Luka Magnotta : Everything is A Dream

[navkat]

The fucked up problem is that YOU have a conscience and YOU who are a contribution to society, putting well-raised children into the world would lose your kids and since YOU work a real job and contribute, YOU would have a hell of a time getting them back while you work and pay for your own legal, etc.

SHE will do six months in Metro and get anger-management classes offered by some Meaher's pet contracted Social service, paid for by tax dollars because she's indigent and be assigned an attorney by DHR to get her kids back.

Are you upset that she's being treated well, that you're being treated poorly, or that someone you look down on is being treated better than you?  May not be what you intended, but comes off as "as long as there's someone with even less rights and dignity than me."  Like, you're okay with living in a violent, cruel society, so long as the bad stuff happens to the right people.

What? No! That was aimed at LUNA who made a remark about hitting Tanya with a bat. My reply was to say "Unfortunately, YOU are a contributing member of society I like having around but unfortunately, the consequences of hitting ol' gal with a bat will be far more profound for you than HER."

[navkat]

The fucked up problem is that YOU have a conscience and YOU who are a contribution to society, putting well-raised children into the world would lose your kids and since YOU work a real job and contribute, YOU would have a hell of a time getting them back while you work and pay for your own legal, etc.

SHE will do six months in Metro and get anger-management classes offered by some Meaher's pet contracted Social service, paid for by tax dollars because she's indigent and be assigned an attorney by DHR to get her kids back.

Are you upset that she's being treated well, that you're being treated poorly, or that someone you look down on is being treated better than you?  May not be what you intended, but comes off as "as long as there's someone with even less rights and dignity than me."  Like, you're okay with living in a violent, cruel society, so long as the bad stuff happens to the right people.

It's like the way people used to (and sometimes still do) carry on about people on welfare:

"I SAW THAT WELFARE SLUG WITH HER KIDS AT MCDONALDS AND THEY WERE EATING WITH MY TAX DOLLARS, I WORK 60 HOURS A WEEK AND I CAN'T AFFORD TO TAKE MY KIDS TO MCDONALDS!" These things end up with no welfare for anybody who needs it, of course. Including people who said things like that and are no longer working.

Welfare cuts suck, but they're a pretty cheap lesson compared to brutalizing prisoners.

No, it's not like that. At all.

[Golden Applesauce]

Sociopathy is borne of dissociation. The sociopath at some point learned to cope by completely disconnecting from the human experiences of fear, reliance on others, trust, need for security, etc. I have a few theories (based on my "advanced novice" understanding of clinical psychiatry and some physiology) about how to "correct" (or re-sensitize) the sociopathic disordered mechanism. Part of this process will no doubt, require the a measured, dynamic use of positive punishment like placing the patient in situations of discomfort and duress, negative reinforcement (ending discomfort.."saving" the patient from the discomfort) and the application of positive reinforcement (reward) in conjunction with the use of oxytocin and some transference psychodynamic therapy practices.

Okay - the actual scientific research about training people for empathy involves stuff like bringing puppies and babies into preschools and letting the kids play with them, and asking children to do imaginative role-playing exercises where they imagine things from someone else's perspective.

What you're describing is the thing where you teach people learned helplessness and turn them into paranoid wrecks.

[Golden Applesauce]

The fucked up problem is that YOU have a conscience and YOU who are a contribution to society, putting well-raised children into the world would lose your kids and since YOU work a real job and contribute, YOU would have a hell of a time getting them back while you work and pay for your own legal, etc.

SHE will do six months in Metro and get anger-management classes offered by some Meaher's pet contracted Social service, paid for by tax dollars because she's indigent and be assigned an attorney by DHR to get her kids back.

Are you upset that she's being treated well, that you're being treated poorly, or that someone you look down on is being treated better than you?  May not be what you intended, but comes off as "as long as there's someone with even less rights and dignity than me."  Like, you're okay with living in a violent, cruel society, so long as the bad stuff happens to the right people.

What? No! That was aimed at LUNA who made a remark about hitting Tanya with a bat. My reply was to say "Unfortunately, YOU are a contributing member of society I like having around but unfortunately, the consequences of hitting ol' gal with a bat will be far more profound for you than HER."

