• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are murderers victims?

What separates human from "mere" animal is the ability to make choices and override instinct.
I have never, and likely will never, buy into the "victim of childhood influences" defense for violence:mad:

Interestingly, another thing that separates human from animal is higher levels of serotonin in the brain. In most species, serotonin starts out at relatively high levels in in infancy and gradually decreases. This is what causes the differences in infantile and adult behavior.

Human serotonin levels decrease also, but not as much as in wild animals (domesticated animals follow the human pattern). Therefore, humans remain relatively childlike throughout life.

(This is from Patricia McConnell's books on dog training, explaining why dogs are less aggressive than wolves, who share basically the same genes.)
 
Be interesting to know what your feelings on environmental causes are. Pump ourselves full of processed garbage and make the coloured, sweetened additive laden foods attractive, while demonising the fresh healthy alternatives. Brainwashing kids into believing vegetables taste nasty so they're even more predisposed to go down the processed route when they're older. Glorify and reward over the top violence on TV, games, sport...

Or maybe this is another discussion somewhere else...?
 
it gets a bit "minority report" - arresting people before they commit a crime, because you're pretty sure they will......
it all seems to come down to a debate on utilitarianism.....which are more important - the rights of the individual or those of the group?

i would tentatively say the group....but then i'd probably disagree if i was the individual....:D

Groups do not have rights. They are made up of individuals, who have rights. So there is no such thing as group rights versus individual rights.

Your question is more along the lines of the rights of one individual versus those of a group of individuals. The answer is that there is no answer -- it completely depends on your ethical structure.

Some people, such as myself, consider individual rights to have infinite weight, which means those of a single person are just as valid as those of a million. Others (perhaps you) consider them to be finite, meaning a large enough population could override any individual right.

My own take on the matter is that criminals commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, even if only in the moment of insanity during the crime. Take away that, and crime won't exist. Mutually assured destruction worked on the nation scale, it certainly can work on a personal scale.
 
Some people, such as myself, consider individual rights to have infinite weight, which means those of a single person are just as valid as those of a million. Others (perhaps you) consider them to be finite, meaning a large enough population could override any individual right.

My own take on the matter is that criminals commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, even if only in the moment of insanity during the crime. Take away that, and crime won't exist. Mutually assured destruction worked on the nation scale, it certainly can work on a personal scale.

hmm....i guess in an ideal world i'd like individual rights to be infinite - but realistically, we already have finite rights....and whilst not perfect, utilitarianism does seem to offer the "best fit" for society.....

i agree that crimes which are pre-meditated largely depend on the criminal believing he/she can get away with it.....but i'm not sure if the same applies to crimes which are committed without forethought or pre-meditation....
 
hmm....i guess in an ideal world i'd like individual rights to be infinite - but realistically, we already have finite rights....and whilst not perfect, utilitarianism does seem to offer the "best fit" for society.....

We only have finite rights when it comes to our physical being. The funny thing is that the rights we have which should be infinite (and can be infinite) -- those concerning our mind and spirit -- are the ones most commonly infringed upon.

i agree that crimes which are pre-meditated largely depend on the criminal believing he/she can get away with it.....but i'm not sure if the same applies to crimes which are committed without forethought or pre-meditation....

It does. If someone KNOWS that attacking a given person will result in their own harm, they will not attack that person under any criminal circumstances (unless they are insane, of course). Criminals are like animals -- if you scare them they won't bite you.
 
Criminals are like animals -- if you scare them they won't bite you.

I don't buy that. It reminds me of being at school, and being told that 'bullies are just cowards- if you stand up to them, they will go away'

LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ones at my school were built like furniture. I have the scars to prove it.
 
It does. If someone KNOWS that attacking a given person will result in their own harm, they will not attack that person under any criminal circumstances (unless they are insane, of course). Criminals are like animals -- if you scare them they won't bite you.

but you're supposing that a crime committed "in the heat of the moment" with no pre-meditation would still be logically mapped out by the perpetrator....I don't think that's always the case. The OP takes this idea one stage further by examining whether certain individuals are even able to control their aggression....something which your "animal" analogy doesnt take into consideration.
 
We only have finite rights when it comes to our physical being. The funny thing is that the rights we have which should be infinite (and can be infinite) -- those concerning our mind and spirit -- are the ones most commonly infringed upon.



