Evil - Is it born or learned?

[grneyes]

Many of us consider killers, rapist, and torturers evil. (Ramirez, Dahmer, Bernardo, etc...)

Do you think they learn this behavior or is it born into them? If it's born into them do you think it can be hereditary? Are there signs at an early age? (Like Dahmer's enjoyment of killing pets.)

What are your thoughts?

[CindyB]

Interesting topic!!

I think it can be any of the above, except hereditary! I do believe that some people are simply born with an evil side, and that usually there are signs at an early age.
I also believe that some learn the behavior.

I wish I'd have ran across this post earlier, cuz I'd love to elaborate a little more. But I'm soooo sleepy tonight.

I'm hoping for some interesting replys and continueing discussion on this topic.

[Drumbum]

Tough call. Environment is a big influence,but I believe that it's possible to be born that way.

[grneyes]

Interesting topic!!

I think it can be any of the above, except hereditary! I do believe that some people are simply born with an evil side, and that usually there are signs at an early age.
I also believe that some learn the behavior.

I wish I'd have ran across this post earlier, cuz I'd love to elaborate a little more. But I'm soooo sleepy tonight.

I'm hoping for some interesting replys and continueing discussion on this topic.

I also believe that it can be learned behavior or born into them. Sometime you can look at someone and just feel the hatred (evil) emanate from them. Manson is a good example of this as is Ramirez. It's especially chilling to get that feeling from a young child.

For the ones that seem to be born that way, I can't help but think there is a possibility that whatever gene makes a person like that can or could be passed on assuming it is a gene that causes it. Traits are passed on all the time by the gene pool so it just seems it (evil) might be also.

jmo

[SaraSidle]

I also believe that it can be learned behavior or born into them. Sometime you can look at someone and just feel the hatred (evil) emanate from them. Manson is a good example of this as is Ramirez. It's especially chilling to get that feeling from a young child.

For the ones that seem to be born that way, I can't help but think there is a possibility that whatever gene makes a person like that can or could be passed on assuming it is a gene that causes it. Traits are passed on all the time by the gene pool so it just seems it (evil) might be also.

jmo

I honestly think it can be both!!!!!!!!!!!! You gave some good examples.

[The R]

I agree this is an interesting topic and I agree it 'could' be both or maybe something else? A combination of both?

I do think that the VAST majority of deviant behavior is learned or environmental as opposed to biological from birth.

Has anyone done any research? I'm currently reading a book Ghosts From the Nursery which so far is pretty interesting.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Interesting topic!!

I think it can be any of the above, except hereditary! I do believe that some people are simply born with an evil side, and that usually there are signs at an early age.
I also believe that some learn the behavior.

I wish I'd have ran across this post earlier, cuz I'd love to elaborate a little more. But I'm soooo sleepy tonight.

I'm hoping for some interesting replys and continueing discussion on this topic.


Hi Cindy B!

I'm perplexed by your statement that some are born that way but that it's not hereditary? Can you explain?

Thanks!
R

[grneyes]

I haven't done any research on it. It was just something I've personally been curious about because of a few people I've known in real life over the years and because of information I've read on killers, rapist and such. Especially the serial ones.

Considering that many of them came from nice families, were well taken care of, not abused, and then they still do these things, it can't be learned behavior.

Or you may have a child that maybe never even met one of it's parents who might be a deviant type of person, and then you see traits of that come out in the child as they age. This obviously would not be learned either so if the parent had been this way is it not possible it was inherited by the child?

I hope that made sense as it's been a busy morning and I am sort of brain dead at the moment. *lol*

[lynn]

I think you are born Evil and its how you are brought up, environment, schooling and role models you encounter along the way which determines whether you act on the feelings, If a parent couldn't care less then you would tend not to either, or then maybe you may want to be different and not go down that road. It is all about Choice.:shrug: I work with children and you see a child and think to your self "I am going to see him/her on a wanted poster in a few years":(

[The R]

I haven't done any research on it. It was just something I've personally been curious about because of a few people I've known in real life over the years and because of information I've read on killers, rapist and such. Especially the serial ones.

Considering that many of them came from nice families, were well taken care of, not abused, and then they still do these things, it can't be learned behavior.
Or you may have a child that maybe never even met one of it's parents who might be a deviant type of person, and then you see traits of that come out in the child as they age. This obviously would not be learned either so if the parent had been this way is it not possible it was inherited by the child?

I hope that made sense as it's been a busy morning and I am sort of brain dead at the moment. *lol*

Hi Grneyes!

The part I have bolded.....from what i know and have read about, a person can have all these things you mention but still become detached emotionally due to various environmental factors (some say neglect of affection or a lack of touching the first 2-3 yrs of life). Some of these people become sociopathic and have no conscious, etc. even coming from a 'good' family.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

I think you are born Evil and its how you are brought up, environment, schooling and role models you encounter along the way which determines whether you act on the feelings, If a parent couldn't care less then you would tend not to either, or then maybe you may want to be different and not go down that road. It is all about Choice.:shrug: I work with children and you see a child and think to your self "I am going to see him/her on a wanted poster in a few years":(

Sorry Lynn, but are you saying people are born evil or that they are born with the potential to do evil?

Thanks
R

[The R]

BTW grneyes!

Thanks for starting the thread!

I have interest because within the past year or so I had the opportunity to take an undergraduate course in Criminology in which we discussed some topics similar to this one. I may be able to cite a few of the theories from the text if anyone is interested. There is one theory/discipline called biosocial criminology that is pretty interesting.

ALLMO,
R

[grneyes]

Your welcome R.

I was very interested to hear others opinions on this and I would love to hear about the theories. I'm sure there are others here that would find them interesting also.

[Evening2]

First of all, hello Lynn. I've been messing with my computer off and on throughout the day and sometimes it "works" and sometimes it doesn't, so I didn't "see" you arrive. Welcome to a great place to read and post. BTW, I DO like the name "lynnwater". I tried reversing it to "waterlynn", but then I kept singing, "Waterloo, Waterloo, oh where are you, my Waterloo?" so I didn't think that was a good choice.

Thanks, greyes for starting this thread. It's a fascinating subject for discussion with posters who share many interests in crime.

The R, I would truly love to hear about biosocial criminology (?), did I get that right? Can't go back to look. But whatever you have time to post and share would be much appreciated.

Here's what my initial thoughts are on the subject. I truly believe babies are born innocent, without a doubt. To that I say, thank goodness. I believe the environment in which they are raised and grow in determines the type of person they will grow up to be. I think any child who is raised in a loving, SECURE home, no matter if they have two parents, one, or whatever gender those "parents" may be, will grow up to be a kind, considerate, and loving person. And that's really all they need. With those three traits making up WHO they are, I don't think there's much of a chance for them to EVER become evil. Yes, they will experiment with some "temporary" evil paths along the way, but with WHO they REALLY are already identified, they will always return to the right path because of the goodness within them.

[lynn]

Sorry Lynn, but are you saying people are born evil or that they are born with the potential to do evil?

Thanks
R

Hi R, Yes I am saying that I believe that people have the potential to be evil, I realised after i posted my original comment that i was not clear, i confused myself lol:eek:

[lynn]

Hi Evening2, Thankyou, for the welcome. After reading your comment I could not get waterloo out of my head, Thanks LOL:) I think i shall either use lynn or lynnwater whatever mood i am in that day.:seeya:

[The R]

Ok thanks everyone,

I'll do my best to provide a few basics (where is FW when you need her?). Just be sure to keep in mind a few things while you read.

1. I'm not an expert in Criminology and have had basically just undergraduate level courses.

2. Criminology is a very inexact science and is constantly - like many other scientific disciplines - evolving.

3. Criminology is basically the scientific study of the causes of criminal behavior in a society.

4. There are MANY theories and the subject can be confusing. The discussion of theories can sometimes give the framework for discussion but doesn't always offer the 'meat' part of the reasons or the practical explanations.

There are also schools of thought on Criminology; these are philosophical and are basically as follows:

Classical - older school which states people choose rationally whether or not to commit crime based on the amounts of deterrance and punishment.
Positivist - later thought that says outside influences (biology, social, etc.) cause people to commit crime.
Chicago - claims that it is the breakdown of social structure that causes crime.

Each school of thought is further reduced into theories which seek to explain the reason people commit crime.

The theory I mentioned in a previous post - Biosocial - is called a trait theory because it includes the thought that genetics play a part in the process. Biosocial is a pretty modern theory and is kind of 'eclectic' in its approach. It pretty much clams that biological factors combined with environmental and social factors all equally play a part. Researchers look at things like hormones, toxic lead levels, the effect of a high consumption of sugar on aggressive behavior, vitamin defeciency, etc. and seek to determine how they all interact to cause criminal behavior. I would have to think that genetic mutation and its effect on behavior would also be a subject of study.

An equally compelling theory IMO is one of the control theories. One of my favs is Hirshi's social control theory. It looks at why people DON'T commit crime and tries to give reasons. The reasons given by Hirshi include "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities". If you look deeply into these ideas, you'll see the power in them.

Hirshi's ideas, even though modern have already been altered and amended due to research.

One problem with Criminology is that it sometimes doesn't helpfully explain reasons for crime in terms that are easily digested, so I'd recommend anyone that has the inclination to do so to go to Wikipedia and reference this info. It is where I got some of this previous stuff and has more detailed data available. I'll also try to find my class text and will post more if anyone is interested. That is if you're not already bored to tears! :D


R

[Evening2]

Ok thanks everyone,

I'll do my best to provide a few basics (where is FW when you need her?). Just be sure to keep in mind a few things while you read.

1. I'm not an expert in Criminology and have had basically just undergraduate level courses.

2. Criminology is a very inexact science and is constantly - like many other scientific disciplines - evolving.

3. Criminology is basically the scientific study of the causes of criminal behavior in a society.

4. There are MANY theories and the subject can be confusing. The discussion of theories can sometimes give the framework for discussion but doesn't always offer the 'meat' part of the reasons or the practical explanations.

