It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The paradox of killing a psychopath

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


What bothers me most about this thread? It had never even crossed my mind that naturally, THOSE souls reincarnate just like the rest of us.


edit on 21-12-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Have you ever watched the movie FALLEN (1998) with Denzel Washington and John Goodman???
I think initially that movie is one of two reasons why I oppose the death penalty. The other reason is the fear of putting an innocent person to death.

Whenever I hear SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL... I always think of that movie. The song played during the closing credits.


edit on 21-12-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What bothers me most about this thread? It had never even crossed my mind that naturally, THOSE souls reincarnate just like the rest of us.


I can think of a couple of alternate ideas that you may want to consider...

One is that your example is still only valid IF reincarnation is in fact true. If not, then it doesn't matter anyway.

For now though, let's just assume that reincarnation is true in the way you've described. The Second issue would be answering why the psychopathic characteristics would carry over with the soul during reincarnation in the first place??

If it is simply the result of the physical brain and how it develops then the psychopathic character wouldn't survive past the death of the body.

Or it may be that those characteristics are actually attached to the Ego which once again, at least in my opinion, also wouldn't be an aspect of the Soul and would be lost at the point of mortal death or perhaps even Enlightenment/Ego Death/etc.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 



For arguments sake... why would you even want to risk the possibility that you could be wrong???



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shushu
reply to post by mOjOm
 



For arguments sake... why would you even want to risk the possibility that you could be wrong???



You mean, "Just lock 'em up for as long as possible and keep them from dying so that when they do actually reincarnate, at least those of us living now won't have to deal with them." Is that what you're saying???

Well, I guess for one thing, the idea of "trapping" another individuals mind/soul for a prolonged duration and without the ability to experience anything other than that mental prison, is probably the kind of idea which only a true psychopath would even consider. Plus the fact that taking such actions would be based on our fear of just one possible theory would most likely be damaging to our own Karma/Souls in the process. Add to that the fact that just because someone may be psychopathic doesn't actually mean they will do harm to anyone in the first place. I could go further with this kind of thinking but I think that is good for now...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by shushu
reply to post by mOjOm
 



For arguments sake... why would you even want to risk the possibility that you could be wrong???



You mean, "Just lock 'em up for as long as possible and keep them from dying so that when they do actually reincarnate, at least those of us living now won't have to deal with them." Is that what you're saying???

Well, I guess for one thing, the idea of "trapping" another individuals mind/soul for a prolonged duration and without the ability to experience anything other than that mental prison, is probably the kind of idea which only a true psychopath would even consider. Plus the fact that taking such actions would be based on our fear of just one possible theory would most likely be damaging to our own Karma/Souls in the process. Add to that the fact that just because someone may be psychopathic doesn't actually mean they will do harm to anyone in the first place. I could go further with this kind of thinking but I think that is good for now...


We're ALL trapped in bodies for crying out loud. Ever watch any recent videos of David Berkowitz after being rehabilitated??? When he dies naturally of old age... I don't see him as coming back in a different body... doing the same thing in a different time and place. Had they executed him without rehabilitation... his spirit would have been "released" carrying the exact same baggage... plus a whole lot more picked up in prison.
edit on 22-12-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by shushu
 


No I haven't but since you mentioned it I did a quick search and read on a site that is about his "change" of becoming reborn. It was basically a transcript of some of the video with some other commentary. Interesting to say the least, however, I don't know one way or the other as to it's accuracy about his rehabilitation.

Keep in mind of course I am not an psychologist and the source of the information I read, at least in my opinion, was coming from a very pro-christian/pro-religious perspective, so they would obviously want to believe that his new found religious awakening did in fact cure him and therefore be an example of the saving grace of their God. Personally I am still skeptical about such a miracle change since it is a psychopath's skill at deception which might also be the explanation for his new character.

Once again though, you assume that these characteristics are automatically carried over after death which may not be true. While saving his soul, if indeed that is what happened, is surely the better method if possible, that still doesn't mean that such baggage wouldn't be discarded anyway at death as I mentioned before.
edit on 22-12-2011 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by lampsalot
I don't think sociopaths really exist.

