This past week I finished a book which is the title of my blog post, Inside the Minds of serial Killers: Why They Kill. I found that this book did not attempt to define the causes of a serial killers development as did Athens, but it took more of a psychological approach. The DSM-IV was references several times, which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This manual list the symptoms that must appear for a person to be diagnosed with any particular psychological disorder.
It was interesting that there was scanning done on the prefrontal lobe of some violent criminals and they found a correlation with some evidence in the prefrontal lobe. I am not sure how accurate this study was, but it was an interesting read none the less.
This book listed the reasons that serial killers kill under topics as chapters, such as: lust, Omnipotence, Intellectual Exercise, Glory, Delusions, Rage, and Profit. There were some chapters that I will not include in this 'review' because they did not seem to be very significant to my study. (such as Living with the dead, No particular Purpose, Blood and Bodies, and Matches made in Hell.)
Chapter 1
Jack the ripper was mentioned in this chapter, and it was said that although he is thought he was thought to be the very first serial killer there are many times throughout history that proves that to be wrong. His murders were covered more in the newspapers of that time. This chapter also introduced the 'lust' for murder that some killers have. The term 'thrill killer' was also introduced.
Chapter 2: Lust
This chapter described how some serial killers kill for the simply lust for killing. They find excitation in causing physical harm to others, by torture or simple killing. Fantasies and arousal further escalate their violent killings and secure their lust for killing. One example of a serial killer who killed for lust, and sexual arousal was deemed the 'Beauty Queen Killer'. He was noted as an attractive male in his thirties who would lure pretty young women to his car or home and then proceed to kill them and use their torture for sexual arousement.
quote: " fantasies are instrumental in how we choose to behave, view ourselves in our world, test possibilities, and sooth ourselves when necessary" p.14
Chapter 3: Omnipotence
This chapter begins with talking about the beltway snipers. Serial killers such as these believe they are god-like and are sent to earth to complete a task. Sometimes this task is to kill a certain type of people or even sometimes a certain race of people. These types of serial killers are sometimes said to have NPD, narcissistic personality disorder. This chapter mentions that these killers simply want outright control.
Chapter 4: Intellectual Exercises
Some serial killers want to prove that they can get away with murder, as some people say these killers want to commit 'the perfect murder'.
Chapter 5: Glory
This chapter was in some aspects the most fascinating to me. Some killers only want the glory of being known as a famous murderer. This chapter mentions that sometimes serial killers who kill for glory will make false confessions, claiming they killed a larger number of people than they actually did. It is fascinating and quite horrifying to me that someone would want to be known for causing pain and torturing people to their death. But these individual do. The Zodiac killer is mentioned in this chapter. They mentioned how he communicated with symbols, and how he was never caught. He found glory in his ability to escape the police, and get away with so many murders.
Chapter 6: Delusions
Interestingly this chapter investigates how many serial killers are admitted to a psychiatric ward before they are officially accused and tried for their actions, and murders.
Chapter 7: Rage
Some killers kill to extinguish or rather express their rage. Page 67 in this chapter talks about how they find comfort in their anger. These individuals find no other way to express their anger and rage and somehow conclude that murder and mutilation is the way to finally express it. Although one murder never seems to be enough for these killers, they seem to recycle their anger and continue to kill to try and deal with their rage.
Chapter 8: Profit
This seems like an obvious motivation for murder. Some murders are committed to collect insurance sums after the person dies.
The next chapter I read of Chapter 12: Early Aspirations
This chapter was interesting because it told the story of some children murders. Sometimes with the descriptions of how the children were raised it was easy to see how some children could develop into being violent through some of Athen's theories.
The last chapter I skimmed through. They did not seem very important to answering exactly what I am looking for. They mention that some people are very close to serial killers and would never have suspected them for the murders that they committed.
