[Strutz]

Mental illness and evil

Quote:

As Norway staggers under the weight and tragedy of the murder Friday of at least 76 people by Anders Behring Breivik, the analysis has already begun. The Daily Telegraph examined a father-son relationship in which neither had seen each other for the last 15 years. Bloggers volunteered that “perhaps Anders Behring Breivik is a sick man with schizophre­nia …” His attorney pronounced him “mentally ill.” An on-line psychiatrist observed, “Breivik may be given ‘diagnoses’ of borderline personality disorder or borderline psychosis, but …”

Closer to home, Allan Schoenborn meant to kill his daughter and two sons in Merritt, British Columbia, in April 2008, but psychotic delusions kept him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong, Kamloops Supreme Court Judge Robert Powers ruled last February. “I find that Mr. Schoenborn did commit the first-degree murder of each of his children as described in the indictment, but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder,” Powers wrote. “Any reasonable or rational person would know that it was wrong.”

More recently, the continuing horror unleashed by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s murderous acts in Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, left everyone searching for answers. In attempting to understand the incomprehensible, many focused on Islamic extremism; he was influenced by Muslim terrorists with whom he had been in contact via email. Others guessed that Major Hasan was a disturbed individual, perhaps suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or maybe “secondary PTSD” from listening to US soldiers’ combat stories. He was under a lot of stress. A loner. Conflicted. No one really understood him.

Overlooked in these tragedies is the possibility of a more basic theme of the human condition. Evil — the conscious perpetration of subhuman, hurtful acts that diminish not only the individual but also the human race. As history has taught us all too often, and what we continually struggle to grasp, is that mental illness and evil are not now, and never have been, mutually exclusive.

One of the darkest, most malevolent figures of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler had genocidal dreams of conquering the world. He was poorly grounded in reality, had a severe, grandiose personality disorder, was a probable methamphetamine addict and died a suicide. But none of these features of his sick personality diminish the fact — or tragic consequences — of Hitler’s profoundly evil nature one bit.

Another malignant force of the last century, Joseph Stalin helped make the Soviet Union a world military and industrial power, while at the same time destroying its agricultural system. Approximately 20 million people died in his prison camps, and another 20 million died as a result of collectivization, famine and executions. After a long period of mental decline in which he experienced delusions of persecution by doctors, Jews, and Czechs (among others), Stalin died of a cerebral hemorrhage in 1953.

Between 1975 and 1979 Cambodia’s vicious but smooth-talking dictator, Pol Pot, oversaw the deaths of 1.5 million Cambodians from malnutrition, illness or overwork, and he had another 200,000 executed as “enemies of the state.” Paranoia underlay his homicidally incompetent judgment. He was both mentally disturbed and demonstrably, profoundly evil.

Are Breivik, Schoenborn and Hasan evil? Is it possible one or more of them are both evil and mentally ill? Our criminal courts continue to reverberate with the argument of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” and in the process the possible evil of a defendant is rarely considered. And when do squeamish courtrooms stop to reflect on, and appreciate the implications of the fact that the vast majority of individuals experiencing mental difficulties similar to those afflicting the murderers who make the headlines commit neither crimes nor misdemeanors?

We can try to understand the mental and emotional difficulties of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and also those of Breivik, Schoenborn and Hasan, but we should not follow that slippery slope into forgiving or excusing members of that first group, their compatriots and their monstrously criminal, evil actions throughout history. Or overlooking that possibility in the second. We can treat mental illness. But evil must be recognized, contained, confined, deterred and — consistent with uneven, variable jurisprudence — punished as well. This is not an argument for vengeance, but for honesty in acknowledging evil. If not in our courtrooms, where?

Evil may coexist with mental illness, but it remains a separate, malignant entity. A sharper appreciation of this fact of the human condition might help simplify our efforts to better understand atrocity and violence.


David Kirkpatrick (MA, MD FRCP C), psychiatrist and psychotherapist, is based in West Vancouver and Sechelt.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Ment ... z1TzKdVffM

[andyt]

To me it doesn't really matter if somebody is mentally ill, evil, or both. I'm not about revenge and punishment for what somebody did. What I am about is protecting society. Everybody who murders should get a life sentence. There should be a high degree of certainty that they have reformed before even considering letting them out, and then only under strict parole conditions for the rest of their lives. I think that time would come for Shoenborn, but probably not for Hassan and certainly not for Breivik.

[BartSimpson]

Quote:

More recently, the continuing horror unleashed by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s murderous acts in Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, left everyone searching for answers. In attempting to understand the incomprehensible, many focused on Islamic extremism; he was influenced by Muslim terrorists with whom he had been in contact via email. Others guessed that Major Hasan was a disturbed individual, perhaps suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or maybe “secondary PTSD” from listening to US soldiers’ combat stories. He was under a lot of stress. A loner. Conflicted. No one really understood him.

Now it turns out that Hasan was not the loner he was painted as in the media.

