Paranoid schizophrenic?

[John Wheat]

And I don't think the Ripper is crazy, but he tells me that for 130 years, we have been so disgusted by prostitutes as a society that we let them be murdered. All the time. We aren't disgusted with johns, or prostitution as an institution, just the women who do it. And that's disgusting.

To Errata

Surely the real criminals in prostitution are not prostitutes or even the Johns but the pimps who make cash from exploiting prostitutes.

Cheers John

[John G]

Hello Errata,

Yes, in English law "insanity" is defined by the 19th C Mcnaghten Rules. Thus: "And to establish a defence on the ground of insanity; it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature or quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

In practice, this would cover instances where someone stabs a person with a knife thinking it's a banana. Or if they were under such a "defect of reason", they would be unable to understand the concept of, say, murder, or if they did, they wouldn't realize at the time of the act that murder was a crime.

Disease of the mind is a legal, not a medical, definition, and is not the same as disease of the brain. Thus committing crimes whilst sleepwalking (R v Burgess), suffering an epileptic fit (R v Sulivan) or being in a state of hyperglycaemia (R v Hennessey), would all allow for an insanity defence. However, being in a state of hypoglycaemia would not as that would be regarded as self-induced, and therefore an external cause (R v Quick).

In R v Bell, the defendant was charged with reckless driving, after driving through the gates of a holiday camp, repeatedly ignoring no entry signs. In explaining the reasons for his actions he stated: "It was like a secret society in there. I wanted to do my bit against it." He also recalled driving at vehicles, believing they contained "evil spirits", and claimed he was driven by God. Police officers said he appeared to be "deranged and incoherent".

However, despite being diagnosed with stress psychosis the Court of Appeal held that the jury were entitled to reject his insanity plea. Goff L.J. stated: "Here, the applicant was plainly in physical control of his actions. Indeed, at times, he appears to have driven with remarkable skill....his actions were indeed directed by his conscious mind." Moreover, the fact that he believed himself to be driven by God was no excuse, but simply an explanation of his actions. Thus, it did not allow for the defence of insanity because the evidence implied that he either knew what he was doing, or knew what he was doing was illegal.

Knowing you are doing something wrong means knowing your actions are unlawful, not morally wrong. Thus, assisted suicide would not allow for an insanity defence, i.e. on the basis that you believed such actions were morally justified: R v Windle

[Errata]

To Errata

Surely the real criminals in prostitution are not prostitutes or even the Johns but the pimps who make cash from exploiting prostitutes.

Cheers John

"real" criminals commit crimes. So yes prostitute is a criminal, as is her pimp, as is her john, as are those who promote it.

But the real fault is ours as a society. Firstly that we are still so hung up on the idea of the sanctity of a physical act that we still to this day punish those who engage in it without the bond of marriage or the bond of love. If I want to play baseball for money I can do that. Sex is even less moral or intellectual of an act, and that I cannot do for money. And I don't know that legalizing prostitution is the answer, but let's at least all admit we are hypocritical about it. And of course the real objection is that it all boils down to paternity, and the sad fact that the only way a man can guarantee paternity is to essentially imprison their women. And despite the fact we have tests now we still do the same thing.

And think about it this way. We hear a tale of a woman's descent into addiction and how she ends up a prostitute, and that's a common story. And we say to outselves "Of course she's a whore she's an addict". Like the only explanation to become a prostitute is because drugs took away everything else. And it also implies that drug addicts rank higher in our moral estimation than prostitutes do, despite the fact that Prostitutes are less dangerous, cost us less to rehabilitate, and have much less of a negative impact on those around them and the society they live in. But crack we forgive. The whore part we don't.

It's a whole thing with me. There like a 10 hour speech I could give. To sum up, we need to stop being morons.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

Yes, in English law "insanity" is defined by the 19th C Mcnaghten Rules. Thus: "And to establish a defence on the ground of insanity; it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature or quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

In practice, this would cover instances where someone stabs a person with a knife thinking it's a banana. Or if they were under such a "defect of reason", they would be unable to understand the concept of, say, murder, or if they did, they wouldn't realize at the time of the act that murder was a crime.

Disease of the mind is a legal, not a medical, definition, and is not the same as disease of the brain. Thus committing crimes whilst sleepwalking (R v Burgess), suffering an epileptic fit (R v Sulivan) or being in a state of hyperglycaemia (R v Hennessey), would all allow for an insanity defence. However, being in a state of hypoglycaemia would not as that would be regarded as self-induced, and therefore an external cause (R v Quick).

