Psychological Markers

[Peter Brendt]

Morality as a philosophical construct and theoretical premise entails that one takes into consideration the emotions of another person. As the sociopath does not see other people as people but as objects, this is a defunct argument. Sociopaths are amoral, meaning that they feel that morality does not apply to them. Having morals would imply that they take other people into consideration, they obviously don't. Being immoral would imply that they feel that morality should be one way but they act in another way, which they obviously don't. Amoral fits because it describes a state of non-application.

Some philosophers would disagree. And the sociopath sees other people in fact as people and not as objects. From his point of view, objects are not half as annoying as people. However, most sociopaths will accept the existence of said annoying people and not do what they would do with objects - as in shoving them out of the way. Because for a sociopath, especially an intelligent one, every decision, even the decision to do nothing in a certain case, is result of a conscious weighting process.
Thus, a sociopath acting moral is a conscious decision made by the sociopath. In so far, we can with a sociopath rely, this decision stands also next week. It's not like a moral decision based on gut-feeling that isn't valid anymore after having bad sex, a flu or get kicked from the job. Thus, amoral doesn't fit, because the sociopath does make a conscious moral decision with some stability in this decision, not just a momentary gut-decision mostly based on what fits the moment. Ergo, it's application of learned facts. However, the next sociopath will have learned other things in life and thus maybe decide different about the very same thing. While so-called "normal" people will feel, that their moral decision from yesterday today isn't fitting their needs anymore and just decide different, often simply under hormonal influence. And your use of the word "obviously" for obviously doubtful assumptions shows that off pretty nicely. You're obviously no sociopath, you feel a little upset and thus, you made the "moral" decision to become verbally manipulative. Because most sociopaths never kill anybody and try to find jobs avoiding too many people because they consider other people and also other people's rights. They only consider then on a rational level. To talk to a sociopath is a funny thing (I had this doubtful honor years ago), because it's not the normal person always confused, it's the sociopath because he always thinks, what are those people feeling and why can't they be logic for five minutes?

 

[LINative13]

Some philosophers would disagree. And the sociopath sees other people in fact as people and not as objects. From his point of view, objects are not half as annoying as people. However, most sociopaths will accept the existence of said annoying people and not do what they would do with objects - as in shoving them out of the way. Because for a sociopath, especially an intelligent one, every decision, even the decision to do nothing in a certain case, is result of a conscious weighting process.
Thus, a sociopath acting moral is a conscious decision made by the sociopath. In so far, we can with a sociopath rely, this decision stands also next week. It's not like a moral decision based on gut-feeling that isn't valid anymore after having bad sex, a flu or get kicked from the job. Thus, amoral doesn't fit, because the sociopath does make a conscious moral decision with some stability in this decision, not just a momentary gut-decision mostly based on what fits the moment. Ergo, it's application of learned facts. However, the next sociopath will have learned other things in life and thus maybe decide different about the very same thing. While so-called "normal" people will feel, that their moral decision from yesterday today isn't fitting their needs anymore and just decide different, often simply under hormonal influence. And your use of the word "obviously" for obviously doubtful assumptions shows that off pretty nicely. You're obviously no sociopath, you feel a little upset and thus, you made the "moral" decision to become verbally manipulative. Because most sociopaths never kill anybody and try to find jobs avoiding too many people because they consider other people and also other people's rights. They only consider then on a rational level. To talk to a sociopath is a funny thing (I had this doubtful honor years ago), because it's not the normal person always confused, it's the sociopath because he always thinks, what are those people feeling and why can't they be logic for five minutes?

BINGO For Me. Thats what I meant by saying I can remove feelings from my decisions.

 

[shadowraiths]

If a psychopathic serial killer could be "diagnosed" with a mental disorder out of his control, then there would be a lot of lawyers chasing convicts and one big huge expensive legal complicated mess.

Am unsure what you mean by this. Our prisons are full of mental disordered inmates. In fact, PBS explored this issue in a documentary some time ago. One that, imho, is worth a watch. ( link )

As for attorneys "chasing convicts" why would they? After all clinical insanity != legal insanity. ( link )

The M'Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity. Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions or, if she knew the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.​

The misunderstanding of NGRI pleas is, imho, unfortunate, in that these only occur in about 1% of cases that go to trial, and those tend to be rarely won. Esp since Hinckley ( link ). Literalism wrt terminology (i.e., Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity), is what, imho, really gets some people's goat. For appeasement, some states have changed the terminology to Guilty But Insane (GBI).

