Are murderers victims?

[andyandy]

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

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

 

[tkingdoll]

What do you do with someone who 'screens' positively? Lock them away even though they have committed no crime?

Also, correlation does not equal causation. If you can prove that ALL people who have abnormally low seratonin commit murders, then you might have something.

 

[rwguinn]

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

 

[TobiasTheViking]

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

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….

I don't know of a proper way to make sure people get the correct serotonin in their body before they commit violence, but after they have commited violence they should surely be tested and offered pills.

But there are too many aspects of this i can't, or won't, take a position on. Simply because i don't know the correct cause of action.

As for decresing the verdict because they haven't got enough serotonin, i'm...... unable to come to a conclusion.

What’s more, serotonin deficiency seems to result from child abuse or serious neglect…..

Then the system should surely be changed to take proper care of children that are abused and neglected, i assume(please don't prove me wrong) that if correct measures are taken, a lot of the harm can be undone.

In some ways i guess it would be good to test children who have been abused or neglected, but i fear it will do more harm than good in a purely psychological view. I think it would be better for the comunity and for the individual if they were instantly giving psychological treatment. Though i don't KNOW if it will help, i assume it will.

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?

I... can't decide.

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.

Scary research, but i guess it offers some hope for a solution down the road.

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

I get so furious when i read this..... No one should have to go through that. And some parts of me say that they can't be blamed for what they do later in life with this in mind. Other parts of me say that is naive of me.

frell.

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[TobiasTheViking]

What do you do with someone who 'screens' positively? Lock them away even though they have committed no crime?

Also, correlation does not equal causation. If you can prove that ALL people who have abnormally low seratonin commit murders, then you might have something.

if people who had been abused or neglected as chilrden have a 100% higher probability of comitting murder, doesn't he have somehting.

I don't know if there is any research to give that kind of statistics.

 

[Hawk one]

Also, correlation does not equal causation. If you can prove that ALL people who have abnormally low seratonin commit murders, then you might have something.

Technically speaking, it does not have to be all, it only has to show a significant difference amongst people that are otherwise as similar as people can be. After all, quite a few genetic diseases will work like this: "If you have gene X, then you'll have Y% incresed chance of breast cancer".

However, your other point remains valid: At best we have so far shown only correllation, not causation. At least that stems from what I read.

It's not exactly new anyway even if this is so. I mean, we already know that severe abuse as a kid will have a pretty good chance of f*****g you up so that you're at best not fitting in society very well. So basically, all this would do would be to clarify how this works chemically in the brain.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

What separates human from "mere" animal is the ability to make choices and override instinct.

And if your ability to override your instincts is missing?

I have never, and likely will never, buy into the "victim of childhood influences" defense for violence

A total defence, of course not. An excuse, never. But mightn't it make people predisposed?

 

[tkingdoll]

Technically speaking, it does not have to be all, it only has to show a significant difference amongst people that are otherwise as similar as people can be. After all, quite a few genetic diseases will work like this: "If you have gene X, then you'll have Y% incresed chance of breast cancer".

Which is fine, until you come to the sort of screening suggestion shown in the OP. You can't force someone to medicate for life in case they become a murderer, and you can't lock them away either. So what use is the screening?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Which is fine, until you come to the sort of screening suggestion shown in the OP. You can't force someone to medicate for life in case they become a murderer, and you can't lock them away either. So what use is the screening?

Offer them the posibility to be less agressive. If they dont' take it they have a higher probability of going to jail, their choice.

 

[andyandy]

it's a truly horrible debate, because our whole justice system rests upon the assumption that people are responsible for their own actions.....
we have grounds for diminished responsibility for say the mentally handicapped....so should those people with low serotonin levels found guilty of violent un-meditated crimes also be tried on grounds of diminished responsibility?

the idea of "screening" opens up another bag of worms....but it would seem prudent to be able to monitor and offer support to those at risk of offending - although it should stop short of becoming pre-emptive justice.....

 

[Hawk one]

Which is fine, until you come to the sort of screening suggestion shown in the OP. You can't force someone to medicate for life in case they become a murderer, and you can't lock them away either. So what use is the screening?

Naturally you can't force someone to medicate for high levels of aggression (unless there is a major psychiatric disease... Or at least, that's how things work here in Norway). But then again, you can't -force- anyone to take insulin to treat their diabetes either. Or take chemotherapy for cancer.

However, there's nothing to say you can't -suggest- that they need medication. Now, it seems to me (though I may well be wrong) that the OP and its links suggest lack of serotonin leads to generally higher aggression levels. So, obviously the problem is broader than simply being more likely to kill. Other acts of aggression is also covered.

So, what use is the screening? Right now, doesn't seem to be much. But if and when an effective treatment for low serotonine level comes along, then a screening has the same use as with a screening for any other disease in the body.

 

[rwguinn]

And if your ability to override your instincts is missing?


A total defence, of course not. An excuse, never. But mightn't it make people predisposed?

One can be predisposed to something, and make a choice not to go ther. Genetic predisposition to alcoholism can be overcome by chosing not to drink. I know this. One who choses the POV that society's rules are non-applicable to himself has shown what he thinks of society, and must be willing to accept the consequences of society withdrawing from him.
Or her--no sexism here.

 

[bob_kark]

If I'm not mistaken, the diminished responsibility we hold for the mentally hadicapped stems from 2 specific problems that the mentally handicapped can face:

1. Being unable to determine right from wrong.
2. Being unable to control their own actions.

Showing that a group of people have a greater propensity towards violence does not reflect that either of the two factors have been observed in the subject. If anything, it would be great if we could screen such people for anger management courses or medication to stem their anger. However, it does not excuse their actions.

