sp

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. When you look long into any abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

This article will explore the concept of psychopathy, and the implications for nurses. A brief review of etiological theories, definitions and treatment approaches will be provided.

As we approach the next millennium, the words psychopath, sociopath and antisocial conjure up images of serial murderers, sexual predators and child molesters. Our news media, music and film industries are filled with the imagery of this twenty-first century bogeyman. In the 1980’s, Princess Diana of Wales was photographed listening on headphones to the rock band, Talking Heads, and identified them as her favorite band. Their hit song, "Psycho Killer", was a huge international success. Indeed, as a society we have become so accustomed to brutality, that the persona of the psychopath blends easily into the landscape. "Psychopaths can be described as intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs." (Hare, 1993, p. 25) This description of humans being engaged in intraspecies violence, without the precipitant of territoriality, reproduction or lack of food supply sets them apart from virtually all other members of the animal kingdom. It is here, in the territory of the psychopath, that one sees self-gratuitous physical, sexual and emotional violence.

"Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, was well known for his apt portrayal of personality types. One of them, ‘The Unscrupulous Man", corresponds closely to our current conception of the antisocial character." (Millon, et al, 1998, p. 3)

personality disorder

psychopath

antisocial

People like serial killers who cannot contain their urges to kill repeatedly for no apparent reason are assumed to suffer from some mental illness. However, they may be more cruel than crazy, choosing not to control their urges, knowing right from wrong, knowing exactly what they're doing. In such cases, they fall into one of three types that are usually considered aggravating circumstances in addition to their legal guilt -- antisocial personality disorder (APD), sociopath, or psychopath -- that are neither insane nor psychotic. APD is the most common type, afflicting about 4% of the general population. The American Psychiatric Association estimates that 3% of all males in our society are sociopaths. Psychopaths are rare, found in perhaps 1% of the population.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is practically synonymous with criminal behavior. It's so synonymous, in fact, that practically all convicted criminals (65-75%) have it, with criminologists often referring to it as a "wastebasket" category. Psychologists consider it an adult version of juvenile conduct disorder. The main characteristic of it is a complete and utter disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society. They seldom show anxiety and don't feel guilt. There's really no effective treatment for them other than locking them up in a secure facility with such rigid rules that they cannot talk their way out. A full list of APD traits would include:

whereas the DSM-IV "clinical" features of Antisocial Personality Disorder (with a person having at least three of these characteristics) are:

Sociopathy is chiefly characterized by something wrong with the person's conscience. They either don't have one, it's full of holes like Swiss cheese, or they are somehow able to completely neutralize or negate any sense of conscience or future time perspective. Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme. Everything and everybody else is mentally twisted around in their minds as objects to be used in fulfilling their own needs and desires. They often believe they are doing something good for society, or at least nothing that bad. The term "sociopath" is frequently used by psychologists and sociologists alike in referring to persons whose unsocialized character is due primarily to parental failures (usually fatherlessness) rather than inherent features of temperament. However, this may only describe the "common sociopath", as there are at least four (4) different subtypes -- common, alienated, aggressive, and dyssocial. Commons are characterized mostly by their lack of conscience; the alienated by their inability to love or be loved; aggressives by a consistent sadistic streak; and dyssocials by an ability to abide by gang rules, as long as those rules are the wrong rules. Some common sociopathic traits include:

Psychopathy is a concept subject to much debate, but is usually defined as a constellation of affective, interpersonal, and behavioral characteristics including egocentricity; impulsivity; irresponsibility; shallow emotions; lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse; pathological lying; manipulativeness; and the persistent violation of social norms and expectations (Cleckley 1976; Hare 1993). The crimes of psychopaths are usually stone-cold, remorseless killings for no apparent reason. They cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please without the slightest sense of guilt or regret. In many ways, they are natural-born intraspecies predators who satisfy their lust for power and control by charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence. While almost all societies would regard them as criminals (the exception being frontier or warlike societies where they might become heroes, patriots, or leaders), it's important to distinguish their behavior from criminal behavior. As Prof. Hare is fond of pointing out, MOST PSYCHOPATHS ARE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITIES BUT NOT ALL ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITIES ARE PSYCHOPATHS. This is because APD is defined mainly by behaviors (Factor 2 antisocial behaviors) and doesn't tap the affective/interpersonal dimensions (Factor 1 core psychopathic features, narcissism) of psychopathy. Further, criminals and APDs tend to "age out" of crime; psychopaths do not, and are at high risk of recidivism. Psychopaths love to intellectualize in treatment with their half-baked understanding of rules. Like the Star Trek character, Spock, their reasoning cannot handle any mix of cognition and emotion. They are calculating predators who, when trapped, will attempt escape, create a nuisance and danger to staff, be a disruptive influence on other patients or inmates, and fake symptoms to get transferred, bouncing back and forth between institutions. The common features of psychopathic traits (the PCL-R items) are:

In addition to these most well-known types, there have been criminologists who have put forward additional constructs. They are only mentioned here because of their relevance to serial criminals, and the interesting similarity in the way they compare to the FBI's "disorganized - organized" typology.

The patterns of episodic aggressive behavior scale is derived from Joel Norris (1990) Serial Killers, London: Arrow Books and also reproduced in Brian Lane & Wilfred Gregg (1992) The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, NY: Berkeley Books. This particular sociopathic checklist is found in numerous places but extensively featured in both of Samenov's works in the 1970s on criminal personality (thinking errors).

The diagnosis of APD has long been controversial. The criteria for it seem to change with each and every new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I 1968; DSM-II 1976; DSM-III 1980; DSM-III-R 1987; DSM-IV 1994). The diagnosis was substantially changed with DSM-III when the APA decided to distinguish between child and adult characteristics, and essentially substituted behavioral criteria (like truancy or law violations) for personality criteria (like callousness and selfishness). In the DSM-III-R (R for Revised), the focus was on violence and a list of violent acts (fighting, cruelty to others, cruelty to animals). The current DSM-IV approach essentially says that anything which is not sociopathy, psychopathy or dyssocial personality disorder is antisocial personality disorder, but there is considerable overlap. The diagnostic possibilities are endless; there are at least 3 million possible variations of symptoms on at least 62 different measurable items.

Ongoing research is quite prolific into the factor or principal components analysis of APD characteristics. Most forensic experts believe there are 3-4 factors (groupings of symptoms). One factor involves symptoms that cluster around what might be called a Lack of Planning (promiscuous, irresponsible, impulsive traits and behavior). Another factor clusters around the notion of Disregard for Others. A third factor is clearly related to Adult Criminality. A fourth factor is clearly related to Juvenile Delinquency. Impulsivity appears to be a prototypical (core) feature, but it can take many forms. Definitions of impulsivity are numerous -- a tendency to act without reflection; dysfunctional information processing; a tendency for risk taking; sensation seeking; and an inability to sustain attention. Rating scales are easily available to measure these.

The incidence of APD is twice as high for inner-city residents than in small towns or rural areas, and five times higher in males than in females. It affects people in all social classes, but if someone with APD is born into a family of wealth and privilege, they will usually manage to eek out a successful business or political career. Poorer people with APD tend to wind up in state prison systems. Since African-Americans are seven times more likely to be represented in state prison systems, it's tempting to speculate the incidence of APD among African-Americans is high. However, there are most likely other causes of crime among African-Americans (like unemployment and racism). The fact is that most of the current prison population, white or black, shares the APD diagnosis. All it takes is a juvenile record, an adult offense career, aggressivity, impulsivity, a checkered work history, and/or lack of demonstrable repentance. These can be easily found in almost any prison inmate's dossier.