Nonetheless, a person who is found NGRI, is civilly committed and ends up being indeterminately housed in what are referred to as "institutions for the criminally insane." Hence, their stay tends to exceed the time they might have spent in prison had they been convicted. The ACLU is fighting this bit, btw, on the grounds that indeterminate civil commitment violates the 8th amendment.

That said, the disorders we're discussing are Axis II disorders (i.e., enduring personality traits). And yes, you will see feature overlaps in each cluster. Hence, the organization into a "cluster." So, for example, we're discussing Axis II, cluster B, personality disorders (i.e., narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anti-social personality disorder). It is important to remember however that the traits listed in the diagnostic criteria occur naturally in the general population. The key for diagnosis is, importantly, the disruptiveness of said traits within an individual's personal life as well as the community at large.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Am unsure what you mean by this. Our prisons are full of mental disordered inmates. In fact, PBS explored this issue in a documentary some time ago. One that, imho, is worth a watch. ( link )

As for attorneys "chasing convicts" why would they? After all clinical insanity != legal insanity. ( link )

The M'Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity. Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions or, if she knew the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.​

The misunderstanding of NGRI pleas is, imho, unfortunate, in that these only occur in about 1% of cases that go to trial, and those tend to be rarely won. Esp since Hinckley ( link ). Literalism wrt terminology (i.e., Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity), is what, imho, really gets some people's goat. For appeasement, some states have changed the terminology to Guilty But Insane (GBI).

Nonetheless, a person who is found NGRI, is civilly committed and ends up being indeterminately housed in what are referred to as "institutions for the criminally insane." Hence, their stay tends to exceed the time they might have spent in prison had they been convicted. The ACLU is fighting this bit, btw, on the grounds that indeterminate civil commitment violates the 8th amendment.

That said, the disorders we're discussing are Axis II disorders (i.e., enduring personality traits). And yes, you will see feature overlaps in each cluster. Hence, the organization into a "cluster." So, for example, we're discussing Axis II, cluster B, personality disorders (i.e., narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anti-social personality disorder). It is important to remember however that the traits listed in the diagnostic criteria occur naturally in the general population. The key for diagnosis is, importantly, the disruptiveness of said traits within an individual's personal life as well as the community at large.

The real point is a legal one. DSM-III had those diagnoses and every windy lawyer started his insanity defense before he even had seen his client. This was the reason to dismiss them from DSM-IV.
About the other point: When it comes to overlapping symptoms, this is not unknown in the are of "normal" diseases as in flu, measles, and other diseases caused by viruses and bacteria. Still nobody would argue, because someone has fever, vitamin C helps always and treat Hunter or Ebola exclusively with the good C pills from the grocery. Even if it's the same cluster (diseases with fever).
The way, I understand it, the cluster concept is a diagnostic cluster allowing to work the way along possible main diagnoses. As in lists what can it be without the claim it has to be all at once.

 

[shadowraiths]

The real point is a legal one. DSM-III had those diagnoses and every windy lawyer started his insanity defense before he even had seen his client. This was the reason to dismiss them from DSM-IV.

Cite, please.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Cite, please.

Really? Why don't you look in your DSM yourself? Cluster B lists ASPD but no singular diagnoses of psychopathic or sociopathic behavior anymore ...

 

[MarshaRice]

Am unsure what you mean by this. Our prisons are full of mental disordered inmates. In fact, PBS explored this issue in a documentary some time ago. One that, imho, is worth a watch. ( link )

As for attorneys "chasing convicts" why would they? After all clinical insanity != legal insanity. ( link )

The M'Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity. Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions or, if she knew the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.​

The misunderstanding of NGRI pleas is, imho, unfortunate, in that these only occur in about 1% of cases that go to trial, and those tend to be rarely won. Esp since Hinckley ( link ). Literalism wrt terminology (i.e., Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity), is what, imho, really gets some people's goat. For appeasement, some states have changed the terminology to Guilty But Insane (GBI).

Nonetheless, a person who is found NGRI, is civilly committed and ends up being indeterminately housed in what are referred to as "institutions for the criminally insane." Hence, their stay tends to exceed the time they might have spent in prison had they been convicted. The ACLU is fighting this bit, btw, on the grounds that indeterminate civil commitment violates the 8th amendment.

