If you randomly kill 4 people, does that mean you're mentally ill?

It seems that something would have to click in your mind just to kill 4 people you don't even know. Are cold blooded murderers mentally ill?

if you are making reference to a case in the news? If so, the word "randomly" needs to be removed, as it does not fit the case. Nothing random about it.

Also, please define -- to some extent -- what you mean by "mentally ill"? Thanks!

So it got me thinking... OK...scratch random... Let's me just ask if you are mentally ill if you have the ability to murder 4 people within an hour?

My definition of mentally ill is how can some folks have the ability to murder like that.... To me, somethings gotta be wrong upstairs for that type of behavior.. mhop

Certainly, most rational people have a difficulty understanding what could motivate someone to behave the way that fellow did. And, without getting into a long and boring discussion on mental illness, let's talk about "getting our needs met."

People with major mental illnesses, which include the schizophrenic and bi-polar disorders, behave in manners that can interfere with their ability to met their needs in today's complex society. There is evidence that they tended to fit in pre-industrial society much better, but that's another story. But in our culture, they tend to be in need of significant support in order to have warm & safe housing, food on the table, transportation, and the other things we tend to take for granted.

Without assistance, which includes medication, people with major mental illnesses tend to experience a cycle of both symptoms of the illness, and inability to meet their needs, which results in hospitalization, homelessness, etc.

Again, the vast majority of mentally ill people are non-violent, and as repulsed by violent crime as the general population. The only statistical difference is the mentally ill have a far higher rate of being the victim of violence. Only one small sub-group, the paranoid schizophrenics, have any associated violence, though they sure get the headlines.

Now, compare that with those who have a personality type that includes using violence to meet needs. Do you see the difference? An anti-social personality disorder can include the use of crime/violence to meet one's needs. However, in my decades of experience in forensics, I found that anti-socials had a "criminal code of conduct," that while it was outside of the margins of the socially acceptable manner of meeting needs, was easily recognizable. Note, for example, that child abusers/sex offenders have a hard time in jail or prison: they have violated that code.

The fellow in question was well-educated, and has shown no evidence of having a thought- or affective disorder that prevented him from meeting his needs. However, we know he failed to pay child support, although he could have afforded it. Thus, we are looking at a set of personality traits that really doesn't fit with mere anti-social.

When his "girlfriend" left him, he was unabled to recognize her as a separate and distinct human being, with her own needs and rights. So he broke in her house, bound her, and systematically raped and savaged her for three days. And he did his best to "cover it up" and make it look consentual.He had fulfilled his need for revenge, with no concern for other's suffering. He is a sociopath, or psychopath if you prefer that term.

When it was obvious he was caught in trial #2, he decided to again meet his need for "revenge," and was not concerned who suffered and died as a result. He could have escaped after his brutal attack on the first deputy. But his needs were not met. He wanted to force suffering or death on the woman he savaged, and those holding him accountable. So he broke into the court.

His actions in the last 12-15 hours of his "freedom" were clearly not psychotic, or even thought disordered. As with most violent sociopaths, he had met his needs for violence, and was primarily interested in finding a safe, warm place to stay.

"Normal" people -- and I include you -- have trouble relating to someone who violates these codes of social conduct without conscience, and assume the person must be mentally ill. He's not. He merely has a personality structure that allows him to kill someone with no more of a sense of guilt that you have when you make a sandwich. In fact, he will view himself as a victim ..... "look what that bitch made me do!"

but still.... I can't even imagine myself, (sane) pointing a gun at another human being and murdering that person. Especially if I didn't know the person. Would you agree that that act constitutes a moment of madness?

Moral depravation. But human history is full of various types of killing that do not fall into the context of madness, per say. I will say that I find it as repulsive as you do, and I understand and fully appreciate your opinion on this. But, having worked forensics for a long time, I know the difference between madness and moral depravation.

I don't believe that is what causes people to kill. They are either suffering from a temporary condition or chronic condition.