I found that this book differed drastically from the book by Rhodes. I think both are very important to consider, but take very different approaches to answering why serial killers kill. I feel that in my paper I will definitely discuss the social vs. psychological aspects that could determine why serial killers kill.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Final post on 'Why They Kill'
I have finally completed the book, "Why They Kill". I have to say that I have a completely new look on violent criminals, and why they participate in violent activities. I now understand more than ever, that what may happen to someone during early years in their life can determine part of their character.
One section in the book that caught my attention was the 'Dramatic Self Change' section reading. This explains that some people undergo traumatic life experiences that make them change their views and outlooks on certain aspect of life and how they want to live their life. This section says that their phantom community no longer supports them. Their phantom community then has to change to support their new way of thinking. This idea is still strange to me, I guess because you don't think of the inner dialogue you have with your self as a 'phantom community'. Maybe also because to me it sounds like the phantom community changes when you realize you want to be a different person, it seems like someone just changes their own mind, and doesn't confer with a community that doesn't really exist. Again, of course Athens and Rhodes are experts in this field, and who am I to think their ideas are strange, but I still have a hard time grasping the idea. I feel like more than anything Athens wanted to label, this inner voice as something else, to make it easier to talk about.
Examples of Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther are given in this section. Particularly Martin Luther had this drastic change in Phantom Community when he experienced a thunder storm and decided to change his profession to that of a monk.
The next section was very interesting to me. I had never given much thought to how the military could train normal people to become violent. This also helped me understand why statistically a large majority of serial killers/ mass murders were in the military. This section stated that unauthorized violence domestically is criminal violence. Rhodes wanted to further investigate how military organizations constrain organized violence.
This section claims that basic training breaks the person's previous phantom communities, and recreates the phantom community that the military wants them to have. Basic training acts as a dramatic self change for new recruits.
There was also an interesting study/story in which soldier were noted to not shooting their guns even when instructed to do so in battle. Some soldiers stated that when someone was watching they were more likely to shoot than when they were alone, or sequestered in battle. This shows that although the military may influence some to become more violent, it doesn't work for all. Rhodes thinks it doesn't always work because not killing and not being violent is seen as bad in our society. We are raised not to be violent people, so those people who were raised not to be violent and then the military trains them to be violent, don't fully accept what they are taught. However, this section claims that people who were brutalized when younger have a higher propensity to engage and further engage in violent acts during and after their military experience.
Also interesting, is that some soldiers listed the fear of killing and the fear of failure to be more than the fear of being killed.
The stories about Vietnam were purely appalling. What some of these men were asked to do, and what some of them did willingly...is something you only imagine happening in a fiction book. I appreciate the fact that these men were put through situation that were horrendous, and this influenced them to act in the way they did, I still can't believe that some of our military men did these things. And they live among us now! It is so sad that many of these men claimed they died in Vietnam. The mental and psychological damage that they went through is unimaginable to me. But the fact that our government subjected them to this and encouraged them to act in such outrageous violent ways, is atrocious. ( I would like to note that I am not anti-American government. Some of you might feel the same way after reading this part of the book. I love my country, but that doesn't mean that I think everything is perfect.)
This book concludes with a section on strategies and prevention control. I think Athens thoughts on how to solve some of these problems are very insightful. He says that you can't always control what happens in families, but you can control what happens in the schools, and that they are the best way to reach out and try to stop violent criminals before they develop.
One point that he makes in which I understand, but disagree(who am I to disagree with an expert right!?) with is that Christianity encourages child rearing brutalization. While I understand some of the extremes that he mentions, I do not believe spanking a child will make them a violent criminal. I was spanked as a child, and I am definitely not a violent criminal...flight would happen for me WAY before fight. My parents were spanked and even hit with belts, as were many people in my age group. I believe there is an extreme that he is speaking of, but he seems to be generalizing the whole idea and blaming Christians for it. I know people who aren't Christian who spank their kids, or hit them as punishment. Again I will not that I think there is a different between spanking, and beating a child. Beating a child for punishment is brutalization, and I don't understand how it couldn't be. Some of the things that he described as how children were punished is awful.