I mean, isn't believing in a completely evil person, which is what a sociopath essentially is, just as ridiculous as believing in a completely good person? Even Hitler loved his mom, niece, his dogs, etc. And he's considered the worst person ever.

I can only add to this that they absolutely do exist. True evil does exist in the form of men. It's rare...thankfully (I think). I envy you that you've never seen anything in life to convince you of the truth of this.

I'm dead serious, by the way. Not a shred of sarcasm out of me here. I might be a bit happier person myself if I hadn't seen some of what I had earlier in life...but Evil absolutely does walk on two legs in the world around us..and once you HAVE seen it in person, you'll never be the same.

What bothers me most about this thread? It had never even crossed my mind that naturally, THOSE souls reincarnate just like the rest of us.


edit on 21-12-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Do you think pure goodness exists in humans too then? I won't believe in pure evil until I see pure good.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
at first, i thought you were going to discuss the classic batman theme that killing a murderer makes you a murderer yourself.

this is complete crap.

what you actually brought up is quite different. if reincarnation is true, and it is a form of rebirth, then by all means, the psychotic killer should be killed. besides, what makes these unfortunate souls so violent and "evil" has more to do with the configuration of neurons in the brain than their soul.

in short, if you believe in reincarnation, then what could be better for such an ill person than to be given a new body and mind?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by Violence

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by Violence
reply to post by lampsalot
 


Oh, take it from me, sociopath's do exist


So you don't love your mom? Never felt anything for your siblings, grandparents, dad, best friend? I'm asking because apparently you are a self-described one.


Actually I was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder. I have no feelings towards either of my parents, I neither speak to, or see either one. Without describing in full detail the 25 years I've been alive, you wouldn't really have an understanding of what a sociopath truly is, unless you've personally come into contact with one.


What is a sociopath? I always got the idea that a sociopath was someone who didn't love, or even care about anyone, except possibly themselves, and a psychopath is a sociopath with violent tendencies. Is that right?


Here's a pretty good definition of the difference. In essence it comes down to what the observer of the condition sees as the root cause.


Psychopathy vs. Sociopathy

Dr. Robert D. Hare, CM (author of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist) writes that the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder." The term sociopathy may be preferred by sociologists that see the causes as due to social factors. The term psychopathy may be preferred by psychologists who see the causes as due to a combination of psychological, genetic, and environmental factors.

en.wikipedia.org...


It may, in fact, provide a true delineation between two sub-groups who display the same behavior, while being afflicted as a result of two distinctly different causes.

My wife's younger brother (Chris) exhibits every listed behavioral trait associated with psychopathy other than those that involve violence or criminal behavior. In my untrained view, he seems to be a well-raised psychopath, and while he struggles to understand why his last 5 marriages ended in ugly divorces, he nonetheless works hard to achieve as much socially approved success as possible - given the constant hurdle of his inability to properly connect with people in a truly "human" sense of what that implies. He's a Sr VP (financial) with a large Utah banking/investment firm, and by all outward appearances is fully functional within the corporate culture that he's worked for decades. However, when presented with home/family/friends environs, Chris is clearly crippled - even as it's obvious that he tries to "think" his way though the interactions that most of the rest of us manage intuitively.

A few years ago, he flew out for Christmas with his 1st born (a 5 year old girl, whose mom - one of his ex-wives - has been very good about nurturing the bond between little girl and her dad) and while it was clear that the little girl loves him (which is a clear indication that he's never abused her) it was like watching a neophyte bowl by focusing on "hitting the lane markers" (as opposed to "feeling" the ball to the pins" like long time bowlers generally do) as he did his best to know how to be "natural" with her. How much laughing and smiling is too much laughing and smiling during play? What is the proper balance between indulgence and discipline? How does one act when one is "connected" with one's own offspring? It was both creepy and endearing to watch him struggle to do what a loving father does to his child, and it answered a lot of questions that I'd had when I'd (for years) heard the bizarre stories of inexplicable personal entanglements that this one member of my wife's family had initiated and subsequently been the ultimate victim of.