I think this guy was suffering from some sort of temporary mental condition, maybe even temporary psychosis.

It's not that they don't have "morals," ANYONE who kills, unless it's a defense action or ordered as a soldier, has some type of mental issue. Check the DSM IV, there are several diagnosis that may fit this guy.

It's not a good vs. evil thing. It's illness.

person crazy.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by crazy.

seems to me he was just trying to escape by any means - more of a scumbag sociopath.

I don't believe all sociopaths are "mentally ill".

is not a mental illness. None of the leading experts in the field considers it a mental illness. The law does not, either.

much like other criminals are.

The least one can say it that sociopathy isn't exactly "normal".

Of course, the vast majority of people who are sociopaths are not violent criminals. They are judges, lawyers, politicians, teachers, business leaders in communities, etc. If it's a subject that people want to know more about, there are great books for the layman by Hare and my favorite, Reed Malloy, that do a wonderful job of explaining what a sociopath is, and isn't. The association of sociopath with violent crime keeps people from understanding exactly how "normal" most sociopaths seem in everyday life. It's a personality type, and there are wonderful schools of thought on why the numbers seem to be on the rise.

The violent types are more typically psychopaths. Though i can't help but thinking sociopathy and psychopathy do have things in common.
Though indeed "appearing normal" is one of the significant traits of sociopaths. Which doesn't mean they won't harm society; there are many ways to do harm besides direct acts of violence.

I can imagine there are sociopaths with varying degrees of sociopathy - quite a few may be relatively harmless.
This is a bit off-topic from the "killing four random people" issue (i think that's more psychopathy then sociopathy). But non-harmless sociopaths in the highest positions of power, that's probably one of the worst things that can happen to humanity. In fact i think sociopathy is more dangerous then psychopathy.

psychopath are interchangeable words. At most, they may denote the user's opinion on the role of genetics versus environment. But both describe the same personality type, and same set of characteristics.

For instance a serial killer who kills for the thrill; one who doesn't only have no inhibition to kill (apart from not wanting to get caught), but who actually enjoys killing - that's very different from a politician who has no scruples and uses his power to advance himself and the people he's allied with, at the expense of society. I find it curious that there's no distinction in terminology between the two. Both are bad but in very different ways, even though there may be a common cause.

The main difference i see is the scale on which they operate: one terrorizes local communities, the other terrorizes entire nations. Maybe the root of the difference is primarily in intelligence and possibly in ambition.
Maybe it's just that the more intelligent and more ambitious one realizes that going on a killing spree in the neighborhood doesn't help much to further his goals.

Can one be so ambitious that one ends up in the highest circles of power, and be so intelligent that one never gets caught?
Admittedly, that's a rhetorical question. Though if it is true, then i think we're lacking a qualification for this breed.

is a term to describe a person who has a certain personality type. It refers to a set of values (or lack thereof) and the manner in which a person views the world, other people, and the manner in which they attempt to get their needs met. A person can be a successful community member, and be a sociopath. They are not much fun to have in your life, and are likely to make everyone close to them miserable. (In fact, most people around sociopaths tend to think they are crazy!)

There is plenty of information on sociopaths available. Again, I think that while the Hare scale etc are most famous, that Reed Malloy's writings are most likely to be enjoyed by the general public.

to check out later.
Thanks for clarifying

Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a personality disorder which is characterised by antisocial and impulsive behaviour. APD is generally considered to be the same as, or similar to, the disorder that was previously known as psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorder. Approximately 3% of men and 1% of women have some form of antisocial personality disorder (source: DSM-IV).

are distinct from major mental illnesses. They are personality types. Antisocial PD is a wide spectrum, and the relationship between those who are sociopathic and ASPD is still very much a matter of debate.

The DSMIV is used for many things, including coming up with the codes that meet the needs of insurance companies.

The DSM in its various phases has included information on the use and addiction of tobacco and chocolate. It is safe to say that thinking people can disagree with the DSMIV; likewise, total agreement with it indicates a lack of insight.