One of the things closely related to APD is the comorbidity of alcoholism and narcotic addiction. Some of the criteria for a substance abuse disorder are very similar: theft, hazardous behavior, failure to fulfill role functions in home, school, and work. A strong correlation exists between substance abuse and factor 2 (antisocial behaviors) of the psychopathy construct. APDs with a drug addiction have some serious substance abuse problems -- the kind that lead to death by overdose or accident within five years. Are APD and narcotic addiction part of the same disorder, does one lead to the other, or are they are spuriously linked together? From what little research there is, it appears that most of the time, APD precedes narcotic addiction, although some of the time, addiction leads to APD behaviors. People with such comorbid characteristics also usually have undiagnosed other Axis I and Axis II disorders.

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th Century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn anomic neighborhoods of Los Angeles, our society has always produced sociopaths who are quite often the products of illegitimacy, broken homes, and a lack of any bonding with male or societal authority. Some 70% of sociopaths come from fatherless homes. Father absence produces many consequences similar to the symptoms of sociopathy -- early, precocious sexuality; antagonistic, deprecating attitude toward the opposite sex; lack of interest in bonding with a durable, stable mate; aggressive acting-out; excessive boasting; and risk-taking behavior. Some 30% of children today are born out-of-wedlock, and another 30% live in divorced homes. These conditions - a problem of unsocialization - produce sociopathy. Furthermore, sociopaths tend to reproduce themselves, that is, they produce more than own their share of illegitimate offspring themselves.

So what is a sociopath? You won't find criteria in the DSM IV or official psychiatric nomenclature, but the construct refers to the largest subgroup of APDs. Most are males, but an increasing number are female. They have otherwise normal temperaments (as opposed to psychopaths who have abnormal temperaments). Some are aggressive, fearless sensation seekers, and others are Machiavellian manipulators. One thing they all have in common is that they are "too much" to handle for their parents or anyone else. It's common to refer to them as unsocialized, but the dyssocial sociopath does socialize to the mores and values of a dyssocial outgroup, like a gang. Let's explore the four (4) subtypes of sociopaths:

COMMON SOCIOPATHS are the largest subtype and have a weak or unelaborated conscience. They are not ashamed by the same things as you or I would be ashamed of. They are like feral children grown up, taking pleasures and gratifying impulses at every opportunity or temptation. They especially enjoy and take pride in bending or breaking the rules. As teenagers, they are often runaways. As adults, they are often geographically mobile, living in shelters, or taking advantage of welfare systems. They are experienced shoplifters. They have quite active sex lives. They are usually of average intelligence, but don't do well in school and never seem to break out of low-paying dead-end jobs. Nevertheless, they seem genuinely happy with their lives, unburdened by any sense of negative self-worth or the fact that they have not been a functional, contributing member of society.

ALIENATED SOCIOPATHS have never developed the ability to love, empathize, or affiliate in real life with another person. They will show more emotion toward their pet or a personal artifact than toward a person. Or, they may hate animals and live out their emotional life by watching TV (identification with soap opera characters is a common pattern). Dating and marriage relationships will be very barren and empty. They won't get along with the neighbors. They live in a shell. They have a cold, callous attitude toward human suffering or any social problem in the society they live in. They just don't care because it's outside their range of empathy. Most will believe they are justified in this because they feel they were cheated in some way themselves by society, and a few will be more than happy to rant and rave about it to anyone who listens. They are chronic complainers, and underneath it all, they would like to see nothing better than all of society destroyed.

AGGRESSIVE SOCIOPATHS derive strong, yet nonperverse gratification from harming others. They like to hurt, frighten, tyrannize, bully, and manipulate. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only drop subtle hints about what they are up to. They polish their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation others might feel. They seek out positions of power, such as parent, teacher, bureaucrat, supervisor, or police officer. Their style is one of passive aggression as they systematically go about sabotaging the ideas of others to get their ideas in place. In their spare time, they like to hunt or occasionally do sadistic things like find stray dogs and cut them up. They are usually effective at getting their way, and are especially vindictive if resisted or crossed. They don't follow the social norm of reciprocity like others do.

DYSSOCIAL SOCIOPATHS identify and hold an allegiance with a dyssocial, outcast, or predatory subculture. Any subculture will do, as long as it runs counter to established authority. They are capable of intense loyalty, and even a feeling of guilt and shame, within such limited circles. They seem to continually fall upon bad luck and bad companions, however. While they will constantly complain that none of this is their fault, behind it all is a kind of self-defeating mechanism in the poor choices they made themselves.

Psychopaths cannot be understood in terms of antisocial rearing or development. They are simply morally depraved individuals who represent the "monsters" in our society. They are unstoppable and untreatable predators whose violence is planned, purposeful and emotionless. The violence continues until it reaches a plateau at age 50 or so, then tapers off. Their emotionlessness reflects a detached, fearless, and possibly dissociated state, revealing a lower autonomic nervous system and lack of anxiety. It's difficult to say what motivates them - control and dominance possibly - since their life history will usually show no bonds with others nor much rhyme to their reason (other than the planning of violence). They tend to operate with a grandiose demeanor, an attitude of entitlement, an insatiable appetite, and a tendency toward sadism. Fearlessness is probably the prototypical (core) characteristic (the low-fear hypothesis). It's helpful to think of them as high-speed vehicles with ineffective brakes. Certain organic (brain) disorders and hormonal imbalances mimic the state of mind of a psychopath.

There are four (4) different subtypes of psychopaths. The oldest distinction was made by Cleckley back in 1941 between primary and secondary. However, we'll explore the other two subtypes first:

DISTEMPERED PSYCHOPATHS are the kind that seem to fly into a rage or frenzy more easily and more often than other subtypes. Their frenzy will resemble an epileptic fit. They are also usually men with incredibly strong sex drives, capable of astonishing feats of sexual energy, and seemingly obsessed by sexual urges during a large part of their waking lives. Powerful cravings also seem to characterize them, as in drug addiction, kleptomania, pedophilia, any illicit or illegal indulgence. They like the endorphin "high" or "rush" off of excitement and risk-taking. The serial-rapist-murderer known as the Boston Strangler was such a psychopath.

CHARISMATIC PSYCHOPATHS are charming, attractive liars. They are usually gifted at some talent or another, and they use it to their advantage in manipulating others. They are usually fast-talkers, and possess an almost demonic ability to persuade others out of everything they own, even their lives. Leaders of religious sects or cults, for example, might be psychopaths if they lead their followers to their deaths. This subtype often comes to believe in their own fictions. They are irresistible.

PRIMARY PSYCHOPATHS do not respond to punishment, apprehension, stress, or disapproval. They seem to be able to inhibit their antisocial impulses most of the time, not because of conscience, but because it suits their purpose at the time. Words do not seem to have the same meaning for them as they do for us. In fact, it's unclear if they even grasp the meaning of their own words, a condition that Cleckley called "semantic aphasia." They don't follow any life plan, and it seems as if they are incapable of experiencing any genuine emotion.

SECONDARY PSYCHOPATHS are risk-takers, but are also more likely to be stress-reactive, worriers, and guilt-prone. They expose themselves to more stress than the average person, but they are as vulnerable to stress as the average person. They are daring, adventurous, unconventional people who began playing by their own rules early in life. They are strongly driven by a desire to escape or avoid pain, but are unable to resist temptation. As their anxiety increases toward some forbidden object, so does their attraction to it. They live their lives by the lure of temptation.

Hare's PCL-R 20-item checklist is based on Cleckley's 16-item checklist, and the following is a discussion of the concepts in the PCL-R:

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.

3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.

4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.

10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.

12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.

13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.

14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.

15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.

16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.

17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.

18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.

19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.

20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.

Mandatory Discussion Question: It's often said that psychopaths would make great religious, military or political leaders if not for their tendencies for bad luck and run-ins with the law. Assume that some psychopath serial killer was a religious, military, or political leader. How would such a serial killer operate? What set of traits or behaviors would predominate?

