Are Murders born evil? Or did something change them?

When Tookie was a tiny little baby sleeping softly in a blanket sucking on his thumb was he destined to become evil or did society mold him?

If he was born evil and didn't have control over his evilness then how can we blame him for just being who he was born to be like a rabid dog? He had no control over his actions then just as a rabid dog has no control over it's actions.

If he was born with the ability to be both good and bad like most people then shouldn't we try to love the good part of him and forgive him for temporarily slipping into an evil state of mind that was most likely heavily influenced by where he was from and how he was raised?

This is not a black and white issue, this is an extremely abstract issue that should be judged using abstract and very complicated thinking.

If we had known Tookie was going to murder would we have killed that tiny little baby sucking his thumb? They are the same people you know.

create what we call "evil."

create evil in people? Where does evil come in, then? Do good people suddenly have an evil idea one day?

however evil or anger often comes out of desperation, stress, loss, blackness, lack of love, abuse and the rage that builds up because of these factors.

I would suggest that NO people who kill are in the 'self actualization' stage of Maslows Hierarchy of needs. They are probably struggling to stay in one of the bottom stages, either food and shelter or needing to be loved. I don't remember all of them.

People who know real love and have all their needs met who are self actualized and in harmony don't kill. I think Tookie perhaps reached some amount of harmony while in prison. He was no longer the person who killed those people.

But people form and join gangs to feel loved, there's no doubt about that.

I don't believe in "evil" as if it is some force of nature that enters into someone and possesses their body.

not people themselves. It is an important tool of characterization, but it is not in character. People are weak, frightened, and sometimes just out of control. But calling their actions evil maybe helps the rest of us stay in control, you know? If anything approaches evil I think it is genuine sociopathy--people who are cold and rational about killing, like the BTK guy. But we shouldn't fall for his front, which valorizes him in some way; we have no idea how he suffers inside.

kind of freaky!

...he had no conscience. None at all. Throughout the trial he seemed indignant that he had to be there at all.
.....the defense came up with a study --- and Gawd how I wish I had saved it - that indicated that people who suffer a substantial or severe head injury as a young child are much more likely to be violent. this guy had suffered such an injury. it didn't make any difference, since he had a lengthy record and several bank robberies to atone for. he will die in prison.

but environment matters, too.

Just because you are wired a certain way does not absolve you of responsibility for your own choices. I might be wired to become obese, but I still have the choice to work against my genetics and choose not to eat that donut. Or I might be wired to become reclusive, but I can choose to fight my inborn fears and have a life. If people start using genetics to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own choices, then we might as well be animals.

Based on your argument, why should we lock up criminals at all? Or why bother to stop someone from molesting children on a playground? After all, he was a little child too once, and he is only acting out the impulses that he was born with.

These kinds of exercises are fun for naive little rich children in philosophy classes. They are much less fun for the people who actually have to live in proximity to the sociopaths and rapists that the dreamers choose to coddle and excuse.

I am not saying we shouldn't punish them for what they have done, that is absolutely ridiculous. You missed the whole point of my post. I am saying that we all make mistakes, some bigger than others but we shouldn't Kill people to solve the problem. You obviously still want to look at things in black and white and not look at the abstract complexities of what causes evil to emerge.

Obviously people should be punished for making the wrong choices but they should also be judged keeping a thousand factors in mind and killing them as punishment is illogical based on how fragile and imperfect the human mind is.

Certainly we all have choices but society can also mold our view of the morality of those choices. Sometimes we will fall and learn from or mistake and try to redeem ourself. All crimes should be punished but that doesn't mean we can't love the criminal for who they might have been had society not molded them into who they were at one time.

Also, some people don't have any control over their actions. Many murders lack the ability to put on the breaks when they are in a state of rage. This has been shown in all kinds of research. So actually they really didn't have a choice at the time. The rage in their brain was more powerful than the breaking mechanism in their brain. Should they still be punished? Absolutely! If they kill they should go to Jail for life because they are a danger to society but they should also be understood to have a disorder that limits their ability to hold back rage.

You used the fat analogy so I will to. Your logic is like saying, once fat always fat no matter how great you look now and how well you have control over your eating habits.

"He had no control over his actions, like a rabid dog"

I'm sorry, I can't even think of a serious response to that "abstract complexity." :) Good luck with that one.

Have fun with your post.

because no one else disagreed with me other than some minor points. Actually you were the only one who missed the whole point of the post all together.

Why didn't you respond to my last response? It appears you couldn't think of what to respond with so you act like a little kid would and be condescending rather than argue the point like an adult?

So you obviously think a rabid dog is in the same mindset as a healthy dog and should be judged on the same merits. Thats what your last post would indicate. The brain can become sick just like any other organ can not to mention the brain can become sick just from words and other peoples actions especially when in the early stages of development. So should we kill people who get rabies and go on a killing rampage or should we try to detoxify them and return them to their original self?


Have fun with that.

;)

I'm not the one who declared Tookie to be merely an unthinking animal with no capacity for reason.

I'm sure Tookie would appreciate your support!