Oh... that makes a lot more sense. I thought it was one of those crazy first-second person "You"s.

[navkat]

If you want any chance at treating him, you must force him out of his fantasy-land where he's a top-earning, world-renowned, jet-setter pr0n star. The only way to do that is to alter his locus of control. The only way to alter his locus of control is to break down his sense of the predictable and constantly re-direct him as soon as he thinks he's found a way to control or influence the situation.

The items mentioned are not intended as revenge, they aren't kind, by any means but they are intended to be #1 imposed upon him against his will, #2 unmercifully difficult for him and #3 highly effective at "breaking him down to build him back up" the way sleep deprivation and re-ordering sense of individuality or personal control is used in boot camp to "clean the slate" bad civilian attitude problems and habits in the new recruit.

Not to be snide, but recent events in Afganistan and Iraq suggest that bootcamp / war zone style breaking down of an individuals sense of self might be the opposite of what turns mass murderers into well-adjusted people.

What you're proposing is the gross disintegration of a human's psyche, in an extremely painful process that the "patient" does not want and receives no personal benefit from (why would he want to be normal?) on the off chance that maybe this time that style of psychological torture would un-insane someone. Given that there's no record of anyone being cured of sociopathy, ever, I don't really see the point.  If nothing else, it turns a couple of people from doctors into torturers.

eta: written before I saw your most recent post.

Right. The fact is, we haven't figured it out yet but I don't buy that it's impossible. You couldn't just subject him to stuff because that is just mindless, aimless cruelty. There would have to be a phased plan to net the most amount of benefit from the least amount of stick.

Like, if a child has cancer and the treatment options are horrifically painful, we generally provide the treatment and justify the painful administration thereof because the goal is wellness even if there's no guarantee that it will work because the alternative: perpetuating the illness when something can be tried, is way worse morally, right?

So this is illness too.

You make one good point though: he doesn't see anything wrong with himself. He doesn't perceive himself as ill. There's an immorality slippery-slope here when you consider that factor. That's where I go out on a limb and say "you lost that choice when you failed to conduct yourself as a not ill person." I rationalize the means not just by the ends but also by the beginnings.

[navkat]

Sociopathy is borne of dissociation. The sociopath at some point learned to cope by completely disconnecting from the human experiences of fear, reliance on others, trust, need for security, etc. I have a few theories (based on my "advanced novice" understanding of clinical psychiatry and some physiology) about how to "correct" (or re-sensitize) the sociopathic disordered mechanism. Part of this process will no doubt, require the a measured, dynamic use of positive punishment like placing the patient in situations of discomfort and duress, negative reinforcement (ending discomfort.."saving" the patient from the discomfort) and the application of positive reinforcement (reward) in conjunction with the use of oxytocin and some transference psychodynamic therapy practices.

Okay - the actual scientific research about training people for empathy involves stuff like bringing puppies and babies into preschools and letting the kids play with them, and asking children to do imaginative role-playing exercises where they imagine things from someone else's perspective.

What you're describing is the thing where you teach people learned helplessness and turn them into paranoid wrecks.

And learned helplessness isn't an improvement at all.

Beyond that, I believe with the use of oxytocin (the attachment/bonding hormone) and other careful use of neurotransmitter agonists, it may be possible to create neural pathways (though limited) to more typical stimulus/response/behaviour patterns which will naturally become deeper the longer they're practiced/used. This may prove ultimately useless on the incarcerated patient but have profound impact on quality of life for societal patients who are motivated to seek and complete and maintain therapeutic gains resulting from adherence to treatment.

[Golden Applesauce]

Right. The fact is, we haven't figured it out yet but I don't buy that it's impossible. You couldn't just subject him to stuff because that is just mindless, aimless cruelty. There would have to be a phased plan to net the most amount of benefit from the least amount of stick.

We might actually be in agreement here; it just seems to me that the most benefit / least stick scenario, given how little we actually understand about the condition, is closer to a controlled environment where he can't hurt anyone else and doctors / scientists can learn things by observing/studying him.

Like, if a child has cancer and the treatment options are horrifically painful, we generally provide the treatment and justify the painful administration thereof because the goal is wellness even if there's no guarantee that it will work because the alternative: perpetuating the illness when something can be tried, is way worse morally, right?