I guess that what I'm trying to suggest is that psychopathy is a bit more complex than the popular view of a soulless, bloodthirsty carnivore roaming the streets in search of serial murder opportunities. I would imagine that some psychopaths are genuinely confused as to what it is that the rest of us share that they can't seem to experience for themselves. Hell, I would imagine that true psychopaths - as well as those who've embraced a psychopathic personality as a result of years of necessary success programming - are pretty well represented within the worlds of business and politics. Chris does extremely well, given all the chaos inherent in his seemingly innate inability to figure out how to achieve the classic Midwestern dream of wife, kids, and happy home. And he's never broken any laws or hurt anyone in retaliation when taken to the cleaners by yet another obviously terrible marital choice. Maybe there is such a thing as a well-raised (and therefore socially responsible) psychopath?
edit on 12/22/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


Is it 'right' to execute a psychopath? This is a question I have pondered for some time now, for it has been a moral paradox of my own. I have even been at a stalemate with executing rapists and child molesters. For the longest part of my life I would very quickly say, "Execute, execute, execute!"

Free Will... Freedom...

If we classify psychopaths as worthy of execution, indefinite imprisonment, or forced mental "rehabilitation", how long before other psychological or mental states are included? How long before mere ideology, belief, or opinion is deemed harmful to society? Who gets the authority to say what is normal or good for the collective society? Who gets the authority to decide who is psychopathic, mentally ill, or just made some bad decisions? Does the good of society include its governmental system? And if so, is political dissidence cause for execution, indefinite imprisonment, or mental rehabilitation?

You see the can of worms that we have opened here?

I believe that if you want a certain Freedom, Right, Liberty, or Protection... you must ensure and protect the same principle to all others. Once you begin to limit, restrict, control, or take away from others... you also set the precedent to allow others to limit, restrict, control, and take away from you. "You do so unto yourself that which you do unto others."

So... what do we do with the psychopath? What would you want done to yourself?


edit on 12/22/11 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Reincarnation is real, and here is a pragmatic, physics-based explanation of it:

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

2. Nature is extremely conservative, doesn't waste anything, and is extremely efficient in storing huge amounts of information in very small packages.

3. Individual consciousness can be described as a uniquely structured pattern of self-sustaining energy.

4. The world we exist in is subject to wildly fluctuating streams of energy in the form of sunlight, moonlight, the solar wind and CMEs, radiation, neutrinos, etc.

5. The physical body is both a protective shield against the natural energy fluxes, and a temporary booster information storage system, akin to RAM in a computer.

6. The core that survives the death of the body is effected by how you lived your life and those things you paid attention to. Every religion and philosophical system ever known has always stressed the importance of "walking the walk" and making things part of you, i.e., encoding the beliefs/behaviors into that structured pattern of energy that constitutes you so that you carry them with you eternally.

7. When the body dies, the information held in RAM is lost, and only that which has been written to the "hard drive", i,e, our souls, that structured pattern of energy, survives the reboot, i.e., reincarnation. That core is subject to degradation every moment it is exposed to the the raw energy fluxes of the environment.

8. Over time, as awareness grows, that structured pattern, "soul", learns better information compression and shielding techniques and is able to retain more information (memories) for longer periods unhoused in a body.

9. Nature abhors a vacuum. Every living thing is conscious to one degree or another.

Note that this model of reincarnation explains quite handily what we see in the real world. It explains the varying levels of maturity (not physical age-related). It explains child prodigies. It illuminates the reasons why so many religious/ethical/moral systems are so similar.

I should point out that it accounts for evil, too, in that it is a neutral system: whatever walk you walk and make part of your system, it will be easier to follow that same path upon reincarnation, for good or evil. It also allows for changing from one path to the other.

As for where "new" souls come from, the question might be better asked, where do animal ones go? If I'm correct, then increasing numbers of human bodies combined with decreasing numbers of animal bodies implies that higher-conscious animal spirits pass into human bodies. Higher-conscious because that soul needs the extra mental room, that is, the physical capacity a human nervous system provides, to further its growth. It would certainly explain some of the behaviors we see, it would take a few lifetimes to transition fully from the behaviors of one form of life to another. Plus, see numbers 2 and 9.

