Psychopaths, Monsters and Evil

[randomlegend]

Prompted by all the coverage surrounding the death of Ian Brady today.

What do you think about people like him? Are they monsters? Are they unfortunate victims of an illness? Are they 'responsible' for what they do? Are some people just 'evil'?

What should society do with them? Put them to death? Lock them up forever? Try to rehabilitate them in some sense?

I'm really interested in these people and forensic psychiatry is one area of medicine I'd actually like to work. I did a placement in a Forensic Psychiatric unit last summer, and while it was medium security so not quite the level of people like Brady, I still met some pretty scary characters and it was fascinating getting a little bit of insight into how their minds just seem to work so differently.

[Henry]

Well, psycopathy is probably a medical condition, technically speaking. "Evil" has other connotations, so I prefer not to use that word.

They're as responsible for what they do just as much as we are - which doesn't say much and opens up other philosophical arguments about free will generally.

Such people probably can't be rehabilitated (although other criminals can) but I have fundamental problems with the death penalty, so lockup it is.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Secure mental hospitals were a good thing. One of Mrs Thatcher's less good strategies.

[Smiffy]

Society doesn't want to know and prefers (as Jimmy clearly alludes to, surprise surprise.) to lock them away and pretend it doesn't exist.

Our prisons and hospitals should be about rehabilitation irrespective of what has put them there but evidently, it isn't a popular decision. I think when you look at paedophiles for example, what help is there for them before they've committed a crime? There is none that I'm aware of and then these people withdraw into themselves, fantasise about things and then at some point fantasy crosses over into reality and before you know it they are front page on the newspaper, labelled sick, twisted, monsters, psycho's and then locked away from the public when if there was legitimate help available for people then it might not have reached that stage.

[SvN]

What help can society offer, though? Midget prostitutes?

[Dark Soldier]

What help can society offer, though? Midget prostitutes?

Chemical castration.

[Smiffy]

Well, for a start society could recognise that these are seriously unwell individuals which given any sort of mental health issue is still stigmatised then that's highly unlikely. You can't even begin to change or challenge these things without there being an uproar. There was that paedophile catcher program a while back, could you imagine the reaction if those who were caught were actually offered help in coming to terms with why they think like they do instead of being imprisoned and taken off the streets?

Something like the sex offenders register is a good idea but other than informing people to your whereabouts and sticking to whatever was agreed then as far as I'm aware there is no help.

Having worked in secure hospitals and given what we know about mental health and the like, there is a huge amount who have pretty much the same sort of start. Shit parenting, poor development skills, problems with drugs and alcohol or a history of abuse. It's absolutely awful when you see it all face up, or have experienced some sort of mental health issue yourself as you're much more aware of just how bad it affects a person. Someone like Jimmy strikes me as clueless on the whole thing because he's seemingly had it all easy, a perfect upbringing, the fact he didn't even know how to respond to a friend (albeit not a very close one IIRC) says it all. How hard is it to be a decent human being? To not judge someone because they think differently than you do or don't behave in a way that society deems 'normal'.

Outcasts at birth, abandoned by society, buried in the system and people wonder why they never improve? Even hospitals for the best part are shit and don't really help in the long term for the many. A select few perhaps but it's by far from a successful approach. It is, however, better than the shit that a film like "House on Haunted Hill" which tells you how far it has all come but how little progress has been made.

We're aware of a lot more things about the mind now but we're far from accepting of it.

[John]

What help can society offer, though? Midget prostitutes?

Facebook works itself into a frothing rage about once a month over the idea of sex dolls that look like children.

[Smiffy]

Rightly so as well as I would say that's enabling them to embrace their fantasy. How long before the real thing is desired? No one is really willing to have a sensible discussion about it because of how raw a subject it actually is.

[SvN]

If you're attracted to kids, you're attracted to kids. Trying to get them to stop isn't going to work unless it's by chemical castration (which DS suggested), which we did to the gays in the 50s.

[John]

Well, for a start society could recognise that these are seriously unwell individuals which given any sort of mental health issue is still stigmatised then that's highly unlikely. You can't even begin to change or challenge these things without there being an uproar. There was that paedophile catcher program a while back, could you imagine the reaction if those who were caught were actually offered help in coming to terms with why they think like they do instead of being imprisoned and taken off the streets?