PRINTED RESOURCES:
Cleckley, Hervey (1903-1984) The Mask of Sanity, Fifth Edition, 1988. Previous editions copyrighted 1941, 1950, 1955, 1964, 1976 by St. Louis: Mosby Co.
Fishbein, D. (2000) (ed) The Science, Treatment, and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Giannangelo, S. (1996) The Psychopathology of Serial Murder. Westport: Praeger.
Hare, R. (1991) The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. (1993) Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among us. NY: Pocket Books.
Hare, R. (1996) Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:25-54.
Jenkins, R. (1960) The psychopath or antisocial personality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 131:318-34.
Lykken, D. (1995) The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
McCord W. & J. (1964) The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal Mind. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Millon, T., E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith & R. Davis (1998) Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior. NY: Guilford Press.
Robins, L. (1978) Aetiological implications in studies of childhood histories relating to antisocial personality. In R. Hare & D. Schalling (eds) Psychopathic Behavior. Chichester: Wiley.
Rogers, R., R. Salekin, K. Sewell & K. Cruise (2000) Prototypical analysis of antisocial personality disorder. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(2) 234-55.
Sher, K. & Trull, T. (1994) Personality and disinhibitory psychopathology: Alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103:92-102.
Toch, H. & K. Adams (1994) The Disturbed Violent Offender. Washington: APA.

Everyone who works with people must read this book, March 4, 2000

Reviewer: steve44 (see more about me) from Arizona

Several other good reviews explain what this book is about but I can add a personal note. Some years ago I was describing to an older lawyer a bizarre, frightening man who had filed suit against my clients. "They guy's obviously a psychopath," he said. "Haven't you read Cleckely?" He gave me a copy and after reading it I understood what I was dealing with. A judge had recommended it to him many years before when he had his own first encounter with a psychopath (nowadays a person suffering from "anti-social personality disorder"). Those who work with people in stressful circumstances -- doctors, lawyers, social workers, etc. -- owe it to themselves, and to their patients and clients, to know this book.

A book good enough to have a permanent place on my shelves., August 3, 1998

Reviewer: jroshto@citizens1stbank.com from Tyler, TX

Fascinating study of the psychopathic (now called sociopathic) personality. Well written in a style that's easy to read. Many case studies, some funny, most tragic, of people who behave as though they grew up on Mars! The title refers to the fact that these people wear a "mask of sanity," but are in fact insane. Or at least, unsane. I recommend the book highly.

Early Book on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Effects, September 29, 2002

Reviewer: Peggy Seo Oba (see more about me) from Kansas City, Missouri United States

An early study on what is now known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). When the original book was written in 1938, the etiology of FAS was not known. And drinking/drug use(in private) by upper class women was considered to be "unladylike" and therefore "not done" and not recognized. Other books, written in 1998 by Dr. Ann Streissguth, more clearly explain the symptomology of FAS. Dr. Robert Ackerman's "Perfect Daughters: Grown Children of Alcoholics" more clearly explains patterns of female drinking which tends to be more privately done than male drinking.

A book that's ahead of it's time, December 3, 2001

Reviewer: tobeanna (see more about me) from Sydney, Australia

I really recommend this book to anyone interested in the subject. His case histories are a book in themselves and capture the soul of a psychopath so well. A very thorough book that examines every aspect of the condition, I am impressed by his attempt to even explore historical and literary references. Ahead of it's time because his conclusions cannot be shaken even now. A much better book than Hare's "Without Conscience". Hare even lifts phrases directly out of the book eg."trivial, impersonal affairs".

Astonishingly accurate portrayal of psychopaths without sensationalizing the subject. I like how he gives different types of psychopaths; these are men and women in the street, 'ordinary' individuals but so disturbed (hence the very apt title).

His analysis is spot-on: he really knows his subject. More thorough than Hare's. He doesn't fudge any details. Really all you need to know about the topic. Still the best book about psychopaths.

One point I will take up though. You mention Suppressive Acts. Suppressive Acts, and Suppressive Person, are terms which came into Scientology™ fairly late. I surmise at a time when Ron was getting rather desperate (I think he probably set himself too high goals, and would or could not water them down). Earlier on (I think amongst other places in Science of Survival) He talks about Infinity valued Logic. Briefly said, in many areas things are not either black or white, good or bad, but shades of grey in between. Suppressive Person is a term I do not use in originating articles, comments or ideas, and before I would answer or comment on something using that term, I would demand they define it, or rather told me what _they_ meant when they used it. Suppressive Person was not used in Scientology™ in the 50's, perhaps its richest decade. I hope this is not a discouraging letter. I am in fact, most impressed by how this group is helping people in "spiritual development" (perhaps I ought say what I mean by that, but won't). The following might be useful to some of you. A friend of mine, who however stayed associated with the church until two or three years ago, has made quite an investigation into the area, and set up a Home Page. You might be intersted in it: www.holycows.org The Latter Day Church (as I call it) has many "Holy Cows" which must not be questioned :-) All best wishes, Ant

The term psychopath conjures up images of movies such as Psycho or Silence of the Lambs. There are less inflammatory terms such as sociopath, antisocial personality type or undercontrolled personality type that apply to the same people. The meanings of these terms have changed and interchanged over the last half-century. Psychopath is now associated almost exclusively with violent actions rather than a propensity for violence.9 The last three terms are still used somewhat interchangeably to denote someone who lacks social emotions and often resorts to violence, deception or manipulation as a means to get what he wants. These people constitute 3 to 4 percent of the male population and 1 percent of the female.10 Such people who enter the military are not monsters waiting to be released. They can be level-headed, productive soldiers, and if put into the right situation, they will kill the enemy aggressively and without remorse. If these soldiers are in our units, how can we identify them? A predisposition to kill is the result of genetics and early childhood experience. There are common traits that are indicative of natural killers. While the collection of these traits is not absolutely deterministic of a killer, it is a good framework for identifying those who may have this propensity. In general, the natural killer found in the US Army lacks social emotions, is a later son (not first-born), got into frequent fights as a child, enjoys contact sports, is from a middle or upper class background, is an extrovert, has above-average intelligence and a caustic sense of humor.

>Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion > > by Robert D. Hare, Ph.D. > >Psychiatric Times February 1996 Vol. XIII Issue 2 > >A Secret Service agent recently asked if I was familiar with a 1992 FBI report that almost half of the killers of law enforcement officers met the criteria for antisocial >personality. I replied that I had not seen the report but that the finding did not seem surprising or noteworthy to me. My comment was based on the assumption that >the report had used antisocial personality as a synonym for antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), a category listed in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and >Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and applicable to the majority of criminals. > >However, the agent explained that the description of the killers in question indicated to him that they matched the profile of the psychopath defined by the >Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare 1991). When I later saw a copy of the FBI report, I realized that he was correct in his assessment and that the report's findings >were indeed noteworthy and chilling, particularly for law enforcement officers. > >The killers' characteristics referred to as antisocial personality in the FBI report were as follows: sense of entitlement, unremorseful, apathetic to others, >unconscionable, blameful of others, manipulative and conning, affectively cold, disparate understanding of behavior and socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of >social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, irresponsible. These killers were not simply persistently antisocial individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for ASPD; >they were psychopaths- remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends. > >The distinction between psychopathy and ASPD is of considerable significance to the mental health and criminal justice systems. Unfortunately, it is a distinction that is >often blurred, not only in the minds of many clinicians but in the latest edition of DSM-IV. > >Source of the Problem > >Traditionally, affective and interpersonal traits such as egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse, have >played a central role in the conceptualization and diagnosis of psychopathy (Cleckley; Hare 1993; in press); Widiger and Corbitt). In 1980 this tradition was broken >with the publication of DSM-III. Psychopathy- renamed antisocial personality disorder- was now defined by persistent violations of social norms, including lying, >stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests. > >Among the reasons given for this dramatic shift away from the use of clinical inferences were that personality traits are difficult to measure reliably, and that it is easier >to agree on the behaviors that typify a disorder than on the reasons why they occur. The result was a diagnostic category with good reliability but dubious validity, a >category that lacked congruence with other, well-established conceptions of psychopathy. This "construct drift" was not intentional but rather the unforeseen result of >reliance on a fixed set of behavioral indicators that simply did not provide adequate coverage of the construct they were designed to measure. > >The problems with DSM-III and its 1987 revision (DSM-III-R) were widely discussed in the clinical and research literature (Widiger and Corbitt). Much of the debate >concerned the absence of personality traits in the diagnosis of ASPD, an omission that allowed antisocial individuals with completely different personalities, attitudes >and motivations to share the same diagnosis. At the same time, there was mounting evidence that the criteria for ASPD defined a disorder that was more artifactual >than "real" (Livesley and Schroeder). > >Psychopathy Checklist > >Coincident with the publication of DSM-III in 1980, I presented some preliminary findings on efforts to provide researchers with an operational definition of >psychopathy in offender populations (Hare 1980). During the next decade those early efforts evolved into the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Hare >1991), a 20-item construct rating scale that uses a semi-structured interview, case-history information and specific diagnostic criteria for each item to provide a >reliable and valid estimate of the degree to which an offender or forensic psychiatric patient matches the traditional (prototypical) conception of the psychopath >(Fulero; Stone). Each item is scored on a 3-point scale (0, 1, 2) according to the extent to which it applies to the individual. The total score can range from 0 to 40, >with between 15 percent and 20 percent of offenders receiving a score of at least 30, the cutoff for a research diagnosis of psychopathy. To put this into context, the >mean scores for offenders in general and for noncriminals typically are around 22 and 5, respectively. > >A 12-item version of the PCL-R was developed for use in the MacArthur Foundation study on the prediction of violence in the mentally disordered (Hart and others >1994). Published in 1995 as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) by Hart and colleagues, it is highly correlated with the PCL-R and is used >both to screen for psychopathy in forensic populations and as a stand-alone instrument for the assessment of psychopathy in noncriminal populations. The PCL:SV >formed the basis for the psychopathic personality disorder items used in the DSM-IV field trial for ASPD. > >The items fall into two clusters: One cluster, referred to as Factor 1, reflects core interpersonal and affective characteristics; the other cluster, Factor 2, consists of >items that reflect a socially deviant and nomadic lifestyle. The similarity between these factors and the behaviors and characteristics described above in the FBI report >are obvious. > >Most psychopaths (with the exception of those who somehow manage to plow their way through life without coming into formal or prolonged contact with the >criminal justice system) meet the criteria for ASPD, but most individuals with ASPD are not psychopaths. Further, ASPD is very common in criminal populations, >and those with the disorder are heterogeneous with respect to personality, attitudes and motivations for engaging in criminal behavior. > >As a result, a diagnosis of ASPD has limited utility for making differential predictions of institutional adjustment, response to treatment, and behavior following release >from prison. In contrast, a high PCL-R score depends as much on inferred personality traits as on antisocial behaviors, andÑwhen used alone or in conjunction with >other variablesÑhas considerable predictive validity with respect to treatment outcome, institutional adjustment, recidivism and violence (Hare 1991; Harris and >others; Hart and Hare, in press). > >For example, several studies have found that psychopathic offenders or forensic psychiatric patients (as defined by the PCL-R) are as much as three or four times >more likely to violently reoffend following release from custody than are nonpsychopathic offenders or patients. ASPD, on the other hand, has relatively little >predictive power, at least with forensic populations (Hart and Hare, in press). > >It might be argued that a diagnosis of ASPD is useful in civil psychiatric settings, particularly as a general risk factor for substance abuse (Leal and others). Even here, >however, psychopathy may be more important than ASPD in understanding substance abuse (Alterman and colleagues; Cacciola and others). > >The differences between psychopathy and ASPD are further highlighted by recent laboratory research involving the processing and use of linguistic and emotional >information. Psychopaths differ dramatically from nonpsychopaths in their performance of a variety of cognitive and affective tasks. Compared with normal individuals, >for example, psychopaths are less able to process or use the deep semantic meanings of language and to appreciate the emotional significance of events or >experiences (Larbig and others; Patrick; Williamson and others). > >It is worth noting that it is the interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy (as measured by PCL-R, Factor 1) that are most discriminating in these >experiments. In sharp contrast, those with a diagnosis of ASPD (in which interpersonal and affective traits play little role) differ little from those without ASPD in their >processing of linguistic and emotional material. > >DSM-IV > >Widespread dissatisfaction with the conceptualization and criteria for ASPD led the American Psychiatric Association to initiate a field trial in preparation for >DSM-IV. A stated goal of the trial (Widiger and others) was to improve coverage of the traditional symptoms of psychopathy. Included with the DSM-III-R criteria >for ASPD was a 10-item version of the PCL-R, referred to in the trial as the psychopathic personality disorder criteria. Many researchers and clinicians hoped that >the field trial would bring the diagnosis of ASPD back on track, but it did so in only a limited sense (Hare and Hart 1995). > >The field trial clearly indicated that most of the personality traits that reflect the traditional symptoms of psychopathy were just as reliable as those of the more >behaviorally specific DSM-III-R items (Widiger and colleagues). Thus, the original premise for excluding personality from the diagnosis of psychopathy/ASPD (in >DSM-III) turned out to be untenable. There was now a firm empirical basis for increasing the content-related validity of ASPD in DSM-IV, without a reduction in >reliability. Yet this did not happen, partly because, it was argued, the average clinician would not use the carefully structured approach to the assessment of personality >traits used in the field trial. > >It may come as a surprise to most clinicians that the criteria adopted for DSM-IV were not actually evaluated in the field trial. What was evaluated was the 10-item set >of adult symptoms (Criterion C) for ASPD listed in DSM-III-R. The seven-item set listed in DSM-IV was derived from the 10-item set; this derivation was logical >rather than empirical. Further, the field trial did not include evaluations of Criterion B (conduct disorder before age 15), a criterion listed in DSM-IV as a necessary >condition for a diagnosis of ASPD. > >Things become even more problematic when we consider that the DSM-IV text description of ASPD (which it says is also known as psychopathy) contains many >references to traditional features of psychopathy. But in many respects the text account is incongruent with the formal diagnostic criteria. Further, the "Associated >Features" section of the text contains this statement, and I paraphrase: Lack of empathy, inflated and arrogant self-appraisal, and glib, superficial charm are features of >ASPD that may be particularly useful in prison or forensic settings wherein criminal, delinquent and aggressive acts will be less specific to the disorder. > >The words used to describe these and related affective and interpersonal features are those typically associated with psychopathy and were based heavily on the >10-item psychopathic personality disorder set derived from the PCL-R. It is difficult not to conclude that DSM-IV contains two sets of diagnostic criteria for ASPD, >one consisting of antisocial and criminal behaviors, and the other consisting of these behaviors plus clinical inferences about personality. The clinician is not provided >with guidelines on how to make these inferences. > >Some Problems > >An unfortunate consequence of the ambiguity inherent in DSM-IV is likely to be a court case in which one clinician says the defendant meets the DSM-IV definition of >ASPD, another clinician says he does not, and both are right! The first clinician uses only the formal diagnostic criteria whereas the second clinician agrees that the >defendant meets the formal criteria but argues that he or she does not have the personality traits described in the "Associated Features" section of the DSM-IV text. > >The failure to differentiate between psychopathy and ASPD can have serious consequences for clinicians and for society. For example, most jurisdictions consider >psychopathy to be an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor in determining criminal responsibility. In some states an offender convicted of first-degree murder and >diagnosed as a psychopath is likely to receive the death penalty on the grounds that psychopaths are cold-blooded, remorseless, untreatable and almost certain to >reoffend. But many of the killers on death row were, and continue to be, mistakenly referred to as psychopaths on the basis of DSM-III, DSM-III-R or DSM-IV >criteria for ASPD (Meloy). We donÕt know how many of these inhabitants of death row actually exhibit the personality structure of the psychopath, or how many >merely meet the criteria for ASPD, a disorder that applies to the majority of criminals and that has only tenuous implications for treatability and the likelihood of violent >reoffending. If a diagnosis of psychopathy has consequences for the death penalty- or for any other severe disposition, such as an indeterminate sentence or a civil >commitment- clinicians making the diagnosis should make certain they do not confuse ASPD with psychopathy. > >Had DSM-IV accepted the results of its own trial, ASPD and psychopathy might now be more or less synonymous constructs. Instead, the failure to explicitly bring >personality back into the diagnosis of ASPD means that the disorder is ambiguous and continues to lack congruence with traditional conceptions of psychopathy. > >Perhaps this situation- an unfortunate and unnecessary one in my view- will be rectified in DSM-V. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that interpersonal and affective traits >are more discriminating of the construct of psychopathy than are the socially deviant behaviors reflected in the DSM-IV criteria for ASPD (Cooke). Diagnostic >confusion about the two disorders has the potential for harming psychiatric patients and society as well. > >Camouflage Society > >In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a "camouflage society," a society in which some psychopathic traits- egocentricity, lack of concern for >others, superficiality, style over substance, being "cool," manipulativeness, and so forth- increasingly are tolerated and even valued. With respect to the topic of this >article, it is easy to see how both psychopaths and those with ASPD could blend in readily with groups holding antisocial or criminal values. It is more difficult to >envisage how those with ASPD could hide out among more prosocial segments of society. Yet psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of business, >politics, law enforcement, government, academia and other social structures (Babiak). It is the egocentric, cold-blooded and remorseless psychopaths who blend into >all aspects of society and have such devastating impacts on people around them who send chills down the spines of law enforcement officers. > >Dr. Hare, who has researched psychopathy for more than 25 years, is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, and was scientific >director of a 1995 NATO Advanced Study Institute on Psychopathic Behavior. > >