That said, the disorders we're discussing are Axis II disorders (i.e., enduring personality traits). And yes, you will see feature overlaps in each cluster. Hence, the organization into a "cluster." So, for example, we're discussing Axis II, cluster B, personality disorders (i.e., narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anti-social personality disorder). It is important to remember however that the traits listed in the diagnostic criteria occur naturally in the general population. The key for diagnosis is, importantly, the disruptiveness of said traits within an individual's personal life as well as the community at large.

Firstly, what Samantha Spade is referring to is the usage of a mental disorder as a defense, which sociopaths and psychopaths as serial killers attempt to do all the time. Secondly, "insanity" is not a psychiatric or psychological term, it is a legal one. Thirdly, actual overlap in personality disorders is not common unless the person doing the diagnosis is not very experienced. There are different ones for a reason, each having mutually exclusive aspects.

There are certain traits, as you mention, that do carry over, however, throughout the personality disorders.

 

[MarshaRice]

Some philosophers would disagree. And the sociopath sees other people in fact as people and not as objects. From his point of view, objects are not half as annoying as people. However, most sociopaths will accept the existence of said annoying people and not do what they would do with objects - as in shoving them out of the way. Because for a sociopath, especially an intelligent one, every decision, even the decision to do nothing in a certain case, is result of a conscious weighting process.
Thus, a sociopath acting moral is a conscious decision made by the sociopath. In so far, we can with a sociopath rely, this decision stands also next week. It's not like a moral decision based on gut-feeling that isn't valid anymore after having bad sex, a flu or get kicked from the job. Thus, amoral doesn't fit, because the sociopath does make a conscious moral decision with some stability in this decision, not just a momentary gut-decision mostly based on what fits the moment. Ergo, it's application of learned facts. However, the next sociopath will have learned other things in life and thus maybe decide different about the very same thing. While so-called "normal" people will feel, that their moral decision from yesterday today isn't fitting their needs anymore and just decide different, often simply under hormonal influence. And your use of the word "obviously" for obviously doubtful assumptions shows that off pretty nicely. You're obviously no sociopath, you feel a little upset and thus, you made the "moral" decision to become verbally manipulative. Because most sociopaths never kill anybody and try to find jobs avoiding too many people because they consider other people and also other people's rights. They only consider then on a rational level. To talk to a sociopath is a funny thing (I had this doubtful honor years ago), because it's not the normal person always confused, it's the sociopath because he always thinks, what are those people feeling and why can't they be logic for five minutes?

I used the word obviously because thats what I meant, obviously, as in apparently, plainly, etcetera. A person who is knowledgeable about sociopathy and morality as a philosophical construct would not have to have that explained. The argument you are giving has no basis in logic.

 

[shadowraiths]

Really? Why don't you look in your DSM yourself? Cluster B lists ASPD but no singular diagnoses of psychopathic or sociopathic behavior anymore ...

I am simply asking you for a citation to back up your assertion that, and I quote:

DSM-III had those diagnoses and every windy lawyer started his insanity defense before he even had seen his client. This was the reason to dismiss them from DSM-IV.

Why? Simple.

For starters, "psychopathic or sociopathic behavior" were not in the DSM-III or III-R. In fact, the closest we can even come to your assertions are "autistic psychopathy," later renamed to "asperger syndrome" but that was in the 1940s, which predates the DSM. And "sociopathic personality disturbance," which appeared in the DSM-I and II, and was renamed to "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III, though Hare had been arguing for his PCL-R since the 1970s and as late as the DSM-IV. ( link )

Moreover, regardless of their presence (or, in this case, lack thereof), they do not meet the two prongs that must be satisfied for NGRI. These being actus reus & mens rea (i.e., guilty act & guilty mind, respectively).

Oh and. As an fyi and sidebar, the DSM-V has proposed a revised classification: antisocial/psychopathic personality disorder type ( link ).

Which, again, refutes your assertion that, paraphrased, "attorneys would use these dx's to argue NGRI, thereby resulting in them being omitted for DSM-IV" (your assertion, not mine).

Hence, my request that you provide a cite to support your assertion.

 

[shadowraiths]

Firstly, what Samantha Spade is referring to is the usage of a mental disorder as a defense, which sociopaths and psychopaths as serial killers attempt to do all the time.

Imho, that is more perception, than reality. ( link )

Secondly, "insanity" is not a psychiatric or psychological term, it is a legal one.