I also do not understand how some countries have more severe penalties for crimes and their crime rates be lower. I do not have statistics for this, but just a question of how Athens would approach answering this. He says that America has the highest crime rate because we have the most violentization of any other country.
He says there is also higher homicide rates at homes were guns are at. This is obviously true, and shouldn't be such a revelation. Vermont citizens do not have to have a permit to carry a gun, but they boast one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. This is also confusing to me. I am sure there are many other factors that play into not only the statistic, but why this is so. I wish I could have an explanation for that as well.
Overall I have to say that I learned much more than I thought I would from this book. I also thoroughly enjoyed reading it, minus the gory and gross stories. I respect Athens and Rhodes, their work, and their dedication to finding a way to stop the progress of increasing violent criminals being raised and released in our society.
One section in the book that caught my attention was the 'Dramatic Self Change' section reading. This explains that some people undergo traumatic life experiences that make them change their views and outlooks on certain aspect of life and how they want to live their life. This section says that their phantom community no longer supports them. Their phantom community then has to change to support their new way of thinking. This idea is still strange to me, I guess because you don't think of the inner dialogue you have with your self as a 'phantom community'. Maybe also because to me it sounds like the phantom community changes when you realize you want to be a different person, it seems like someone just changes their own mind, and doesn't confer with a community that doesn't really exist. Again, of course Athens and Rhodes are experts in this field, and who am I to think their ideas are strange, but I still have a hard time grasping the idea. I feel like more than anything Athens wanted to label, this inner voice as something else, to make it easier to talk about.
Examples of Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther are given in this section. Particularly Martin Luther had this drastic change in Phantom Community when he experienced a thunder storm and decided to change his profession to that of a monk.
The next section was very interesting to me. I had never given much thought to how the military could train normal people to become violent. This also helped me understand why statistically a large majority of serial killers/ mass murders were in the military. This section stated that unauthorized violence domestically is criminal violence. Rhodes wanted to further investigate how military organizations constrain organized violence.
This section claims that basic training breaks the person's previous phantom communities, and recreates the phantom community that the military wants them to have. Basic training acts as a dramatic self change for new recruits.
There was also an interesting study/story in which soldier were noted to not shooting their guns even when instructed to do so in battle. Some soldiers stated that when someone was watching they were more likely to shoot than when they were alone, or sequestered in battle. This shows that although the military may influence some to become more violent, it doesn't work for all. Rhodes thinks it doesn't always work because not killing and not being violent is seen as bad in our society. We are raised not to be violent people, so those people who were raised not to be violent and then the military trains them to be violent, don't fully accept what they are taught. However, this section claims that people who were brutalized when younger have a higher propensity to engage and further engage in violent acts during and after their military experience.
Also interesting, is that some soldiers listed the fear of killing and the fear of failure to be more than the fear of being killed.
The stories about Vietnam were purely appalling. What some of these men were asked to do, and what some of them did willingly...is something you only imagine happening in a fiction book. I appreciate the fact that these men were put through situation that were horrendous, and this influenced them to act in the way they did, I still can't believe that some of our military men did these things. And they live among us now! It is so sad that many of these men claimed they died in Vietnam. The mental and psychological damage that they went through is unimaginable to me. But the fact that our government subjected them to this and encouraged them to act in such outrageous violent ways, is atrocious. ( I would like to note that I am not anti-American government. Some of you might feel the same way after reading this part of the book. I love my country, but that doesn't mean that I think everything is perfect.)
This book concludes with a section on strategies and prevention control. I think Athens thoughts on how to solve some of these problems are very insightful. He says that you can't always control what happens in families, but you can control what happens in the schools, and that they are the best way to reach out and try to stop violent criminals before they develop.
One point that he makes in which I understand, but disagree(who am I to disagree with an expert right!?) with is that Christianity encourages child rearing brutalization. While I understand some of the extremes that he mentions, I do not believe spanking a child will make them a violent criminal. I was spanked as a child, and I am definitely not a violent criminal...flight would happen for me WAY before fight. My parents were spanked and even hit with belts, as were many people in my age group. I believe there is an extreme that he is speaking of, but he seems to be generalizing the whole idea and blaming Christians for it. I know people who aren't Christian who spank their kids, or hit them as punishment. Again I will not that I think there is a different between spanking, and beating a child. Beating a child for punishment is brutalization, and I don't understand how it couldn't be. Some of the things that he described as how children were punished is awful.