1. Speaks in generalities
1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. "They say..."
"Everybody thinks...." "Everyone knows ..." and such expressions are in
continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked "Who is
everybody ..." it normally turns out to be one source and from this source
the anti-social person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole
opinion of the whole society.

- 2 -

This is natural to them since to them all society is a large hostile
generality, against the anti-social in particular.

2. Deals in bad news
2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks,
invalidation and general suppression.

"Gossip" or "harbinger of evil tidings" or "rumor monger" once described
such persons.

It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed
on by such a person.

3. Stops or worsens good news
3. The anti-social personality alters, to worsen, communication when he
or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often
embellished, is passed along.

Such a person also pretends to pass on "bad news" which is in actual
fact invented.

4. Does not respond to treatment
4. A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an anti-social
personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or psycho-
therapy.

5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or
friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled
manner in life, failing, not succeeding.

Such people make trouble for others.

When treated or educated, the near associate of the anti-social
personality has no stability of gain but promptly relapses or loses his
advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other.

Physically treated, such associates commonly do not recover in the
expected time but worsen and have poor convalescences.

It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as
they remain under the influence of the anti-social connection.

The largest number of insane are insane because of such anti-social
connections and do not recover easily for the same reason.

Unjustly we seldom see the anti-social personality actually in an
institution. Only his "friends" and family are there.

6. The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong target.
If a tyre is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion
or a non-causative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud,
he or she kicks the cat.

If A is the obvious cause, the anti-social personality inevitably blames
B, or C or D.

7. cannot finish a cycle of action.
Such become surrounded with incomplete projects.

8. No sense of responsibility
8. Many anti-social persons will freely confess to the most alarming
crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility
for them.
Their actions have little or nothing to do with their own volition.
Things "lust happened".
They have no sense of correct causation and particularly cannot feel
any sense of remorse or shame therefore.

9. Supports only destructive groups
9. The anti-social personality supports only destructive groups and
rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

10. fights against constructive or helpful actions
10. This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and
fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.
The artist in particular is often found as a magnet for persons with anti-
social personalities who see in his art something which must be destroyed and
covertly, "as a friend", proceed to try.

11. Destroys in the name of help
11. Helping others is an activity which drives the anti-social personality
nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are
closely supported.

12. Bad sense of property
12. The anti-social personality has a bad sense of property and conceives
that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense made up to fool people.
Nothing is ever really owned.

"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a serious flaw of which most people are unaware; it means that those who are both evil and clever need only mask their malice in a thin veil of apparent stupidity in order for that malice to go undetected. In addition, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."

One of the most important things that I have learned is to have a sense of perspective about problems. The reason that the English phrase is "a sense of perspective" is that things which are not visible directly to the eye can present the same sort of illusions to the "mind's eye" that physical objects can to the real eye.

An example may clarify what I have to say. Suppose that one late evening when the full moon is visible, as it sometimes is, you go outside and hold a quarter at arms length; comparing it in apparent size to the moon. You will notice that the quarter appears to be larger than the moon. Of course this is an optical illusion caused by the difference in perspective of the two objects. Were the quarter to be placed in the same perspective as the moon it would shrink to virtual invisibility.

In a similar fashion each person's own problems appear to be large to that person - only because everyone is close to their own problems. However when placed in proper perspective with the problem that I am about to point out; our personal problems shrink to un-noticeable insignificance.

Unfortunately the problem that I am going to describe is like a moon which is perpetually in the invisible new moon stage; it is not something that most people would even guess exists. Although virtually invisible - it is of overwhelmingly gigantic importance - having a profound effect on the tide of human affairs. I would estimate that about 99% of all of the problems confronting mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie.

Doubtless most of you are thinking to yourselves "Plausible lies, what the devil is he talking about? Sure everyone uses plausible lies to lubricate the day to day running of life, but they aren't particularly important. They allow people to answer questions when the truth would be too difficult to explain". But I am not talking about telling the boss that you are working on the Smith project in answer to the question: "What are you doing?", when what you were really doing at that split second was worrying about the results of your biopsy. The plausible lies I mean have about the same relationship to that kind of plausible lie that an H-bomb has to a child's cap pistol.

The plausible lies that I mean are monstrous affairs constructed by evil people for the express purpose of fooling good people into doing evil's will. The most powerful of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning their validity. I'll set up a hypothetical example so that you may see some of these lies in operation.

Imagine for a second that we take a group of serious and responsible citizens and construct what is called, in law school, a moot court. Suppose that we use a real Judge to preside at the court, real lawyers to serve as the opposing councils, real police officers to testify. We have the officers invent an imaginary drug possession charge and we pick, at random, Joe Blow out of the crowd of model citizens to be the defendant. The rest of the citizens are sworn in, questioned, and a jury panel is selected. The trial is started.

"All rise, moot court in and of this jurisdiction is now in session. The Honorable Judge Right Fair presiding." The case is announced: "The people vs. Joe Blow". The charge: "Felony Possession of Rock Cocaine - a controlled substance in violation of statute blah blah." "How do you plead?" "Not Guilty your Honor."

The police are called to testify - lab reports are entered into evidence. The case against the defendant builds, the defense is lame, consisting mostly of variations of the famous "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" defense. The attorneys present their closing arguments, and the Jury retires for deliberations.

The jury returns, the defendant rises, is found guilty, and is sentenced to five years in prison.

All in all, a successful demonstration of the legal system at work - as close to a real trial as we could make it. We talk to the jurors after the case. To a person they report that they believe justice was served: they carefully listened to all of the evidence, carefully weighed the believability of everyone who testified; they were as fair and as impartial as they could have been. They uniformly feel good about the decision they reached.

There is one tiny little problem though: everyone in the room knew for a fact that Joe Blow was innocent. They all knew that the charges against him were an utter fabrication, and yet they not only CONVICTED him, they felt GOOD about it!

Stop and think for a few seconds about the ramifications of that last observation...

If you have the brains to follow what I have said, and enough intellectual honesty to admit that it was your fault when you got sun-burned, then there is only one conclusion you can reach. If the legal system allows you to feel good about convicting someone when you KNOW they are innocent, and you KNOW that the case against them is a pack of lies; then the legal system is an utterly worthless pile of crap!

