Roe v Wade

[Kevin L]

The problem with the studies is even if you could identify somebody with the potential to commit violence, until they actually do commit violence, they cannot be incarcerated. Once a person has committed a hanging offence, they should be hung. NO lifetime of free bed and breakfast.

I understand why you believe that. It seems wrong that a person who committed a horrible crime should have all his material needs met for the rest of his life while good people need to work.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

 

[TexPrep]

A very legitimate question.

Something like 60% of serial killers have measurable forms of brain damage.

We see a similar dynamic with football players who suffer repeated blows to the head, and later engage in criminal behavior. I suspect (but don't know) that football contributed to O.J. Simpson's murderous behavior.

Jeffrey Dahmer had suffered head injuries early in childhood, and the Russian serial killer Chikatilo had experienced brain damage as a result of starvation in a famine during and after WWII.

When I was a kid, I heard a story about a golden retriever who was the nicest, most gentle dog in the world until it contracted rabies, and had to be shot after it attacked and mutilated several children.

I believe that brain wiring is relevant in criminal and violent behavior (I was in college when LSD was put in a punchbowl at a party as a "joke," and a crazed kid with no criminal history tried to kill his girlfriend with a baseball bat because of the "demons"), and the only that way we can understand these dynamics is to study these monsters.

If we better know how and why these people get made, then we can be proactive . . . just like we are with tooth decay, heart disease, and so forth.

In none of my points do I believe that these people should ever be let out of confinement. I don't believe in revolving door justice, and murderers should be put away for life.

Sounds like we already know why they kill people.

 

[Kevin L]

Sounds like we already know why they kill people.

We know some of why they kill people.

Let's look at it in another way: Temporal lobe epilepsy can cause people to act violently--or even homicidally--when they are having a seizure.

Yet if we give them phenobarbital and dilantin, then these seizures go away. Some forms of this variety of epilepsy are even hereditary, and can be anticipated and prevented proactively before such a person even has a first seizure.

People with diabetes can (and have) acted violently when their sugar suddenly drops, and this can be "cured" with a glass of orange juice . . . although I concede that I am oversimplifying with this example.

I suggest that it might be similar with these maniacs, and studying them with science may allow us to be proactive.

Moving away somewhat from capital punishment may mean that we have to question long-held sacred truths, but if we didn't question sacred truths . . . then it would still be morally wrong for obstetricians to wash their hands before helping a woman give birth.

And to acknowledge the validity of your points about capital punishment, Bundy did slowly and brutally murder teenage and preteen girls, as Lynette Culver was 12, and Nancy Wilcox was only 16. Some estimates claim that he may have murdered up to 90 women . . . so I do get it.

My only point is that he should be treated like a dangerous disease that a scientist keeps in his lab in order to discover a medicine or a vaccine. I think we need to understand people like him better than we do.

 

[Kevin L]

I also have a selfish motivation for wanting these maniacs studied.

I am a high-functioning autistic person. I work in the medical field, I'm a published writer, and I have a clean record.

Yet I've been denied jobs (and have filed lawsuits . . . some of which I've won) because people believe autistic people are dangerous, so I shouldn't be "allowed" to work in certain jobs, and that--because of my autism--I'm not worthy of trust.

Jeffrey Dahmer, Nikolas Cruz, Adam Lanza, and Ted Kaczynski were all mass shooters, bombers, serial killers, etc. who are claimed to be autistic, so I shouldn't be allowed to work at a job like everyone else because people with high-functioning autism are "dangerous" and "can snap at any second" . . . so I always have to fight in the legal arena for everything. This is despite having an immaculate record, and passing a background check for my CCW (with fingerprints and everything).

So yes, I have selfish motives for wanting a better understanding of these murderers . . . although I still think that everyone would benefit.

 

[TexPrep]

We know some of why they kill people.

Let's look at it in another way: Temporal lobe epilepsy can cause people to act violently--or even homicidally--when they are having a seizure.