In the context of this discussion, the energy construct that is a sociopath is one who has repeatedly chosen to prey upon the world for personal reasons, deliberately suppressing empathy and connection to fellow spirits. I think that among the elder souls who are aware and who have chosen this path, thee exists some truly evil beings, very powerful in their awareness. their power isn't manifested in magic or direct energy manipulation: it is in their ability to predict behaviors and recognize the emotionally/spiritually young and vulnerable coupled with their willingness to take extreme advantage of it.

Is it ok to execute them? Sure as hell is: no paradox there for me.

At the very worst it removes them from the scene for awhile.

At best it gives them another chance to actually change, to walk a different walk that might lessen their propensity towards being a psychopath.

There is a way for a soul to die a true death: I think some, a lot, of true deaths occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe that the reason no one's used nukes since is that those events created "a disturbance in the Force" that everyone felt without understanding exactly what it was, but did connect it with the nukes.

If you could execute by atom smasher, you might be able to actually kill a spirit, I'm not sure.

But killing the body it inhabits is the next best thing. At least it gets them out of the picture for awhile.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Excellent post. Very thought provoking.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


So If I'm understanding you right, the essential premise of your 'paradox' is that a psychopath is inherently a psychopath, and therefore when he dies, he returns to his/her archetypal spiritual condition of disorder, to be reincarnated anew and given a fresh chance to kill more people?

But why should that be true? What makes the "memory" of your teacher so credible? I've read differently. I spend quite a bit of time, nightly, studying Kabbalah/Alchemy, and I have an overall fascination with metaphysics/esotericism, and my understanding is, the spiritual world works in a way fundamentally different from what you're describing.

In the spiritual world, like attracts like; there is complete polarity in the spiritual world, unlike in this world, where both evil and good can exist within the same context. In the other world, when a person dies, the spiritual forces or energies which made up his/her collective life experiences are dislocated from the unified consciousness of the individual, and are experienced subjectively by the deceased ego (or what remains of it) The evil actions he did - basically any selfish action - are separated from the good, and before he basks in paradise, he must experience the hell of his own creations.

This isn't divine punishment per say, but rather, a cleansing of the personality, removing the dark, impure, or defected aspects of the self which contradicted the absolute nature of the One. Anything that contradicts the oneness of the world, basically, any selfish action, is purged from the being; and the thing which does the purging is the energy itself. The impression of the thought, speech or deed.

Human law is meant to reflect metaphysical law; just as there is a law of measure for measure - you get what you give, so to, it has been commanded (if you appreciate the inner significance of the Hebrew revelation) that a person who murders in cold blood will himself be subject to the death penalty. This is so because this world is not removed from the spiritual world. This world is a REFLECTION and MANIFESTATION of Divine metaphysical principles and energies. It is the concretization of the abstract. It is meant to function in the same way, but in this world, which is a world of passage and movement, it can only be so through mans free will. He can either follow the divine impression - the metaphysical laws which find expression through physical processes, or he can be careless and ignore what requires active penetration. It is no coincidence that indolence - which finds it metaphysical cognate in matter - is the source of evil.

Attempting to reform a murderer, even if it were possible, is not necessary, because our job is to do what God has commanded - and not to vainly imagine we can undo what the murder has done. What he has done, fundamentally, can only be fixed through an equal action. He took away life, he deprived an individual of a life to be lived, and all the spiritually elevating experiences that individual was destined to experience, and because he has done that, only his/her blood can be a proper and equitable recompense for the crime. Again, as I clarified before, in this world we have the power of choice. And we must accept that, and not allow ourselves to stultify in a wayward determinism.

I do not believe at all that a psychopath is reincarnated again as a psychopath. I do however believe that between this world and the highest spiritual worlds stands demonic spiritual realms that derive their existence from the actions committed by man in this physical world. The souls of evil people, if they are sufficiently evil, and especially so if they are involved in occultic practices designed to bypass the laws of karma, derive from this realm. Meaning, they are a personification of an archetypal energy - the demonic - in this physical world. Their life is fundamentally connected to the world they spiritually derive from. The way too defeat them is to defeat the presence of evil in the world, which can only be effectively done through education and good deeds.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Attempting to reform a murderer, even if it were possible, is not necessary, because our job is to do what God has commanded - and not to vainly imagine we can undo what the murder has done. What he has done, fundamentally, can only be fixed through an equal action. He took away life, he deprived an individual of a life to be lived, and all the spiritually elevating experiences that individual was destined to experience, and because he has done that, only his/her blood can be a proper and equitable recompense for the crime. Again, as I clarified before, in this world we have the power of choice. And we must accept that, and not allow ourselves to stultify in a wayward determinism.