In R v Bell, the defendant was charged with reckless driving, after driving through the gates of a holiday camp, repeatedly ignoring no entry signs. In explaining the reasons for his actions he stated: "It was like a secret society in there. I wanted to do my bit against it." He also recalled driving at vehicles, believing they contained "evil spirits", and claimed he was driven by God. Police officers said he appeared to be "deranged and incoherent".

However, despite being diagnosed with stress psychosis the Court of Appeal held that the jury were entitled to reject his insanity plea. Goff L.J. stated: "Here, the applicant was plainly in physical control of his actions. Indeed, at times, he appears to have driven with remarkable skill....his actions were indeed directed by his conscious mind." Moreover, the fact that he believed himself to be driven by God was no excuse, but simply an explanation of his actions. Thus, it did not allow for the defence of insanity because the evidence implied that he either knew what he was doing, or knew what he was doing was illegal.

Knowing you are doing something wrong means knowing your actions are unlawful, not morally wrong. Thus, assisted suicide would not allow for an insanity defence, i.e. on the basis that you believed such actions were morally justified: R v Windle

US law is much more strict about what is insanity, especially as it applies to murder. It didn't use to be this way until Reagan was shot. John Hinckley was clearly deranged, and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Which enraged a lot of people, so the measure was changed. The summation of which is that insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Everyone over the age of two can tell the difference between right and wrong. It's true. A schizophrenic in the absolute unrecoverable depths of delusion can tell the difference between right and wrong. That's not the problem. The problem is that right and wrong is subjective. It is wrong to kill. Always. Everyone knows that. But if God tells you to kill, you have to do that. If you have to prevent a senator from unleashing thought bombs that will collapse society, and the only way to do that is to kill him, you have to kill him. If someone is attacking you, you have to kill them. The problem is these things aren't really happening. But to the person experiencing it, it's as real as the chair they are sitting on. These examples almost never meet the condition for insanity.

And the funny thing is you read enough comments on stories involving the mentally ill, you quickly come to the realization that to society as a whole, while these people clearly are insane, they also aren't at the same time. Because our laws have accidentally primed people to think this way. We understand rationality. And these people clearly are not rational. But you'll see people write things like "Only a complete lunatic would do such a thing. I can't believe they're even considering Not Guilty by insanity. He's evil and he deserves the chair". What? And don't try to call these people on their lapse in logic because they don't see it. James Holmes was vilified for not taking care of his mental illness (his care was discontinued, he did not stop treatment), called evil, vicious, bloodthirsty, decried as insane when he first arrived in court, and then pronounced perfectly sane and deserving or death, all by a very confused American public.

If ever a problem needed to be sorted, it's this one.

[Ausgirl]

To Ausgirl

I would say someone with low functioning Autism is no more likely or less likely to commit murder than someone with Asperger's Syndrome. I would comment though that it would be less likely for someone with low functioning Autism to commit a series of murders as they may not even be able to conceive of such a thing.

Cheers John

What I meant there is, there's studies and a lot of anecodotal parental statements around about autistic kids and to a lesser extent adults who commit acts of violence pretty frequently. Violent episodes don't seem all that uncommon. And it's among the lower functioning autistic kids that violence seems most frequent.

I was not implying that they're more likely to become serial killers, or plot a murder. Just that they're generally more prone to violent behaviour than higher functioning kids who perhaps can make the choice not to act that way more easily.

So yeah, I agree with you. However, that doesn't mean people with autism don't kill. Or plan to kill...

A man with Asperger's arrested here recently was planning to kill somebody for at least 18 months, was revealed to have stalked prospective victims that he did not attack, and then stabbed a man 28 times after stalking him home and breaking into his house.

Was his autism a factor? I don't think so. But it gets trotted out in court and the papers like it somehow explains what he did.

Another "antisocial" guy was arrested recently for murdering a schoolteacher. Again, the autism thing gets trotted out - and it seems he may indeed be autistic. Questions come up like, 'did the victim reject him and he misinterpreted this as .. blah blah". As if the autism can explain why he chose to kill this woman, set her body on fire and then take a picture of her charred remains for a trophy before going to some considerable effort to hide various bits of evidence.

Anyway. While rarely, a schizophrenic person, or a person with autism, or someone with "whatever" condition ends up harming or killing someone while in a state where they were truly not in control of their own thought process and choices (or bodies, even), I think the vast majority of killers with diagnosed "issues" don't kill because of these issues.

They kill because they want to.

[Ausgirl]

At risk of steering this completely off topic...

I absolutely -hate- when killers are described as "evil" people. Or it's said they were motivated by "evil". Or "I can see the EVIL all over his face!" and blah blah blah... I hate it. It's a pet hate of mine. No, really.

Just sayin.

