Well then saying that they are incapable of standing trial would work just as well no? It practically means the same, and does sound arguably less mean then incompetent. Still, isnt this just technical hair splitting over a legal term, that has little relevance to Dahmer as he was most certainly competent or capable of standing trial.
The Case of Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
1) You are exactly correct. We are splitting hairs over terminology. The blame lay squarely on the shoulders of I, ZERO PHOENIX. I was uncomfortable with the terminology and indeed, did jump into an area which was not beneficial to main point of the thread.
2) This particular issue (competent or incompetent to stand trial) has some bearing in the main point of the topic. While the majority of us conclude, in good sense, that Dahmer was most certainly competent enough to stand trial, his doctor or attorney or whoever the hell the guy was claimed that he was not. [Is it just me or is justice sought more for the damn criminals than the victims family? Sigh, that is another topic however.]
If I were too truly answer without bias and objectivity, I would say that what constitutes evil is society. I believe that the people are the way they are and when someone acts differently from what society feels is wrong, they are persecuted for it. In ancient civilizations, socitey would not have blinked had a man killed another man in a dispute and should honor be central to their dispute then it would have been expected that someone die to resolve the issue. As times change, society seems to believe the old way of doing things must change in order for the world to become better.
What really and truly makes people feel Dahmer was evil aside from his killings and rapes are the suspicions of his cannibalism and necrophilia. These actions fill members of society with a feeling of revulsion and cause them to react in ways that counter actions society deems proper as well. They become vindictive and often times violent towards those they feel are evil and their families. This reaction appears to fuel a belief that the entire family must be affected and should be purged. As these people are responding to the revulsion of the original acts, they are not seen as evil but as righteous vigilantes.
Dahmer, in my opinion, was a person who seemed to be infatuated with death and rebirth. His belief that he could kill his victims and turn them into zombies if a strong reason for my belief in this regard. I feel as though he was born this way, not made. He never make claims of abuse as a child, yet as he entered puberty, he became withdrawn from his family and society. He even kept the bodies of his victims in his apartment. As there is no place for society to lay blame for his actions, his is a case where we see the true nature of a man who knowingly and intentionally lived in direct opposition of society.
I could go further, but my shift is now over.
What really and truly makes people feel Dahmer was evil aside from his killings and rapes are the suspicions of his cannibalism and necrophilia. These actions fill members of society with a feeling of revulsion and cause them to react in ways that counter actions society deems proper as well. They become vindictive and often times violent towards those they feel are evil and their families. This reaction appears to fuel a belief that the entire family must be affected and should be purged. As these people are responding to the revulsion of the original acts, they are not seen as evil but as righteous vigilantes.
Dahmer, in my opinion, was a person who seemed to be infatuated with death and rebirth. His belief that he could kill his victims and turn them into zombies if a strong reason for my belief in this regard. I feel as though he was born this way, not made. He never make claims of abuse as a child, yet as he entered puberty, he became withdrawn from his family and society. He even kept the bodies of his victims in his apartment. As there is no place for society to lay blame for his actions, his is a case where we see the true nature of a man who knowingly and intentionally lived in direct opposition of society.
I could go further, but my shift is now over.
"It is not for us to judge!" A preacher quote!
Response: "So dont."
I am the last person to argue law with.. although I do like being an called an animal on here. Though I will say you compare dahmer's Convictions to faith and religion by saying "His belief" We do have a name for such ideals and thoughts. Cultism.
The human mind is an extraordinary thing. It lies to you.. conceals information.. distorts reality... changes interpretation of facts... expands the impact of lesser stimuli... DAMN its amazing.. beautiful... Elegant.. Brilliant... All rolled into one completely variable gray mass.
But you are comparing Dahmers actions to the equivalency of... the holocaust.. the crusades.. Silent consent of the slavetrade.. the list is miles long. The problem with that basis is that you conclude that those "actions" against humanity itself are not wrong based on faith.. they just arent accepted in our society.
I revert to my comment about the human mind. As far as we know there is no indication that genetics lead to a predisposition of faith... and therefore I must argue that your opinion of him ALWAYS having been this way is wrong. The funny thing is most of you have now stumbled into religious argument.. by accident.. because if you say that people are born different and their actions.. thoughts and beliefs are set in stone from the moment they are born... you take away free will entirely only to justify...why certain people do not believe in God or.. religion.
And lets not start about a predisposition of sex... that NvsN debate can stay in its own thread.