There are also schools of thought on Criminology; these are philosophical and are basically as follows:

Classical - older school which states people choose rationally whether or not to commit crime based on the amounts of deterrance and punishment.
Positivist - later thought that says outside influences (biology, social, etc.) cause people to commit crime.
Chicago - claims that it is the breakdown of social structure that causes crime.

Each school of thought is further reduced into theories which seek to explain the reason people commit crime.

The theory I mentioned in a previous post - Biosocial - is called a trait theory because it includes the thought that genetics play a part in the process. Biosocial is a pretty modern theory and is kind of 'eclectic' in its approach. It pretty much clams that biological factors combined with environmental and social factors all equally play a part. Researchers look at things like hormones, toxic lead levels, the effect of a high consumption of sugar on aggressive behavior, vitamin defeciency, etc. and seek to determine how they all interact to cause criminal behavior. I would have to think that genetic mutation and its effect on behavior would also be a subject of study.

An equally compelling theory IMO is one of the control theories. One of my favs is Hirshi's social control theory. It looks at why people DON'T commit crime and tries to give reasons. The reasons given by Hirshi include "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities". If you look deeply into these ideas, you'll see the power in them.

Hirshi's ideas, even though modern have already been altered and amended due to research.

One problem with Criminology is that it sometimes doesn't helpfully explain reasons for crime in terms that are easily digested, so I'd recommend anyone that has the inclination to do so to go to Wikipedia and reference this info. It is where I got some of this previous stuff and has more detailed data available. I'll also try to find my class text and will post more if anyone is interested. That is if you're not already bored to tears! :D


R

The R, not bored at ALL, much less to tears. You have me at attention. Proceed with all you've got. :) Do you have a link for a beginning wiki page as a starting place?

[The R]

The R, not bored at ALL, much less to tears. You have me at attention. Proceed with all you've got. :) Do you have a link for a beginning wiki page as a starting place?



sure Eve2!

here you are:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology#Trait_theories


try that and let me know if it doesn't work!

R

[SaraSidle]

sure Eve2!

here you are:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology#Trait_theories


try that and let me know if it doesn't work!

R

I have a degree in Criminology and your posts are great. Like a refresher course. THank you R

[Evening2]

I have a degree in Criminology and your posts are great. Like a refresher course. THank you R

Thank you both. I have to run a few errands, but I'll check out the wiki later in the day. I look forward to both of your input on the subject! :)

[SaraSidle]

Thank you both. I have to run a few errands, but I'll check out the wiki later in the day. I look forward to both of your input on the subject! :)

I think R will have the most recent information and much more to offer but thank you for the compliment.

[Unknown_000]

I believe it can be either one of these. Some people start their crimes at a very early age, thus leading towards perhaps they were born that way. Then you can have an innocent person who is as sweet as can be, but their parents are abusive and just feed negativity to their child, that leading towards that their evil was learned. It is really hard to say, but evil is evil! No matter if you are born that way or learned it, and I don't believe that just because they start following God that they are now forgiven and go to heaven. I was baptized Catholic, but I don't believe in God and that is why! People can do the unthinkable and just because they become baptized or follow God, they think its ok. That really irritates me, because they did what they did. No one will forget it and neither will they so they need to deal with it and find a more better way to cope with it. I do not think it is hereditary, but it can most certainly make an influence on someone and that person follow up after them. :flamemad:

[grneyes]

Thanks for the information and link R. Can't wait to hear more.

I want to thank everyone else for their opinions and input also.

:)

[CindyB]

Hi Cindy B!

I'm perplexed by your statement that some are born that way but that it's not hereditary? Can you explain?

Thanks!
R

Hello The R, nice to see you!

I guess I'm a little perplexed at my statement too! LOL I was really tired the night I posted that.
I guess I was thinking like, it's not really a bad gene, just that some humans are simply born evil. They have the devil inside, for lack of better wording.
I really don't know how to explain my thinking on this.

[Evening2]

I believe it can be either one of these. Some people start their crimes at a very early age, thus leading towards perhaps they were born that way. Then you can have an innocent person who is as sweet as can be, but their parents are abusive and just feed negativity to their child, that leading towards that their evil was learned. It is really hard to say, but evil is evil! No matter if you are born that way or learned it, and I don't believe that just because they start following God that they are now forgiven and go to heaven. I was baptized Catholic, but I don't believe in God and that is why! People can do the unthinkable and just because they become baptized or follow God, they think its ok. That really irritates me, because they did what they did. No one will forget it and neither will they so they need to deal with it and find a more better way to cope with it. I do not think it is hereditary, but it can most certainly make an influence on someone and that person follow up after them. :flamemad:

That's not the way it is, Unknown_000. It sounds like you've had a bad experience with someone and they "thought" that IF they believed in God then they could do whatever they wanted and all would be okay and they would enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Nope, that's not the way it works. It does sound like you are separating one's belief in God with Christianity?

Now there ARE some belief systems whose followers/practitioners DO believe that whatever they do and whomever they do it to is okay. I guess one could say that to those, evil is a GOOD thing.

Then, of course, there are those who only "pretend" to believe in God but really don't. I wonder who they think they're fooling?

Baptism is only ONE of the sacraments and it protects the innocent who are not yet accountable (small children) but it doesn't protect ANYONE who does the unthinkable. Remember, there IS justice here on earth FIRST!

BTW, thanks for sharing your thoughts and welcome to CL. :)

[The R]

Hi and thanks everyone for the kind words. Sorry to have not added to the earlier post but was busy over the weekend!

Also am sad to report that I can't find my class text; not sure where it is but will keep searching!

Meanwhile, here is some info on what is called latent trait theory, usually considered a 'developmental' theory:

"The 'latent trait' view holds that there is some personal attribute or characteristic present in all people which controls their inclination or propensity to commit crime. The most sophisticated model of this idea can be found in Rowe, Osgood & Nicewander (1990), but there have been a number of efforts since then to identify which trait is the "master" trait. Suspected traits include defective intelligence, impulsive personality, genetic abnormalities, physical-chemical functioning of the brain, and/or environmental influences on brain function. Wilson & Herrstein (1985), for example, attempted to develop a human nature theory of crime which argued that personal traits outweigh the importance of social variables. In a latter work, similar authors (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990) argued that "low self-control" was the "master" trait, the root cause of which was inadequate child-rearing. Gottfredson & Hirschi's ideas in this regard are often treated as a control theory of crime (see Lecture on Control Theories).
A fairly new "latent trait" approach has been that of Mark Colvin (Colvin 2000; Unever et. al. 2004) who argues that chronic criminals emerge from a developmental process characterized by recurring, erratic episodes of coercion. There are two types of coercion: interpersonal (which is direct, involving the use or threat of force from parents, peers, and significant others); and impersonal (which involves pressures beyond individual control). Colvin’s differential coercion theory integrates several existing criminological perspectives, but in brief, attempts to locate the root cause of chronic offending in the fact that such offenders grew up in homes where parents used erratic control and applied it in an erratic and inconsistent fashion.
Also fairly new is Tittle's control balance theory (Tittle 1995), which expands on the notion of personal control as a predisposing element of criminality. Control, as a concept, can refer to either the amount of control one is subject to by others, or it can refer to the amount of control one can exercise over others. Those who have an excess of the first kind of control tend to engage in exploitation, plunder, and decadence. Those who have a deficit of the second kind of control tend to engage in predation, defiance, and submission. All six behaviors are ways to restore a balance."




You can easily reference this material by doing a web search of the authors. You can also see how some of the theories interlap or are intertwined. I mentioned Hirschi's theory of social control or social bonds in an earlier thread. Hirschi (as seen above) himself has added to his theory the thought that low impulse control also attributes to deviant behavior when combined with social bond theory.

When considering biological theories however, it doesn't take long to see what could be the dangers, socially speaking, in totally accepting them. The first that comes to my mind is that if we can find a bad gene that causes criminal activity, what are the implications of trying to correct it? All sorts of ethical issues arise.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

I think R will have the most recent information and much more to offer but thank you for the compliment.


Sara, please DO add to the topic however you can!

:)

R

[grneyes]

The most sophisticated model of this idea can be found in Rowe, Osgood & Nicewander (1990), but there have been a number of efforts since then to identify which trait is the "master" trait. Suspected traits include defective intelligence, impulsive personality, genetic abnormalities, physical-chemical functioning of the brain, and/or environmental influences on brain function.

Could this not mean then, that it is possible for it to be hereditary?

I know a man that not seen his father since he was 2 weeks old. His father was a thief and had no remorse for anything he did and would deny he did it even if you were standing there watching him do it. Didn't care who he stole from including his own mother.

The son is currently in prison serving a 10 yr term for theft, forgery, assault, burglery, and who knows what else. He has spent most of his life since the age of 16 locked up. He also will say he didn't do it even if being watched and shows no remorse for his actions. The main difference is that the son is violent where the father wasn't.

The mother has none of these traits and neither do her other children but, the mothers family (on her fathers side) does have schizophrenia in it. I'm thinking that he possibly has the early signs of schizophrenia and that is where the violence is coming in and that the other traits were indeed inherited from the father. JMO obviously.

Your thoughts?

P.S. Hope I made sense, it is Monday after all. *lol*

[The R]

Could this not mean then, that it is possible for it to be hereditary?

I know a man that not seen his father since he was 2 weeks old. His father was a thief and had no remorse for anything he did and would deny he did it even if you were standing there watching him do it. Didn't care who he stole from including his own mother.

The son is currently in prison serving a 10 yr term for theft, forgery, assault, burglery, and who knows what else. He has spent most of his life since the age of 16 locked up. He also will say he didn't do it even if being watched and shows no remorse for his actions. The main difference is that the son is violent where the father wasn't.