Tobacco IS addictive. Not to know this, "indicates a lack of insight."

Whatever. :eyes:

Have you ever read a psych eval? I have read many.

OBVIOUSLY, you hadn't even heard of the DSM IV. Sociopathy is a form of a mental illness. LOOK IT UP.

Are you familiar with Robert Hare? Ever hear of the Hare checklist? Ever talk with him? Even read one of his books?

From "Without Conscience," we can start with just one sentence: "In fact, psychopaths have none of the hallmarks of mental illness." But I think you should hear more. Please turn to page 5: "Psychopathic killers, however, are not mad, according to accepted legal and psychiatric standards. Their acts are not from a deranged mind but from a cold, calculating rationality combined with a chilling inability to treat others as thinking, feeling human beings."

In chapter 2 of a book you should read, and have someone explain to you (wink), Robert makes clear that this is "a question that has long troubled not just psychologists and psychiatrists, but philosophers and theologians." On page 24, you will find where your errors on your weak and inaccurate interpretation of the DSM-IV are in regard to antisocial personality disorder. Your mistake is one commonly made by those unfamiliar with this subject.

"Most clinicians and researchers ... know that psychopathy cannot be understood in terms of traditional views of mental illness. Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders. Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of wha they are doing and why. Their behavior is a result of choice, freely exercised. .... When a person is diagnosed as a psychopath breaks the same rules (as a mentally ill person), he or she is judged sane and is sent to prison. .... (Psychopaths) may torture, kill, and mutilate their victims -- appalling behavior that sorely tests our ideas of what 'sanity' means -- but... there is no evidence that they are deranged, mentally confused, or psychotic. .... they (are) sane by current psychiatric and legal standards." (22-23)

Now, what were you saying? Tell me all about your being an expert!

Maybe Canada uses a different scale, that of your guy Hale. I'm not familiar with what the courts or doctors in Canada use. I am familiar with what our APA and AMA uses.

"Being mad" as your guy states, is not even a term our psychiatrists would use and it's certainly not in the DSM IV.

Having a mental condition does not mean one is out of touch with reality. There are different types designated by Axis I, II, II, IV in the codes.

This guy is likely NOT a sociopath.

Sociopaths are NOT always declared "legally insane" in our country! Ted Bundy, case in point. He got the electric chair. I highly DOUBT the BTK killer will get off on the insanity defense. He will probably get the death penalty.

Again, legally insane and having a mental disorder such as schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, psychosis, sociopathy, etc is NOT the same thing.

psycopathy in the USA is the Hare scale. That is because the DSM's had always gone on shakey ground as far as self-reporting and a clinician's ability to assess traits such as empathy, egocentricity, guilt, and so forth. (Again, you might enjoy Hare, pages 22-26)

It's funny: even tests such as MMPI are prone to manipulation. There are documented cases of individuals taking three MMPIs in a one year period, and getting three distinct "results." Even the real experts -- and they are few -- will be the first to admit that they can and do make mistakes in dealing with this population.

But, again, you said something about "armchair" diagnosing in about the same breath that you said the fellow was likely psychotic. Yet you have not listed a single behavior that indicates any thought disorder on this guy's part. I'm curious if you see something I have not seen, read, or heard on the news? Because there is nothing that would indicate any disordered thinking that I've seen.

I don't think this guy is a sociopath. I think he was having a temporary pyschosis of some sort.

There is no way to arm chair diagnose him though without more info on his background.

that you see.

outlandish violent behavior

emotional volatility

homocidal thoughts and behaviors

poor judgment

poor insight

Psychological stressors in individuals with personality disorders may precipitate brief periods of psychotic symptoms

The stressor was his TRIAL.

