Hard News: Living with the psychopath
167 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Psychopaths are beyond therapy.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Psychopaths are beyond therapy.
So, shoot him then, as Laws would have?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Like most situations, there are more than two answers. Lock him up forever, to avoid someone else having to bear the burden of ending his life. That could have happened if he offended after the law changed.
But he poses a very real threat to any people he is exposed to, so you can understand them getting fearful. Cowardly fools like Lhaws thrive if the system is not credibly reassuring that it will again take the burden from the rest of us. Retribution is bad for us, not just creeps like Gummy.
-
My thoughts exactly. And – wow – what a tale. And yet, for all the narrow mindedness, I can’t help but sympathise, a little bit. Like you, Russel, I’d have murderous thoughts.
That alone is enough to suggest that there’s something wrong. People shouldn’t have murderous thoughts, should they? Is it _their_ fault they have murderous thoughts?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Lock him up forever, to avoid someone else having to bear the burden
So as I said before, because it's the same diff,
We should maybe, (lock and load), shoot him then, as Laws would have?
Fear/ Fair enough? Eye for an eye innit?
I don't know the democratic answer , just that I would not be able to decide about anyone else's existence. What if McCroskie, or McVicor is right? I mean, they really believe it's for the best, 3 strikes, etc
Isn't it easier to just not deal with the likes of him. Why would we need to have a memorial in a box to look at and remind us it's not acceptable?
At this point in time the guy has done what our judicial system said is his penance. Surely we could respect that (y'know us being the civilised ones) or if we don't agree, fight to change our laws. Then again thats McCroskie, McVicor, and Laws.
Oh, no laws, eek!! -
Sacha, in reply to
it's the same diff
no, it's not
-
Sacha, in reply to
Isn't it easier to just not deal with the likes of him
Not an answer for people who care about the safety of those around them.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Isn’t it easier to just not deal with the likes of him?
Not an answer for people who care about the safety of those around them.
That’s not what I mean at all. Sacha. I am asking if keeping some one locked up for life is any different to society using capital punishment. It’s a statement that “what you have done is not acceptable” It would teach a very quick message that "you are not allowed to do that”.
-
Sacha, in reply to
As I said above, the difference is that no one needs to kill another person. That seems more than insignificant.
-
We should maybe, (lock and load), shoot him then, as Laws would have?
Fear/ Fair enough? Eye for an eye innit?At this point in time the guy has done what our judicial system said is his penance.
I know what you mean, and I want to agree. But just because a room full of scared and angry people express themselves poorly (and even bigotedly, certainly illogically) doesn't mean the law is right. Who here hasn't tried to change a law for the better, at some point? Thought so.
If the law fails to protect the people of the Whang even from fear, then surely, it at least bears questioning.
Not that it would help in the present instance. But - as a principle - why not give the judiciary some ability to extend supervision (or a harsher penalty) in cases where the accused of serious crimes was reasonably deemed to be a danger upon release?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
That’s not what I mean at all. Sacha. I am asking if keeping some one locked up for life is any different to society using capital punishment.
Yeah, it's a pretty big difference. Restricting someone's freedom because they pose an unacceptable danger to people around them is not the same as killing them.
It’s a statement that “what you have done is not acceptable” It would teach a very quick message that “you are not allowed to do that”.
Wilson has been in jail for 18 years. In that time he has never acknowledged his offending, and thus never even started on therapy. If he is, as it appears, a psychopath, he's by that definition indifferent to the suffering of others. His reports to the parole board have been terrible.
-
Lets just hope M laws & the vigilantes, don't have glass house -
or without sin -themselves, yea right !!!
If those,with or without stones, haven't done sometime wrong in there lives ,I would be surprised, perhaps it just easier - to point the finger, than take any self responsiblity,
ur integrity, is amongst the reason, we are attracted, to the way u present reality,
cheers Russell ! -
No, he's human all right. He's a reminder of quite how dark and damaged a human can become.
Thank you, Russell, for articulating this idea. I'm finding it more and more difficult to express such thoughts to people who, when it comes down to it, advocate torture and execution.
Would I bay for the blood of someone who harmed my family? Probably. But giving up the right to vigilante justice is a price I'm willing to pay. I love living in New Zealand where the justice system seems, by-and-large, to protect us from such people.