The mother has none of these traits and neither do her other children but, the mothers family (on her fathers side) does have schizophrenia in it. I'm thinking that he possibly has the early signs of schizophrenia and that is where the violence is coming in and that the other traits were indeed inherited from the father. JMO obviously.

Your thoughts?

P.S. Hope I made sense, it is Monday after all. *lol*

LOL on the Monday grneyes, that's for sure. Where I'm at it's Tuesday and things haven't changed much! :D

I would use the term 'master trait' with lots of care. I think most criminologists would tend to discount the 'master trait' view at this point. It was an attempt to explain some sort of base problem (including low impulse control, intelligence, etc.) in people that helps cause or maybe triggers criminal behavior. The problem with it I see is that some people with low intelligence, etc. never commit crime. Actually one problem with trait theory is that it does a really poor job of explaining how or why people who have lived a life of crime change and can afterwards live productive, crime-free lives.

The example you gave is an interesting one and does seem to suggest a trait of some sort. Do you know more about this family? Things like economic status? family support structure? social support such as church membership etc? education levels? do they have successful family members? Did the son know much about the father? Did people tell him of his father's actions?

Thanks!
R

[The R]

Hey grneyes,

Forgot to tell you I'll be starting a class (undergraduate) next week for Summer session that is a little related. The class is called Interpersonal Violence and 2 texts are required.

Those texts are:
Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder (Cox and Levine)
Violence and Non-Violence: Pathways to Understanding (Barak)

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to pass on the gist of what I learn on these subjects, esp. as they relate to the topic of the thread here.

R

[The R]

I'd like to address a different theory and talk about its strengths and weaknesses a little.

One of the first theories we read about in Criminology class was one that struck a chord with me; Conflict theory.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating within society. The criminal justice system and criminal law are thought to be operating on behalf of rich and powerful social elites, with resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor. The criminal justice establishment aims at imposing standards of morality and good behavior created by the powerful on the whole of society. Focus is on separating the powerful from have nots who would steal from others and protecting themselves from physical attacks. In the process the legal rights of poor folks might be ignored. The middle class are also co-opted; they side with the elites rather the poor, thinking they might themselves rise to the top by supporting the status quo.

Thus, street crimes, even minor monetary ones are routinely punished quite severely, while large scale financial and business crimes are treated much more leniently. Theft of a television might receive a longer sentence than stealing millions through illegal business practices. William Chambliss, in a classic essay “The Saints and the Roughnecks,” compared the outcomes for two groups of adolescent misbehavers. The first, a lower class group of boys, was hounded by the local police and labeled by teachers as delinquents and future criminals, while the upper-middle class boys were equally deviant, but their actions were written off as youthful indiscretions and learning experiences.

Radical criminology or critical criminology is a branch of conflict theory, drawing its ideas from a basic Marxist perspective. For Karl Marx (1818-1883), modern capitalist societies were controlled by a wealthy few (bourgeoisie) who controlled the means of production (factories, raw materials, equipment, technology, etc.) while everyone else (the proletariat) was reduced to the lot of being wage laborers. While Marx himself never really addressed in detail the criminal justice system’s specific role in keeping such a system in place, from his writings a radical tradition has emerged. From this perspective, certain types of crime take on a different character. Stealing can be seen as an attempt to take away from the rich. Eric Hobsbawn referred to the like as “social banditry.” Protest-related violence may actually be the start of proto-revolutionary movements, ultimately leading to a workers’ revolt and the establishment of a just society.

At a minimum this perspective aids in the explanation of certain actions; civil rights and antiwar protesters were being locked up in the 1960s because they threatened the established social order. The FBI and the CIA both directed efforts at monitoring such behavior. Thus, the law enforcement community had come down on the wrong side of those seeking social change. Scenes of police officers attacking civil rights protesters with dogs, clubs, and water hoses and police riots such as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago appeared on nightly television news."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any discussion of Marx and his views is usually one that can turn into a political debate, but for the purpose here it seems germane. As a personal note, I grew up in a working class, one parent household and often lived at or below poverty level. I'm not a Marxist by any stretch but some of the theory in the Conflict view can't be totally discounted. I've been exposed enough to the CJ system to know that the axiom about jail being full of poor people is not far from the truth. This could be due to the fact that people with money can afford good representation but even that fact would support Conflict theory. The currrent state of the U.S. ecomony and the impression that people are starting to steal more as a result might even support this theory.

I think in the end though that even if this theory rings true as far as a cause of theft and social disobedience, it doesn't explain well crimes against persons like murder, etc. IMO that would be a definite weakness of this theory.


ALLMO,
R

[lodfafner]

Hereditary: Some traits that are hereditary turn out evil in some circumstances. For example psychopaths are great COs but they also have the ability to show great evil.

Learned: Example, spoiled brats can show evil behavior just because they havn't learned to take other peoples wishes into account.

Just my two pennies.

[One2Snoop]

Hey grneyes,

Forgot to tell you I'll be starting a class (undergraduate) next week for Summer session that is a little related. The class is called Interpersonal Violence and 2 texts are required.

Those texts are:
Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder (Cox and Levine)
Violence and Non-Violence: Pathways to Understanding (Barak)

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to pass on the gist of what I learn on these subjects, esp. as they relate to the topic of the thread here.

R

I'm interested. :seeya:

[grneyes]

The example you gave is an interesting one and does seem to suggest a trait of some sort. Do you know more about this family? Things like economic status? family support structure? social support such as church membership etc? education levels? do they have successful family members? Did the son know much about the father? Did people tell him of his father's actions?


The family is lower income and none of the children appeared spoiled They seemed to have the basic necessities and occasional luxuries. The mother's family did sometimes help them out financially and were always supportive of them. They were not church goers but I don't consider that a negative thing as I'm not either. Natural fathers education was very sparse.

Mother obtained a college education after her children were born and other than school was a stay at home mom until the boy was a teenager.

There had been a step-father in the picture up until this point also and had been since the boy was a year old. He was involved in the children's lives and treated them all as his own for the 13 years he was married to the mother and even after their divorce.

I'm sure the son over the years, did hear his father mentioned but very rarely. Since the step-father was in the picture, he (natural dad) just wasn't brought up too often as he had no interest in being a part of his son's life.

His siblings: Older brother does landscaping work , Sister is a store manager, younger brother works with disabled kids. None of them show violent tendencies, have only been in very minor trouble (normal teenage stuff) with authorities.

Between juvi, jail, and prison, he has spent 6 or 7 of the past 10 years locked up and he is only 24. I'm not sure of his release date but I think it's 2010. The mother writes to him and sends money when she can but he does not answer her letters. Appears to have a lot of anger towards the mother. Imo he blames her for where he is.

Wow, sorry I rattled on so much. :o

Thinking about it I can see lots of things that could have caused him to turn out the way he did but that fact that it started at such an early age is a bit unsettling.

[The R]

The family is lower income and none of the children appeared spoiled They seemed to have the basic necessities and occasional luxuries. The mother's family did sometimes help them out financially and were always supportive of them. They were not church goers but I don't consider that a negative thing as I'm not either. Natural fathers education was very sparse.

Mother obtained a college education after her children were born and other than school was a stay at home mom until the boy was a teenager.

There had been a step-father in the picture up until this point also and had been since the boy was a year old. He was involved in the children's lives and treated them all as his own for the 13 years he was married to the mother and even after their divorce.

I'm sure the son over the years, did hear his father mentioned but very rarely. Since the step-father was in the picture, he (natural dad) just wasn't brought up too often as he had no interest in being a part of his son's life.

His siblings: Older brother does landscaping work , Sister is a store manager, younger brother works with disabled kids. None of them show violent tendencies, have only been in very minor trouble (normal teenage stuff) with authorities.

Between juvi, jail, and prison, he has spent 6 or 7 of the past 10 years locked up and he is only 24. I'm not sure of his release date but I think it's 2010. The mother writes to him and sends money when she can but he does not answer her letters. Appears to have a lot of anger towards the mother. Imo he blames her for where he is.

Wow, sorry I rattled on so much. :o

Thinking about it I can see lots of things that could have caused him to turn out the way he did but that fact that it started at such an early age is a bit unsettling.


Wow....you're painting a very good picture for a case of genetically influenced criminal behavior IMO. But it would be interesting to know if his folks used his natural father as a bad example saying things like, "you'd better straighten up young man or you'll end up like your sorry father, etc."

Lots of info I guess we wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect you could pull up a lot of reasons for part of his deviance to be caused by environmental factors as well.

Got any idea why he blames his Mom?

Thanks,
R

[The R]

I'm interested. :seeya:

Hey Thanks!

As soon as I pick up something good I'll pass it along! :read:

meanwhile........:)


There is a developmental theory in Criminology called Life Course theory. It was proposed by the Gluecks, a couple from Harvard Law School back in about 1950. It uses research to explore what happens to adolescents to make them become involved in criminal lives and whether or not they continue to be involved in crime later in life. The results are very interesting and more recent researchers like Moffit and Sampson and Laub have built upon the original research by the Gluecks. I'd highly recommend reading about it and have provided a link to an interesting article by Sampson.


Here's a piece of the article followed by a link!


"Stability and change in criminal behavior over the life course. The delinquents and nondelinquents in the Gluecks’ study displayed considerable between-individual stability in crime and many problematic behaviors well
into adulthood. This stability held independent of age, IQ, ethnicity, and neighborhood SES. Indeed, delinquency and other forms of antisocial conduct in childhood were strongly related to troublesome adult behavior across a variety of experiences (e.g., crime, military offenses, economic dependence, and marital discord). But why? One of the mechanisms of continuity that we emphasized was “cumulative disadvantage,” whereby serious delinquency and its nearly inevitable correlates (such as incarceration) undermined later bonds of social control (such as employability), which in turn enhanced the chances of continued offending (see also Sampson and Laub 1997).

