Question & Mark
People used to ask John Douglas if, from his knowledge of criminal behavior, he could predict which elementary school children were likely to grow up to be violent or antisocial individuals. He usually replied something to the effect of, “Yes, but so can any good elementary school teacher.”
And while this continues to be true, unfortunately, it doesn’t help us much in determining or predicting who is going to become a serial killer or mass murderer, or when. That is a lot more complicated.
Here is the reality as we know it:
The only good predictor of future violence is past violence. If a man has been brutalizing his wife and/or children, the odds are good he is going to continue. If a man has a couple of violent rapes on his record, it’s unlikely he’s going to stop of his own volition. And if a man kills repeatedly for sexual pleasure or emotional satisfaction, we can bet that is by far the most important aspect of his life.
Notice we keep saying man rather than person. That’s because the highest predictor of violence is being male. It has been said that almost all killers are on a drug, and that drug is testosterone. Again unfortunately, we’ve just profiled about half the population, so that isn’t going to do us any good in predicting future violence.
We’ve been hearing a lot about the relationship of mental illness to a propensity for violence, and there is some correlation with certain types of mental illness, especially conditions like paranoid schizophrenia. But again, the overwhelming majority of those afflicted with mental illness are no more violence-prone than the rest of us. With some conditions, they are far less likely to do harm.
Like physical ailments, mental disease occupies a continuum from “normal” to essentially nonfunctioning, and there is a great deal of room for interpretation. John and I share the belief with many people that nearly all violent killers and serial predators are mentally ill. You have to be to want to do horrible things to other human beings. But that doesn’t mean they’re insane, which is a legal term rather than a medical one. And through many permutations and definitions over the years, it still means essentially the same thing as it did in 1843, when Daniel M’Naghten was acquitted in England for the murder of Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel’s secretary Edward Drummond, on the grounds that he couldn’t tell the difference between right and wrong, nor could he conform his behavior to the dictates of society.
Most violent offenders know the difference between right and wrong; they merely choose wrong because it empowers them and makes them feel better. In other words, lacking empathy or a conscience does not make one insane by definition. As far as its predictive value, though, we all know people who are concerned only with themselves and have little empathy or conscience, but that alone doesn’t tell us much about whether they might be violent in the future.
So what about bad background? John’s research and experience have shown that most serial killers and repeat violent offenders come from severely abusive or neglectful upbringings. But most serial killers and repeat violent offenders also have brothers who did not become criminals.
With serial predators, particularly murderers and rapists, there is usually a progression of behavior that, when caught early enough, can sometimes be arrested, or at least steps can be taken to protect the public. With mass murderers, though, there is often no previous record of violence from which to operate. The predictors, like violent or sadistic ideation, are all internal.
The only surefire way to prevent mass shootings is to remove all firearms from society, and that isn’t going to happen, here or anywhere else. Short of that, we can take steps to minimize the risk, but we will never eliminate these tragedies from society any more than we have been able to eliminate any other type of crime. We just keep fighting it and do the best we can.
How? The best way, at our current level of knowledge and understanding, is to be vigilant. Most killers do display some behavioral indicators in the weeks, months, and sometimes years, before the event. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, for example, had written violent essays for an English class, which so alarmed noted poet and professor Nikki Giovanni that she told her department chairman and put the university on notice. Upon hearing of the shootings, she immediately suspected Cho.
Are most of the men who display this kind of behavior going to become mass killers? Of course not. By the same token, does most chest pain turn out to be an incipient heart attack? No, but in either case, you need to have the symptoms checked out by a competent professional and, if he or she deems it necessary, a complete workup.
Predicting violence, as it turns out, is very much akin to diagnosing disease. It’s not an exact science and there is much we still don’t know. All we can do is try hard to better the odds.
I wondered what John and Mark thought about this secret service report on threat assessment in schools:
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_threat_postpress.pdf
If the budget doesn’t allow for a deputy to actually be on duty during school time or if a department doesn’t have enough man power they could at least park a police car in a visable location, and a deputy could stop by from time to time during schoo hours, which might serve as a deterrent to some wanna be killer. And there should always be an officer present in the mornings when school begins and in the evening when school is getting out.