Someone like Jimmy strikes me as clueless on the whole thing because he's seemingly had it all easy, a perfect upbringing, the fact he didn't even know how to respond to a friend (albeit not a very close one IIRC) says it all. How hard is it to be a decent human being? To not judge someone because they think differently than you do or don't behave in a way that society deems 'normal'.

It is a problem that, for the most part, these people are only recognised when they're revealed to have committed a crime, but what's the alternative? A paedophile outreach program? An out-patient clinic specifically for them?

The outrage if they were offered medical help instead of being imprisoned would be absolutely justified. If you've committed a violent crime you should be off the streets until you're unlikely to commit another one. That goes double if your crime is hurting children. Would you have been on board if Ian Brady had been given a year of therapy sessions and a new front door?

As I remember it Floyd made it clear that he was happy to help the bloke, but just wasn't sure how and came here to ask for advice/talk about how he didn't know what to say. That's absolutely the correct response, and it might be said that you're judging him thinking differently than you do.

[Dark Soldier]

He's talking more about the multiple people with a sexual attraction to kids that don't follow through on it.

Those that do, lock them up and throw away the key.

[Smiffy]

Stopping/managing your impulses is the end game. You're not just going to wade in and tell them that it's wrong so stop doing it, chill out, snap out of it etc. I think I read only a few months ago that around 400 people a month are caught downloading graphic pictures/videos and our answer is to arrest them and go from there.

There are some who should be as they are a much higher risk but what about the person who really cannot understand why they are attracted to kids, know that it is wrong etc. There isn't anything and no one they can turn to without it ruining their entire lives from the get go.

I don't want to focus too much on paedophilia either as that's just one problem. We are such a shit country as far as offering proper sustainable services to people.

[John]

He's talking more about the multiple people with a sexual attraction to kids that don't follow through on it.

Those that do, lock them up and throw away the key.

I was referring specifically to the 'paedo hunter' program he mentioned. Wasn't that about rumbling people who'd at least attempted to lure a child to their basement?

[Smiffy]

It is a problem that, for the most part, these people are only recognised when they're revealed to have committed a crime, but what's the alternative? A paedophile outreach program? An out-patient clinic specifically for them?

It isn't a bad idea. I think somewhere you can call anonymously and discuss your problems would be a step in the right direction. We have things like Good Samiritans for when someone is struggling and ready to end it. We have community bases for people with alcohol and drug issues. Nothing for those with darker and equally as dangerous vices.


The outrage if they were offered medical help instead of being imprisoned would be absolutely justified. If you've committed a violent crime you should be off the streets until you're unlikely to commit another one. That goes double if your crime is hurting children. Would you have been on board if Ian Brady had been given a year of therapy sessions and a new front door?

This is what we need to change. Someone like Ian Brady for example, who knows what was going on in that mind of his and how long he was able to resist doing what he did. However he did cross a line, a major line and quite rightly was locked up for it but you're jumping to the most extreme example.


As I remember it Floyd made it clear that he was happy to help the bloke, but just wasn't sure how and came here to ask for advice/talk about how he didn't know what to say. That's absolutely the correct response, and it might be said that you're judging him thinking differently than you do.

Not at all, I thought it was telling that he didn't know what to do but by default his human instinct actually meant he did the right thing from the get go on that particular occasion. He listened whilst his friend talked which is much more helpful than many people would ever realise.

What if that friend approached him and said he was attracted to children though. It would be a completely different outcome and reaction because of the severity of the admission and the fact that we're just not built to process that rationally.

[SvN]

Saying Ian Brady "crossed a line" is one hell of an understatement.

"Come on Ian, that's not on."

[Smiffy]

I was referring specifically to the 'paedo hunter' program he mentioned. Wasn't that about rumbling people who'd at least attempted to lure a child to their basement?

I hadn't replied about not wanting to focus too much on paedophiles by time you had as it would be too simplistic to focus on just that illness. I'm thinking more broadly in that many illnesses that reside within the mind are still not accepted as such and the reaction of those who society considers normal is telling.

[Smiffy]

Saying Ian Brady "crossed a line" is one hell of an understatement.

"Come on Ian, that's not on."

Only if you want to be pedantic and assume that that is how I meant it.