At the same time, we found that job stability and marital attachment in adulthood were significantly related to changes in adult crime—the stronger the adult ties to work and family, the less crime and deviance among both delinquents and nondelinquent controls. We even found that strong marital attachment inhibits crime and deviance regardless of that spouse’s own deviant behavior and that job instability fosters crime regardless of heavy drinking. Despite differences in early childhood experiences, adult social bonds to work and family thus had similar consequences for the life-course trajectories of the five hundred delinquents and five hundred nondelinquent controls. These results were consistent for a wide variety
of crime outcome measures, control variables (e.g., childhood antisocial behaviorand individual-difference constructs), and analytical techniques ranging from...."


http://www.aapss.org/uploads/Annals_Nov_2005_Sampson_Laub.pdf



ALLMO,
R

[grneyes]

Wow....you're painting a very good picture for a case of genetically influenced criminal behavior IMO. But it would be interesting to know if his folks used his natural father as a bad example saying things like, "you'd better straighten up young man or you'll end up like your sorry father, etc."

Lots of info I guess we wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect you could pull up a lot of reasons for part of his deviance to be caused by environmental factors as well.

Got any idea why he blames his Mom?

Thanks,
R

I really don't understand why he blames the mother. She stayed home to take care of them as long as she could and he wasn't raised any different than his siblings.

The only one in the family he's been somewhat close to the past 10 years was the sister but even she had to tell him to stay away because he was stealing from her.

He just really seems to have no boundries. :shrug:

[Seashell]

Hey grneyes,

Forgot to tell you I'll be starting a class (undergraduate) next week for Summer session that is a little related. The class is called Interpersonal Violence and 2 texts are required.

Those texts are:
Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder (Cox and Levine)
Violence and Non-Violence: Pathways to Understanding (Barak)

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to pass on the gist of what I learn on these subjects, esp. as they relate to the topic of the thread here.

R

I look forward to reading your posts when you do so please continue to do so :)

[The R]

I really don't understand why he blames the mother. She stayed home to take care of them as long as she could and he wasn't raised any different than his siblings.

The only one in the family he's been somewhat close to the past 10 years was the sister but even she had to tell him to stay away because he was stealing from her.

He just really seems to have no boundries. :shrug:


Got any idea if the son or father have addiction problems as in narcotics or alcohol?

There could be some sort of genetic predisposition there?


R

[The R]

I look forward to reading your posts when you do so please continue to do so :)


hey thanks Seashell, will do! :)

R

[Mikie]

Having delved into astrology considerably in crime related situations, I have to say that it appears to me that victims are born victims and criminals are born criminals, due to the planetary effects.

However, I have to say that is not totally true, since I know of one case in which there were two twin brothers, one criminalistic and the other not. The criminalistic brother killed someone and because his dna was found in the crime, his brother became a suspect and was tried and convicted while the real criminal went on freely.

They say in astrology that we always have free will, in spite of planetary influences. So it seems just a matter of choice, what we do, not exactly determined by the planets.

[grneyes]

Got any idea if the son or father have addiction problems as in narcotics or alcohol?

There could be some sort of genetic predisposition there?


R

The natural father was a pretty heavy pot smoker. The son, as far as I know never had any dealings with drugs or alcohol. Which when I think about it, I find very surprising that he did not use them.

The mother was not a drug user.

[The R]

Having delved into astrology considerably in crime related situations, I have to say that it appears to me that victims are born victims and criminals are born criminals, due to the planetary effects.
However, I have to say that is not totally true, since I know of one case in which there were two twin brothers, one criminalistic and the other not. The criminalistic brother killed someone and because his dna was found in the crime, his brother became a suspect and was tried and convicted while the real criminal went on freely.

They say in astrology that we always have free will, in spite of planetary influences. So it seems just a matter of choice, what we do, not exactly determined by the planets.



:D LOL Mikie! I've been accused of fence walking, but I'd have to say you get the prize on this thread!

You're not suffereing from the effect of a Lunar tide right now are ya'? :)


R

[Mikie]

:D LOL Mikie! I've been accused of fence walking, but I'd have to say you get the prize on this thread!

You're not suffereing from the effect of a Lunar tide right now are ya'? :)


R

Thanks, R, there is a certain skill involved.;)

[The R]

Thanks, R, there is a certain skill involved.;)


LOL!

:D

R

[andU]

Adding my 2 cents to this topic...
First of all, I believe that Christianity is not about 'religion', it is about a relationship. I also believe that we (human race) were created to glorify our Creator and that we were made perfectly. Then, God gave us choices and a very important one was to either follow Him and worship no other gods nor to 'lean on our own understanding' or live with the consequences. Because some chose to not walk with God, they made wrong choices and altered their gene pool through those choices (I hope you can follow this, I'm attempting to keep it less than novel length). I can understand, therefore, that some of evilness can be inborn and hereditary and some of it could be learned from the environment (the world is not a safe place, evil abounds). While I recognize that evil is everywhere, I believe in the power of prayer and the powerful relationship with our Creator, and I strongly believe in Salvation through the blood of Christ. While some may view this post as off topic, I don't. We will reap what we sow, decision/choice making in life is very important to us and our ancestors.

[grneyes]

Adding my 2 cents to this topic...
First of all, I believe that Christianity is not about 'religion', it is about a relationship. I also believe that we (human race) were created to glorify our Creator and that we were made perfectly. Then, God gave us choices and a very important one was to either follow Him and worship no other gods nor to 'lean on our own understanding' or live with the consequences. Because some chose to not walk with God, they made wrong choices and altered their gene pool through those choices (I hope you can follow this, I'm attempting to keep it less than novel length). I can understand, therefore, that some of evilness can be inborn and hereditary and some of it could be learned from the environment (the world is not a safe place, evil abounds). While I recognize that evil is everywhere, I believe in the power of prayer and the powerful relationship with our Creator, and I strongly believe in Salvation through the blood of Christ. While some may view this post as off topic, I don't. We will reap what we sow, decision/choice making in life is very important to us and our ancestors.

As someone that does not follow that path I do not feel that it is the wrong choice for someone to make and I don't feel that not choosing that path makes someone evil. Hitler was a christian after all.

The path I have choosen has not made me evil. I have not beaten, tortured, raped, robbed, or killed anyone. I know many good, decent people that don't follow or believe in the concept of "god". No one should be judged on their religion or lack thereof.

[andU]

As someone that does not follow that path I do not feel that it is the wrong choice for someone to make and I don't feel that not choosing that path makes someone evil. Hitler was a christian after all.

The path I have choosen has not made me evil. I have not beaten, tortured, raped, robbed, or killed anyone. I know many good, decent people that don't follow or believe in the concept of "god". No one should be judged on their religion or lack thereof.


No one can make me believe that Hitler was a Christian... and for the record, I was stating my opinion, I was not judging anyone.

[teachercrime]

One that many people have pondered for years. I believe it is a combination of nature AND nurture.

Then again, I believe that some people are BORN evil. The brain is a very complex organ. Just look at all the different personality disorders. I thinks that someone can be born with a predisposition to do harm to others.

JMHO

[grneyes]

No one can make me believe that Hitler was a Christian... and for the record, I was stating my opinion, I was not judging anyone.

Sorry, I worded that wrong. Didn't mean to imply that you personally were.

Hitler was indeed very religious, there are many references about it. Did he act christian? Well, that's a matter of opinion and I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion.

[grneyes]

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

[The R]

Adding my 2 cents to this topic...
First of all, I believe that Christianity is not about 'religion', it is about a relationship. I also believe that we (human race) were created to glorify our Creator and that we were made perfectly. Then, God gave us choices and a very important one was to either follow Him and worship no other gods nor to 'lean on our own understanding' or live with the consequences. Because some chose to not walk with God, they made wrong choices and altered their gene pool through those choices (I hope you can follow this, I'm attempting to keep it less than novel length). I can understand, therefore, that some of evilness can be inborn and hereditary and some of it could be learned from the environment (the world is not a safe place, evil abounds). While I recognize that evil is everywhere, I believe in the power of prayer and the powerful relationship with our Creator, and I strongly believe in Salvation through the blood of Christ. While some may view this post as off topic, I don't. We will reap what we sow, decision/choice making in life is very important to us and our ancestors.


You really think there is a connection between gene mutation/alteration and the conscious choices we make about spiritual beliefs? Is this kind of like a 'sins of the father' belief or something else?

TIA!
R

[andU]

Sorry, I worded that wrong. Didn't mean to imply that you personally were.

Hitler was indeed very religious, there are many references about it. Did he act christian? Well, that's a matter of opinion and I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion.


Nor do I, sorry if anyone was offended by my 2 cents worth.

[andU]

You really think there is a connection between gene mutation/alteration and the conscious choices we make about spiritual beliefs? Is this kind of like a 'sins of the father' belief or something else?

TIA!
R

Sorta, I guess... it has evolved since Adam and Eve, lots of bad choices and bad examples for us to learn from. It is Biblical.

[andU]

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

.. and this is the reason he killed the Jewish? ... How pathetic that he felt compelled to take the Lord's work upon himself! I admit my ignorance of his life, I only knew of him during the war as a hate monger and a viscious individual.

[andU]

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


Hmmmm, I found some contrasting quotes by Hitler to his secretary:


http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

13th December, 1941, midnight

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

[grneyes]

In Hitler's book Mein Kampf he states:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

He was raised Catholic as his mother was a very devout Catholic. His father was a "free thinker". So maybe Hitler used whichever suited his purpose at the time? But even so, he never denounced the church.

Either way, christian or not, he was one sick puppy.