So no I cannot agree that NATURE is the even close to 5% of mental predisposition. While this area is still Theoretical(nature vs nurture) It is very easy to say you dont agree with me and start shouting SHOW ME PROOF... Try to refrain from doing that
Because that means you have to start from scratch.. aswell
Never start a phrase: without bias and objectivity.
Wait for someone to call you subjective and then prove the contrary. Also you immediately follow the phrase with I believe and become subjective from that point on But thats just a tip about how to phrase things.
Personal reference: I was diagnosed with an asocial disorder called sociopathy when I was a kid.. I now by scientific definition am Autistic due to my inability to connect myself to humanity. That does not mean I dont have human like qualities.. but from the way this thread has been going I am nothing more then an animal despite the fact that I understand and comprehend the reasons for certain laws and decrees in our society.
Sociopathy no longer exists as a condition... since its definition shifted to encompass trauma induced psychopathy.. and eventually the original diagnosis of literally "disconnection from the human condition" no longer applies.
Response: "So dont."
I am the last person to argue law with.. although I do like being an called an animal on here. Though I will say you compare dahmer's Convictions to faith and religion by saying "His belief" We do have a name for such ideals and thoughts. Cultism.
The human mind is an extraordinary thing. It lies to you.. conceals information.. distorts reality... changes interpretation of facts... expands the impact of lesser stimuli... DAMN its amazing.. beautiful... Elegant.. Brilliant... All rolled into one completely variable gray mass.
But you are comparing Dahmers actions to the equivalency of... the holocaust.. the crusades.. Silent consent of the slavetrade.. the list is miles long. The problem with that basis is that you conclude that those "actions" against humanity itself are not wrong based on faith.. they just arent accepted in our society.
I revert to my comment about the human mind. As far as we know there is no indication that genetics lead to a predisposition of faith... and therefore I must argue that your opinion of him ALWAYS having been this way is wrong. The funny thing is most of you have now stumbled into religious argument.. by accident.. because if you say that people are born different and their actions.. thoughts and beliefs are set in stone from the moment they are born... you take away free will entirely only to justify...why certain people do not believe in God or.. religion.
And lets not start about a predisposition of sex... that NvsN debate can stay in its own thread.
So no I cannot agree that NATURE is the even close to 5% of mental predisposition. While this area is still Theoretical(nature vs nurture) It is very easy to say you dont agree with me and start shouting SHOW ME PROOF... Try to refrain from doing that
Because that means you have to start from scratch.. aswell
Never start a phrase: without bias and objectivity.
Wait for someone to call you subjective and then prove the contrary. Also you immediately follow the phrase with I believe and become subjective from that point on
But thats just a tip about how to phrase things.Personal reference: I was diagnosed with an asocial disorder called sociopathy when I was a kid.. I now by scientific definition am Autistic due to my inability to connect myself to humanity. That does not mean I dont have human like qualities.. but from the way this thread has been going I am nothing more then an animal despite the fact that I understand and comprehend the reasons for certain laws and decrees in our society.
Sociopathy no longer exists as a condition... since its definition shifted to encompass trauma induced psychopathy.. and eventually the original diagnosis of literally "disconnection from the human condition" no longer applies.
I am not sure if you are just making statements or not, but the tone from some of this seems antagonist. If I have taken you wrong, I apologize. Why I agree with a number of your statements, I disagree with the comparisons to the holocaust, the crusades, or slave trades. Also, I never used faith as a basis. The Crusades was a war of religions. The religious parties involved have never truly stated they were wrong in their involvement. The Holocaust and the American Slave trade are two issues that can be place within nearly the same confines. The societies in which these events took place, actually gave rise to the events in the first place. These societies agreed with what was being done at first and towards the end changed their positions. These changes in opinion go back to my argument that evil is something determined by societies position of what is right and what is wrong.
Again, you are injecting religion into the argument. I am not entirely sure if anyone else made religion relevant or not, since I didn't read every comment. Yes, people are born different. Some kids display homicidal tendencies when they are as young as 3 or 4, but people disregard these things as the child not being made aware that the actions they are displaying are wrong. I didn't say these people did not have free will. They exhibit free will by choosing to kill when they know they will be persecuted for it. The beliefs that Dahmer has are not a predisposition, they are a product of his experiences. Belief is something that is discovered and is something that can be taught. The is how religion has made its place in society. Also, just because someone is a killer, does not mean they do not believe in god or religion.
And lets not start about a predisposition of sex... that NvsN debate can stay in its own thread.
So no I cannot agree that NATURE is the even close to 5% of mental predisposition. While this area is still Theoretical(nature vs nurture) It is very easy to say you dont agree with me and start shouting SHOW ME PROOF... Try to refrain from doing that
Because that means you have to start from scratch.. aswell
Never start a phrase: without bias and objectivity.