Yes and no. The term, "insane" and its cousin, "insanity," fell out of favor around the time of Szaz and the humanist movement, culminating with Rosenhan.

Thirdly, actual overlap in personality disorders is not common unless the person doing the diagnosis is not very experienced. There are different ones for a reason, each having mutually exclusive aspects.

Right. The disorders do not actually "overlap." However, they do fit within spectrums. Hence, the clusters (i.e., cognitive disorders, personality disorders, anxiety disorders).

 

[MarshaRice]

We could go round and round arguing semantics on what is a psychopath, what is a sociopath, what are our personal views on each, what are the philosophical tenets involved in morality and morality as applied to psychopathology,etc., etc., none of which actually have bearing on this case. I think that the real question in dealing with this case comes down to the difference between psychotic and psychopathic/sociopathic, or is the offender(s) being guided by narcissism or psychosis?

 

[Dwntwnslim]

We could go round and round arguing semantics on what is a psychopath, what is a sociopath, what are our personal views on each, what are the philosophical tenets involved in morality and morality as applied to psychopathology,etc., etc., none of which actually have bearing on this case. I think that the real question in dealing with this case comes down to the difference between psychotic and psychopathic/sociopathic, or is the offender(s) being guided by narcissism or psychosis?

What evidence indicates the killer is possibly psychotic?

 

[shadowraiths]

We could go round and round arguing semantics on what is a psychopath, what is a sociopath, what are our personal views on each, what are the philosophical tenets involved in morality and morality as applied to psychopathology,etc., etc., none of which actually have bearing on this case.

Ah, but joe public, esp true crime writers, just love to toss psychiatric labels. That is, from what I've witnessed over the past decade. But, I digress.

I think that the real question in dealing with this case comes down to the difference between psychotic and psychopathic/sociopathic, or is the offender(s) being guided by narcissism or psychosis?

Imho, the real question boils down to identifying patterns as well as deviations. Hence, the title of this thread, psychological markers (as opposed to psychological diagnosis).

Besides, at this point, tossing psychiatric labels is not particularly productive, and in some cases, wholly counterproductive. This is esp so when some joe schmoe (whose only basis in psychology appears to be what they've seen on TV or read in comic books) attempts to recklessly bait the killer and/or killers into revealing who they are.

 

[Clem Snide]

We could go round and round arguing semantics on what is a psychopath, what is a sociopath, what are our personal views on each, what are the philosophical tenets involved in morality and morality as applied to psychopathology,etc., etc., none of which actually have bearing on this case. I think that the real question in dealing with this case comes down to the difference between psychotic and psychopathic/sociopathic, or is the offender(s) being guided by narcissism or psychosis?

I've worked in a few different Chicago psych hospitals over the years and from my experience I would rate it as unlikely that our killer is suffering from psychosis. I think a serial murder who's killings were psychosis driven would be far more disorganized, his killings much more bizarre and would likely have been caught by now. If the LISK does suffer from psychosis, I think it's incidental and not related directly to why he kills. I think he's driven by sex, power and a profound hatred towards women.

Not that I would say that this guy is the picture of mental health....

Just my opinion, I've been wrong before.

 

[Samantha Spade]

shadow,

I was referring to neuroethics. It seems to be quite the topic these days. Could you imagine if they added to the DSM: Serial Killer Disorder or Serial killer personality disorder? Sounds outrageous, but some scientists believe that serial killers were biologically/genetically destined to act the way they do and they are trying to prove it. My point was the legal and ethical ramifications. what would we do with the recently charged serial killers and the ones who were already convicted and sentenced?

 

[shadowraiths]

shadow,

I was referring to neuroethics. It seems to be quite the topic these days. Could you imagine if they added to the DSM: Serial Killer Disorder or Serial killer personality disorder? Sounds outrageous, but some scientists believe that serial killers were biologically/genetically destined to act the way they do and they are trying to prove it. My point was the legal and ethical ramifications. what would we do with the recently charged serial killers and the ones who were already convicted and sentenced?

Thanks for that clarification. Here's an interesting article wrt what you seem to be raising as food for thought. ( link )

 

[Just K]

Just gonna step in here and add to what Shadow suggested re: the relevance to any diagnosis. "tossing psychiatric labels is not particularly productive, and in some cases, wholly counterproductive."