Everytime something like this happens the first thing to be mentioned is gun control, but around the same time that this shooting occured there were 22 children stabbed in a school in another country. People who have no value for human life will find a way to accomplish their goals. Schools should take preventive measures to prevent these type of situations which would do more to protect children than all the gun control laws being threatened to be forced on law abiding American’s. I don’t personally like guns, but I see a new danger coming when the right to keep bear arms is taken away from us or if the amount of ammuntion one can keep is determined by the government.
One of the things the school my grandkids attend has done is to no longer allow anyone to enter the building where the class rooms are. All persons must report to the office. All buildings and class room doors are locked, which is something I have thought schools should have been doing for years. Not just because of shootings but also the number of child abductions and attempted abductions that have occurred over the years.
In my opinion, All schools should have security guards or police on the grounds at all times.
Can we predict mass violence? I think we can to some extent by certain indicators…the biggest of which it seems to me to be an ‘over amount of guns’ owned by or available to the individual. I don’t mean people just having guns or the ‘right to bear arms’ etc. I mean people who keep an ‘arsenal’ of guns in their homes for no earthly legitimate reason or purpose.
Take the Sandy Hook massacre for example….One middle age ‘boomer age’ lady in her 50’s living in the worlds perhaps safest neighborhood has…A Bushmaster military style assault rifle, a Sig Hauer, a Glock, a shotgun, and reportedly a bunch of other weapons yet to be named. Why? According to media reports at least, both her sons (the shooter and his brother) were described as very smart but ‘nerds’, slight, pale, sensitive young men who thereby probably had enough problems with school, girls, jobs….so you expose them to and make available an arsenal of lethal military/ police weapons, and encourage them to use them and ‘shoot’….and this comes from the female parent to her male sons?
I recall that at the Columbine massacre both and certainly one of the boys parents kept an even bigger arsenal of military/ police weapons available to those teen boys…automatic/ semi automatic military weapons, automatic police pistols, pipe bombs and black powder. That the boys regularly ‘shot up the woods’ and made explosives on their well off parents property. That at Columbine too, the shooters were described as ‘nerds’ or ‘outcasts’.
So, I would say we can predict mass violence as likely….where parents keep an ‘arsenal’ of military/ police style weapons at home….available to their teen/college age sons, who are ‘nerdy or outcasts’ and encourage the boys to know and shoot the weapons.
These types of Killers are not, in any way New, This has been going on for Hundreds if not thousands of Years Long before Manson, Read “In Cold Blood” set the Modern standard for this not new “Crime” it has only been until recently that this has “Come to Light” this issue by all intent has a common thread consisting in patterns of behavior we all share in some way or another as human beings, I.E Obsessive compulsive disorder and so on
Let me ask where and when this began? I guess if it were to be open to debate it formed post serial homicide and that never existed before 1968. Then with the Tate-LaBianca Murders it was all over the country. Furthermore what is about society that encourages otherwise bright and prominent members to become influenced by evil, in point of fact that is what we want to hit on. Correct? The root cause and eliminate the the cancer that began with the post Manson era.
I say that but doing the homework it is Mr. Ressler who would agree we didn’t have this before LSD turned Manson into a master manipulator and after using the media to continue drug sales it has really eaten to the core of the children who before sought God now they seek advice from a man who has good ideals but misplaced is his soul. He was not silenced from society and being here today and seeing the truth he has a large influence on my generation “X” as it was termed by someone and that told me its true that when he was born then Bundy and Gacy all had children and the others who were raised unlike me to embrace violence do that. So, in closing it was the first case of this and now it has spawn and the children of his friends are here. 35 40 years old and they have a advisory, namely the children of the Douglas, Reichert and Keppels who are here to discuss these issues as well as help eachother fight the cause the problem is we DO NOT. THEY DO, they communicate we do not because of status and that is going to change or the issues we think and see as bad are just mental energy against a force of evil that can be overcome by action.