Nite nite. :)

The analogy of a rabid dog doesn't depict him as "an unthinking animal with no capacity for reason" which I am sure you know but are playing dumb because you are afraid to debate all the points I brought up. It depicts him as having a sick mind in the same way someones organ might be sick. A rabid dog is a dog who's mind is sick from the illness and has lost it's original ability to control it's actions. I could have used any living creature for the point but I expected you to be smart enough to understand the analogy. I guess I gave you too much credit. I wonder why everyone else got it and you didn't?

Also, I think it's quite clear from the OP that Tookie fits the second example more than the the one you keep bringing up.

And yes, it's clear you were being condescending.

I certainly don't believe Tookie was born "evil".

Others, many who are born with certain propensities, become dysfunctional due to their environment. It's both nature and nurture.

"see" the brain that is an especially good question.

The brains of people who commit violent crime show strong differences from the "normal" brain. It's long been known that damage to the prefrontal cortex is related to aggressive behavior and faulty "fear conditioning" or what we know as conscience. But with brain scanning it's found there are at least 6 areas of the brain that show significant differences either in size, function or both.

They show much lower rates of glucose uptake (which shows activity in three areas, the prefrontal cortex (inhibits aggressive behavior), the corpus callosum (connects the hemispheres, the reasoning side with the emotional side) and one I don't recall.

They showed greater activity in three other areas, all which fit with an increase of aggression.

There have been many studies...all showed damage to the brain. Generally those from "good homes" needed more damage to elicit the violent behavior. Certainly not all with brain damage become violent, but all repeat violent offenders showed damage.

Often the damage is consistent with being shaken, other closed head injuries, toxic exposure in vitro and so on. Again children abused/neglected are much likelier to show violent behaviors with a lower level of damage.

I'm not saying they aren't at fault because of this but punishment alone is not the answer. We really have to look at better prenatal, post natal care and support to children and families. Certainly some kind of rehab in jail beyond just locking them up is important but we really need to get to them sooner.

We'll be getting many Iraq veterans home with closed head injuries. They won't all become violent of course, but that is an area where we need to increase and not cut back care.

by camus

Some are shaped by their enviornment. Some are born as sociopaths.

I am amazed at the people who want to claim that nuture accounts for every aspect of the mind. One has only to look as the differences in our bodies, one to another, to realize that genetics enters into the formation of them. Therefore genetics has to play a role in the brain also. And birth abnormalities too.

So it has to be a combination.

Nature is not perfect and can produce people and animals that lack the ability to love and empathies. To be honest I am surprised it happens as little as it does.

Then again 57 Million people voted for Bush so that does indicate that Nature fucks up quite frequently. Few Republicans have the ability to empathies.

Our genes are the cards we're dealt. Our environment teaches us how to play them. Ultimately, the choice is ours.

People don't always have a choice. If you look at a number of the above posts it's well known that many criminals are born with brains that are very different than "normal" people. Many lack the ability to 'put on the breaks' when they become angry. They can see this in brain scans. In these cases when they become enraged their is nothing in their brain to hold back their actions so they really don't have a choice. Their brain is shorting out and they don't have control over what is happening.

This is why courts have many different punishments for murder. Pre-meditated gets the worst punishment because it's clear they had control over their actions. The only good defense in Pre-Meditated murder is if they are insane.

I personally think most people who commit murder are in some way or another off their rocker. Should they be punished? Absolutely! Should they be put to death? I don't believe so.

You are simply describing the "cards one is dealt." And yes, even those with the condition you mention do have choices - the choice to get help with their problem before something horrible happens, the choice to avoid conflict and infuriating situations, the choice to ignore the problem and come what may, the choice to kill themself. Everyone has choices.

Everyone is also responsible for their actions, even if they are "out of control" when they make them. Anger is an emotion, not a responsible entity. Blame still lies with the one who commits the act.

I am not making a statement about punishment, I'm making a statement about choices and responsibility for those choices. Actually, you and I seem to be in agreement about the death penalty.

they are born this way or that way where it concerns good and evil. Sometimes you have something in you that can trigger a certain emotion to do something. Maybe from a past event whether the current or past life/lives where you remember. Or maybe because of the part of town you grew up in and you became a part of a group of friends that became negative and it impacted you. I do think people can change if they want to. You always have freewill and emotions are just apart of you. They don't control you unless you let them. Being evil is based on the actions you do. Everyone still has freewill and thus choices and consequences.

I agree with what you said and obviously people who chose evil should be punished but to think that most people who do evil things can't also feel love and kindness is rare. I am no Christian but Jesus and most religions seemed to recognize the importance forgiveness and the importance of looking for good in people regardless of a part that might be evil.

We also have the choice in how we look at people who have done wrong. We can look only at the crime and perhaps a moment of weakness or we can look at their whole life.

I believe that humanity is a combination of nature and nurture, and as such no one can be completely evil or completely good. The existential dilemma is something every human must face.
However, as Steinbeck said, "I am of the opinion that there are moral monsters in this world"

might tend to affect ones view of right and wrong.