I also do not understand how some countries have more severe penalties for crimes and their crime rates be lower. I do not have statistics for this, but just a question of how Athens would approach answering this. He says that America has the highest crime rate because we have the most violentization of any other country.
He says there is also higher homicide rates at homes were guns are at. This is obviously true, and shouldn't be such a revelation. Vermont citizens do not have to have a permit to carry a gun, but they boast one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. This is also confusing to me. I am sure there are many other factors that play into not only the statistic, but why this is so. I wish I could have an explanation for that as well.
Overall I have to say that I learned much more than I thought I would from this book. I also thoroughly enjoyed reading it, minus the gory and gross stories. I respect Athens and Rhodes, their work, and their dedication to finding a way to stop the progress of increasing violent criminals being raised and released in our society.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
What I Want my Words to do to You
Part of my class this week was to watch a documentary. The title of this film was 'What I Want My Word to do to You'. This film was about women behind bars and how a writing work-shop was helping them deal with the consequences of their actions. They had exercises such as writing a letter to a loved one, describing a scar on their body, or writing about their violent crime. Some of these women had committed crimes that landed them in prison for the rest of their life. It was amazing to hear that these women understood what their actions had done, not only to them but to the families of their victims. One woman was having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that she killed, stabbed a man that did nothing to her. She confessed that she was actually taking her anger out for other people, her mom and uncle who had abused her.
Also important to note, that when many of these women talked about their childhood they mentioned the lack of motherly figure in their life. One women's actions escalated simply because she wanted attention from her mother. Her actions started out with simply asking her mother to stay by her side when she had the chicken pocks. Her later actions took innocent peoples lives. There was one discussion during the film in which the women discuss how deprivation from a loving mother could have led them to participate in some of the acts that they did.
While many of these women believed there were some outside influences on their actions, many of them took full responsibility for their actions. One woman said she knew what she was doing was wrong, but she just did it anyway. She was an accomplice in her husband's murder.
Many of these women also did not understand why people pitied them. They thought they did not deserve any pity, for the horrible things they had done. They also came to the conclusion that people can change while in prison. Some of the women wanted to give back to the community so they helped train seeing-eye dogs. I don't want to sound like I feel pity for these women because they are having to deal with the consequences of their actions. But I do think that some of these women understand what they have done, and that nothing they do in their life will take it back or make it okay. Unlike the monsters we picture in prisons, these women are openly sorry for their actions, and realize that they will spend the rest of their lives dealing with the consequences of their actions.
One woman claimed that her crime was committed with her heart instead of her head. She was raped by her best male friend. When she asked him for an apology, he laughed at her. She killed him. I do not however think she killed with her heart, I think she killed out of rage. She couldn't believe that her best friend would treat her that way, and she didn't want him to do that to anyone else. Lack of normal rationality is what she acted with. I personally don't believe you can act with your heart, and kill someone.
I think it is very important that they think they can't trust the police. These women claimed that they don't trust the police and when they get into a bind, they don't even think about calling the police. Their friend might even think they are snitches if they turn to the police. These women couldn't even trust their families, or some of the people they called friends. Why trust the police?
This film was eye opening and taught me that while some people may commit horrendous crimes, sometimes they do realize the consequences of their actions.
Also this week I have read more of the book 'Why They Kill', but I now realize I was quite ambitious with my schedule. I still have roughly a fourth of the book left. I might have to reconsider my time allotment for this book, it is very informative and I want to take my time soaking in all the knowledge. When I feel rushed I tend to skim some pages, and this book deserves more than a skim!!
Cheryl Crane was a young girl that was sexually abused. She was repeatedly raped by her mother's lover. She definitely experiences violentization. Her story ended with her stabbing another one of her mother's lovers to defend her mother. (Defending her intimate other, as the book states.)