Part of the reason that the jurors feel good about their verdict is that a jury, because of its isolation, is a self referent body. By self referent I mean this: suppose that you decide to check the accuracy of a ruler by measuring it with itself. Hopefully it is obvious to everyone that measuring a ruler with itself will always show that the ruler is accurate to what ever degree you choose to measure it; regardless of how ridiculously inaccurate it may actually be. A judge or a jury ALWAYS feels happy with the verdict rendered, regardless of how absurd that verdict actually is; since the only standard that a judge or a jury has to measure itself with is itself.

Before I can show you how we wound up with a worthless justice system, there is a difficult concept that I have to introduce. If there is such a thing as a plausible lie, is it not also possible that there might be such a thing as an implausible truth? Perhaps an example of an implausible truth might make it more clear what I am trying to say.

Suppose that tomorrow when you step out of your home that an alien spacecraft lands in front of you. Several alien beings get out of the craft, point at you, laugh, get back into their ship and leave. Now suppose that this is no hallucination, no dream; it really happens. You are now the possessor of implausible truth. What chance do you think you have of convincing anyone else of what happened? You have the truth, but no one will believe you.

What causes your problem is this: truth generally has a feeling of reality to it. However, and this is key, that feeling of reality which makes truth generally plausible is NOT the same thing as truth. What gives truth its feeling of plausibility is the familiarity of that truth. Were EVERYONE to experience aliens laughing at them, the truth of that event would be quickly accepted.

Consider what the scientist who first realized that 'solid steel' was mostly a vacuum, went through in trying to explain his discovery to average people. Doubtless somebody attempted to prove the solidity of steel by hitting him over the head with a piece of it. Indeed, had the scientist who made the discovery not had the force of personality to convince others of the truth of his implausible find - we might today not realize that steel is largely vacuum.

What I have to say here is implausible, and doesn't feel right, largely because it is unfamiliar - not because it contains any inherent falsehood. It is a part of reality that any new discovery will have an air of implausabillity to it until it becomes familiar enough to be accepted. Were a new discovery to be instantly familiar it would be of very limited value; it would have covered very little new ground.

Indeed it is the familiarity of the legal system which gives an air of plausibility to the lies from which it is composed. To see how we wound up where we are, it would be useful to explore the history of the legal system.

Thousands of years ago the good people decided that they needed to create a system to insure that people got what they deserved. Imagine for a second that you were an evil person. How would you react to such a system? I think it would really scare you. After all, if people got what they deserved, you would get boiled in oil!

If you were both evil and clever, wouldn't you do everything in your power to be in charge of that system; to make sure that no real justice ever occurred? Bear in mind that evil people do not wear name tags that say: "Hate me, I'm evil"; they do everything they can to blend into society as a whole. Given this it is not too surprising to see that evil was involved deeply in the formation of the legal system.

Many years ago there was a system of 'justice' called trial by ordeal. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected. The implausible, unbelievable truth is that the people who thought that up simply enjoyed holding red hot pokers on peoples tongues! The current legal system is descended from such minds - it is much more clever and simply not as obviously evil as that one was.

Arguments could be advanced similar to ones which I make in these pages against other human systems - such as the medical field. For example, one could point out that surgery causes pain, and that surgery is therefore the work of evil. Clearly this is a specious argument. What differentiates what I have to say about the legal system from specious arguments about any other system is this: the legal system is directly and uniquely concerned with the control of evil - and as such - control of the legal system is of direct and overriding importance to evil. Because of this fact - which is undeniable - the legal system, above and beyond, any other human system needs to be regarded with deep suspicion. Because of the danger to humanity which a legal system controlled and influenced by evil poses - the legal system itself must be regarded as 'Guilty until proven innocent beyond any hint of doubt'.

I think that there is little argument that the United States has the best legal system in the world. Unfortunately having the best legal system in the world is a lot like having the world's biggest flea, or the world's fastest snail; so what? If the US system is the best, then using the US system to show what is wrong with legal systems will also show what is wrong with legal systems around the world - all the rest are even more heavily influenced by evil than the US system is.

Lets start our examination of the legal system at the very foundation of its existence: The State of Texas vs Joe Blow. To understand what I see here ask yourself this question: "Is the State of Texas vs Joe Blow a fair fight?". I don't think that it takes very much thought to realize that it is not. Indeed, Joe Blow stands a better chance of beating an elephant in a fist fight than he has of beating the state of Texas in anything!

A court of law is carefully designed to present the appearance of fairness, rather than being designed to actually be fair. I am sure that most people are familiar with things that look one way but are actually different from the way they appear on the surface. A court of law is one of those things.

In a court of law we have a very familiar structure: two opposing players, and an impartial referee. This is a structure which almost everyone can recognize: it is a contest. If we look a little closer we will realize that the structure is a sham.

Guess who's going to win most of those games? The best you could hope for is a 0 - 0 tie.

That is what is actually going on in a court of law. The 'fair and impartial judge' is employed by the state, as is the prosecutor; they are both on the same team. The state sets all the rules. The state is at zero risk - the best you can hope for is a scoreless tie.

Bottom line? You are going to lose. In fact you have lost before you ever get to court. Trials are not about whether the State of Texas gets to beat on Joe Blow, trials are about whether the State of Texas gets to CONTINUE beating on Joe Blow.

Consider what happens to a suspect in a criminal case: the first thing we do is kidnap the suspect at gun point. He is then slapped into irons and thrown into a cage for an indeterminate period of time until his case comes due. This is what we do to people in the United States when we consider them INNOCENT!

The people in the legal system are quick to point out that you are receiving "Due Process". That is true: you are being processed. Processing is what you do to a piece of meat when you run it through a meat grinder. If you ever experience the criminal justice system, you will understand what I am saying. What goes into the system might be Charles, but what comes out is ground Chuck.

It is my contention that the actual content of the legal system is designed to do the following:

Punishing the innocent involves more than just a verdict delivered by a jury. There are almost always innocent people involved in a criminal trial; the system is designed insure that these innocent people are subjected to as much pain as possible. An obvious example of punishing the innocent may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of course.

Let us examine a few particulars of the legal system to see how they bring benefit to evil and work to the detriment of good. If you read what legal theoreticians have to say about the structure of the legal system you will encounter statements like this: "It is a robust system which is designed to survive liars". "We assume that one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other, and we let the jury find the truth - which will lie somewhere between these two extremes." What a wonderfully plausible lie that is.

To see the evil behind that last plausible lie it is necessary to turn the assumption upside down. Instead of assuming that both sides are lying, let us assume that one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie is he to use - "I did it"?

The truth - due to the nature of reality - is never completely favorable to anybody; there is always some element of the truth that makes an innocent person look bad.

Since the legal system assumes that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides - there is always a shift toward the side telling the lies, and away from the side telling the truth. Under the right set of external circumstances This tilt, along with the fact that the truth may always be presented in such a way as to bring detriment to an innocent person, is often enough to shift the outcome toward the wrong side. Advantage: evil.

Consider the swearing in of witnesses before they testify. If a person is a cynical liar, taking this oath has no affect on that person. However, this oath places considerable pressure on a serious truthful witness. Advantage: evil.

In a court of law there is something called 'proof'. Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking. However what passes for proof in a legal sense bears only a superficial resemblance to what thinkers refer to as proof. In formal mathematical proof rules are established - postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the theorem. In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to 'prove'. However, the prosecution's theory is what ever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the case.

Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths. What legal 'proof' does is serve as an ad hoc structure for convincing a jury of the guilt of a suspect. There is a serious difference: Mathematical proof is judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case. Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say. Once again we see something in the legal system which is meant to fool the intelligent by presenting a familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. Advantage: evil.

Consider the fact that juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being framed people who know him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor, and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and knew him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him. Advantage: evil.