Not... really? If the "something to be tried" is as bad or worse than the illness, I can't think of any moral framework where that statement makes sense. There's also a huge gap between "no guarantee of success" and "no reasonable chance of success", and another huge gap between excruciating but transient physical pain and the systematic destruction of a person's psyche. Last refuge being the mind, and all that.

Also I believe IRL that that's the point where parents halt treatment and do the "fill his last days with as many happy memories as we can" thing.

So this is illness too.

You make one good point though: he doesn't see anything wrong with himself. He doesn't perceive himself as ill. There's an immorality slippery-slope here when you consider that factor. That's where I go out on a limb and say "you lost that choice when you failed to conduct yourself as a not ill person." I rationalize the means not just by the ends but also by the beginnings.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with "illness." I'll allow "mental/personality disorder" - it's certainly a deviation from societal norms - but to say illness I feel like you need to show that the person himself is suffering from it. It's certainly harmful to society around him, but suppose he was also the king of North Korea or wherever and could murder people at will without being subject to human consequences - it's not clear at all that he's also being victimized by his own condition.

You end up with a policy of involuntary personality standardization because it's more convenient for society than accommodating the outliers. ("Accommodating" in this case meaning "keeping them somewhere where they can't murder more people.") I guess it comes down to which you find less repugnant: removing people from society so that they are no longer a threat to others, or fucking with their brains until they are no longer a threat to others. I prefer the former but I'm fully aware that that might just be a Socratic "a man's mind is his last refuge" bias.

[Golden Applesauce]

In the interest of explaining my own biases:
When I read "This may prove ultimately useless on the incarcerated patient but have profound impact on quality of life for societal patients who are motivated to seek and complete and maintain therapeutic gains resulting from adherence to treatment.", I can't help but think of a 1960s guy saying:

"We may not know how to cure homosexuality yet, but with enough criminals like Alan Turing to experiment on, we'll eventually hit the right cocktail of drugs that turns people straight without also causing them to die in horrible ways."

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If you want any chance at treating him, you must force him out of his fantasy-land where he's a top-earning, world-renowned, jet-setter pr0n star. The only way to do that is to alter his locus of control. The only way to alter his locus of control is to break down his sense of the predictable and constantly re-direct him as soon as he thinks he's found a way to control or influence the situation.

The items mentioned are not intended as revenge, they aren't kind, by any means but they are intended to be #1 imposed upon him against his will, #2 unmercifully difficult for him and #3 highly effective at "breaking him down to build him back up" the way sleep deprivation and re-ordering sense of individuality or personal control is used in boot camp to "clean the slate" bad civilian attitude problems and habits in the new recruit.

Not to be snide, but recent events in Afganistan and Iraq suggest that bootcamp / war zone style breaking down of an individuals sense of self might be the opposite of what turns mass murderers into well-adjusted people.

What you're proposing is the gross disintegration of a human's psyche, in an extremely painful process that the "patient" does not want and receives no personal benefit from (why would he want to be normal?) on the off chance that maybe this time that style of psychological torture would un-insane someone. Given that there's no record of anyone being cured of sociopathy, ever, I don't really see the point.  If nothing else, it turns a couple of people from doctors into torturers.

eta: written before I saw your most recent post.

Right. The fact is, we haven't figured it out yet but I don't buy that it's impossible. You couldn't just subject him to stuff because that is just mindless, aimless cruelty. There would have to be a phased plan to net the most amount of benefit from the least amount of stick.

Like, if a child has cancer and the treatment options are horrifically painful, we generally provide the treatment and justify the painful administration thereof because the goal is wellness even if there's no guarantee that it will work because the alternative: perpetuating the illness when something can be tried, is way worse morally, right?

So this is illness too.

You make one good point though: he doesn't see anything wrong with himself. He doesn't perceive himself as ill. There's an immorality slippery-slope here when you consider that factor. That's where I go out on a limb and say "you lost that choice when you failed to conduct yourself as a not ill person." I rationalize the means not just by the ends but also by the beginnings.

The bolded- the child in question, or at least its parents, have a choice in the matter. I like you, nav, but I must admit that some of your posts ITT do come across as... pretty Mengele. Maybe I'm reading you wrong too, but...