Alex Kelly was another example listed in the book. When young his father brutalized him. He also saw his father brutalize his brother and his mother. He ended raping many young women in his life time.
Perry Smith was another man that when young was brutalized by a nun. She embarrassed him because he had a problem wetting the bed. Later he ended up killing a family just to find money. The book described him as showing very little remorse for his actions.
One of the stories that I thought was VERY interesting was Mike Tyson. When young he was brutalized by neighborhood kids and his older brother. Through his life violent events escalated until he decided to turn to boxing. In June of 1999 he bit Evander Holyfield's ear. I thought his case represented 'interpretation of the situation' well. He thought that Holyfield was winning by not following the rules.( head butting him, and the ref. not calling it) Tyson thought that he shouldn't have to follow the rules either. We all know the rest of the story, he bit part of his ear off. This is an example where his interpretation of the event caused him to turn to violence, when most people wouldn't.
Lee Harvey Oswald was also another interesting story. The violence in his life started extremely young! At two years old his baby sitter whipped him with a belt. What two year old deserves that? At a young age he also saw his mother go into rages and fights with his step-father over money. In his teens he threatened his sister-in-law with a knife. He was also known for hitting/slapping his mother in the face. It is important for Athens theory that Oswald lost two fights. But instead of completely giving up, he decided to get reinforcement.... a gun. He also tried to heighten his crimes by planning a robbery. He also hit, threatened and raped his own wife. As far as his childhood and past, Rhodes claims that he definitely fits all the descriptions to have become a violent criminal. He also notes that this does not definitely prove that he was the killer in the assassination.
An important quote from the book " no evidence that mental illness causes violent crime".
The book also pointed out the McNaughten rule, concerning legal distinction. Is the criminal insane or are they responsible for their actions. (has to do with motives.) Athens says that all violent criminals have reasons for their actions. Those reasons are reasonable to them, but maybe not to a normal person. An example would be mocking or rejection. A normal person wouldn't turn to violence to handle mocking or rejection, but someone who has undergone violentization might.
The next chapter in the book discusses some of the history of violence. I thought it was interesting that centuries ago there was much more crime than there is now. And America has the highest violent crime rate!!
Another important point made in this book, violentization has NOTHING to do with race or with poverty.
I am now reading the section that is talking about communities and dominance.
I feel that although I did not meet my goal of finishing the book I have learned more than I would have if I had rushed through the book. Updates on how the book ends will be soon!
Also important to note, that when many of these women talked about their childhood they mentioned the lack of motherly figure in their life. One women's actions escalated simply because she wanted attention from her mother. Her actions started out with simply asking her mother to stay by her side when she had the chicken pocks. Her later actions took innocent peoples lives. There was one discussion during the film in which the women discuss how deprivation from a loving mother could have led them to participate in some of the acts that they did.
While many of these women believed there were some outside influences on their actions, many of them took full responsibility for their actions. One woman said she knew what she was doing was wrong, but she just did it anyway. She was an accomplice in her husband's murder.
Many of these women also did not understand why people pitied them. They thought they did not deserve any pity, for the horrible things they had done. They also came to the conclusion that people can change while in prison. Some of the women wanted to give back to the community so they helped train seeing-eye dogs. I don't want to sound like I feel pity for these women because they are having to deal with the consequences of their actions. But I do think that some of these women understand what they have done, and that nothing they do in their life will take it back or make it okay. Unlike the monsters we picture in prisons, these women are openly sorry for their actions, and realize that they will spend the rest of their lives dealing with the consequences of their actions.
One woman claimed that her crime was committed with her heart instead of her head. She was raped by her best male friend. When she asked him for an apology, he laughed at her. She killed him. I do not however think she killed with her heart, I think she killed out of rage. She couldn't believe that her best friend would treat her that way, and she didn't want him to do that to anyone else. Lack of normal rationality is what she acted with. I personally don't believe you can act with your heart, and kill someone.