Consider secret jury deliberations. Those who do evil fear the light of day. Hidden proceedings are almost always to the advantage of evil. If jury deliberations were carried out in public it would be obvious if the jurors failed to understand the case. Misunderstanding is almost always a plus for evil. Having to look the defendant in the eye would make it more difficult to convict an innocent person, and easier to convict a guilty one. Advantage: evil.

In a similar fashion you can study everything about the legal system and find built in advantages being given to evil.

But the worst aspect of the legal system is the most hidden part of it. Most people know someone who really needs to have the devil beaten out of them. Why don't you do it then? The answer: because you would get in trouble with the law. Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage to evil. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.

In practice, trials degenerate to a modern version of the ancient Roman 'Circus' where people were thrown to the lions for the amusement of the public - and where if someone were to put up a particularly good fight they might get a 'thumbs up' from the haughty spectators. I am deeply ashamed to be a member of a race of beings that has the unmitigated gall to label such a monstrous system "Justice".

I note that much that I have had to say has involved showing that an innocent defendant is in deep trouble in the legal system. Conversely I have little to say about the other side of the coin: that the legal system is so constructed as to give a guilty defendant the maximum possible chance of escaping without additional penalty. I chose to do this because it is obvious to most people when the guilty go free - I don't need to say much more about that side of things.

Doubtless there are those who will point out that much of what I have to say here is rhetorical. I agree with that assessment. However, and this is a key point, just because something is rhetorical does not mean that it is false.

Some people reading this are doubtless having the reaction "So what? The defendants in the criminal system are guilty anyway; they're just getting what they deserve." If this is your reaction, congratulations; in case you didn't know it, you have just identified yourself as evil. You see, one would struggle mightily to come up with a better definition of evil than "A person who has a depraved indifference to truth and justice"; which is what you have just expressed.

Perhaps others are readying that catch-all phrase so cherished in academia: "I disagree". I love it when I have spent 30 years studying the problem of why things don't work, and upon presenting one of my major conclusions, someone who has not invested so much as ten seconds of thought on the subject chimes in with "I disagree" - as though his opinion were of any more import than the average random belch from a cow.

First spend a year thinking about what I have to say - that represents a little over 3% of the time I have used thinking about the subject - then tell me you disagree and why. Until then, your disagreement is simply sophistry; argument for argument's sake, and represents nothing but a massive waste of time.

"I disagree" is a classic example of a plausible lie. It would occur to almost no one that a person using this phrase is attempting to present the appearance of wisdom when in fact none exists. It is a way for people to experience the illusion of power created by stopping someone else from doing something good. This illusion of power is the same one experienced by vandals who throw paint on an existing masterpiece: "See I'm a painter too".

The one thing that most Americans would say that they have faith in is the American system of Justice; they would expect to receive a fair trial. Doubtless these words are deeply disturbing to the average American. All that I can say to those who find what I have to say troubling is this: I stopped believing in the tooth fairy a number of years ago, perhaps it is time you also grew up. Just because everyone has, for years, been telling you how wonderful, fair, and honest the American system of justice is - does not make it so.

The people in the legal system are much more likely to start behaving honestly if they know they are under deep suspicion, and that everyone is watching them closely, than they are if everyone takes the honesty of the legal system for granted.

In conclusion I would like to point out that it is true that we owe some of the people in the legal system a great deal. But, to paraphrase Raymond Chandler: 'the Yankee outfield, with two bats apiece, couldn't begin to give them what we owe them'.

Post Script. The average person is consumed with self deception. If you ask average people: "Does the legal system work? Is the legal system fair, just, and honest?" They will answer most solemnly: "Yes, no question. We have the finest legal system in the world - we go out or our way to be fair - just and honest. If anything, we are way too lenient"

But not one of those people are willing to serve as a test case to prove that the legal system works - "We'll charge you with being a child molester and run you through the legal system to see how things turn out for you".

Everyone knows, somewhere deep inside of them, that the legal system is not "fair, honest, and just" but most people spend their lives avoiding that fact at all cost. The brutal truth is that the legal system is all about getting someone helpless then hammering without mercy - all the while leaving everyone involved with the illusion that justice is being done.

If this were not true then we would not make sure that the defendant is unarmed. A plausible liar might claim that this is to insure 'proper decorum'. But it is really to insure that the defendant is not able to take any action; after all - he might object to what is being done to him and fight back.

The essence of justice is to treat the helpless with the same courtesy and respect that we give to the powerful. If we treat a helpless person differently than we would someone who is not helpless then we are being unjust.

We claim to be fair and civilized but we are no better than the Romans. Indeed we are worse; at least the Romans did not fool themselves about what they were doing with their Roman Circuses.

Sadly there are people who are not deceived by the legal system - and take advantage of the majority who are. For example: the U.S. Constitution forbids the granting of royal titles; that is why we have no 'Your majesties', or 'Your excellencies' in the United States. However we do have people who dress in Royal Robes and demand we call them 'Your Honor'; a royal title.

Indeed these people demand royal treatment; all must rise when they enter the room - and no one is allowed to question their judgment. It is the 21st century - and they have us dancing around like 12th century serfs - begging their indulgence, entering pleas to their royal selfs.

When examined, the legal system can be seen as nothing but one plausible lie piled on top of another. The more you look at the legal system - the worse it gets. It has only been self deception which has kept you from seeing what has been going on.

Let me suggest that you now re-read this web page - I suspect that the truths that it contains will be more apparent without the veil of self deception covering your eyes.

Back to the home page

"Any profession which needs a written code of ethics is an inherently unethical profession."

In the last section I pointed out that the problem of plausible lies is the most serious problem facing humanity today. I will now discuss the people who have been telling plausible lies: the Socially Adept Psychopaths or S.A.Ps (pronounced SAPS) of the world. An example of S.A.P. thought processes is in order.

Most people have heard of Ted Bundy; the serial killer who was executed in Florida several years ago. Not many people are aware of the fact that Bundy was studying to become a prosecutor, and that eventually he hoped to become a judge. Those that do know that fact see it as some strangely ironic twist - an inexplicable quirk in Bundy's bizarre makeup. It never seems to occur to most people that the perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide in society is as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to the Psychopaths of the world. I would estimate that about 10% of the prosecutors and judges in the United States are in fact, S.A.Ps. The ONLY difference between them and Ted Bundy is that they were able to control outward signs of their Psychopathy until they achieved their goal of being in a position of authority. I will quote from my novel "Unsuspected" to show how a psychopath views the position of Judge.

'John had one overriding dream; to become a judge. Here was the greatest reward possible for a psychopath: to put on the royal robes of the judiciary - to become a demigod - to have others plead to Him and beg His indulgence, to have everyone rise in awe and respect when He entered the room, for His word to literally be law, to be able to create an almost endless amount of human misery, just because He could, to punish summarily anyone who, quite correctly, displayed contempt for Him, to have the power of life and death over people, to be granted the only royal title available in the United States: "Your Honor".

How brilliant of his predecessors to slip that one past the watchful eyes of the founding fathers - who sought to establish an egalitarian society free of the mental disease of royalty. There are, he reflected, no "Your Majesties" or "Your Excellencies" in this country, but we quietly fooled everyone into accepting "Your Honors".'

What is it that S.A.Ps are attempting to achieve? Once again a quote from my novel may explain that.

'John House slept soundly. In his dreams he and his kind had finally succeeded in reshaping the world into the image they wanted: the dark ages had returned. Once more the plague swept unchallenged over the country side. John could hear the voice crying out in the mud street in front of his hovel: "Bring out your dead!"

John was in his glory. This was life the way it was supposed to be. He was the new Torquemada: randomly selecting anyone who was unscarred by smallpox for a session on the rack; since anyone who had escaped disfigurement had obviously signed a pact with the devil. Here at last was an era where John and his kind could feel good by comparison: with so much misery around him John knew he was better off than those he could see dying in squalor and ignorance. John reveled in the suffering of all about him. He did what he could to make that suffering worse; no agony was so great that John House could not add to it.'