It does. If someone KNOWS that attacking a given person will result in their own harm, they will not attack that person under any criminal circumstances (unless they are insane, of course). Criminals are like animals -- if you scare them they won't bite you.

Wrong again.
Check into the "Fight-or-flight" response.
When flight from danger is not possible, an animal (even cute little bunny rabbits) will kick, bite, claw--whatever it takes to get away from the danger. And they can/will hurt you, sometimes badly
Ever hear the term "fought like a cornered rat"?
 
There was also an episode of ST-TNG wherein Ryker murdered a woman and nothing happened to him (Note: murdered, not executed or killed in war,etc.
 
There was also an episode of ST-TNG wherein Ryker murdered a woman and nothing happened to him (Note: murdered, not executed or killed in war,etc.

Ok, you're gonna have to remind me which episode was that...
 
This is a truly thorny topic - which might explain why it doesn’t get much discussion…..so i thought i'd give it a controversial thread title :D

In a nutshell, the argument is that many of society’s impulsive murderers are chemically predisposed to violence due to a coincidence of high testosterone and low serotonin levels……
Serotonin seems to act as a “brake” on aggressive behaviour - and so people with a serotonin deficiency may be unable to control their anger….
What’s more, serotonin deficiency seems to result from child abuse or serious neglect….

Should this change our view of murderers?
Should we be looking to “screen” people to find those with potential imbalances?
Are there ways to restore this chemical imbalance?

It’s a hornet’s nest…..and it’s just been well and truly kicked…..what do you think?



http://www.forensic-serotonin.com/

More than 30 years of peer-reviewed, international scientific research indicates that there is a link between abnormally low serotonin (a natural brain chemical) and impulsive versus premeditated murder. In fact men who premeditated on their crimes had normal to high serotonin.
Abnormally low serotonin activity in the brain has been specifically linked to intermittent explosive disorder (DSM IV), violent suicide, panic, and unrestrained aggression (rage).
My associates at Vanderbilt University Medical School and I have successfully introduced serotonin evidence as penalty phase mitigation in numerous capital murder cases since 1996. In one case the evidence was successfully introduced during the guilt/innocent phase.



http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm

These new neurobiological findings show that trauma - physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect - dramatically affects both the structure and chemistry of the developing brain, thus causing the behavioral and learning problems that plague about three-quarters of the children mired in the child welfare system.

Several studies now document that abuse damages key brain structures such as the cortex, which is associated with rational thinking, and the hippocampus, which helps process memories and emotions. Both brain regions are critical for learning.
Abuse also damages the amygdala, an almond-shaped cluster of nuclei located in the brain's emotional control center that enables us to respond quickly to danger - say, to step out of the way of a swerving car. But repeated abuse causes the amygdala to signal danger even when there is no apparent threat.

This negative impact on developing brain structures is associated with changes in brain chemistry. Overwhelming stress early in life also alters the production of both the stress-regulating hormone cortisol and key neurotransmitters such as epinephrine, dopamine and serotonin, the chemical messengers in the brain that affect mood and behavior.
These biochemical imbalances can have profound implications. For example, abuse typically lowers serotonin levels, leading to depression and impulsive aggression

As one of my coworkers used to say"And that is true of millions of other people, and they don't make those choices."

Sorry thats a big NEGATORY from me.
 
Ok, you're gonna have to remind me which episode was that...

Was it the one where the 500-year old woman who looked 20 was going around killing people by touching them? And Riker vaporized her at the end, although he was immune to her touch and could have just manually restrained her?
 
Ok, you're gonna have to remind me which episode was that...

It was the one where the Enterprise gets into a situation that no one had been in before, and was in great danger, and one of the crew had a great idea that turned out not to work, but then one of the bridge staff figured out why it wasn't working and they fixed it, and saved the day at the last minute.

:D
 
Was it the one where the 500-year old woman who looked 20 was going around killing people by touching them? And Riker vaporized her at the end, although he was immune to her touch and could have just manually restrained her?

I don't believe those were the circumstances. She was definitely about to kill again, and he tried two stun blasts first which she just shook off.
 
Hmmm....I've delt with chronic major depression after recieving a devestating medical diagnosis 23 years ago. SSRIs do wonders. Yet during the times when serotonin is low, I've never felt impulsive or the desire to murder someone. The same is true when I have PMS and depression.

This study reminds me alot of the "Super Male" (XYY Syndrome) hypothesis for criminal behavior popular in the 1970s and early 80s.
 