Even more so, since facts are at a minimum re: the number and identity of killers. That number could actually be only one SK/GB4 and any of a number of other killers for the remaining 11 bodies... 11, if you count Shannan Gilbert and the two Manorville men...the one found just after JD/2000 and the other one found just after JT/2003. That number does not even include the February 2012 skeleton of the man found wrapped in a blanket and plastic and buried in Manorville. Then, re: motivation, the same problem/problems arises.

Until more facts come out, the only guesses that can made re: the psychology of the killer/killers are those pertaining to GB4 & maybe JT. JMHO, really.

(Then there are the many dismembered men & women, parts of which were, found in containers. IMO, these are entirely different. Although they may be somehow connected to JT and JD2000's killer.)

 

[Peter Brendt]

Thanks for that clarification. Here's an interesting article wrt what you seem to be raising as food for thought. ( link )

THe basic problem is neither entirely psychological nor entirely legal. It'a kind of a wider social problem. We can't just let people run around with a free ticket to kill people just because they got a certain genome (or not) or just because they fell on the nose and damaged the frontal lobe. So in a way, the same logic as with abused kids who become later SKs raises once more. We may feel pity if we put in some effort to understand what happened and why they became what they are, but nevertheless, we should also feel pity for the victims and potential victims of their deeds. So, s a society, we can't effort to let them run around and kill at will. Which brings us either way in the situation, that we have to take at least their freedom, be it in a prison or in a mental institution. And we also have to deal with questions like why are 99 people with a warrior gene no SKs and one is. Which strongly suggests, there is no exclusive "guilt" in a single genetic sequence. So in the end, there is again a decision involved and for that, the person making it is responsible.

 

[Dwntwnslim]

PSYCHIATRIC TIMES
MARCH 2006
Serial Murder: A Forensic Psychiatric Perspective
by James Knoll, MD
http://www.upstate.edu/psych/education/fellowships/pdf/serial_murder.pdf

“Psychodynamically oriented inves-
tigators have theorized that a sexually
provocative mother may contribute to
the formation of a serial murderer (Fox
and Levin, 1994; Meloy, 2002). It is
important to note that this premise is
far from another “blaming of the
mother” theory. Rather, investigators
point to documented instances of strik-
ingly inappropriate sexual behavior on
the part of the mother that in some cases
would easily qualify as sexual abuse.
Evaluations of some convicted serial
murderers suggest that a displacement
of aggression from their mothers onto
to their female victims was present
during their offenses."


*Start Quote

Table 2
Ominous Signs (When Seen in Combination)
Indicate Risk for a Potential Sex Murderer

1. Childhood abuse
2. Inappropriate maternal (sexual) conduct
3. Pathological lying and manipulation
4. Sadistic fantasy with a compulsion to act
5. Animal cruelty, particularly against cats
6. Need to control and dominate others
7. Repetitive firesetting
8. Voyeurism, fetishism, and (sexual) burglary
9. Unprovoked attacks on females, associated with generalized misogynous emotions
10. Evidence of ritualistic (signature) behavior

*End Quote

 

[Dwntwnslim]

S.T.A.L.K., INC
Long Island, NY Serial Killer (Partial Profile)
http://stalkinc.com/

“THE LOSER”
“From what we understand, this loser has made a number of mistakes in the murders of his victims, that will come back to haunt him. As we post this comment law-enforcement is getting closer to catching this DUMMY. This killer of women and children.”


trueTV
Crime Library
ROY HAZELWOOD: PROFILER
OF SEXUAL CRIMES
By KATHERINE RAMSLAND
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/profiling/hazelwood/4.html

“Frequently I will tell my classes, "Thank God for Narcissism."

“The most successful sexual criminals are quite narcissistic, believing they are superior to society in general and law enforcement in particular. They come to believe that they can't get caught, so they engage in greater and greater risk taking. This serves two purposes; to prove they are superior and to maintain the "high" they get from committing the crimes. They have feelings of invulnerability and consequently they make mistakes, which, in hindsight, seem to be stupid mistakes. Thank God for narcissism. What I just told you comes right out of my class. People who have attended my lectures and read Dark Dreams have told me that if they close their eyes, they can hear me teaching.”


I wonder how numerous the mistakes made by the LI killer and how stupid they are? Is he one of those who just can't keep his *Big Mouth* shut, for instance? Or, maybe he is one of those who doesn't know when to *Stop* - Anything?

I can't wait to find out!!

Btw, from what I've heard, in the Penitentiary, everybody loves a Loser!