So in short why do we not work together in Law Enforcement and academia? Pride, ego I bet so, then the good dies young for what we can predict and who tries to? I do, John Douglas does but why is LEO hard to obtain use of why should I have to be in the L.E. sworn and then use the resource that is largely unknown by deputy Roseland and chief Kransey? It is the inaction of our fathers and mothers in LE that have it under control but just take a look agents we are worse now than anyone had foreseen so it may be time to reach into yourself and ask is this a person who can help or a threat then act one or the other, but give us a chance who ask for it because we can make a change.
This behaviour is so predictable, I.E Mother had twenty boyfriends, Father or Mother had Alcohol or other Drugs involved, Control issues, I.E Alcoholic tendencies, Enormous Ego or Pride to a Fault or concealed but obvious such as condescension, can not do wrong, i will show you your wrong, suppressing anger all of which is very easy to see even if some one is trying to hide it these traits are very recognizable all the while Anger, Fear, Frustration, very well concealed, talking down to others concerning a subject they believe they are an expert in , but their words and deed show the opposite simplicity is the key to seeing what is really going on, All of this is right in front of you!
I look forward to it, Sherry. 🙂
I think we disagree here not because we disagree on the importance of protecting children, but because of my fundamental belief that you can’t legislate human character. No matter what you do some people in any group will behave below expectations, just as some will exceed expectations.
I might not come back until next weekend, but I will check for your post.
There is also a need for accountability and court sentences that reflect the nature of the crime. Some sentences that criminals are a joke while there are other’s who serve time for minor offenses that are more lengthy than those of a killer all because some expert determined that those who guilty may not be entirely responsible for, or should not be held accountable for their behavior. By that reasoning anyone can do anything because everyone has suffered pain or injustice at some point in their life and their bad choices are not their fault.
Chris those who abuse authority or power usually do so without consent so that is going to happen whether there is intervention or not. Children who need help cannot be ignored because of the ignorance of a few. Good common sense could do much to improve many situations as it once did, but for the wishes of a few who want rights without responsibilites society as a whole pays the price.
I’ve got to get ready for work and I don’t have internet at my job yet, so hopefully we can discuss this futher at another time.
Schools should also take steps in preventing children from bullying and helping the child who is being bullied and apply the rules that they already have where bullying is concerned. I believe that both the Bully and the child who is bullied have other issue’s such as low self esteem, fear, or abusive or neglectful home situations that need to be addressed. I know that teacher’s have a lot to deal with, but just as important as academics, is the need for children to be taught and learn good manner’s, social and coping skills and in my opinion this is being neglected in schools more now than when I was a student.
Sherry, you have to realize that’s the choice.
You either give “teachers” power and realize that many teachers are micro-controlling idiots and will abuse that power or accept they don’t have power and, therefore, cannot intervene.
It’s the same with police: if all policemen were like Superman, then a police state would not be bad. But there’s nasty police officers who will abuse their power, such as some recent cases of police officers using databases to stalk and harass women.
When you hand someone power – a teacher the right to intervene in a student’s family life, a police officer access to private information – you have to ask not only how it will be properly used but how it is likely to be abused.
In some instances schools already have more say than parents, but those who make the rules seem not know how to apply common sense. Suspending a five year old for pointing his finger and saying POW is stupidity. Most children have done that and they don’t turn out to be killers. Or like the deaf child with the name, “Hunter” is the shape of a gun in sign language, was forced to change it to something else. Those trained to do so can spot the withdrawn child or the little girl who always sits rigid with her legs together or the child who pees on themselves which can be signs of sexual abuse, but instead of it being recognized or at least investigated, many teachers find it annoying because it dispupts the class and either they don’t want to be involved with a case where they may have to be a witness to the child’s behavior in a legal matter, or because they don’t know the signs of abuse, but this is the type of abuse, for example, that needs intervention to prevent possible crimes or self-destructive behavior when children become older.
