|
Post by yggdrasil on Jan 25, 2019 20:54:37 GMT
Same with old Myra Hinckley, although she was the lesser transgressor she was demonised more as it was thought a man could do those things but not a woman. That works both ways though. Women are often treated very leniently because society doesn't want to believe women can do such things. The best example of this is another killer given a new identity. Karla Homolka was convicted with her husband of raping and murdering three teenagers (including her own sister). The narrative was that she was also a victim, manipulated and controlled by an evil husband, and as such she gave evidence against him which reduced her own sentence. Then, not long after that deal was struck, they discovered video footage of the rape and murders and Homolka was VERY actively participating (and was even the actual killer of the girls). Would that not be a case of the police not having enough of a case so getting one to turn on the other and offering a lenient sentence to whomever ratted the other out first, perhaps the guy was just more loyal than she was.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Jan 25, 2019 20:57:11 GMT
I think children are inherently duplicitous, but evil or bad? I would assume nurture would have more to do with that. I can't remember, did we learn anything about their parents/ upbringing at the time? My understanding was that their upbringing was fairly normal, certainly nothing out of the ordinary, but this Guardian article suggests there was neglect but doesn't go into specifics. I don't buy the argument anyway. But it's more comforting to believe these kinds of things are motivated by abuse rather than being random tragedies (especially since Mary Bell's abuse established that narrative). I always think that argument insults those kids who go through similar and tougher upbringings yet become productive members of society. Can't say I believe in a "bad seed" gene, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 21:12:20 GMT
That works both ways though. Women are often treated very leniently because society doesn't want to believe women can do such things. The best example of this is another killer given a new identity. Karla Homolka was convicted with her husband of raping and murdering three teenagers (including her own sister). The narrative was that she was also a victim, manipulated and controlled by an evil husband, and as such she gave evidence against him which reduced her own sentence. Then, not long after that deal was struck, they discovered video footage of the rape and murders and Homolka was VERY actively participating (and was even the actual killer of the girls). Would that not be a case of the police not having enough of a case so getting one to turn on the other and offering a lenient sentence to whomever ratted the other out first, perhaps the guy was just more loyal than she was. No, they went to her because he was the one they wanted (he was viewed as the true instigator of the crimes). They accepted that she was probably a victim herself (because women simply don't commit these sorts of crimes). Then came the video footage.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 25, 2019 21:56:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Jan 26, 2019 10:32:50 GMT
Then again probably 99% of psychopaths don't hurt anyone and it is a trait that leads to success in their chosen field due to lack of caring who you step on to get there. What makes a psychopath become violent is perhaps a more valid question.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 26, 2019 12:29:26 GMT
Then again probably 99% of psychopaths don't hurt anyone and it is a trait that leads to success in their chosen field due to lack of caring who you step on to get there. What makes a psychopath become violent is perhaps a more valid question. Read the articles, it's right there. +P, -P.
|
|