There is no condoning what he did but would he have got to that stage if there was some sort of help available. Again though, it's not about Ian Brady, it's about what we can do as a society or profressionally to give these people an outlet of sorts whereby they can get the help they desperately need.

[SvN]

I'm not being pedantic, just made me lol a bit.

[SvN]

One thing I will say though is that you seem to be assuming people want help, or even know they need help. I very much doubt the likes of Brady would have visited his GP if he thought he could put an end to his thirst for murder.

[niko_cee]

As a mental health champion Smiffy do you not think the (perhaps modern) tendency to ascribe 'some sort of mental illness' to many people who commit rather terrible crimes (there must be something wrong with them!) somewhat diminishes the plight of people with genuine mental illness who don't manifest it through said terrible crimes?

Furthermore, is 'tolerance' of paedophilia (for example) simply the logical conclusion of a permissive society? In a world where everyone has the right to identify however the fuck they want does the legal proscription against certain acts lose its weight? Not long ago all sorts of now commonly accepted practises were illegal (and a good many were legal which have gone the other way)?

I do tend to agree that the issue of 'attraction to children' is something society would be better served addressing in a less hysterical fashion. Hasn't some police chief said as much in that they don't want to prosecute low level internet viewing offenders because there are simply too many of them? Outrage obviously ensued.

[Smiffy]

One thing I will say though is that you seem to be assuming people want help, or even know they need help. I very much doubt the likes of Brady would have visited his GP if he thought he could put an end to his thirst for murder.

I imagine there is a group who are aware it is wrong and want help whilst there is a group who do so under the radar, ie, those who don't commit do so physically but are one of the 400+ a month busted by the police for indecent images.

It's not an easy discussion to have with anyone but then in order to help you have to understand their mindset. I'm assuming because I don't know what goes through there minds but then I'd hazard a wild stab in the dark that neither do they. There is no one size fits all to these sort of people. It could be a professional, it could be a down and out, it could be a woman, no one really fits into a specified criteria.

[Smiffy]

As a mental health champion Smiffy do you not think the (perhaps modern) tendency to ascribe 'some sort of mental illness' to many people who commit rather terrible crimes (there must be something wrong with them!) somewhat diminishes the plight of people with genuine mental illness who don't manifest it through said terrible crimes?

Furthermore, is 'tolerance' of paedophilia (for example) simply the logical conclusion of a permissive society? In a world where everyone has the right to identify however the fuck they want does the legal proscription against certain acts lose its weight? Not long ago all sorts of now commonly accepted practises were illegal (and a good many were legal which have gone the other way)?

I do tend to agree that the issue of 'attraction to children' is something society would be better served addressing in a less hysterical fashion. Hasn't some police chief said as much in that they don't want to prosecute low level internet viewing offenders because there are simply too many of them? Outrage obviously ensued.

No I do not believe that because who are we to diminish any legitimate mental illness? No one mental illness is any worse than the other if they are directly causing the person suffering it from living a good quality life and effecting the lives of others.

I wouldn't say it's tolerance either, I would say it's about progressing as a society, being accepting that we're all different and some people face different challenges to those who have a healther mindset and better coping skills.

It's not even being a mental champion either. I believe I have a different outlook because I have experienced such things, the same reason why someone like DS is much more understanding than say Giggles (sorry friend). Aids originated from Africa and it was all the black slaves fault. Or at least that's what we were once told, wasn't it?

It's about progression, educating and assisting those who need it. Not every person can be helped, not every action stopped but at least have some sort of support network in place or a wider acceptence that it is a mental illness or whatever.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Smiffy, I think mental hospitals are a good idea because they offer some kind of secure environment for the patient and also protect the public at large. That's not a terribly controversial opinion and I don't know what it's got to do with my upbringing or what I may or may not have experienced in my life (by the way, strange to pos rep me for the exact same post last week and then bleat about it this week).

[SvN]

If someone goes to a therapist, doctor, whoever and says "I feel a massive urge to _______, please help me" where the blank can be any of the horrific crimes discussed in this thread, then they are quite rightly locked up. Yes, they should be given help when they're incarcerated. But it's not like mental health is an exact science. There isn't a pill you can take to cure you. So the priority is making sure you don't pose a risk to the public - and you can only really do that by removing the person from society.

I think you're combining two issues here where they don't need to be. Yes, the stigma around mental health in this country is crap. I would like it to change. But I don't see how that ties in with locking up dangerous people.

[Lewis]

One thing I will say though is that you seem to be assuming people want help, or even know they need help. I very much doubt the likes of Brady would have visited his GP if he thought he could put an end to his thirst for murder.

He needed an internet forum.

[Smiffy]

Smiffy, I think mental hospitals are a good idea because they offer some kind of secure environment for the patient and also protect the public at large. That's not a terribly controversial opinion and I don't know what it's got to do with my upbringing or what I may or may not have experienced in my life (by the way, strange to pos rep me for the exact same post last week and then bleat about it this week).

I repped because you did the right thing and I used you as an example in this thread because your default response was to lock them up. I wouldn't take it too personally, it's me. I don't express myself as well as I meant to.

Mental hospitals are most certainly a good idea but to suggest they offer a secure environment is bullshit. In fact they do more harm than good unless the patient is engaging and if you had worked in as many as I have and seen how a huge number of staff go about their work then you'd seriously think about ripping up the rule book.

This is why I get in so much bother in almost every care job. It's full of abuse, neglect and nothing than outright bullies who are only in the position because for some fucked up reason it's a simple vocation to take up initially. It doesn't even matter what sort of care sector it is, the same shitty people that are supposed to be assisting those unable to do so with their lives are widespread.

You've seen the documentaries on such people but even though much of it isn't like that, there's a lot of....how would you say it, emotional blackmail type stuff. Let's face it, if you're being called all sorts every single day of the week, your family disrespected, you're being told such and such is going to rape your children, you know what care they drive etc etc, are you really going to 100% help that person? It's hard to get across what I mean in that respect unless you've worked in some of these places.

Hard to find the words Jimmy but don't take it personally. You were just an example.

[Smiffy]

If someone goes to a therapist, doctor, whoever and says "I feel a massive urge to _______, please help me" where the blank can be any of the horrific crimes discussed in this thread, then they are quite rightly locked up. Yes, they should be given help when they're incarcerated. But it's not like mental health is an exact science. There isn't a pill you can take to cure you. So the priority is making sure you don't pose a risk to the public - and you can only really do that by removing the person from society.

I think you're combining two issues here where they don't need to be. Yes, the stigma around mental health in this country is crap. I would like it to change. But I don't see how that ties in with locking up dangerous people.

I would say you're confusing me. If they pose a serious risk then of course they should be locked up as I have stated already. I'm talking about those who aren't a significant risk 'yet'.

Is a paedophile with pictures on his computer more dangerous than someone like Clarke Carlisle when he threw himself in front of a truck? Who decides these things. It's not something you can compare to anything and that is why it needs a proper discussion. And with someone with more brain cells than me too because I'm just putting it out there. You get into the realm of comparing things over and over which helps nobody.

I have no genuine ideas or solutions off the top of my head.

[Shindig]

There was that autistic kid a couple of weeks back who thought blowing up a tube train was a good prank.

[nsd]

Read quite an interesting article earlier about psychopathy in children: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

The general consensus being that it may be possible to 're-wire' a child's brain somewhat, if the signs are caught early enough, and still a decent chance of it right up into the teenage years.

[Lewis]

Between that sort of thing and Jon Ronson painting everybody with a bit of drive as the next Yorkshire Ripper, it almost risks being trivialised at the moment.

[Giggles]

Didn't some young one in America microwave her hamster recently? She'll have 5 murders on her hands before she hits 20.

[niko_cee]

Where does the demarcation line lie with regards to animals that it makes you evil to be cruel to? Does it have to be warm blooded? A vertebrate? Or is even magnified insect BBQ a sure sign?

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Read quite an interesting article earlier about psychopathy in children: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

The general consensus being that it may be possible to 're-wire' a child's brain somewhat, if the signs are caught early enough, and still a decent chance of it right up into the teenage years.

The upbringing can drastically affect how the child turns out too.

This is a good documentary-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2aorOAY8o8


Neuroscientist James Fallon finding out he's got a psychopathic mind- https://youtu.be/M2aorOAY8o8?t=2071

[randomlegend]

That video's got me watching serial killer interviews on youtube again now, this'll be a long night.

[Lewis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDmS2O2srYo

The most criminally(!) under-watched video on YouTube.