[Ausgirl]

Back on topic.. From an article by Jack Pemment, M.A., a neuroscientist:

Accounts of schizophrenia and serial murder are mixed. Castle & Hensley (2002) claim that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer, but Ronald Markman M.D., who served as a forensic psychiatrist, details the life of Richard Chase, who was also known as The Vampire of Sacramento (Markman & Bosco, 1989). Chase was diagnosed numerous times as a paranoid schizophrenic, before he committed a number of murders towards the end of the 1980s.

A common characteristic of schizophrenics, however, is to have jumbled and confused thoughts, which when considered in light of cold, calculated, and premeditated murders, it is harder to merit schizophrenia as a driving force behind serial murder.

===

Schizophrenia and Violence
By National Institute of Mental Health



News and entertainment media tend to link mental illness and criminal violence; however, studies indicate that except for those persons with a record of criminal violence before becoming ill, and those with substance abuse or alcohol problems, people with schizophrenia are not especially prone to violence.

Most individuals with schizophrenia are not violent; more typically, they are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Most violent crimes are not committed by persons with schizophrenia, and most persons with schizophrenia do not commit violent crimes.

Substance abuse significantly raises the rate of violence in people with schizophrenia but also in people who do not have any mental illness. People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms, which can become worse if medications are discontinued, may also be at higher risk for violent behavior. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/schizophrenia-and-violence/000711

[MacGuffin]

Hi Ausgirl,

Back on topic.. From an article by Jack Pemment, M.A., a neuroscientist:

Accounts of schizophrenia and serial murder are mixed. Castle & Hensley (2002) claim that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer, but Ronald Markman M.D., who served as a forensic psychiatrist, details the life of Richard Chase, who was also known as The Vampire of Sacramento (Markman & Bosco, 1989). Chase was diagnosed numerous times as a paranoid schizophrenic, before he committed a number of murders towards the end of the 1980s.

A common characteristic of schizophrenics, however, is to have jumbled and confused thoughts, which when considered in light of cold, calculated, and premeditated murders, it is harder to merit schizophrenia as a driving force behind serial murder.

===

Schizophrenia and Violence
By National Institute of Mental Health



News and entertainment media tend to link mental illness and criminal violence; however, studies indicate that except for those persons with a record of criminal violence before becoming ill, and those with substance abuse or alcohol problems, people with schizophrenia are not especially prone to violence.

Most individuals with schizophrenia are not violent; more typically, they are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Most violent crimes are not committed by persons with schizophrenia, and most persons with schizophrenia do not commit violent crimes.

Substance abuse significantly raises the rate of violence in people with schizophrenia but also in people who do not have any mental illness. People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms, which can become worse if medications are discontinued, may also be at higher risk for violent behavior. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/schizoph...iolence/000711

What is seldom referenced in mental health publications is that most schizophrenics are only a danger to themselves, and even then it is usually during a highly depressive/anxious state; however, throw in the extra qualifiers of paranoia and psychosis and you have a potent recipe for anger and violence to lash outward.
This disease runs in both sides of my family, even one of my parents was schizophrenic. One side of my family also has a lovely rage disorder, so they don't just do plain old crazy, they do angry crazy too.
It's been my experience that paranoid schizophrenics seem to have the most difficulty with treatment, with some it's partly due to finding the right dosage and combinations of medication (which can take years of prescription trial and error); with others, it can be balancing meds with talk therapy - because even if you are paranoid THEY could still be out to get you; and there are always going to be those patients who simply believe they don't need any help at all because there's nothing wrong with them.

I have to say tho, having grown up with plain old crazy, angry crazy, and even batsh*te crazy, I will happily take them all together anyday/everyday over a perfectly sane sociopath - those people terrify me.

[John Wheat]

What I meant there is, there's studies and a lot of anecodotal parental statements around about autistic kids and to a lesser extent adults who commit acts of violence pretty frequently. Violent episodes don't seem all that uncommon. And it's among the lower functioning autistic kids that violence seems most frequent.

To Ausgirl

I think the amount of violence committed by both people with High Functioning Autism/Asperger Syndrome and those with Classic Autism is overstated. Anecdotal parental statements by those with particularly violent autistic children are not the norm.

Cheers John

[Batman]

JtR was semi-organized but these get classed as organized because their behaviour shows planning whereas disorganized is spur of the moment. Even if JtR bumped into a potential target the fact he carries his kill kit with him makes him semi-organized with a plan to respond to these situations.

Disorganization can follow organization though as per Dahmer.

[Harry D]

JtR was semi-organized but these get classed as organized because their behaviour shows planning whereas disorganized is spur of the moment. Even if JtR bumped into a potential target the fact he carries his kill kit with him makes him semi-organized with a plan to respond to these situations.