I think the difference is that Luna made a one line quip. Your post was, err... pretty detailed. There's a bit of a difference between, "that person should get hit with something hard" and "we need to do experiments on this person. Here's the experiments. It's almost publishable if you get rid of IRB protocols and formulate a hypothesis."

It's funny if someone puts a banana peel in your path. It's not funny if you have to watch a reenactment of the Stations of the Cross.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you want any chance at treating him, you must force him out of his fantasy-land where he's a top-earning, world-renowned, jet-setter pr0n star. The only way to do that is to alter his locus of control. The only way to alter his locus of control is to break down his sense of the predictable and constantly re-direct him as soon as he thinks he's found a way to control or influence the situation.

The items mentioned are not intended as revenge, they aren't kind, by any means but they are intended to be #1 imposed upon him against his will, #2 unmercifully difficult for him and #3 highly effective at "breaking him down to build him back up" the way sleep deprivation and re-ordering sense of individuality or personal control is used in boot camp to "clean the slate" bad civilian attitude problems and habits in the new recruit.

Not to be snide, but recent events in Afganistan and Iraq suggest that bootcamp / war zone style breaking down of an individuals sense of self might be the opposite of what turns mass murderers into well-adjusted people.

What you're proposing is the gross disintegration of a human's psyche, in an extremely painful process that the "patient" does not want and receives no personal benefit from (why would he want to be normal?) on the off chance that maybe this time that style of psychological torture would un-insane someone. Given that there's no record of anyone being cured of sociopathy, ever, I don't really see the point.  If nothing else, it turns a couple of people from doctors into torturers.

eta: written before I saw your most recent post.

I think that it's important not to underestimate the psychological effects on people directed to treat another person in such a manner.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The problem with exposing the criminally insane to experimental procedures in the off-chance that you might hit upon something that helped them be more sane is that it's cruel, unethical, illegal, and inhuman. I thought we got past that last century, but I guess that was wishful thinking.

[navkat]

This is where we just disagree then, I guess.

I don't think "remanded to a treatment facility" should equate to a situation where "everybody KNOWS he ain't getting better" so instead of sending him to a regular prison, old boy gets hooked up for life in the hospital where no one's allowed to subject him to anything unkind or encroach on his space and if he misbehaves, instead of five guards with riot gear, a day in solitary and a tribunal that tacks on 6 months, he gets another 5mg diazepam, loss of TV time and an an immediate floor visit from the doc to "talk about his behaviour."

I don't know what it is we're supposed to be "learning" from a person who bullshits himself, bullshits his therapist and doesn't feel particularly burdened by feelings of guilt or obligation to cooperate with anyone unless it's for self-gain.

What he did to that victim was just a damned mess. I mean, he's not exactly getting thrown into Dr. Chilton's dungeon next to "Multiple Miggs in the next cell." It just really bothers me that he gets to go here: http://www.pinel.qc.ca/ContentP.aspx?NavID=68&CultureCode=en-CA and he doesn't have to do anything else. The truth is, they aren't going to treat him as a case-study, they're going to put him on a permanent sick-day from life. No, he's not allowed out of the house to go outside to play but he never has to put his shoes on and go back to work, either. And he never, ever has to do anything he doesn't wanna again because he's crazy and can't handle any pressure.

[Faust]

This is where we just disagree then, I guess.

I don't think "remanded to a treatment facility" should equate to a situation where "everybody KNOWS he ain't getting better" so instead of sending him to a regular prison, old boy gets hooked up for life in the hospital where no one's allowed to subject him to anything unkind or encroach on his space and if he misbehaves, instead of five guards with riot gear, a day in solitary and a tribunal that tacks on 6 months, he gets another 5mg diazepam, loss of TV time and an an immediate floor visit from the doc to "talk about his behaviour."

Ah I see you have no idea how mental health institutions work.

I don't know what it is we're supposed to be "learning" from a person who bullshits himself, bullshits his therapist and doesn't feel particularly burdened by feelings of guilt or obligation to cooperate with anyone unless it's for self-gain.