Learn what psychotic means before you attempt to discuss this. He showed no disordered thinking that qualifies as psychotic. His behavior, from the time he tortured and raped the woman who wanted to end any relationship to him, to his defense in the first trial, to his behaviors during the 48 hours surrounding the violence in the courtroom, were not confused thinking in terms of psychosis. Likewise, your bluff hereis not psychosis, though it is confused thinking. (grin) The guy is a violent piece of shit. You insult those people who actually have mental illnesses when you try to make an excuse for his behavior. Think about what you are saying .... the trial wasn't a stressor -- the guy had just been through a trial. Being held accountable for his violent behaviors was stressful for him: too fucking bad.

"Morally depraved" "evil" or "bad" is a fundie type judgment. These people are disturbed in some way.

You are criticizing all people with conditions by placing fundie like judgments on abnormal behavior.

I choose NOT to have a puritanical view of abnormal psych.

Those symptoms I listed ARE symptoms of a psychosis. Perhaps you are the one who is delusional. "grin" :eyes:

I also didn't say he shouldn't be held responsible for his behaviors. I said, he likely WILL NOT get the legally insane defense.

Your "duh" was real friendly-like, and mine was bad. Ha! You don't know what psychosis is, plain and simple. If my being strongly opposed to a fellow who rapes and tortures a woman, and murders four human beings makes me a "puritanical fundie" in your opinion, so be it. But be prepared, because if you do venture into the science of psychopathy, you will find that scientists on the cutting edge refer to these people as "morally insane" and "evil" .... and they are not puritanical fundies. Catch on?

I'm not sure if your calling me rude and obnoxious was a Freudian slip, or what .... but I wasn't trying to be offensive. Really. I've had too many relatives be victim to violent thugs, and my reaction to the thug who savagely raped and tortured his ex-girlfriend, and then murdered four human beings, is because it hits very close to home with me. Too close.

Also, I really do recommend people read Dr. Robert Hare's "Without Conscience; Reid Meloy's "The Psychopathic Mind"; and even an old classic, Hervey Cleckley's "The Mask of Sanity."

Again, I am sorry if I offended you.

say I was a child when the US invaded my country and slaughtered my entire family. Then, say I grew up and attacked America. Would that qualify me as being mentally ill?

Of course this guy who just killed all these people for no apparent reason, very likely not right in the head.

Julie

Now I am not saying people who murder should get off if they are mentally ill... I'm just saying that there's got to be a couple of screws loose.

I had to do it for my 8th grade Science project. I got a B+, because I forgot to capitalize the title of the report.

It's late, and I'm tired. My humor gets weird at such times. Sorry I doofed up your thread. I'm going to bed now. Nighty nite, all.

How did you choose your victims?

But you must be a societal deviant.

killing people at random or whatever are not the actions of a sane and rational person.

I could never do it...

you? :P

then I go nuts.

Sanity is only the least degree of insanity.

They kill people they don't know, at random, as a job.

some commit suicide. Virtually no soldier remains untouched by the killing.

and exhausted, and afraid for their lives...their situation can't be compared to this man's except that the end results are the same.

Except with "soldiers are conditioned to kill". In most cases, soldiers seldom even see those that they kill. Pilots drop bombs on "coordinates", same for artillerymen. Infantrymen are told to fire between certain points without regard for who is between those points. "Free Fire Zones" require the soldier to shoot anyone who is alive in a specific area. In any case, they are killing people that they don't know randomly.

I think you are focusing on a most important point: that people kill other people for a wide range of reasons. The history of human beings seems to indicate that most people, if put into certain circumstances, are capable of killing another person.

That raises a serious point: there is a huge difference between the thug that breaks into a home where he may kill other people in order to achieve a criminal goal, and the person inside that same home who may kill the intruder in order to protect his family.

Most people do have a strong inhibition about killing another human being, that's why most soldiers "change" somehow, mentally, after making their first kill in combat.
That doesn't necessarily mean these people become psychopaths or sociopaths. Their conscious is bothering them, but they can't escape the situation. Though some do, by means of suicide, if not while on tour then after they got home.
But if you already are a psychopath or sociopath, it's much less troublesome to kill. Outside of combat the only inhibition for these people is about not getting caught.

so they have a legal means in which to kill. Only approx 3% of the population are sociopaths and there are varying degrees of narcissism.

I went to high school with a mass murderer. Lanky, goofy kid. Socially awkward but genial, wasn't picked on by the jocks or cool kids because he was mostly invisible.

A few months after graduation, he was sitting in a bar down the street from my home, when he told everyone he was going to get his gun and kill the lot of them. Most paid him no mind, a few chuckled. He went out to his truck, got a rifle and proceeded to shoot the place up. 5 dead.

Here's the kicker -- he was stunned by what he had done. Once his rifle was emptied, whatever seized him evaporated and he began to wail in disbelief. He was a disconsolate puddle, they just took his gun from him and waited for the police.

He didn't seem to be crazy before or after, only during those few minutes he was a deranged monstrosity. He was crushed with guilt through his trial and sentencing.

So, is he mentally ill? I dunno.

Did the devil make him do it?

People who exhibit violent behaviors, except in the cases of defense, have some sort of mental condition. It may be temporary or chronic. Unhealthy behaviors are not due to "sin" or lack of "morals" they are due to some sort of mental unhealthiness.

As I understand it he killed only those that represented a controlling government that would force him to conform to rules and life styles he did not agree with.

So he defended his beliefs and freedoms by molesting or killing those that would deprive him of those beliefs and freedoms.

We likely will see more of this revolutionary behavior as the laws that bind us and further restrict our personal freedoms we each hold dear squeeze tighter and tighter.

And we break.

180

is the mother of all cruelty." - Voltaire

While his behavior is revolting, it is in no way revolutionary.

I did think long about his actions. I have knowledge of people caught up in similar circumstances as this fellow seemed to be, and they are not bad people, not yet. But they might become so. They might revolt; (To try to overthrow authority) 'A Revolutionary'.

As to his guilt or innocence of what came before we will never know.

Damn the hung jury.

No?

180

There is plenty of information available that details his background. Be that as it may, he is responsible for what he did. To call him a revolutionary is to misuse the term.

And to be a revolutionary does not mean you are right. And if I can believe the law according to television his previous escapades are not allowed in judgment.

Also you seem d to think I am defending this person. No I am not. I am trying to understand. He seems to have revolted against authority as we all do in one sense or another.

180

The DSM IV diagnoses do not automatically qualify someone for legal insanity.

Legal insanity is that someone does not understand that the consequences of their actions.

Sociopaths rarely get the insanity defense because they do understand the consequences. It is an Axix I diagnosis of a mental illlness though.

Again, I don't think this guy qualifies as a sociopath nor will he get legally insane. But without more info on him, it's impossible to make a guess at his diagnosis.

but if you randomly kill a hundred thousand or so, it means you were sent here by Gawd to pertect us from them evil dewars and terrists and to restore dignity and morality to the White House.

To me I have a rather mathematically defined concept of the term "Random," so yeah some bozo who picks up a gun and literally starts blowing people away for NO reason...sure, there is something wrong with his brain.

If you're talking about the guy who killed 4 people to escape justice and to punish the judge and anyone else standing around, that is not random. He doesn't sound like he has an illness, he sounds like he is a criminal who didn't want to face the price for his crimes.

If you're talking about the church guy, hmmm, tough to say. These killings aren't random by a strict definition of the word. These were people he knew and a group he met with regularly. Not a random bunch of people. We don't know the motive at this time. He had depression and there is always the chance of a bad reaction to medicines used to treat depression -- see under Andrea Yates. But we don't know enough yet to say if mental illness was a factor or no. Most depressed people harm no one.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

and exhibit reptilian behavior- hence the term "cold-blooded".

The guy in the news lately is a more extreme version of what inhabits the White House.

The Reptiles in the White House, however, have a lot more money and people ready to cloak their behavior and make it appear more acceptable.

Has to do with a lack of empathy.