@ sherry:
I see where you’re coming from, but stop and think about it. How much power and authority do you want teachers to have?
The general trend has been to remove teacher power and move away from the concept of “in loco parentis.”
That’s one reason why you read news stories where the police were called in to deal with a 6-year-old: teachers can’t even legally touch a child to restrain them, so they have to call in the police.
If a teacher notes a “potentially dangerous,” what can they do other than write down the observation? What rights do you want to grant teachers to allow them to do more than observe?
The “Male Ego” very dangerous!
I believe teacher’s are in the best position to be able to spot children who may someday commit violent crimes, but unfortunately many are more concerned with board regulations than they are in the students themselves. They either don’t pay attention to kids who might one day be a problem for society or they just don’t know how to handle problem kids so they pass them off to the next teacher for it to become his or her problem. Many cases of severe abuse which is a contributing factor in these crimes might could be prevented by early intervention. A child growing up in abusive enviroment, or who is isolated from other children of their age, or in families whose religious or political views are severly distorted could one day pose a risk to societyif someone does not pay attention and takes steps to intervene in their lives. I do not believe children are born without a conscience but lack of empathy develops over time as they become convinced that no one cares about them so why should they care and that causes within them hatred and anger toward others. Of course that does not excuse what they do because they do have other people and enviroments to observe and they can determine within themselves that they will to better than the people who hurt them as most children in those same type of situations do.
Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. However, if we start considering an isolated weirdo displaying “warning signs” as probable cause, that will create more problems than it solves.
For one thing, it could decrease the clearance rate. The police have limited resources, particularly man hours. I’d rather they increase the clearance rate of violent crimes than investigate people displaying “warning signs.” Chicago’s homicide clearance rate was below 30% for 2012.
Furthermore, I strongly support legitimate police efforts to reduce violence, but not to the extent of creating a police state. I worry that “threat assessment” will turn into search without warrant. Look at the creeping threat to our 4th amendment rights, including the Patriot Act and the SCOTUS ruling in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders.
So, yes, to a certain extent, of course I support police asking someone a few questions. It might even scare a novice who is not suicidal or mentally ill away from crime. But for someone like the Sandy Hook shooter or countless others, I think we need to be careful not to create more problems than we solve.
The police can investigate potential threats and speak with the individual in question, which in itself could prevent a potential attack. Conspiracy to commit murder is still a crime is it not?
@ Connor:
Okay, if someone hasn’t done anything wrong, what is reporting the person to the police going to do? Even if the police have a good sense that the person might be violent, how will that help?
Also, you’re getting your probabilities messed up. Example: OJ Simpson trial lawyers pointed out that only 1 in 10,000 or so men who beat their wives kill their wives. But if the wife is murdered the chances the husband did it are about 1 in 2. Same idea: thousands – maybe even millions – of people display “warning signs.” The probability that someone who displays warning signs is genuinely dangerous is pretty minimal.
But my original point still stands: even if you can make the odds pretty close, say 95% certainty… What? Do you plan to arrest people for crimes that haven’t happened? It’s either useless or Orwellian.
“Are most of the men who display this kind of behavior going to become mass killers? Of course not. By the same token, does most chest pain turn out to be an incipient heart attack? No, but in either case, you need to have the symptoms checked out by a competent professional and, if he or she deems it necessary, a complete workup.”
You said it right there. The Secret Service also conducted a study on school shootings and discovered that some students/teachers knew of the potential for violence from the belligerents prior to the attack and did little if anything about it. So many lives could have potentially been saved. Report the action to the police, not the institution. You see what happens when that happens (Penn State).
Here’s my problem with the next gen of profiling known as “threat assessment”:
Let’s suppose you get really good at it. You’ve done scientific blind random testing and you can give an accurate probability that someone might commit a crime.
You then find someone with no violent history who has a 95% chance of committing a mass shooting or other attack.
…Then what?…