An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by shushu
 


Only a world blind to injustice could think a murderer shouldn't have done to him what he did to another.

On a spiritual level, he can not be corrected unless by having what he took away from another also taken away from him.

It is not done in malice, but as a just recompense, a spiritual 'antidote' for the gravest of sins.

If you reform the murderer, still, look at what was lost. The prrson (or in the case of a serial killer, the people) he killed. Ignoring what he did is an insult to their memory; to give him Life, in exchange for his taking away their life... I cannot think of a more unjust thing.
edit on 22-12-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by shushu
 


Only a world blind to injustice could think a murderer shouldn't have done to him what he did to another.

On a spiritual level, he can not be corrected unless by having what he took away from another also taken away from him.

It is not done in malice, but as a just recompense, a spiritual 'antidote' for the gravest of sins.

If you reform the murderer, still, look at what was lost. The prrson (or in the case of a serial killer, the people) he killed. Ignoring what he did is an insult to their memory; to give him Life, in exchange for his taking away their life... I cannot think of a more unjust thing.
edit on 22-12-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


So to hell with forgiveness, then?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 

I'm not sure what you mean by "forgiveness." I know it's a common word and all that, but I don't think you and I are using it the same way. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you knock a coffee maker to the floor, it breaks and your spouse comes running to see what happened. You get told you're forgiven, but you still have to buy a replacement coffee maker.

It is quite common to be forgiven, but still have to pay the price. Back when the Pope was shot, the shooter was caught and jailed. The Pope visited and told him he was forgiven. Even though he was forgiven, the Italian authorities kept the guy in jail until his term was up.

Forgiveness and punishment can exist together.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by shushu
 


Only a world blind to injustice could think a murderer shouldn't have done to him what he did to another.

On a spiritual level, he can not be corrected unless by having what he took away from another also taken away from him.

It is not done in malice, but as a just recompense, a spiritual 'antidote' for the gravest of sins.

If you reform the murderer, still, look at what was lost. The prrson (or in the case of a serial killer, the people) he killed. Ignoring what he did is an insult to their memory; to give him Life, in exchange for his taking away their life... I cannot think of a more unjust thing.
edit on 22-12-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


Freeing them by killing them isn't justice. It's letting them off the hook.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by lampsalot
 

I'm not sure what you mean by "forgiveness." I know it's a common word and all that, but I don't think you and I are using it the same way. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you knock a coffee maker to the floor, it breaks and your spouse comes running to see what happened. You get told you're forgiven, but you still have to buy a replacement coffee maker.

It is quite common to be forgiven, but still have to pay the price. Back when the Pope was shot, the shooter was caught and jailed. The Pope visited and told him he was forgiven. Even though he was forgiven, the Italian authorities kept the guy in jail until his term was up.

Forgiveness and punishment can exist together.



I don't think you can sentence a person to DEATH and say you forgive them. That doesn't make any sense. I think forgiveness is just contrary to human nature, unless that person is a blood relative.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 





So to hell with forgiveness, then?


What does forgiveness have to do with it?

It's not the states priority to forgive..Forgiveness is the prerogative of the individual who murdered, to seek expiation for his horrendous crime from God. The states job, conversely, is to exact justice.

Why not reverse that statement: to hell with justice then? The blood that was spilled, ignore it? and the human soul murdered, and robbed of his/her life - they no longer deserve justice?? They lose their life, and their killer - is given life? Do you have any idea how grossly obscene that sounds?

No society can work that way; for one, people would take advantage of it, and two, but most importantly, the blood of the deceased, their memory, cries out for justice. The one who takes a life in cold blood, forfeits his life. This is such a simple, and completely logical idea, and it astounds me that people - mainly due to mindless liberal propaganda - oppose it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join