[Serial Killer X]

In my opinion evil is born it can't be learned it's very rare for a person to be born normal and then suddenly turn into a sadistic serial killer. Many serial killer's experimented when they were young by killing animals. I think the worst serial killer you can get is the one that kill's because they can, some serial killers have the urge to kill and they need to satisfy that urge every once and a while. Some serial killer's lose the sexual thrill when there victims die so they try to keep them alive as long as possible. One of the worst serial killers in my opinion is Gary Heidnik he kept his victims captive in a basement and tortured and raped them and he ground one of them into food and made his other victims eat her. This is beyond Sadistic and Horrible it is very hard to describe an atrocity like this. In my opinion evil is born not learned

[The R]

In Hitler's book Mein Kampf he states:



He was raised Catholic as his mother was a very devout Catholic. His father was a "free thinker". So maybe Hitler used whichever suited his purpose at the time? But even so, he never denounced the church.

Either way, christian or not, he was one sick puppy.

I think the important point, as far as Christians are concerned, is that Hitler was not a Christian in practice or reality. His labeling himself or thinking himself Christian would be totally invalidated by his actions. I hope this makes sense.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

In my opinion evil is born it can't be learned it's very rare for a person to be born normal and then suddenly turn into a sadistic serial killer. Many serial killer's experimented when they were young by killing animals. I think the worst serial killer you can get is the one that kill's because they can, some serial killers have the urge to kill and they need to satisfy that urge every once and a while. Some serial killer's lose the sexual thrill when there victims die so they try to keep them alive as long as possible. One of the worst serial killers in my opinion is Gary Heidnik he kept his victims captive in a basement and tortured and raped them and he ground one of them into food and made his other victims eat her. This is beyond Sadistic and Horrible it is very hard to describe an atrocity like this. In my opinion evil is born not learned


You're very entitled to your opinion, but I'd have to respectfully disagree with most of what you say about it being born in you. There has been a great deal of scientific research in the past few years as to the early years of development in infants/children. One of the ideas is that early on an attachment is formed between mother and child. If for some reason this attachment doesn't occur as it normanlly would, then this lack of attachment lays the groundwork for the type of sociopathy seen in serial killers. I'm currently reading a couple books re: this subject and will post on it ASAP.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Here's a piece of a paper I wrote on trait theory (evil born in you), etc.

Not that great info-wise but may cite some worthwhile references if anyone should want to follow up.


According to Larry Siegel in his book Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies(2007), latent trait theory suggests that human development is controlled by a "master trait" which is present at birth, and which is always present in people who have it, directing their behavior and shaping the course of their lives. In a society as diverse and stratified as the one in the United States, latent trait theory, a biologically based approach, does carry large social implications. The largest implication in our culture would be that of determining whether or not a 'trait' is inherited, and who actually possessed the gene that caused the trait. If it could be proven that 'bad' traits – such as a low I.Q. - are inherited, then of course that could lead to the elimination of the gene that causes the undesired trait. Elimination of a genetic trait theoretically could then lead to the elimination of an entire race or ethnic group if those people were deemed to carry the 'trait.' Another implication socially of a master trait would be that a person who inherited a bad trait simply would have no choice in whether or not to commit a crime since they had inherited the bad trait. Trait theory, if it were deemed totally legitimate, would have to be added as a category under what constitutes a justifiable defense when it comes to a criminal act.
On the positive side, if a master trait could be determined, then that would make the job of law enforcement a great deal easier, as the law enforcement community could concentrate more on a certain pool of suspects whenever a crime was committed. This effect would then quite possibly lead to less need for law enforcement and thereafter lower the cost of public safety to society.
Research indicating that a single trait or characteristic leads to criminal behavior is much easier to dispute or contradict if one considers the possible outcomes as previously stated. There does; however appear to be some support or truth in what would be considered a more integrated approach to trait theory. According to Siegel (2007) work done by psychologist Terrie Moffitt indicated that offenders usually begin negative behavior at an early age often due to factors such as ADHD or an impulsive personality. Likewise, theorists Gottfredson and Hirschi, founders of the General Theory of Crime, Siegel (2007), suggest that low self control, coupled with an impulsive personality and weakening of social bonds, lead to criminal activity. In integrated theory, the genetic connection to crime lends itself more towards a person continuing in a chronic criminal activity as opposed to being the sole contributor in committing criminal acts.
Does a low I.Q. explain by itself the reason for a criminal act? Probably not, when considering the work of theorists Richard Herrnstein and James Wilson. According to Larry Siegel (2007) the book Crime and Human Nature by Herrnstein and Wilson indicates that a low I.Q. link to crime is, at best, an indirect one. I.Q. tests are also flawed in some other ways. One study done by James Flynn, The Flynn Effect, states that I.Q. fluctuates based solely on the nutritional health of the test taker. There is much criticism of I.Q. testing today for good reason. All too often in the past, the makers of the tests constructed them from their own intelligence perspectives, not including the perspectives of other races of ethnic groups. It appears that low I.Q. along with other 'traits' that would be considered a 'master trait' are not really viable as explanations for criminal behavior when they stand alone, and that more credence should be given perhaps to an integrated approach when it comes to latent trait theories.
Are latent trait theories applicable when it comes to serial killers? It is possible but the link appears weak at best. According to Larry Siegel's book (2007) Criminology, killing provides a way for serial killers to reduce anxiety. Anxiety could be a biological factor but could also be caused by sociological issues. The reason a serial killer acts are not thoroughly known, but would appear, according to most researchers, to be caused by sociological factors like poor and abusive parents. Again, as in the case of any other criminal activity, serial killing, if to be explained by a latent trait theory, would be best approached from an integrative approach.







ALLMO,
R

[The R]

The natural father was a pretty heavy pot smoker. The son, as far as I know never had any dealings with drugs or alcohol. Which when I think about it, I find very surprising that he did not use them.

The mother was not a drug user.

Just as a follow up....any chance there was a lack of attachment between mother and son early on? If she was ultra busy in just trying to feed them, etc. and this particular kid was a younger one, maybe there could've been some unintended, almost necessary neglect?

ALLMO,
R

[grneyes]

Just as a follow up....any chance there was a lack of attachment between mother and son early on? If she was ultra busy in just trying to feed them, etc. and this particular kid was a younger one, maybe there could've been some unintended, almost necessary neglect?

ALLMO,
R

None that was intentional I dont think. The son as a baby did not liked to be held very often and I'm not sure the mother quite knew how to deal with that.

My kids were always climbing all over me so I'm not sure I'd know how to deal with one not wanting held either. :shrug:

He was not the baby, he was the 3rd out of 4. As far as I know he's never really been very close with anyone.

[carrie222]

I dont think that people are born evil, i think that all experiences and the environment that people are exposed to shape the person that we become. I think that some people have higher chances of becoming a person that commits crimes because of the genetics they inherit. So i guess that it is a little bit of both. But i think of it like a child with an acoholic parent. They watch there parent do it ever day so that it becomes normal to them. so if they were to become an acoholic it would be normal to them and there for justifable to them because thats what they have always known.

[SaraSidle]

Welcome to the CL/trutv site Carrie. We have great posters here. :hat:

[lynn]

I have been watching a programme on the Discovery Channel, Most Evil. a scale from 1 to 22, 22 being the most evil. I believe that Charles Manson is very evil but he was placed at number 15. ? Does anyone know where I could get a copy of the list etc.

[The R]

reading over my earlier post, I wanted to encourage anyone reading to do a web search of Terrie Moffitt the psychologist and her work as it relates to criminology theory. Very modern and interesting work.


ALLMO,
R

[The R]

I recently found an excellent site that addresses the question here from a criminological view. Looks like a professor from FSU (known for its School of Criminology) set it up for students. I'd suggest anyone interested to look at it.....

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/week1.htm

Here's part of what it says that addresses the issue of this thread:

Human Nature:

There are several components to this issue that need to be discussed. (1) Is there any such thing as an innate universal human nature? Some would say yes, because we as human beings do share a common biological heritage.

However, if we accept such a presupposition, another problem immediately ensues: (2) What is the content of human nature? There is no agreement on this point. Some would say that human beings are naturally predisposed toward the "dark side", that evil and even violent behavior are part of our legacy as humans. A religious argument has often been made, particularly among religious fundamentalists, that we are all born with the taint of original sin and thus predisposed toward evil. Another version takes a more sociobiological approach, claiming that we are still much closer to other animal species than we would like to think. Aggressive defense of territory and violent means to obtain food, water, etc. typify many animal species. How could millions of years of evolutionary development mysteriously disappear? Haven't war and violence been an unchangeable aspects of the history of the human race? G. Gordon Liddy, the former Watergate conspirator, says as much every time he appears on TV or lectures at a college.

That a universally acquired human nature may pre-equip people to do good seems to be a minority position, but such a starting position is accepted in some cultures. Anthropologists have pointed out that such beliefs arise most frequently in groups that depend greatly on mutual co-operation for survival, such as hunting and gathering societies. For example, among the Tasaday of the Philippines there are no words in their language to express such feeling or actions as hate, fighting, violence, etc. Are these phenomena unknown among them? The Tasaday assumed their view of human nature was universal.

In the Western tradition positive views of human nature are less common, but not unthinkable. If each infant were born with a spark of the divine as the Genesis account infers, wouldn't that be a potential for good? Some theologians have argued that to be the case. For example, the 19th Century Protestant theologian Horace Bushnell in his book Christian Nurture pointed out that older Calvinist ideas of human depravity were no longer adequate. The potential for good existed in all of us. Unfortunately that potential was often extinguished before it had the chance to reach moral maturity.

Sociologists and anthropologists often argue that there is no such thing as a common universal human nature. Instead they hold that culture shapes human nature[s], which is (are) quite plastic or malleable. Margaret Mead's famous research in New Guinea on the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli peoples is frequently cited. If human nature is a learned phenomenon then it is possibly subject to the type of resocialization that those who favor classical or operant conditioning advocate. However, while sociologists may theoretically hold the position that there is no such thing as human nature, they frequently implicitly acknowledge one in their research.