Disorganization can follow organization though as per Dahmer.

I'd agree with that. There can definitely be overlap, and in the Ripper's case I believe he was predominantly disorganized.

[pinkmoon]

Whoever the ripper was he seemed to have a strong element of self survival about him he wasn't deranged enough to stay by a victim and get caught he certainly had enough of his wits about him to leg it at the right time.p.s no posts please about Mr cross been found by a victim's body thank you.

[Harry D]

Whoever the ripper was he seemed to have a strong element of self survival about him he wasn't deranged enough to stay by a victim and get caught he certainly had enough of his wits about him to leg it at the right time.p.s no posts please about Mr cross been found by a victim's body thank you.

That's why I don't buy Lynn's theory that Isenschmid conveniently snapped out of his delusion before anyone could see him.

[Errata]

JtR was semi-organized but these get classed as organized because their behaviour shows planning whereas disorganized is spur of the moment. Even if JtR bumped into a potential target the fact he carries his kill kit with him makes him semi-organized with a plan to respond to these situations.

Disorganization can follow organization though as per Dahmer.

The organization described in earlier definitions of schizophrenia refers to thought and function. Not to actual organizational skills or executive function. A "disorganized" schizophrenic has thought disorders. They may not speak, may not be able to speak correctly or coherently, may not be capable of emotional reactions or have blunted emotions, a flat or inappropriate affect, has trouble with motor skills, may not be able to reason. Which is not to say they reason badly, where a+b= kittens. But where a+b and they can't get further than that. They may not have any delusions or hallucinations at that point. Schizophrenia is a structural disorder, and the structure of the brain itself is collapsing, and well as the wiring being snarled. People in this state could theoretically kill someone who was within reach, similar to how someone with a full frontal lobotomy could kill someone who was within arms reach, but they are incapable of going out to look for victims. No serial killer has ever been a "disorganized" schizophrenic. Nor has any mass murderer been a disorganized Schizophrenic. I can't swear none have ever killed at all, but it they have it's been a single caretaker, or potentially an abuser. Murder requires a choice these people are physically incapable of making. Lashing out does not require a choice.

An organized schizophrenic, no matter what else is wrong with them, does not have thought disorders. A+b= kittens, sure. But they can reason. They can think, they can plan, they can execute plans. Maybe not well, and maybe not with any degree of sophistication, but the ability is there. Richard Chase is described by some as being a disorganized schizophrenic because what he was doing shouldn't have even made sense to his delusion. Drinking blood makes sense, but necrophilia does not. He was without a doubt disorganized, and that was likely due to his schizophrenia and the fear and needs his delusions gave him, but he had no thought disorder. His reasoning was weird, but made sense within it's own context. He was a paranoid schizophrenic, not a disorganized one.

We now know that with schizophrenia being cyclical and because it is a degenerative disease, no person only ever falls into one category or the other, which is why the terms have been discontinued. A paranoid schizophrenic may be a disorganized schizophrenic when not delusional, or occasionally when not delusional, they may become more disorganized as they get older, they may have catatonic episodes when exhausted or after a psychotic episode combined with intense emotional distress, and most schizophrenics end their lives in catatonia. It can depend on age of onset, severity of onset, age at which they became medication compliant, all of the above, none of the above.

But when we are talking about an organized or disorganized serial killer, we accept that they can plan. And generally plan well, or they don't make it to three murders. There may be aspects of the murders that appear disorganized, or sloppy, or frenzied, but there are also aspects that are meticulously planned. In some ways, it's like insisting that a sketch artist is disorganized compared to an oil painter. And compared to an oil painter they are. But that doesn't mean the sketch artist is disorganized. They just don't plan to the nth degree.

Forget the idea or organized and disorganized. In the old parlance it has nothing to with planning or executing a plan. It's not a disorganized mind where a person doesn't pay attention to detail, it's a disorganized brain, where connections that used to be in a certain place have moved or been destroyed.

[John G]

I think that JtR was generally organized. The fact that he was able to eviscerate victims in the open, without drawing attention to himself, possibly demonstrating surgical skill, suggests organization to me. Moreover, he was able to quickly overpower his victims, preventing them shouting for help or putting up a struggle. And them there's the fact that he appears forensically aware indicates organisation to me.

Of course, he did kill victims in the open, which suggests disorganization. However, unlike a modern killer, he obviously had no vehicle that he could lure/force his victims into, so his options were a bit limited in that respect.

I also agree with Pinkmoon that JtR seemed to have a strong sense of self-survival, which probably goes some way to explaining why he wasn't caught.

The difficulty is that Robert Napper clearly had organized elements to his offences and he was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.