Wait for someone to call you subjective and then prove the contrary. Also you immediately follow the phrase with I believe and become subjective from that point on But thats just a tip about how to phrase things.
So no I cannot agree that NATURE is the even close to 5% of mental predisposition. While this area is still Theoretical(nature vs nurture) It is very easy to say you dont agree with me and start shouting SHOW ME PROOF... Try to refrain from doing that
Because that means you have to start from scratch.. aswell
Never start a phrase: without bias and objectivity.
Wait for someone to call you subjective and then prove the contrary. Also you immediately follow the phrase with I believe and become subjective from that point on
But thats just a tip about how to phrase things.
Finally the true heart of your response. You feel as though you are being personally attacked and you obviously take offense to being place in the same category with someone as Dahmer due to your condition. Being disconnected from society does not make someone a killer or a danger to society, it just means that they find it more difficult to understand others in society than others. It's really sad that you chose to attack in order to make your argument, but probably fortunate for you that I didn't take offense, I would have taken you seriously otherwise.
I was actually not trying to be antagonistic well not in the classical sense I do tend to be abrasive and short so I do apologize for that. Starting at the bottom and working my way up:
I dont feel personally attacked but I feel there have been far too many misdiagnosis of the same NvsN problems. I dont even particularly mind being in the same category as I was not the one who chose it for myself before being told that it was infact a category in which Dahmer also states. You are wrong about being disconnected from society however it goes just a little deeper than simply "finding it difficult to understand" It is once again a simple misdiagnosis of the same condition. I never meant to ATTACK, but in a first reply I always end up cutting corners for that I do apologize.
You were never meant to agree with the comparisons to the examples I proposed because the inherent idea that Dahmers faith was his own and to his own knowledge he believed he was not doing anything wrong. Unlike the events I mentioned however Dahmer never came to conclusion that what he might be doing is in fact wrong. I am sure he asked himself at some point but never came to the conclusion that should have been obvious.
Yes I am comparing Dahmer's beliefs with his own inner perception the same way a Christian would(in their mind, time and society) decide crusades were necessary.
The genetic predisposition to kill... Well that takes me back to a conversation I once heard about animals and instincts. One argued it was in there genetic make up that killing wasnt wrong. The other argued that their genetic makeup simply did not install morality and code of ethics at birth. But the point that was missed is that studies have shown that children between the ages of 3 and 6 have a heightened curiosity. This includes and is not limited to bending rules, breaking rules, thirst for knowledge, the realization of consequence etc. And that is exactly the criticism placed on the reasoning that it might be predisposition.. but we agree on that. No idea why I even brought it up again. Anyway moving on.
Now I remember, its because you contradicted yourself(had to reread some things because I was thoroughly confused
)IN your first post you mentioned Dahmer was born that way. Which is why I brought up genetic predisposition in the first place.
But then you went on to say:
The beliefs that Dahmer has are not a predisposition, they are a product of his experiences.
Again I apologize the thing about the
"Never start a phrase: without bias and objectivity.
Wait for someone to call you subjective and then prove the contrary. Also you immediately follow the phrase with I believe and become subjective from that point on
But thats just a tip about how to phrase things."It was meant to be a lighthearted comment. Not one subject to absolute scrutiny. Is this way of arguing better for you?
Oh and to answer the questions:
I do not believe evil is defined solely on the basis of "lack of empathy" But I covered genetic predisposition enough
Justice? whose justice? Mankinds? "When dealing with something that cant yet be fully understood you have but 2 options, let it live or eradicate it." But no one is above the law right? So if you break it you get judged. Maybe not in the way that you should but in the way that exists.
Lack of empathy or not, you can still be taught what is right and what is wrong. You might not see it like that, but to make it easy for these people we wrote it down as well. If you dont want to get in trouble, follow these rules. If you know that what you are doing is breaking the rules, then you are sane enough to be set on trial and 'justice' will apply to you as well.
Dahmer knew that what he did wasnt right, he knew he was breaking the rules, he did it anyways so he was sane enough that justice applies to him.
You need to come with a truly insane person before its no longer just to lock him up and hold him responsible for what he did. Like that Canadian dude that ate a bunch of people while he was on a bus.
Dahmer knew that what he did wasnt right, he knew he was breaking the rules, he did it anyways so he was sane enough that justice applies to him.
You need to come with a truly insane person before its no longer just to lock him up and hold him responsible for what he did. Like that Canadian dude that ate a bunch of people while he was on a bus.