 

[andyandy]

One can be predisposed to something, and make a choice not to go ther. Genetic predisposition to alcoholism can be overcome by chosing not to drink. I know this. One who choses the POV that society's rules are non-applicable to himself has shown what he thinks of society, and must be willing to accept the consequences of society withdrawing from him.
Or her--no sexism here.

that's a fine argument, but what if an individual with a deficiency of serotonin and an excess of testosterone was unable to control his agression? Would they still be responsible for their actions?

nb. As far as I'm aware scientific understanding of this issue is still in its infancy - and so i don't believe it's known to what extent the individual retains the ability to over-ride this kind of chemical imbalance.....if others know then please post!

 

[Hellbound]

There's another side to this, as well.

I agree with most of the points already made, but even if it's proven to be something genetically or physically based, what do we do?

Suggest treatment is good, if an effective one is found. But if not?

Do we release a murderer because he has a brain imbalance?

I'd compare this to older days when certain infectious diseases existed that could not be cured or treated. People found to have these were quarantined, seperated from society, so as not to infect others.

I see the same logic here. Not for a screening, mind you, but for a person who actually commits murder and shows the chemical imbalance. It may not, technically, be their fault, but they still should be seperated for the benefit of others (assuming an effective treatment is lacking).

It is a thorny issue. But then again, you could claim that many actions are the result of factors outside of one's own hands. Warped worlviews can be instilled during childhood from fanatics, parents with looney ideas, abuse, and other factors. Genetics can predispose someone to lack intelligence, or the ability to think logically. There's a lot of argument for how a certain persons actions or attitudes are produced by factors outside of thier control.

At some point, no matter the ultimate cause, we have to make a choice about where the responsibility lies. If we can develop effective treatments to, for example, remove aggresive behavior from some who havbe been found guilty of a crime, then great. But we have to be careful we don't fall down the road of "nothign I do is my fault", which is something that seems to be creeping into our legal system, at least (i.e.-Twinkie defense).

 

[gnome]

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

How often is this sort of defense successful? Anyone got any numbers?

I personally think there's a misunderstanding of this kind of study... you learn whether murderers were abused as children, not to excuse them their crimes (for which they should be punished just like everyone else) but to know what has to be changed to help keep murderers from emerging. You take the knowledge and learn that you can save lives by working with children and their families in time to make a difference.

Same thing with links between poverty and crime--you don't let someone go just because they're poor... but you use the info to convince public and lawmakers that you can prevent crime by fighting against poverty, instead of just building more jails.

 

[Hellbound]

And, of course, right after I post someone (*cough*gnome*cough*) comes along and says what I was getting at much better and more succintly.

 

[rwguinn]

How often is this sort of defense successful? Anyone got any numbers?

I personally think there's a misunderstanding of this kind of study... you learn whether murderers were abused as children, not to excuse them their crimes (for which they should be punished just like everyone else) but to know what has to be changed to help keep murderers from emerging. You take the knowledge and learn that you can save lives by working with children and their families in time to make a difference.

Same thing with links between poverty and crime--you don't let someone go just because they're poor... but you use the info to convince public and lawmakers that you can prevent crime by fighting against poverty, instead of just building more jails.

Oh, ed!
I do wish that it truly worked that way!
That's how it is supposed to work--but all too often is used as "Mitigating Circumstances" to gain a lighter sentence than otherwise would result.
And no, I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence, which is as good as no evidence at all. Sigh.

 

[andyandy]

It is a thorny issue. But then again, you could claim that many actions are the result of factors outside of one's own hands. Warped worlviews can be instilled during childhood from fanatics, parents with looney ideas, abuse, and other factors. Genetics can predispose someone to lack intelligence, or the ability to think logically. There's a lot of argument for how a certain persons actions or attitudes are produced by factors outside of thier control.

yeah that's certainly true - the difference here would be that these "factors outside your hands" could be quantifiably measured by scientific means..whereas before they have been rather vague - and as such pretty flimsy as mitigation....

At some point, no matter the ultimate cause, we have to make a choice about where the responsibility lies. If we can develop effective treatments to, for example, remove aggresive behavior from some who havbe been found guilty of a crime, then great. But we have to be careful we don't fall down the road of "nothign I do is my fault", which is something that seems to be creeping into our legal system, at least (i.e.-Twinkie defense).

I agree.....the trouble with looking at chemical imbalances that it does take us quite a long way down the "nothing I do is my fault" argument......which is i imagine why these studies have received so little mainstream analysis either by the press or by politicians/law makers....

 

[I less than three logic]

I’m probably a bit harsh on the subject, but I don’t necessarily agree with diminished responsibility for mental handicaps. Especially so for “temporary insanity”, don’t buy that defense one bit. What’s to stop them from “temporarily” going insane again should similar circumstances come along? If someone commits acts of violence they are dangerous to society, whether they are mentally ill or not. Sure, the treatment for the mentally ill should be different, but the results should remain the same. That is to remove the threat they pose by removing them from the public.

One can be predisposed to something, and make a choice not to go ther. Genetic predisposition to alcoholism can be overcome by chosing not to drink.

In which case, this screening may be useful. Most people that choose not to drink due to a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (which I’m not sure exist either, I think it’s probably more of a genetic predisposition to addictions in general, not specifically alcohol) know of their predisposition. This in turn influences their decision not to drink. I’d say do the screening and let people know they may be genetically or chemically predisposed to commit acts of violence. It’s their decision to address this how they see fit, just like those predisposed to alcoholism are free to choose to drink or not. However, they are still fully responsible for their actions, and should they commit a violent crime they should be tried just as anyone else.