XYY.....here's some info culled from the web.....

XYY is found in approximately 1 per 1,000 men

XYY syndrome is a rare chromosomal disorder that affects males. It is caused by the presence of an extra Y chromosome. Males normally have one X and one Y chromosome. However, individuals with this syndrome have one X and two Y chromosome. Affected individuals are usually very tall and thin. Many experience severe acne during adolescence. Additional symptoms may include antisocial or behavioral problems and learning disabilities. Intelligence is usually normal, although IQ, on average, is 10 to 15 points lower than siblings.
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/nord/nord812.htm
 
Last edited:
You have correctly id'd the ST-TNG episode - but someone needs to watch it again - the woman coul barely move after each stun. If he had been feeling sadistic he could have stood there for hours stunning her each time she moved and she would never have reached her target (who could have gotten up and moved safely away at any time ). She could not poison anyone without the specific genetics of her target (made completely clear in the story). By current laws in most civilized countries (I note the Federation normally follows that type of rule) Ryker engaged in the completely unnecessary killing of a functionally incapacitated person - i.e. he committed cold - blooded murder. (Oh, if you re-check the show, feel free to count the seconds between her movements and his stun shots - clear indication, again, that she was no danger).
 
XYY.....here's some info culled from the web.....

XYY is found in approximately 1 per 1,000 men

XYY syndrome is a rare chromosomal disorder that affects males. It is caused by the presence of an extra Y chromosome. Males normally have one X and one Y chromosome. However, individuals with this syndrome have one X and two Y chromosome. Affected individuals are usually very tall and thin. Many experience severe acne during adolescence. Additional symptoms may include antisocial or behavioral problems and learning disabilities. Intelligence is usually normal, although IQ, on average, is 10 to 15 points lower than siblings.
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/nord/nord812.htm


These men though are not more likely to be violent than their cohorts. Some think their excess in prisons is due to the lower I.Q. (easier to catch) than the extra Y chromosome. XXX girls are more likely to have mental illnesses and be especially athletic. When I was a genetic counseler, there was always an issue as to whether to tell people these things when we saw them on amnio results. (It's even harder if they've asked not to know the sex of their child...only if it's healthy). Most people who carry an extra sex chromosome don't know they do so. XXY males are sterile as are XO girls and more "passive" and "feminine than their normal counterparts. But XXX and XXY are normal in appearance and fertile.
 
These men though are not more likely to be violent than their cohorts. Some think their excess in prisons is due to the lower I.Q. (easier to catch) than the extra Y chromosome. XXX girls are more likely to have mental illnesses and be especially athletic. When I was a genetic counseler, there was always an issue as to whether to tell people these things when we saw them on amnio results. (It's even harder if they've asked not to know the sex of their child...only if it's healthy). Most people who carry an extra sex chromosome don't know they do so. XXY males are sterile as are XO girls and more "passive" and "feminine than their normal counterparts. But XXX and XXY are normal in appearance and fertile.

could you explain how it's possible to have an extra chromosome? :confused:
XXY males are sterile as are XO girls and more "passive" and "feminine than their normal counterparts. But XXX and XXY are normal in appearance and fertile isn't this contradictory? What is XO?
 
could you explain how it's possible to have an extra chromosome? :confused:
XXY males are sterile as are XO girls and more "passive" and "feminine than their normal counterparts. But XXX and XXY are normal in appearance and fertile isn't this contradictory? What is XO?

Normally, females are XX and males are XY (in the sex chromosome department). So how is it possible to have extra chromosomes?:

Nondisjunction in germ cells--the same thing that happens in Down Syndrome (trisomy 21). Do you want a link? Most trisomies abort--but having an extra copy of one (or more) sex chromosomes is perfectly survivable. XO females have 45 chromosomes instead of the normal 46; they should have two XXs (or XY), but the second sex chromosome is missing. Have I confused you thoroughly? One study found that there was a higher percentage of XYY males in the prison population than in the non-prison population and they extrapolated that it was because of the extra Y chromosome (those with a Y chromosome are, afterall, the ones who tend to be the most violent) (Of course saying that most violent people are men--is not saying most men are violent.) But later statistical analysis showed that their imprisonment was not due to more violence--but may have been due to the lowering of I.Q. associated with having 2 Ys.

(An aside, the data you got from the intenet is out of date...)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom