The reason I bring this up is because you will never find a serial killer who isn't psychopathic or mentally ill in some way. Accordingly, what degree of moral or social responsibility can we afford such people? Are they, truly, evil?

Consider, as an example, Jeffrey Dahmer. You'd struggle to call Dahmer a psychopath, as he seemed to display some degree of remorse for his crimes. Dahmer raped, murdered and dismembered 17 men and boys. He would often commit acts such as necrophilia, cannibalism and preserving trophies. Dahmer was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. Psychologists took a while to decide whether he was legally sane, as he clearly could not control his impulses, had serious lapses of feelings of worthlessness and had an incredible fear of abandonment.

Tommy Lynn Sells was likely a secondary psychopath (or sociopath) who killed at least 22 people across the U.S.A., often in a haphazard and impulsive manner. Sells was molested as an eight-year-old with the consent of his mother and had serious problems with substance abuse. He was also incredibly emotionally unstable, in interviews both breaking down in tears at the thought of his crimes and at other times claiming to be the personification of hate. He had an IQ of about 80. Sells, like Dahmer, was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder alongside Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Depression and psychosis.

Ted Bundy was almost definitely a primary psychopath who killed around 35 people, often in a relatively organised and sadistic way. Bundy was considered attractive and had considerable interpersonal abilities which allowed him to manipulate those around him. He was pre-occupied with notions of power and "possession" over his victims. Unlike Dahmer and Sells, he never abused alcohol or drugs and his IQ was around 136. He, unlike the other two, also got a degree (A Bachelor's in Psychology). While diagnoses were hard to pin, it's incredibly likely that, on top of ASPD, he also had Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


Important Disorders:

Borderline Personality Disorder

Bipolar

Major Depressive

Psychosis

Antisocial

Psychopathy

If they know full and well what they're doing is wrong then I really don't give a single crap about them

Now I wait for the hate

They are 100% responsible, and for the record, all murderers are psychopathic/sociopathic. It isn't a normal thought process to think about killing another human being. People like that should be locked up or given the death penalty for the betterment of society.

I hold them 100% responsible for the way they acted. If you know you are that broken then you have a moral responsibility to prevent harming others through taking your own life.

If you know you are that broken then you have a moral responsibility to prevent harming others through taking your own life.

First and foremost, how do you hold the psychotic or emotionally unstable to account in that paradigm.

Secondly, how can you possibly give these people a moral responsibility when they have an emotional deficit which makes them unable to connect with everyday moral responsibility?

because if they're messed up in the head to the point where they kill, then they shouldn't be a part of society anyway. it's better off for everyone if people that messed up are behind bars where they can't kill or hurt anyone in society.

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

First and foremost, how do you hold the psychotic or emotionally unstable to account in that paradigm.

I may be being dense here but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you could expound it would be much appreciated.

Secondly, how can you possibly give these people a moral responsibility when they have an emotional deficit which makes them unable to connect with everyday moral responsibility?

State moral universalism. All people hold the same responsibilities and if they should violate them then they will be found guilty by a court of law and sentenced to rehabilitation if at all possible or to death if rehabilitation is not possible.

I may be being dense here but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you could expound it would be much appreciated.

People who are either delusional or depressive, bipolar, manic - whatever. People who can't keep their thoughts tracked to the reality of the situation (believing they're the king of Denmark) or people who can't regulate their emotions properly.

State moral universalism. All people hold the same responsibilities and if they should violate them then they will be found guilty by a court of law and sentenced to rehabilitation if at all possible or to death if rehabilitation is not possible.

Well I disagree in principle with the State prescribing morality, although I do believe there are moral facts. However, rehabilitating people (or killing them) for violating this code seems to be to be a concession that these people can't be held morally responsible. If they could, you wouldn't be trying to rehabilitate them or, if you're killing them, they're simply to dangerous and psychologically inept to be held to account.

If an individual were to beat a man to death for raping his wife, it's clear that no rehabilitation is necessary and that capital punishment would be a joke; it's clear that this man has moral responsibility.

So delusional people are responsible? People with serious emotional deficits are responsible? What notion of responsibility do you subscribe to, exactly? because it seems completely vacuous.

I subscribe to the idea that every living thing on the planet is directly responsible for every action that their body and mind makes. If you think you're the king of denmark and bash someone's skull in because you're the king then you're responsible for the actions you take in that mindset. I don't give a flying fuck about what voice is telling you to do it, that voice is still a part of you and you should be responsible for keeping it in line.  People who get angry easily or have mood swings are also directly responsible, they have to either have learned to adapt to those mood swings and compensate for them, or face the consequences of their actions.

Except their propensity for serial murder is not determined by them in the slightest. Saying it was "their own mind and their own actions" is completely inconsequential when their mind is pre-determined in extremely important ways.

No, it's their mind and actions that do it, and whatever personality that takes over during that time is going to come out again, so why let the person off because one part of their mind has a different thought process? it's still the same fucking mind and body doing it.

I hold them 100% responsible for the way they acted. If you know you are that broken then you have a moral responsibility to prevent harming others through taking your own life.

People who have these psychological disorders do not know they have them. Or to dumb it down for you someone who is crazy/insane doesn't realise they are. They believe they are normal.

It is only after it has been diagnosed and brought to their attention can they begin to understand. Even then a lot do not accept it.

How can they realise they are that broken if they don't know they are damaged/broken in the first place? Why would they do as you say and take their own life if they think nothing is wrong?

Psychopaths show no emotion or remorse. They cannot comprehend such chains if thought, hence why if they do something they so not understand it's wrong/bad unless people have repeatedly told them/trained them to realise it is.

Even then it is only the person reciting what they have been told as they do not feel bad, or anything for that matter about anything.

Also understand some of then lash out because they have to. It's like an itch, they have to scratch it. If they don't it cause them discomfort and sometimes they even claim to feel pain. Once they lash out they feel better.


Try educating yourself in criminal psychology/offender profiling before making stupid uneducated remarks.

They are human, just like the rest of us. Just because it may be harder for them does not mean they're allowed any free breaks that can destroy other people's lives. Life is hard, and it may seem unfair, but there's no other solution other than to let them run loose without consequence just because they have a harder time controlling themselves.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 12:23:19 AM

let them run loose without consequence just because they have a harder time controlling themselves.

Not holding them morally accountable doesn't mean there are no consequences for their actions.

Let me clarify: there should be no different consequences for the same actions.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 09:59:59 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 11, 2014, 05:09:19 AM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 12:23:19 AM

let them run loose without consequence just because they have a harder time controlling themselves.

Not holding them morally accountable doesn't mean there are no consequences for their actions.

Let me clarify: there should be no different consequences for the same actions.

So a schizophrenic who murders a 25-year-old man with a knife should be given exactly the same punishment as a psychopath who murders a 25-year-old man with a knife?

Just because some have more motivation to commit a crime doesn't make what they did any less heinous.

Entirely.