I think it is very important that they think they can't trust the police. These women claimed that they don't trust the police and when they get into a bind, they don't even think about calling the police. Their friend might even think they are snitches if they turn to the police. These women couldn't even trust their families, or some of the people they called friends. Why trust the police?
This film was eye opening and taught me that while some people may commit horrendous crimes, sometimes they do realize the consequences of their actions.
Also this week I have read more of the book 'Why They Kill', but I now realize I was quite ambitious with my schedule. I still have roughly a fourth of the book left. I might have to reconsider my time allotment for this book, it is very informative and I want to take my time soaking in all the knowledge. When I feel rushed I tend to skim some pages, and this book deserves more than a skim!!
Cheryl Crane was a young girl that was sexually abused. She was repeatedly raped by her mother's lover. She definitely experiences violentization. Her story ended with her stabbing another one of her mother's lovers to defend her mother. (Defending her intimate other, as the book states.)
Alex Kelly was another example listed in the book. When young his father brutalized him. He also saw his father brutalize his brother and his mother. He ended raping many young women in his life time.
Perry Smith was another man that when young was brutalized by a nun. She embarrassed him because he had a problem wetting the bed. Later he ended up killing a family just to find money. The book described him as showing very little remorse for his actions.
One of the stories that I thought was VERY interesting was Mike Tyson. When young he was brutalized by neighborhood kids and his older brother. Through his life violent events escalated until he decided to turn to boxing. In June of 1999 he bit Evander Holyfield's ear. I thought his case represented 'interpretation of the situation' well. He thought that Holyfield was winning by not following the rules.( head butting him, and the ref. not calling it) Tyson thought that he shouldn't have to follow the rules either. We all know the rest of the story, he bit part of his ear off. This is an example where his interpretation of the event caused him to turn to violence, when most people wouldn't.
Lee Harvey Oswald was also another interesting story. The violence in his life started extremely young! At two years old his baby sitter whipped him with a belt. What two year old deserves that? At a young age he also saw his mother go into rages and fights with his step-father over money. In his teens he threatened his sister-in-law with a knife. He was also known for hitting/slapping his mother in the face. It is important for Athens theory that Oswald lost two fights. But instead of completely giving up, he decided to get reinforcement.... a gun. He also tried to heighten his crimes by planning a robbery. He also hit, threatened and raped his own wife. As far as his childhood and past, Rhodes claims that he definitely fits all the descriptions to have become a violent criminal. He also notes that this does not definitely prove that he was the killer in the assassination.
An important quote from the book " no evidence that mental illness causes violent crime".
The book also pointed out the McNaughten rule, concerning legal distinction. Is the criminal insane or are they responsible for their actions. (has to do with motives.) Athens says that all violent criminals have reasons for their actions. Those reasons are reasonable to them, but maybe not to a normal person. An example would be mocking or rejection. A normal person wouldn't turn to violence to handle mocking or rejection, but someone who has undergone violentization might.
The next chapter in the book discusses some of the history of violence. I thought it was interesting that centuries ago there was much more crime than there is now. And America has the highest violent crime rate!!
Another important point made in this book, violentization has NOTHING to do with race or with poverty.
I am now reading the section that is talking about communities and dominance.
I feel that although I did not meet my goal of finishing the book I have learned more than I would have if I had rushed through the book. Updates on how the book ends will be soon!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Violent Criminals
I have continued reading 'Why they Kill' by Richard Rhodes, and I have found many very interesting things. I am about halfway through the book.
It is mentioned in the book that many sociologist have speculated or stated that many acts by criminals are spontaneous, they don't think about what they are about to do or make plans to act in violent ways. Athens and Rhodes suggest just the opposite of this. They think that a criminal may not extensively plan, but that they do think about and finally decide to participate in violent crimes. This is completely against previous notions that a violent criminals actions are mainly impulsive. Athens collected interviews from violent criminals in which they reflect upon their crimes and tell about their thought process. And many of them talked as if they did think through their actions before partaking in the violent crimes.