Yet if we give them phenobarbital and dilantin, then these seizures go away. Some forms of this variety of epilepsy are even hereditary, and can be anticipated and prevented proactively before such a person even has a first seizure.

People with diabetes can (and have) acted violently when their sugar suddenly drops, and this can be "cured" with a glass of orange juice . . . although I concede that I am oversimplifying with this example.

I suggest that it might be similar with these maniacs, and studying them with science may allow us to be proactive.

Moving away somewhat from capital punishment may mean that we have to question long-held sacred truths, but if we didn't question sacred truths . . . then it would still be morally wrong for obstetricians to wash their hands before helping a woman give birth.

And to acknowledge the validity of your points about capital punishment, Bundy did slowly and brutally murder teenage and preteen girls, as Lynette Culver was 12, and Nancy Wilcox was only 16. Some estimates claim that he may have murdered up to 90 women . . . so I do get it.

My only point is that he should be treated like a dangerous disease that a scientist keeps in his lab in order to discover a medicine or a vaccine. I think we need to understand people like him better than we do.

Again,as you just proved we know why they're violent.
And if they had an issue that made them violent you can bet their attorney would have brought it up in court as a means of defense.
We've been studying the criminal mind for hundreds of years and I seriously doubt we can learn anything new at this point.
Besides,the death penalty is about making them pay for their actions regardless of why they did it. There have been many people put to death even though they were crazy.

 

[Arcticdude]

I also have a selfish motivation for wanting these maniacs studied.

I am a high-functioning autistic person. I work in the medical field, I'm a published writer, and I have a clean record.

Yet I've been denied jobs (and have filed lawsuits . . . some of which I've won) because people believe autistic people are dangerous, so I shouldn't be "allowed" to work in certain jobs, and that--because of my autism--I'm not worthy of trust.

Jeffrey Dahmer, Nikolas Cruz, Adam Lanza, and Ted Kaczynski were all mass shooters, bombers, serial killers, etc. who are claimed to be autistic, so I shouldn't be allowed to work at a job like everyone else because people with high-functioning autism are "dangerous" and "can snap at any second" . . . so I always have to fight in the legal arena for everything. This is despite having an immaculate record, and passing a background check for my CCW (with fingerprints and everything).

So yes, I have selfish motives for wanting a better understanding of these murderers . . . although I still think that everyone would benefit.

Just curious Kevin, how would any potential employer know anything about your medical condition? I've had thousands of employees and I never knew anything about their medical conditions. My only interest was; can they do the job.

 

[Kevin L]

Just curious Kevin, how would any potential employer know anything about your medical condition? I've had thousands of employees and I never knew anything about their medical conditions. My only interest was; can they do the job.

Because I've asked for certain accommodations.

As an example, lights, noises, and other sensory issues can make work very difficult (and sometimes impossible), so I sometimes need to wear dark glasses indoors.

When you work with customers, wearing dark glasses can be offensive to some people. I also have problems making eye contact, which is interpreted as being dishonest and/or rude or dismissive.

I have also written essays on autism which have been published in different journals and magazines . . . which can come up when someone does a background check or internet search.

I've sued, because when I ask for accommodations for my autism, I often get told: "If we do it for you, then I have to do it for everybody, and then it would be like the rules don't exist at all . . ."

 

[Kevin L]

Because I lack social insight, I'm someone who's been fired from jobs because I follow rules and procedure, rather than the reverse.

 

[GaRp58]

One has to ask themselves, am I going to protect the murderers or protect the innocent children and elderly.

I have learned the hard way, you cannot feel for anyone you have to kill. The "normal/healthy" human is not capable of "not" feeling anything in this last ditch process of ending another life. You can/need to/must be able to feel love for the innocent/living/normal/socially needed living though. THIS needed LOVE is the only thing you can feel in this dire and terrible situation. If you LOVE the innocent ENOUGH and MORE than the "sick" of the world,,,it becomes your terribly needed duty to protect these loved and innocents by removing the danger of ANYTHING happening to THEM.
The problems with this equation of loving the innocents enough to protect them are manifold.
1. Who decides whom is "sick"
2. Who decides whom are the innocent
3. Who is capable and willing to protect the innocent
4. How long will the "task" last and how many "sick" are involved
5. How long can "YOU" continue TO ELIMINATE the sick to protect the innocent before it makes you "SICK"???

Hard questions for a hard task. Not made for healthy humans and not for the weak at heart. To do anything along the lines of "discussion" and the philosophical thoughts of our autistic loved friend Kevin do e only an inspiration to keep discussing the theme and to look deep into your soul.
((how hard is it to put your beloved dog down?? transfer this thought to a human...who eats, sleeps, drinks, reads, writes, maybe has a family and children, goes to parties and can even tell jokes like your best friend....how much do you love and do you really know how to love???
How STRONG ARE YOU?????
Live free, Gary

 

[GaRp58]

to have neurologists, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists examine them indefinitely until we figure out what makes them tick,

Your "specialists" will NEVER; NEVER find out what makes them tick Kevin...you are wasting your valuable time and intelligence on a one-way street of feelings for the trash of the human society. This trash was born with Cain and Abel. This trash was carried out over the thousands of years that the world has been populated and murdered by such human trash. The trash must be taken out to the street weekly or the garbage truck cannot pick it up.........
A human is not a car with mechanics and broken parts. A human is not a computer with a hic-cup in the software... A human is not a tree which has a disease....a human who has "actively decided" to be a bad person has given up his normal "sane" way of life (as those who "decided" to smoke or drink), they have decided to live out their insanity actively upon the "other" humans in their world in complete disregard for the loss of life, loss of dignity, loss of loved ones, loss of faith in other humans, loss of social connections between the rest of society and especially the loss of their own right to be a part of the VERY FABRIC of society which they are actively destroying.
They do NOT HAVE A TICK, they do not have any value in society, they cannot be "checked up on" or re-programmed or fixed. You cannot beat a dead horse and expect it to get back up. You cannot stand a dead tree back up in the ground and expect it to start blooming again. You cannot throw a dead fish back into the water and expect it to swim again. YOU CANNOT PUT THESE "NOT-TICKING" TRASH OF EX-HUMANS back into society and REALLY expect them to FUNCTION NORMAL again..............................................................

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

Always insightful thoughts by you Gary. I believe deeply that I could and would take someone out who is going to harm one of my loved ones or myself. That said, I know there would be huge internal consequences in dealing with it. But, I would do whatever was necessary, whenever It was necessary.

 

[Kevin L]

I respect everyone's opinion . . . and just because I question capital punishment doesn't mean that I won't defend myself or a loved one.

 

[DrHenley]

Kevin, thank for your honesty.

 

[TexPrep]

Because I've asked for certain accommodations.

As an example, lights, noises, and other sensory issues can make work very difficult (and sometimes impossible), so I sometimes need to wear dark glasses indoors.

When you work with customers, wearing dark glasses can be offensive to some people. I also have problems making eye contact, which is interpreted as being dishonest and/or rude or dismissive.

I have also written essays on autism which have been published in different journals and magazines . . . which can come up when someone does a background check or internet search.

I've sued, because when I ask for accommodations for my autism, I often get told: "If we do it for you, then I have to do it for everybody, and then it would be like the rules don't exist at all . . ."

Just a thought.
If you have a habit of sueing people the word gets out.
Right or wrong it will affect your job opportunities and can lead to being blackballed.
My older brother learned the hard way when he sued for $5k that was owed to him.
He won but it ended his career in new home sales which he was good at to the tune of six figures.
I told him he was a fool to sue over $5k but he didnt listen.

 

[GaRp58]

That said, I know there would be huge internal consequences in dealing with it. But, I would do whatever was necessary, whenever It was necessary.