I'd suggest for anyone interested to look at the info on the site before it's gone! Maybe the professor won't mind! :D

ALLMO,
R

[susie31023]

I dont think that people are born evil, i think that all experiences and the environment that people are exposed to shape the person that we become. I think that some people have higher chances of becoming a person that commits crimes because of the genetics they inherit. So i guess that it is a little bit of both. But i think of it like a child with an acoholic parent. They watch there parent do it ever day so that it becomes normal to them. so if they were to become an acoholic it would be normal to them and there for justifable to them because thats what they have always known.


Hi carrie, I think that most people are not born evil but I do believe a few are. There may be a propensity for some to follow in their parents footsteps yet there are many more who don't.

I remember reading a long time ago that there is a specific gene that predisposes some to be addicts whether drugs[illegal] or alcohol. I do believe this to be true in most cases.

I have personally seen the effects of this as there were many alcoholics in my family. As a child I saw the ugly things they will/would do. This only lead me to hate the signs of a drunk.

Now are criminals the same? I don't know but I think that a lot of family issues can lead to crimes. The truly evil who seem to have no basic regard for human life are to me completely evil. Should we study them? I think they are intelligent enough to nullify any information we could get from them. It would be like a game to those types. At least in my opinion. In no way do I believe they would be honest enough to try and help us understand their actions.

Case in point Ted Bundy, the only time he wanted to "tell" what made him do what he did was when it came close to his execution. I don't for one minute believe that him reading playboy or watching violent films made him carry out his violence. It was an excuse so he could once again be in the limelight and to try and get a few more days on Earth. I watched his trial from beginning to end and he made a mockery of the whole process. There are of course a lot more but I was trying to make a point, LOL.

Sorry for such a long post everyone. Will try to do better next time:biggrin: Hey R :D

I read once that the reason so many killers are successful are that they are so charming and intelligent that no one thinks they could do such things. JMO

[Fortyanna]

Hi Everyone! This is an interesting topic, one that I’ve been interested in and researched for most of my life. Let me say that I’m not an ‘expert’, but I do have some hard-earned knowledge which I shall share - for what it’s worth.

There have been studies done on prisoners which show a large percentage of frontal lobe abnormalities. The frontal lobe of the brain controls many aspects of behavior. I don’t have the study in front of me, but it’s there in black, white, and ether. Here’s a url to some interesting information in this connection:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1698

In addition to the above, in my studies I’ve found a large portion of serial killers have experienced trauma to the frontal lobe, Bobby Joe Long, Ed Kemper, Kenneth Bianchi, John Gacy, and Carl Panzram, to name a few of those KNOWN to have suffered head injury. I believe the list is much longer, but said injury to the killer has been forgotten, not known, or never been explored.

Head injuries aside, or maybe not, I further find the majority of serial killers blame their deeds on some evil entity taking them over and committing the deed. Of course, an incarcerated killer is going to lie, that’s a given. However, can they all be liars? I don’t believe so. There are haunted houses, just as there are evil spirits who’s goal it is to possess human beings. In addition, there are hungry ghosts who wish to indulge their appetites using a human body to do so. But the story doesn’t end here because there are also cases of parasitic twins, both external and internal which often influence the “living” twin unbeknownst to said living twin. In other words, there is the possibility that a twin entity which did not develop properly is covertly influencing the surviving twin. I know this sounds crazy, but it is very possible. For instance, did you know that it has been proven by DNA that some mothers who have given birth to their children in front of witness are not the mothers of their children? Their twin’s DNA (they had no living twin) showed up. Look up Chimera in the context of childbirth and children.

I believe I’ve said more than enough for one post; therefore, I’ll bid you good night before you good people have the time to find my abode and call the men in the white coats.

[rose_child]

This really all comes down to the age old agrueement Nuture Vs. Nature. In whether or not what environment a child grows up in effects the person they are in the long run. I really think that it is both kind of. If a child is abused they learn to act out their feelings in a different way (i.e. animal abuse). BUT in other cases where they lead normal childhoods and turn out this way, i have to agree that it is somewhat born into them. Jeff Dahmer lead a relatively normal life before he started killing. I think there are signs that can be seen, but others show no outward signs. That is how they avoid capture for so long.

I think there no real answer. there are too many variables to consider to form a solid theory on why people do the things they do. I mean can we really say one way or another and cover EVERYONE who has ever been found to have actually done the crime in question. People are all different. We all cope in different ways. When one person acts on this feelings, another person may not. Not everyone who has homicidial thoughts acts on them. Case in point myself. I have this feelings towards some people, BUT i would never act upon them. AND i have 3 convicted serial killers in my family. My grandmother Killed 20 people in germany before moving to America. She was never truely caught. (She left a note in her will for the german police).

[grneyes]

Thanks so much for all the responses this thread has gotten. I'm a bit behind on my reading because of major computer issues but will catch up as soon as I can.

:beer:

[Fortyanna]

This really all comes down to the age old agrueement Nuture Vs. Nature. In whether or not what environment a child grows up in effects the person they are in the long run. I really think that it is both kind of. If a child is abused they learn to act out their feelings in a different way (i.e. animal abuse). BUT in other cases where they lead normal childhoods and turn out this way, i have to agree that it is somewhat born into them. Jeff Dahmer lead a relatively normal life before he started killing. I think there are signs that can be seen, but others show no outward signs. That is how they avoid capture for so long.

I think there no real answer. there are too many variables to consider to form a solid theory on why people do the things they do. I mean can we really say one way or another and cover EVERYONE who has ever been found to have actually done the crime in question. People are all different. We all cope in different ways. When one person acts on this feelings, another person may not. Not everyone who has homicidial thoughts acts on them. Case in point myself. I have this feelings towards some people, BUT i would never act upon them. AND i have 3 convicted serial killers in my family. My grandmother Killed 20 people in germany before moving to America. She was never truely caught. (She left a note in her will for the german police).

If you would care to share information about the 3 serial killers in your family, I would much appreciate hearing about it. I'm not simply a voyeur, a close family member was murdered by one.

Thanks.

[carrie222]

Thank you for the welcome all. This topic is very interesting to me.

[Serial Killer X]

You're very entitled to your opinion, but I'd have to respectfully disagree with most of what you say about it being born in you. There has been a great deal of scientific research in the past few years as to the early years of development in infants/children. One of the ideas is that early on an attachment is formed between mother and child. If for some reason this attachment doesn't occur as it normanlly would, then this lack of attachment lays the groundwork for the type of sociopathy seen in serial killers. I'm currently reading a couple books re: this subject and will post on it ASAP.

ALLMO,
R

I'll Have To Respecfully Disagree With Your Mr R ;) Your Saying That If A Child Doesn't Form A Proper Relationship Or Attachment With There Mother They Will Start Becoming Psycopathic? I Believe That Evil Is Born, All Because You Have A Nice Stable Relationship With Your Parent's Doesn't Mean You Won't Become A Serial Killer, Plently Of Killer's Experimented In There Teenage Year's By Killing Animal's. Some Killer's Kill Because They Have Urge's Some Kill Because Voice's Tell Them To, Some Kill Because They Can. I Strongly Believe That Evil Is Born. I Don't Believe That You Can Be Born Normal And Then Become A Serial Killer. That's My Opinion.

[Serial Killer X]

This really all comes down to the age old agrueement Nuture Vs. Nature. In whether or not what environment a child grows up in effects the person they are in the long run. I really think that it is both kind of. If a child is abused they learn to act out their feelings in a different way (i.e. animal abuse).

People are all different. We all cope in different ways. When one person acts on this feelings, another person may not. Not everyone who has homicidial thoughts acts on them. Case in point myself. I have this feelings towards some people, BUT i would never act upon them. AND i have 3 convicted serial killers in my family. My grandmother Killed 20 people in germany before moving to America. She was never truely caught. (She left a note in her will for the german police).

Yer That's True That Is A Factor But Some Serial Killer's Had Nice Stable Child Hood's And Then They Turn Out To Be Pyscopathic Monster's. I Never Liked How People That Kill More Than 3 People Are Classifed As Serial Killer's If There Not Pyscopathic Monster's Not That Im Saying It's Inexcusable I Just Think It Should Be Reserved For The Serial Killer's That Kill For Sexual Gratification Or Urge's Or Many Other Reason's.

[The R]

I'll Have To Respecfully Disagree With Your Mr R ;) Your Saying That If A Child Doesn't Form A Proper Relationship Or Attachment With There Mother They Will Start Becoming Psycopathic? I Believe That Evil Is Born, All Because You Have A Nice Stable Relationship With Your Parent's Doesn't Mean You Won't Become A Serial Killer, Plently Of Killer's Experimented In There Teenage Year's By Killing Animal's. Some Killer's Kill Because They Have Urge's Some Kill Because Voice's Tell Them To, Some Kill Because They Can. I Strongly Believe That Evil Is Born. I Don't Believe That You Can Be Born Normal And Then Become A Serial Killer. That's My Opinion.

No worries X! :)

Glad to be disagreed with most of the time. If you ever have the inclination or time, pick up a copy of Ghosts From the Nursery, a well done research-based book on what causes certain violence. Pretty interesting reading.


ALLMO,
R

[Serial Killer X]

No worries X! :)

Glad to be disagreed with most of the time. If you ever have the inclination or time, pick up a copy of Ghosts From the Nursery, a well done research-based book on what causes certain violence. Pretty interesting reading.


ALLMO,
R

Kk I Will Mr R ;)

[grneyes]

Yer That's True That Is A Factor But Some Serial Killer's Had Nice Stable Child Hood's And Then They Turn Out To Be Pyscopathic Monster's. I Never Liked How People That Kill More Than 3 People Are Classifed As Serial Killer's If There Not Pyscopathic Monster's Not That Im Saying It's Inexcusable I Just Think It Should Be Reserved For The Serial Killer's That Kill For Sexual Gratification Or Urge's Or Many Other Reason's.

So do they only base it on the number of kills? (Assuming all 3 aren't done at the same time.) Or by the method/s used also?

[Serial Killer X]

So do they only base it on the number of kills? (Assuming all 3 aren't done at the same time.) Or by the method/s used also?

Yer All 3 Murder's Have To Be Done At Diffrent Time's Otherwise There Not Counted As A Serial Killer And It Doesn't Matter How They Kill Them As Long As You Kill 3 Diffrent People At Diffrent Time's Then Your A Serial Killer.

[marti101]

I think it can be learned[henry lee lucas]whose mother was cruel to the point that she did those eye injuries.She was also a prostitute who plied her trade in the house where they lived.And then theres the ones that are born that way[dahmer]the worse thing that happened to that his parents divorced when he was 18.But somewhere along the line people have to take responsability for the things they do you cant blame their backround on everything,as their siblings didnt always turn out that way.Thats just my opinion but this site is very good

[HeavenCries]

I don't think Dahmer was born evil. He may have had a decent upbringing but something must have caused him to become a cold-hearted killer. Whether he was molested/raped as a child, witnessed a traumatic experience, or exposed to violent movies - something had to have happened to make him snap. Maybe he just despised the fact that he was gay? I just have a hard time believing that someone is born evil. :confused:

[SaraSidle]

Lynn that show you were talking about on discovery might be found on their website. I have never been there. try discovery.com

Let's remember Dahmer showed signs of a serial murder before his parents divorced. IMO. I have no conclusion yet either way on evil. IMO

[Serial Killer X]

I don't think Dahmer was born evil. He may have had a decent upbringing but something must have caused him to become a cold-hearted killer. Whether he was molested/raped as a child, witnessed a traumatic experience, or exposed to violent movies - something had to have happened to make him snap. Maybe he just despised the fact that he was gay? I just have a hard time believing that someone is born evil. :confused:

As It's Been Said Before He Had Nothing Bad Or Traumatic Happen To Him Except His Parent's Divorcing When He Was 18. I Strongly Believe He Was Born Evil How Can You Say He Wasn't?

[deacon]

Just my thoughts. Evil, in and of itself, really does not exist. Only the absense of good. Sort of like hot and cold. There is no cold, just the absense of heat. There is a point called absolute zero where there is no measuable heat. There is also a point of absolute evil where there is no good. Born or learned? Either. There are people who are born with no respect for human life. ( Pee Wee Gaskins) Others learn not to have any respect for human life.

[onalaska]

I for the most part agree with you..Def. food for thought.

[SaraSidle]

I agree onalaska. A very unique way of looking at it

[The R]

This may sound like a really weird question, but since other 'weird' ones have been asked.....

What's the difference - if any - between cannibalism in primitive tribes of people and the cannibalism of a serial killer like Dahmer?

Thanks!
R

[The R]

Just my thoughts. Evil, in and of itself, really does not exist. Only the absense of good. Sort of like hot and cold. There is no cold, just the absense of heat. There is a point called absolute zero where there is no measuable heat. There is also a point of absolute evil where there is no good. Born or learned? Either. There are people who are born with no respect for human life. ( Pee Wee Gaskins) Others learn not to have any respect for human life.

sorry Deacon, but I need a clarification please......you state evil in and of itself doesn't exist and then state there is a point of absolute evil where good doesn't exist. Do you believe evil exists or not? Or am I missing the point?

Thanks,
R

[grneyes]

This may sound like a really weird question, but since other 'weird' ones have been asked.....

What's the difference - if any - between cannibalism in primitive tribes of people and the cannibalism of a serial killer like Dahmer?

Thanks!
R

Because cannibals generally see people like we see cattle, as food. Dahmer did it for the thrill.

jmo :-)

[SaraSidle]

Because cannibals generally see people like we see cattle, as food. Dahmer did it for the thrill.

jmo :-)


also dahmer felt by eating his victims they would become part of him IMO. I also think that is why serial killers practice cannibalism. Control more than anything. The victim belongs to them. IMO

[deacon]

sorry Deacon, but I need a clarification please......you state evil in and of itself doesn't exist and then state there is a point of absolute evil where good doesn't exist. Do you believe evil exists or not? Or am I missing the point?

Thanks,
R


I do not believe so. It is simply the absense of good. When there is no good in a person's life the void that is left is evil. Like I said, it is like hot and cold. When there is no heat the condition that remains is called cold but I really the absense of heat.

[The R]

I do not believe so. It is simply the absense of good. When there is no good in a person's life the void that is left is evil. Like I said, it is like hot and cold. When there is no heat the condition that remains is called cold but I really the absense of heat.

hey thanks Deacon for the reply. Evidently I just don't get the concept. :confused:


R

[SaraSidle]

hey thanks Deacon for the reply. Evidently I just don't get the concept. :confused:


R

R almost sounds like the definiton of psychopath. IMO

[deacon]

hey thanks Deacon for the reply. Evidently I just don't get the concept. :confused:


R

It is like the void left by there being no good in a person's heart gives way to evil. If we don't think of the other person, the only thing left to consider is out own selves and we do not think of the other person. There was a serial killer who put absolutely no value in anther person at all. Himself was all that he thought about. He could do good things for some but if you made him angry or someone else told him that he would not kill you, you were done. He had no good in his heart, really. He just did what felt good to him. That is what I really mean. People are not inherently good. They are naturally evil. (meaning they think only about themselves) It is through nuture and learning that others matter as much as you do that we learn to be good.

clear as mud?

[Serial Killer X]

R almost sounds like the definiton of psychopath. IMO

Lol Yeah Sara ;)

SKX

[Drumbum]

Dr. Micheal Stone has been researching this for years and came up with a scale of depravity. It can be seen on a show called Most Evil.

[MyrDawn]

I believe some people are born sociopaths. They are incapable of emotions like love and empathy and can do much evil. I put Scott Peterson in that category.

I also believe other people come by their evil through experiences when they're young. Learned in other words. But, not necessarily from their parents.

One thing that reinforces that some come by evil because of their experiences is the case of the Staynor brothers. Steven Staynor was kidnapped when he was seven and held captive for seven years, enduring repetitive sexual abuse the entire time.
http://www.nndb.com/people/440/000085185/

His brother Cary Staynor grew up to become a serial killer. I believe his brother's ordeal had a lot to do with that, particularly since he was traumitized with guilt by it and his parents didn't really do anything to help him cope with the guilt he felt.
http://www.nndb.com/people/477/000026399/

[rose_child]

Soory been having some personal issues...

I have read the posting and found a considerable amount of people interested in my families history. One thing I have to fix is that only 2 of the 3 was truely convicted of thier crimes. So here it is....

1818 England~ My great-Great( there are a lot of greats) aunt killed 23 people by blowing up a church (reasons unknown..she died before telling)

1923 America~My Great uncle (by marriage) killed 8 people while escaping custody (arrested and then died in jail as result of stab wounds)

1943 Germany~ My grandmother Killed 20 people in germany before moving to America. She was never truely caught. (She left a note in her will for the german police)



So there it is i have looked and looked for their crimes on the internet. So far I have found nothing. My family has told me only this much. To my family this people do not exist anymore. they have been dishoned.....

[Serial Killer X]

Dr. Micheal Stone has been researching this for years and came up with a scale of depravity. It can be seen on a show called Most Evil.

Yer Excactly That's What I Was Talking About.

[grneyes]

Soory been having some personal issues...

I have read the posting and found a considerable amount of people interested in my families history. One thing I have to fix is that only 2 of the 3 was truely convicted of thier crimes. So here it is....

1818 England~ My great-Great( there are a lot of greats) aunt killed 23 people by blowing up a church (reasons unknown..she died before telling)

1923 America~My Great uncle (by marriage) killed 8 people while escaping custody (arrested and then died in jail as result of stab wounds)

1943 Germany~ My grandmother Killed 20 people in germany before moving to America. She was never truely caught. (She left a note in her will for the german police)



So there it is i have looked and looked for their crimes on the internet. So far I have found nothing. My family has told me only this much. To my family this people do not exist anymore. they have been dishoned.....

I'm assuming these were all on the same side of your family? (All blood relatives?)

[CVT6702]

I believe children can follow in a parent's footsteps even if they were adopted out at birth and so that is Inherited.

I also believe children can turn out bad from teachings in the home and school when they are made not to fit in.

Having said that I would like to point to a person who has always been normal and level headed and a pillar of the community and suddenly they begin displaying behavior completely unlike them.

Take Andrea Yates for Example who tells us she began hearing voices that nagged her all the time telling her God wanted her to send the children to be with her.

And there are other cases such as Sybil and others and I believe in those cases these people are taken over by the Spirits of the Dead who don't like them for one reason or the other.

They ae sent to Psychiatrist who are not trained to deal with possessions and the like and they overmedicate and sometimes do shock treatment and or the possessing Spirits will finally break the human down and she will commit murder much like Andrea Yates did and she will go to prison and the Spirit of the Dead who took over and caused her to do these things is very happy because now they have her trapped in Prison where they want her to be and her husband is off to marry a woman more to the liking of the realtives who took Andrea out of the Picture.

For those who would like to know more about this I would like to recommend this link to Dr. Carl Wickland a Psychiatrist who worked with his wife a Medium who could make contact with the Possessing Spirits and try to treat them psychologically so they would leave the body of the Human they re tormenting and go do what they are meant to do in the After Life.
Dr. Carl Wickland Psychiatrist wrote many books on his works and one of them is '30 Years Among the Dead'

[grneyes]

While I do believe in psychics I don't believe a "true" psychic would be posting on a crime board to promote themselves or other psychics for financial gain.

A true psychic would offer help to victims or their families for free or a reasonable price.

A true psychic does not brag about their "connections" to the spirit world.

Just saying Kennedy told you who killed him does not make it fact.

By the way, almost everyone has some psychic ability. Some are just more advanced than others.

Now, how about you start your own thread on crime psychics instead of hijacking other threads....

(I'm normally not bothered by hijacking but this one is just unreal and makes psychics look bad. :rolleyes:)

[SaraSidle]

ITA grneyes. What happened to Andrea Yates and Sybil was physical. Not emotional mental or spiritual. Andrea had untreated post depression for years which turned into psychosis. The nerve synapses in her brain were not working correctly. Sybil had reasons to devolop new personalitites to avoid pain with other things happening in her life. this should not be stated as possession. They are diseases. One of whom I have worked with. Using those sources make me doubt you CVT and I did not set out to. IMO

[debbyuk2008]

I don't mean this in an over religious sense, however, we are born with a free spirit. We are not programmed to be kind nor evil. We choose, to a certain extent how we behave in life.
I definitely think environment plays a part and parental involvement.

Sadly, mental illness does exist. I do notice though, a lot of people I consider evil or nasty blame their upbringing or drugs!

I have studied the Manson clan quite religiously. Although, they claim to be born again Christians or appear nicer people...I still maintain a few of them are downright evil.
"Tex" was particularly evil during this period. He blamed this on drug intake. Yet, if you look at his childhood it was relatively happy. No one forced him to take drugs.

[SaraSidle]

Nice post debby!

[Its just me]

I don't mean this in an over religious sense, however, we are born with a free spirit. We are not programmed to be kind nor evil. We choose, to a certain extent how we behave in life.
I definitely think environment plays a part and parental involvement.

Sadly, mental illness does exist. I do notice though, a lot of people I consider evil or nasty blame their upbringing or drugs!

I have studied the Manson clan quite religiously. Although, they claim to be born again Christians or appear nicer people...I still maintain a few of them are downright evil.
"Tex" was particularly evil during this period. He blamed this on drug intake. Yet, if you look at his childhood it was relatively happy. No one forced him to take drugs.

Bumping this post to get beyond the filthy porn posted by a sick soul.

[Vera]

I won't claim, nor am I qualified to, that no one has ever been born evil. However, I believe most evil is learned and is the result of reactions to experiences. Often those who have been abused become abusers themselves, and sociopathy might be the result of years of shutting down emotionally to avoid emotional pain.

In cases of evil-doers, I believe genetics is the exception not the rule. Since insanity is often hereditary, evil might be too in some instances.

In my opinion

[Super Volcano]

Many of us consider killers, rapist, and torturers evil. (Ramirez, Dahmer, Bernardo, etc...)

Do you think they learn this behavior or is it born into them? If it's born into them do you think it can be hereditary? Are there signs at an early age? (Like Dahmer's enjoyment of killing pets.)

What are your thoughts?
I believe that all children born to this earth, were spirit children sent by our Heavenly Father. Children are like sponges, and pick up whatever imformation they have around them, 24/7. There is also the genetics factor(whatever crap got sent down the line). But no, children are NOT born evil, for they came from our Father in heaven. It all depends on how the kid is raised, and what morals, and vaules they had, or didn't have. And not to mention what kind of friends they had as influences growing up. It all starts with making a bad choice without knowing it, and it snowballs from there. If you read about what kind of childhood some of these freaks had; Ramirez, Bundy, etc, you will find that all of the above applies. Either the parents were lax on dicipline, or they were too overboard, and pushed their kid away, only for that kid to find solace and "acceptance" with a gang, or with some other out-cast kid. As they get older, their choices get worse, and they allow, or invite, evil spirits in their minds and hearts, and after some time of "listening" to the whispers, and temptations of the adversary, they start acting out, either by stealing, rape, and then eventually murder. They get a "high" on their murders, and develop insatiable thirst and lust, and then their evil habits become their Master. It is SOOOOO important to keep them locked away; and or either execute them (it is better that one man dies, to protect the innocent). When they are locked up, their "supply" gets cut off, and they can't feed their insatiable appetites. :no:
Sorry about the lesson, that is just what I think.:seeya:

[luciferos]

First of all there is no such thing as evil. Evil is a draconian term best left for the dark ages. Reminds me of the hanged witches in Salem.

You can be hateful, you can be disturbed...but evil? Nah. And you're not even born mentally ill as it develops later in life (though it's in the genetics, waiting to come out), mid to late teens mostly. Saying someone with a severe mental illness is evil would be kind of...ignorant.

But then again you don't even have to be insane to be a murderer. In fact you can be quite clear headed. So the human emotion one feels, that blast of anger that causes you to commit a crime of passion (you see wife cheating so you hack the guy to pieces) is evil? Anger is just an emotion and not evil. Again, nothing really is. Evil's just a simple minded way to put these things. The truth is most of this crap happens due to one fallacy of mankind: emotion.

Animals hunt and kill to eat, humans kill out of jealousy and revenge. We really are the most bloodthirsty and we're just a plight on the world.

[Karin]

I was thinking that there are some children who are born with parts of their brain that function differently than others. They may have a propensity for "evil " given the right combination of environmental and emotional influences. I don't believe that it is necessarily evil that is inherient, but just an ability to not feel certain emotions that we deem normal. Evil is how we define things that we think are unacceptable or immoral or against the laws of God. I do believe that some are capable of being born and bred to be evil. Unfortunately, most of the ones that become evil, almost always have some sort of life altering experiences that only cause this to manifest and that is when it shows its nasty self... But I do know people who have had many horrific childhood experiences who became fantastic adults. So for me, it really does go back to the brain and how it is assimilates environment and emotions. I also believe that many of the notorious murderers that we know could not help the way they were...... Just my opinion!

[grneyes]

First of all there is no such thing as evil. Evil is a draconian term best left for the dark ages. Reminds me of the hanged witches in Salem.

You can be hateful, you can be disturbed...but evil? Nah. And you're not even born mentally ill as it develops later in life (though it's in the genetics, waiting to come out), mid to late teens mostly. Saying someone with a severe mental illness is evil would be kind of...ignorant.

But then again you don't even have to be insane to be a murderer. In fact you can be quite clear headed. So the human emotion one feels, that blast of anger that causes you to commit a crime of passion (you see wife cheating so you hack the guy to pieces) is evil? Anger is just an emotion and not evil. Again, nothing really is. Evil's just a simple minded way to put these things. The truth is most of this crap happens due to one fallacy of mankind: emotion.

Animals hunt and kill to eat, humans kill out of jealousy and revenge. We really are the most bloodthirsty and we're just a plight on the world.

If you deny there is evil don't you also deny there is good? How can one exist without the other?

[Drumbum]

If you deny there is evil don't you also deny there is good? How can one exist without the other?

I have a friend who thinks as Luciferos does. In my opinion, good and evil are not just perceptions. There's too many cases that state otherwise.

[Super Volcano]

if you deny there is evil don't you also deny there is good? How can one exist without the other?

good one!!!!!

[SaraSidle]

This may sound like a really weird question, but since other 'weird' ones have been asked.....

What's the difference - if any - between cannibalism in primitive tribes of people and the cannibalism of a serial killer like Dahmer?

Thanks!
R

I think this is an anthropological question R. Cannibals in primitive tribes eat humans cause it is part of their religion and culture. Dahmer ate people because he wanted them to be part of him because he was lonely not to mention mentally ill. IMO

[Joseph Bell]

I think this is an anthropological question R. Cannibals in primitive tribes eat humans cause it is part of their religion and culture. Dahmer ate people because he wanted them to be part of him because he was lonely not to mention mentally ill. IMO

Very good reply Sara. Look my job has me dealing with people all day. Not different people. The same ones. You get to read 'character' after a while and I don't put people into boxes. They are who they are. Some go completely with their background, some go completely against their background.

There are people who come from the worst abusive backgrounds who are fabulous human beings who take care of their families. You get those who just can't cope and fall into the same behaviours.

You get those who get everything and are fabulous. You get those who get everything and are absolute *****.

Other than people with mental disorders I believe it comes down to choice. A true pyscopath has no empathy for other human beings. Not sympathy. Empathy. Those of us who live normal and ordinary lives as part of the ant heap on Earth feel for others when they're in pain and can imagine what they're going through. Psychos like Bundy and the others we discuss don't think about other people let alone consider how they feel. It's all about 'me,me,me.' The rest of us have long gotten over the 2 years old's concept that it's all about me and realise that we are part of the big scheme.

So then. How do obvious weirdos like Hitler get elected and send the world into war?

Just a thought.

[SaraSidle]

Hitler was very charismatic. He was a good talker and dreamer. He was a borderline personality with no morals. Knew the difference between right and wrong. People were drawn to him and his ideas. I believe there are other leaders that are very similar. Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were similar but in a smaller way. they did not become leaders but people were attracted to them. Gacy even had friends who were LE as I am sure you know.

I agree with you on people and their backgrounds.When I started my career I was going for Forensic Psychology just to see why people are like that but I could not complete it for other reasons. It has always been fascinating to me. these are all my own opinions from reading and work experince. IMO

[Joseph Bell]

What I find interesting is people who worked in the death camps like Auschwitz whose 'excuse' was that they were only following orders. Same with the members of the SS. There was nothing sane about their orders. Not to someone like me. Does that mean they were all insane too? Or just plain evil? Just a thought.

[deacon]

What I find interesting is people who worked in the death camps like Auschwitz whose 'excuse' was that they were only following orders. Same with the members of the SS. There was nothing sane about their orders. Not to someone like me. Does that mean they were all insane too? Or just plain evil? Just a thought.

Not all by any means, but some may have feared for their own lives. Isn't an excuse but if they would have disobeyed orders they could have been killed just like the victims in the camps.

[Joseph Bell]

Yeah Deacon. I've thought about that 'if I don't follow orders I'll be killed' route. You make a stand. I believe. The people who worked in Hitler's death camps made their stand. They could have buggered off if they really wante