rocket science, but all guesswork in my case, so not worth much.

As far as your last question, you are conversing with someone who was trained as a behaviorist. Internship in a behavioral outpatient psych unit, behavioral group therapy facilitator and Program Director, trainer of student behaviorists, Asst. Director of Big Sisters, which is run on behavioral principles, etc.

I never heard a peep about personality typing at work or in school. I got into it on my own, after wondering how I could so often be in a crowd of people and feel so alone, or often look at the world humans have made and wonder if I'd been dropped off on the wrong planet. This confusion was combined with wondering if there was some other career I could still manage to do, despite my illness. I took a short course in career compatibility at our local college, which was based on Myers-Briggs, and that is how I found out my type. I've never done any academic reading on typing.

I would love to know what you've uncovered about it in relation to neurosis, psychosis, personality disorders; anything you want to talk about.

klutzo
 
Last edited:
Thanks to klutzo for stating what I planned to state. This saved me alot of typing. :p

Now for the moral question.

Killing to us is bad. Anyone who kills should be removed from society. Yet, these people are hard-wired into their brains that they should kill. The fact that they enjoy killing is not their fault, the same way why I enjoy tennis is not my fault, the same way the reason why there are homosexuals is not their fault.

To them, killing is a hobby, just like tennis and music and things like that. Granted, it is a hobby at the expanse of another person's life, but still a hobby, and there is a good reason why it is condemned. However, do not forget that killing and torture were widely encouraged, especially with Spain's conquering of the Native Americans.

Now for the philosophy question.

Is there really any free will?

Instead of putting my own answer, I wish to wait for more answers.
 
Would an insane pacifist murder someone?
 
Thanks to klutzo for stating what I planned to state. This saved me alot of typing. :p

Now for the moral question.

Killing to us is bad. Anyone who kills should be removed from society. Yet, these people are hard-wired into their brains that they should kill. The fact that they enjoy killing is not their fault, the same way why I enjoy tennis is not my fault, the same way the reason why there are homosexuals is not their fault.

To them, killing is a hobby, just like tennis and music and things like that. Granted, it is a hobby at the expanse of another person's life, but still a hobby, and there is a good reason why it is condemned. However, do not forget that killing and torture were widely encouraged, especially with Spain's conquering of the Native Americans.

Now for the philosophy question.

Is there really any free will?

Instead of putting my own answer, I wish to wait for more answers.

I'm tempted to say technically no, realistically yes. Your mind is your shell, you can't choose anything that your mind doesn't make present to you.
 
Not all murderers are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are murderers..
So I believe that there does exist a choice. There's a bit of free will.

But now a little psychopathic perspective on the matter:



"It's nothing you'd understand, but I do have something to say. In fact, I have a lot to say, but now is not the time or place. I don't know why I'm wasting my time or breath. But what the hell? As for what is said of my life, there have been lies in the past and there will be lies in the future. I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. I need not look beyond this room to see all the liars, hater, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards--truly trematodes of the Earth, each one in his own legal profession. You maggots make me sick-- hypocrites one and all. And no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world, which kill in the name of God and country or for whatever reason the deem appropriate. I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations, I've heard them all before and the fact remains that what is, is. You don't understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil, Legions of the night--night breed--repeat not the errors of the Night Prowler and show no mercy. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within us all. That's it" --Richard Ramirez's statement before he received sentencing at his trial.
"Serial killers do, on a small scale, what governments do on a large one. They are products of our times and these are bloodthirsty times."--Richard Ramirez
What do you think of those statements?
_____________________________________

Also, here's a really good article I've read about this topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128116806

Keep up this discussion, esp. you klutzo!
 
Last edited:
Is it really?

yes, considering to be labeled a murderer they had to commit a murder. Regardless of whatever past/present/future situation caused them to get to that point, they still, in the end, had a choice. To commit a murder or to not commit a murder. By choosing to, hence the label, they are responsible for their actions.
 
Not all murderers are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are murderers..
So I believe that there does exist a choice. There's a bit of free will.

But now a little psychopathic perspective on the matter:



What do you think of those statements?
_____________________________________

Also, here's a really good article I've read about this topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128116806

Keep up this discussion, esp. you klutzo!

I agree with him.