With everybody I have met or heard about, the internal consequences are gut wrenching. I do not know how many I have hurt or killed. I have only fought the minimal of fights and nowhere near that what many others have. But, it was enough to change me completely. I raised myself after the age of 13, my family was falling apart, I taught myself what was right and wrong...this stayed with me, thinking everybody has some "good" in them. Until I saw and heard what was happening in Croatia and Bosnia. I learned to hate. NOT GOOD. I learned to LOVE MORE, in a shorter timeframe and for other reasons...I made more friends in a firefight, trading ammo for grenades, toilet paper for ammo, cigarettes for toilet paper, than in 20 years of civilian life. There are only comrades in arms and no borders. You drink dirty water, eat spoiled food, enjoy moonshine with bugs in it in war.
(eat and drink today, tomorrow we die) do you want to die healthy?? Crazy times.
I pray you all have the strength, love and friends to help you over the gut wrenching, if you ever need it,
live free, Gary

 

[Kevin L]

Just a thought.
If you have a habit of sueing people the word gets out.
Right or wrong it will affect your job opportunities and can lead to being blackballed.
My older brother learned the hard way when he sued for $5k that was owed to him.
He won but it ended his career in new home sales which he was good at to the tune of six figures.
I told him he was a fool to sue over $5k but he didnt listen.

I've sued because I would rather work than be on disability. I can't take the law into my own hands, and someone says "I don't care how qualified you are, I don't care if you have a Ph.D. I win't have an autistic person working here. Nothing personal, it's just a business decision. I have to do what's best for the company."

When faced with this, then what am I supposed to do?

 

[Kevin L]

To expound on this, there are times when a disability can be a benefit to the employer. As an example, I knew an achondroplastic little person (ie: a midget, but this term is offensive) who sued to be let in to the fire academy in South Florida

When he graduated and get hired, everybody said it was for political reasons . . . and then we discovered that he was very good at doing confined space rescue, as he could worm his way into collapsed buildings and crushed cars, and save peoples' lives in a space that would be excluded to everyone else.

As another example, peole with color blindness are (or were)excluded from the miltary, yet color blindness is good in a sharpshooter or sniper because they can see through camoflague.

My photographic memory and the ability to do complicated math problems in my head has been very useful in the medical field, especially when working with EKG material and administering medications. This is a different dwarf firefighter named Vince Brasco, so you see what I mean.

 

[tmttactical]

When I was working in management, I did not care what color, nationality, or any other issues were prevalent, as long s the person was qualified to fulfill the job requirements. That being said, it also means that if a person required special consideration that WOULD effect the job, then that would also need to be quantified. I.E. a person siting at a desk working a computer, who needed to wear sunglasses, not problem. A person greeting and dealing with customers face to face requiring to be allowed to wear sunglasses could be a problem. Another factor to consider, two applicants apply for a position, both are equally qualified but one requires special consideration. I see no compelling reason to give the job to the person needing special consideration over the other applicant.

 

[Kevin L]

When I was working in management, I did not care what color, nationality, or any other issues were prevalent, as long s the person was qualified to fulfill the job requirements. That being said, it also means that if a person required special consideration that WOULD effect the job, then that would also need to be quantified. I.E. a person siting at a desk working a computer, who needed to wear sunglasses, not problem. A person greeting and dealing with customers face to face requiring to be allowed to wear sunglasses could be a problem. Another factor to consider, two applicants apply for a position, both are equally qualified but one requires special consideration. I see no compelling reason to give the job to the person needing special consideration over the other applicant.

I get that, as it seems similar to affirmative action.

Yet I'm in a double-bind myself: It's not my fault that I was born autistic. I don't want to be a social parasite when I'm capable of working, yet I still get excluded. By using the legal system to get a job position is not something I like, but it is better for everyone so I don't have to suck (like a tick or leech) off of everyone else's taxes. I can be productive and pull my weight.

In one instance, I sued because an albino coworker was allowed to wear dark glasses indoors . . . but I wasn't, because my autism is a "stupid excuse."

What am I supposed to do?

The disability laws exist for a reason, and this happened because I want to work rather than the reverse.