When we fully accept the truth in Solzhenitsyn's words that "the battle line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man" then we might make more progress in shaping a happier society. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Wilson has been in jail for 18 years. In that time he has never acknowledged his offending, and thus never even started on therapy.
I’m only posing the question of how we (society) deal with the likes of him, (he’s not the only despicable person around).And I question what we do, because I wonder if jail or a “Masons type Clinic is better for a sick/ mental/deranged person like him. The man is a mental patient in my eyes and I don’t believe in the death penalty but I am interested in how people still have a vigilante attitude in what is supposed to be a civilised society. In how quick Laws could get a crowd together.
It is decided his parole conditions are the best we have in keeping our society as safe as possible. I’m ok with that. His life is now scarred. I doubt he can continue as before. I’m a bit worried about him being able to have pets though. To me, they have every right to be protected as well as humans.In better news , I just read Valerie Adams won gold.... Excellent!!
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m only posing the question of how we (society) deal with the likes of him, (he’s not the only despicable person around).And I question what we do, because I wonder if jail or a “Masons type Clinic is better for a sick/ mental/deranged person like him.
He apparently spent time at Cherry Farm hospital near Dunedin when he was young. But he he was considered fit to plead when he was brought to trial for his crimes.
It's pretty hard to commit someone to a psychiatric facility if they don't want to go, and Wilson clearly doesn't.
-
An excellent article
We, too, are human -- and thus should we behave. Let's protect others from him, and let him live out the days until he dies, unmourned. Let us demonstrate, as we believe, that we are better than Stewart Murray Wilson.
Well said.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
If we cant accept that this man could get better with incarceration, why do we bother with imprisonment?
He has refused all treatment. He cannot be compelled to be treated for his issues, so all we can do is try to keep him out of society for as long as possible.
People who access rehabilitation benefit from prison. Those who don't, don't. Our sex-offender rehabilitation appears to be quite successful, based on recidivism statistics, but it can only ever work when the offender accepts that they need help. Wilson has refused to even acknowledge that he's done things that society finds reprehensible. Such a person cannot be rehabilitated, in any environment.If we shoot him, as the lynch mob wish, where do we stop? I have no terrible objection to killing people who are truly guilty, but the problem is that I have zero faith that it would only ever be guilty people. All the evidence says that the system is fallible, and that innocent people have been executed. Once that happens, the state has lost any moral high ground. Not stooping to the level of those who are being punished must always be a non-negotiable part of any correctional system. Otherwise we may as well just do away with prisons and release convicts to the tender mercies of Michael Lawhs, and Insensible Sentencing's acolytes.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
But – as a principle – why not give the judiciary some ability to extend supervision (or a harsher penalty) in cases where the accused of serious crimes was reasonably deemed to be a danger upon release?
The changes by Labour to when preventative detention could be imposed went a long way to addressing this problem. Wilson would have been sentenced to PD if he were convicted now, meaning he would probably never be released because he has refused all treatment or even to acknowledge his offending. That would keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Restricting someone’s freedom because they pose an unacceptable danger to people around them is not the same as killing them.
We can release those who are wrongly imprisoned. We cannot resurrect those who are wrongly executed. That's a pretty massive difference.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The man is a mental patient in my eyes
That's unfortunate. Psychopathy seems quite different in both rehabilitation and likelihood of reoffending, as others have noted. We're not all creatures needing just a little love and understanding to be capable of living with others. A tiny few are more irrevocably broken than that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Wilson would have been sentenced to PD if he were convicted now
Wonder if a law change could make it restrospective for the rare ones like him. Are there others?
-
Sacha, in reply to
His life is now scarred.
You'd be hard-pressed to hold anyone else responsible for that, surely.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
You’d be hard-pressed to hold anyone else responsible for that, surely.
Both his alcoholic parents and a supposed head injury as a teenager have been raised as factors in his offending, but that's kind of irrelevant. What's being imposed on him now isn't a punishment, it's an effort to protect others.
It's worth noting that he has been specifically banned from attending drug and alcohol rehab groups, because he has targeted vulnerable people in that environment.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Wonder if a law change could make it restrospective for the rare ones like him. Are there others?
I doubt there are more than one or two others, which means it's a problem that is completely insufficient to justify violating the principle of no retroactive punishment.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What's being imposed on him now isn't a punishment, it's an effort to protect others.
+1
Post your response…
This topic is closed.