It is difficult to believe that huge parts of society have been built with the guidance of the mentally ill; but they have been. The average person is heavily invested in doing things the way Psychopaths want them done, and is unaware that the things that the S.A.Ps have them doing are psychopathic.

What evidence do I have that S.A.Ps are running things? Here is an example: Almost every newspaper in the United States has a S.A.P. monitoring the letters to the editor section. This is because the letter to the editor section of a newspaper is one outlet of the truth, and needs to be monitored to insure that no one accidentally stumbles across any part of what is actually going on. Following is a letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle:

"It is time that the self righteous bubble surrounding the new topless dancing laws in this city was burst.

Many people, out of ignorance, have shame about anything sexual. This is a point of view which comes from not understanding the Yin and Yang nature of reality. In general good things are done out in the open and bad things are hidden. However, there are some bad things, like war, which are done in the open, and some good things, like surprise parties, which are hidden. Because of the fact that bad things are generally hidden - people tend to have a vague sense of shame about sex because sex is normally not seen.

Sex is hidden - not because it is bad or shameful - but because it is a physically dangerous time. Primitive people having sex in the open were vulnerable to all sorts of attack. For safety reasons our ancestors learned to hide their sexuality. We are descended from people who hid sex for good reasons. We have continued their behavior without understanding the reasons for it.

Of course there are those for whom an obvious truth like I just pointed out is not enough; they believe only in Higher truth. For those people here is the religious truth:

Who created sex, God or the devil? Obviously God did. Who created shame of sexuality, God or the devil? According to Genesis, God created mankind 'naked and unashamed', it was the devil who created shame about sex, not God. Whose work are you doing when you preach shame of sex, God's or the devil's? It is not God's truth you preach, but the devil's lies. Would you tell God that He needs to be ashamed of His finest work? That is what you are doing.

Now you have a terrible problem, before you learned the truth - you could weasel your way into Heaven with the following: "How could I have known? I thought I was doing good, I thought I was doing Your work". That excuse won't work any longer; now you know. The devil is the master of the believable lie, and the lie about sex is one of his best. If you continue to believe the devil's lie and do his work by preaching shame of sexuality I promise you - Heaven is not your final destination."

This is a profound letter - I think that no one but a S.A.P. would disagree with that assessment. Doubtless there are any number of plausible lies that could be given to justify not publishing such a letter: "It offends established religion" or "It is too controversial and radical in nature" or "It is an affront to the sensibilities of the average person" or "It doesn't meet our editorial standards". The truth is that it works against the hidden agenda that S.A.P's hold dear; it might allow people to increase their happiness levels; something which no S.A.P. wants to ever see happen. Here is what the Houston Chronicle published when sent that letter:

Absolutely nothing. Were this the only example I could give I would not have enough data to draw any conclusions, but it is far from the only example. There is a general rule which I have learned is useful in studying events which occur in life: "If it happens once that could be chance; there is little to get excited about. If it happens twice; that is likely a coincidence. If it happens three times out of three; there is a trend line that warrants investigation". I have sent enough profound letters to the editor for me to reach this conclusion: there is at least one S.A.P. who is influential in the editorial decision making process at the Houston Chronicle.

The truth is: the above letter would not be published in any newspaper in the United States. S.A.Ps understand the importance of controlling the ideas to which people are exposed; people stumbling around in the dark are much less likely to uncover the truth than those who have the benefit of the light.

As an experiment interested readers might try sending letters - containing the phrase "plausible lies" or which touch on the existence of Socially Adept Psychopaths - to the editor of their local newspaper, to see if any of them get published. I have done so repeatedly. None of them have ever been published. I have however, succeeded in having letters which deal with the conventional point of view published in the same paper. I suspect that if you run this experiment you will reach the same conclusions about your local paper that I have reached about mine. In my experience newspapers will publish letters to the editor which deal with the mundane; never those which are profound, or which question the propriety of the existing social structure.

The S.A.Ps have a problem, and it is a terrible problem: there is no way for them to control the Internet. As the Soviets found out; if people are given free access to information, there is no way to stop the truth. The information exchange which is possible over the Internet represents mankind's true "last best hope".

Back to the home page

ex·com·mu·ni·cat·ing, ex·com·mu·ni·cates
1. To deprive of the right of church membership by ecclesiastical authority.
2. To exclude by or as if by decree from membership or participation in a group.

excommunication
Related: Greek Religions

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

excommunication

formal expulsion from a religious body, the most grave of all ecclesiastical censures. Where religious and social communities are nearly identical it is attended by social ostracism, as in the case of Baruch Spinoza, excommunicated by the Jews. In Christianity the Roman Catholic Church especially retains excommunication; the church maintains that the spiritual separation of the offender from the body of the faithful takes place by the nature of the act when the offense is committed, and the decree of excommunication (or anathema) is a warning and formal proclamation of exclusion from Christian society. Those who die excommunicate are not publicly prayed for; but excommunication is not equivalent to damnation. Excommunications vary in gravity, and in grave cases readmission may be possible only by action of the Holy See. Excommunicates are always free to return to the church on repentance. Protestant churches have generally abandoned excommunication.

anathema
Related: Greek Religions

(ena´thime) [Gr.,something set up; dedicated to a divinity as a votive offering], term that came to denote something devoted to a divinity for destruction. In the Bible, the term is herem. Anathema means “accursed” in the New Testament, where it clearly suggests separation from God as the penalty. In the early Church and in Judaism contemporaneous with it, it was a penalty conveyed by a decree of excommunication .

The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

banish

SYLLABICATION:	ban·ish
TRANSITIVE VERB:	Inflected forms: ban·ished, ban·ish·ing, ban·ish·es 1. To force to leave a country or place by official decree; exile. 2. To drive away; expel: We banished all our doubts and fears.
ETYMOLOGY:	Middle English banishen, from Old French banir, baniss-, of Germanic origin.
OTHER FORMS:	ban'ish·er —NOUN ban'ish·ment —NOUN
SYNONYMS:	banish, exile, expatriate, deport, transport, extradite These verbs mean to send away from a country or state. Banish applies to forced departure from a country by official decree: The spy was found guilty of treason and banished from the country. Exile specifies voluntary or involuntary departure from one's own country because of adverse circumstances: The royal family was exiled after the uprising. Expatriate pertains to departure that is sometimes forced but often voluntary and may imply change of citizenship: She was expatriated because of her political beliefs. Deport denotes the official act of expelling an alien: The foreigner was deported for entering the country illegally. Transport pertains to sending a criminal abroad, usually to a penal colony: Offenders were transported to Devil's Island. Extradite applies to the delivery of an accused or convicted person to the state or country having jurisdiction over him or her: The court will extradite the terrorists.

Disorganized Episodic Aggression:	Organized Sociopathic Hatred:
Ritualistic behavior	Superficial charm and "good" intelligence
Attempts to conceal mental instability	Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational behavior
Compulsivity	Absence of "nervousness" or psychoneurotic manifestations
Periodic search for help	unreliability
Severe memory disorders and an inability to tell the truth	untruthfulness and insincerity
Suicidal tendencies	lack of remorse or shame
History of committing assault	inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
Hypersexuality and abnormal sexual behavior	poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
Head injuries; injuries suffered at birth	pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love
History of chronic drug or alcohol abuse	general poverty in major affective reactions
Parents with history of chronic drug or alcohol abuse	specific loss of insight
Victim of childhood physical or mental abuse	unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
Result of an unwanted pregnancy	fantastic and uninviting behavior with and sometimes without drink
Product of a difficult gestation for mother	suicide rarely carried out
Unhappiness in childhood resulted in inability to find happiness	sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
Extraordinary cruelty to animals	failure to follow any life plan
Attraction to arson without homicidal interest
Symptoms of neurological impairment
Evidence of genetic disorder
Biochemical symptoms
Feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy