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!

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.

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.