The book then goes into detail about the four different interpretations that criminals may have. They explain how the criminal interprets that situation and reacts. Athens places these criminals in four different categories. (Physically defensive frustrative, interpretation malefic, and Frustrative malefic.)
Something that seemed kind of confusing to me was the book talking about phantom communities. From what I understand this is something that goes on in the criminals mind, like a conversation with himself?? I will have to go back and read that section again in order to fully understand what Rhodes is trying point out.
I also thought it was interesting that the type of self image that the offenders held correlated with the interpretations of the events in which they committed violent acts. If they thought of themselves as tough then they would not 'put up with' someone calling them names and would act violently toward the person that offended them.
I think a VERY important statement was made in this book. People who commit violent crimes feel they have nothing to loose AND something to gain. For example a criminal might be someone who steals a DVD, because they have nothing to loose, no money etc. But a violent criminal is someone that for instance might have been beaten by their father. They have nothing to loose by reacting back and killing him, and they have something to gain because that father won't abuse them anymore. I think this distinction is very important.
I also found it amazing that most if not all of the criminals that Athens interviewed were brutalized as children or at a young age. I think this proves the point that the social life in which a child is raised is extremely important. Ignorant and heartless people that beat, specifically I mean abuse their children and cause a lot of physical harm, could be turning them into future violent criminals that are a danger to society. Rhodes describes some of the cases that Athens studied and how the criminals turned violent to get away from other violence in their life. The book describes how these criminals are coached in violent ways, raised in violent ways, and taught that violence is the way to deal with things in life. These criminals eventually reach a breaking point and resort to violence to get away from abuse or other violent things in their life. It is the combination of many variables that lead to a violent criminal, but each of these variables is still very important. The combination of all of these factors is called by Athens, Violitization.
I am about half-way through the book, which is on time according to my schedule, but there is so much information in this book that seems very important. I think much reflection on what I have read will prove helpful, especially with the phantom communities idea.
It is mentioned in the book that many sociologist have speculated or stated that many acts by criminals are spontaneous, they don't think about what they are about to do or make plans to act in violent ways. Athens and Rhodes suggest just the opposite of this. They think that a criminal may not extensively plan, but that they do think about and finally decide to participate in violent crimes. This is completely against previous notions that a violent criminals actions are mainly impulsive. Athens collected interviews from violent criminals in which they reflect upon their crimes and tell about their thought process. And many of them talked as if they did think through their actions before partaking in the violent crimes.
The book then goes into detail about the four different interpretations that criminals may have. They explain how the criminal interprets that situation and reacts. Athens places these criminals in four different categories. (Physically defensive frustrative, interpretation malefic, and Frustrative malefic.)
Something that seemed kind of confusing to me was the book talking about phantom communities. From what I understand this is something that goes on in the criminals mind, like a conversation with himself?? I will have to go back and read that section again in order to fully understand what Rhodes is trying point out.
I also thought it was interesting that the type of self image that the offenders held correlated with the interpretations of the events in which they committed violent acts. If they thought of themselves as tough then they would not 'put up with' someone calling them names and would act violently toward the person that offended them.
I think a VERY important statement was made in this book. People who commit violent crimes feel they have nothing to loose AND something to gain. For example a criminal might be someone who steals a DVD, because they have nothing to loose, no money etc. But a violent criminal is someone that for instance might have been beaten by their father. They have nothing to loose by reacting back and killing him, and they have something to gain because that father won't abuse them anymore. I think this distinction is very important.
I also found it amazing that most if not all of the criminals that Athens interviewed were brutalized as children or at a young age. I think this proves the point that the social life in which a child is raised is extremely important. Ignorant and heartless people that beat, specifically I mean abuse their children and cause a lot of physical harm, could be turning them into future violent criminals that are a danger to society. Rhodes describes some of the cases that Athens studied and how the criminals turned violent to get away from other violence in their life. The book describes how these criminals are coached in violent ways, raised in violent ways, and taught that violence is the way to deal with things in life. These criminals eventually reach a breaking point and resort to violence to get away from abuse or other violent things in their life. It is the combination of many variables that lead to a violent criminal, but each of these variables is still very important. The combination of all of these factors is called by Athens, Violitization.