What he did to that victim was just a damned mess. I mean, he's not exactly getting thrown into Dr. Chilton's dungeon next to "Multiple Miggs in the next cell." It just really bothers me that he gets to go here: http://www.pinel.qc.ca/ContentP.aspx?NavID=68&CultureCode=en-CA and he doesn't have to do anything else. The truth is, they aren't going to treat him as a case-study, they're going to put him on a permanent sick-day from life. No, he's not allowed out of the house to go outside to play but he never has to put his shoes on and go back to work, either. And he never, ever has to do anything he doesn't wanna again because he's crazy and can't handle any pressure.

1) You are horribly short sighted as to what can be learned.
2) If you think they aren't going to treat his as a study case you are severely underestimating physiological researchers desire to treat a high profile patient.

[P3nT4gR4m]

This is where we just disagree then, I guess.

I don't think "remanded to a treatment facility" should equate to a situation where "everybody KNOWS he ain't getting better" so instead of sending him to a regular prison, old boy gets hooked up for life in the hospital where no one's allowed to subject him to anything unkind or encroach on his space and if he misbehaves, instead of five guards with riot gear, a day in solitary and a tribunal that tacks on 6 months, he gets another 5mg diazepam, loss of TV time and an an immediate floor visit from the doc to "talk about his behaviour."

I don't know what it is we're supposed to be "learning" from a person who bullshits himself, bullshits his therapist and doesn't feel particularly burdened by feelings of guilt or obligation to cooperate with anyone unless it's for self-gain.

What he did to that victim was just a damned mess. I mean, he's not exactly getting thrown into Dr. Chilton's dungeon next to "Multiple Miggs in the next cell." It just really bothers me that he gets to go here: http://www.pinel.qc.ca/ContentP.aspx?NavID=68&CultureCode=en-CA and he doesn't have to do anything else. The truth is, they aren't going to treat him as a case-study, they're going to put him on a permanent sick-day from life. No, he's not allowed out of the house to go outside to play but he never has to put his shoes on and go back to work, either. And he never, ever has to do anything he doesn't wanna again because he's crazy and can't handle any pressure.

It's not about Luka. It's about keeping him contained where he can't kill any more asian people and/or kittehs. He has to be put in a cage, probably for ever but the only reason the cage would require electrified spikes in place of a bed is petty revenge which doesn't benefit society any more than treating him humanely as you would expect to treat any other dangerous animal in captivity.

Personally I have no qualms with executing the "right people" I'd even go out on a limb and say our pornstar cannibal does sound like a prime candidate but that's the rub - how can we be sure? Where do we draw the line? How do we ensure that maistakes aren't made? Simple answer to all these questions is we can't - that's why I'm against the death penalty. Not a moral thing, as much as a practical thing.

[Triple Zero]

I don't think "remanded to a treatment facility" should equate to a situation where "everybody KNOWS he ain't getting better" so instead of sending him to a regular prison, old boy gets hooked up for life in the hospital where no one's allowed to subject him to anything unkind or encroach on his space and if he misbehaves, instead of five guards with riot gear, a day in solitary and a tribunal that tacks on 6 months, he gets another 5mg diazepam, loss of TV time and an an immediate floor visit from the doc to "talk about his behaviour."

Wait, what?

That's not a "regular prison" that's the sick excuse for "justified" slavery that you got in the USA.

You know, the prison system famous for memes such as "federal assrape prison" and "you dropped the soap".

I'm just going to imagine that you did NOT just argue that if someone criminally insane is put in a mental institution they should at least be getting it as bad, get the same fucked up treatment as two out of every hundred US citizens are currently experiencing? Because otherwise ... it's not fair? Again, revenge much? I wouldn't be surprised if a few years in a US prison doesn't actually make people more likely to commit crimes when they return to society.



Apart from that, you also seem to be arguing that it's okay to do medical experiments on the insane without their consent, given that the crime they perpetrated is severe enough. Am I getting that right? Because in this hypothetical search for a cure for sociopathy, I'm assuming he doesn't get a choice in whether he wants to participate in the (experimental or not) treatment?

I'm all for offering them the choice to participate in such programs (preferably tested ones, not experimental), but to make it mandatory as part of the punishment, again, is completely unethical. It's basically equivalent to corporal punishment (except it's partially it's mental).