Quote:

Another Muslim soldier has been arrested for planning a jihad attack on troops at Fort Hood in Texas. Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, shouted out "Nidal Hasan Fort Hood 2009" as he was leaving a federal courtroom Friday after admitting to his plot. He told authorities that he hoped to kill American soldiers in support of the Muslim Maj. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who went jihad in November 2009 and murdered 13 people on the base.

KSTE radio here in town is saying that the FBI is now reporting that Hasan and Abdo attended the same mosque and that they knew each other personally. Which has led to the question if there are more of these mutts operating out of the same mosque?

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

What I am about is protecting society.

I agree. But there are times when a death sentence is therefore appropriate to ensure that society is permanently safe from a particular threat. Breivik belongs in the same ranks as Ted Bundy and Dahlmer as people who are so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to live.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

What I am about is protecting society.

I agree. But there are times when a death sentence is therefore appropriate to ensure that society is permanently safe from a particular threat. Breivik belongs in the same ranks as Ted Bundy and Dahlmer as people who are so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to live.

I don't agree. We can keep them locked up.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

I don't agree. We can keep them locked up.

We can't. Bundy was imprisoned and he escaped twice and the second time he raped and savagely beat several young women killing three of them, attempted to abduct and murder a 14 year old girl, and finally abducted, raped, and murdered a 12 year old girl.

The other thing is that we cannot trust the avarices of bleeding heart liberal courts to keep killers in jail. The Lockerbie bomber gained a compassionate release from a Scottish court only to go home and be treated as a hero where he's still alive despite assurances from doctors that his cancer was immediately terminal.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

I don't agree. We can keep them locked up.

We can't. Bundy was imprisoned and he escaped twice and the second time he raped and savagely beat several young women killing three of them, attempted to abduct and murder a 14 year old girl, and finally abducted, raped, and murdered a 12 year old girl.

The other thing is that we cannot trust the avarices of bleeding heart liberal courts to keep killers in jail. The Lockerbie bomber gained a compassionate release from a Scottish court only to go home and be treated as a hero where he's still alive despite assurances from doctors that his cancer was immediately terminal.

Re first paragraph - I didn't know that. I could be talked into giving him a suspended death sentence, which would come into force if he escapes.

Re second paragraph: what are they avaricious for?

[Canadian_Mind]

BartSimpson wrote:

The other thing is that we cannot trust the avarices of bleeding heart liberal courts to keep killers in jail. The Lockerbie bomber gained a compassionate release from a Scottish court only to go home and be treated as a hero where he's still alive despite assurances from doctors that his cancer was immediately terminal.

All for the sake of diplomacy with a corrupt regime which likely will soon be overthrown. What a waste.

[martin14]

andyt wrote:

Re first paragraph - I didn't know that. I could be talked into giving him a suspended death sentence, which would come into force if he escapes.

Oh I am sure he would appreciate that, and then turn himself in even faster.


No, that would have made him even more desperate.


Better to be rid of him in the first place and avoid the BS.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

Re first paragraph - I didn't know that. I could be talked into giving him a suspended death sentence, which would come into force if he escapes.

My point is that so long as there is an 'if' with regards to these mutts then putting them down is the only safe thing to do.

andyt wrote:

Re second paragraph: what are they avaricious for?

Their avarice is in the pursuit of their Utopian ideals which are at an utter disconnect from reality. The Lockerbie bomber, in their world deserved the same kind of compassion as would someone who had been locked up for kiting checks.

Seriously, in what universe does a mass murderer deserve a compassionate release?

The simple fact that some f*ckbrained judge would let loose a cockroach like that completely voids any argument on your part that the death penalty can be replaced with life without parole.

[andyt]

I admit you make some good arguments here. Still can't get behind the death penalty tho. To me the evil, and the negatives, outweigh any positives.

[JmanRock]

I'm against the death sentence in general because sometimes an innocent person is killed. Although life in prison is probably worse, there are many cases of people being imprisoned and later set free when new evidence is found.

In rare situations like the case in Norway where the person is guilty beyond and reason of doubt, exceptions can be made.

[raydan]

Anybody who murders has a mental condition (in a very wide sense) that makes him/her unfit to live in society. I have trouble accepting that they may have a short term problem that can be cured with medication or therapy.

Like Andyt said, it's not about punishment, if he's unfit to live in society, you remove him from society.

[BartSimpson]

raydan wrote:

if he's unfit to live in society, you remove him from society.

The death penalty does that with certainty.

[Brenda]

JmanRock wrote:

I'm against the death sentence in general because sometimes an innocent person is killed. Although life in prison is probably worse, there are many cases of people being imprisoned and later set free when new evidence is found.

In rare situations like the case in Norway where the person is guilty beyond and reason of doubt, exceptions can be made.

Even today, the Memphis Three were set free because DNA evidence showed they had not done it. After 17 years.

And this is the exact reason why I am against the death penalty.