I am about half-way through the book, which is on time according to my schedule, but there is so much information in this book that seems very important. I think much reflection on what I have read will prove helpful, especially with the phantom communities idea.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Why They Kill
My goal in life has always been to be a behind the scenes analyst of chemical evidence found at crime scenes. aka a Forensic Scientist specifically Forensic Chemist. In this career endeavor I have found myself looking at aspects of crime that can not be explored by Chemistry. I started off by taking a class called Criminal and Deviant Behavior. This was extremely interesting, so I decided with only 4 required hours in my last semester of senior year, to delve farther into the criminal mind.
With the help of Dr. Ginocchio at Wofford College, I developed an independent study class called Criminal Mind. I hope that I will learn why some people commit heinous crimes such as serial killers, and mass murders.
My first week consisted of contacting a reference librarian and using all the Libraries reference books to find preliminary information. I have read a few journal articles, but mainly got statistical and profiling type information on such killers.
I just started reading the book 'Why They Kill' by Richard Rhodes. I have read the first four chapters and am amazed by how experiences at such a young age really can shape people.
I also found it very interesting that Athens, a person who is a criminologist that Rhodes is writing about, believes that you can't really study criminology until you have experienced it. Experienced crime, for instance being abused or seeing someone else actually commit crimes. Not having any expertise who am I to say what I think... but here goes. I think I agree with him. How can you make generalization about people who commit these crimes and have so many statistics but never actually know who you are studying? For instance how can you talk about depression with conviction without experiencing it yourself OR experiencing the presence of someone who was depressed? Maybe you can speak about things you have not experienced, but it seems lacking to me. Just like I can talk passionately about watching someone with cancer die slowly, because I have seen it first hand... but I don't have the experience to talk passionately about rape. I do not know anyone personally with that experience and it has not happened to me.
So maybe the question is, why am I talking about Serial Killers and mass murders? I simply want to learn something about the criminals that I may be investigating Chemically one day. I have no intention on speaking of them professionally or as an expert, but I believe gaining knowledge can never be harmful.
Now that I am off my pedestal, I hope that anyone who reads this blog will possibly learn something, or even pick up an interesting book instead of watching a potential pointless TV show.
With the help of Dr. Ginocchio at Wofford College, I developed an independent study class called Criminal Mind. I hope that I will learn why some people commit heinous crimes such as serial killers, and mass murders.
My first week consisted of contacting a reference librarian and using all the Libraries reference books to find preliminary information. I have read a few journal articles, but mainly got statistical and profiling type information on such killers.
I just started reading the book 'Why They Kill' by Richard Rhodes. I have read the first four chapters and am amazed by how experiences at such a young age really can shape people.
I also found it very interesting that Athens, a person who is a criminologist that Rhodes is writing about, believes that you can't really study criminology until you have experienced it. Experienced crime, for instance being abused or seeing someone else actually commit crimes. Not having any expertise who am I to say what I think... but here goes. I think I agree with him. How can you make generalization about people who commit these crimes and have so many statistics but never actually know who you are studying? For instance how can you talk about depression with conviction without experiencing it yourself OR experiencing the presence of someone who was depressed? Maybe you can speak about things you have not experienced, but it seems lacking to me. Just like I can talk passionately about watching someone with cancer die slowly, because I have seen it first hand... but I don't have the experience to talk passionately about rape. I do not know anyone personally with that experience and it has not happened to me.
So maybe the question is, why am I talking about Serial Killers and mass murders? I simply want to learn something about the criminals that I may be investigating Chemically one day. I have no intention on speaking of them professionally or as an expert, but I believe gaining knowledge can never be harmful.
Now that I am off my pedestal, I hope that anyone who reads this blog will possibly learn something, or even pick up an interesting book instead of watching a potential pointless TV show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)