I 100% agree that there is an overemphasis on trying to establish a "so-called" motive. It is mostly a waste of tax-payor resources to do this. "Motive" is defined as: "something which causes someone to act". The proximate motive here clearly is that the suspect desired or wanted the victim to be dead and therefore he intentionally killed him. It was clearly not an accident. The most important question is this: Was the killing intentional? In other words, was the suspect's intention to kill the victim. If so, then the proximate motive is that the suspect wanted the victim dead and that is all the "motive" we really need. It should really not matter if there is intentional killing due to race/creed/color/politics/revenge/wealth/social status or insanity or even psychosis of the suspect IMHO. Of course, cases where the motive was to kill for self-defense/self-preservation must be teased out from those wherein the victim was not initially threatening the life of the suspect. My 2 cents. Thank you.
In a nutshell, “don’t speculate.” In theory, yes. But humans speculate about everything. It’s what makes us human. So I offer the counter argument: speculate. You may not find the exact answer you’re looking for. There may not be an absolute answer. But that doesn’t make it futile because everything you learn along the way, mistakes especially, contribute to your growth.
I agree with the author. If that guy had a mental illness, then it’s a tragedy all around. And perhaps there were system failures that did not get him off the streets sooner. And we can have discussions such as have been started by folks like Freddie DeBoer and Scott Alexander, where the logic follows to an endpoint of forced incarceration, perhaps indefinitely, for certain mental illnesses. And as a society, we can grapple with the implications of that.
OTOH, if that guy had a beef and wanted to be a vigilante, there’s not much to see there either, beyond “don’t be that guy”. Even if you could peer deep into his soul, why would you want to?
As for The Onion, they’re on point with guns per usual. It’s 2a and the law of the land. The end. To try to rationalize why guns are allowed to the extent they are in the US (as opposed to any other western nation) is pointless and beyond stupid. It is what it is. There is no good, or other, reason. And ain’t never gonna change, given the threshold for constitutional amendments.
Except that the U.S. is not unique when it come to murder, mass murder, and mass killing. Even assuming more killing are caused by guns than in other countries, mass killing are committed in other countries in other ways.
Yes. Anything can be used as a weapon. The point is that guns are unique in its ability to take out many people in short period of time, at a distance, where you don’t need any physical advantage to inflict harm.
Yes, a car killed 2 in Germany. And we hear about it….cuz it’s so darn unusual. 2 gun deaths in 1 incident doesn’t even make the news in the US since it doesn’t even qualify as a mass shooting…and although I don’t have the statistics at my fingertips, it would hardly surprise me if that was a daily occurrence.
I would like to write a guest post in response to this--is there a way to do that? Another psychiatrist point of view, and I have written extensively about the idea that involuntary psychiatric treatment is away – – or not – – to prevent mass murders. My email is dinamiller@yahoo.com
An awful lot of time and energy is seemingly wasted trying to discern motive. I doubt that a single act of violence has ever been averted by identifying motive. It may, of course, be of value in identifying the culprit. A small percentage of the population are psychopaths; they have no conscience at all and are unable to feel or understand empathy or guilt. A larger percentage are sociopaths. They are basically skilled con men who may have some conscience but are able rationalize their actions in order to overcome any twinges of guilt. Unfortunately, many of these people gravitate to politics where they can commit endless crimes with impunity.
I hate exposing myself but the truth is one must have a criminal mind to fully comprehend criminal behavior. Sadly my own was finely honed after 18 years of addiction where I found it easy to manipulate people to get what I wanted. Or at the time believed I needed. I used to say that addiction policy and criminal policy should be made by recovering folks because they know what it takes to help a person change their behavior. And it doesn’t come from pharma.
Dr. Ostracher makes excellent points. As a psychotherapist, I have worked with many people to understand that attempting to figure out "the why" doesn't always lead to more peace or resolution to grief, trauma, loss, etc. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X18302551
Dr. Cifu--crazy does not equal violent. Sure, do I think you've got to have something kicking around upstairs that causes one's self to act in such a way? Sure. But that's my biased view from influences of mass media. But what does the Evidence tell us:
-The overwhelming majority of those with mental illness are not violent people nor commit violent crimes/acts;
-Those with mental illness are much more likely than the general public to be victims of violent crime (not perpetrators);
-There is a slight increase in violence among others with mental illness but is mostly connected to co-morbid SUD, recent hospitalization, and is usually pointed toward members of perpetrators closest circle (friends, family, caregivers).
The research below is helpful to understanding that the belief that mental illness=violence is mass media sensationalism that is not based in actual fact.
Society has become obsessed with divining causation. The fact is most murders are not by crazy people. Killing IS a normal part of life. In pre-civilisation days any slight could result in death. Then came the 10 commandments, so that us plebs were no longer allowed to kill, but the elites continue to kill at leisure (wars, policies), for that is the purpose of that law, to prevent the plebs from killing the elites who oppress them. It's a very effective system. And on occasion, lone wolves (critical thinkers, not crazies, unless you define as crazy as anyone who doesn't believe in the system) break the law.
Excellent point Tracy! We humans hate ambiguity and not knowing. So even in the evidence of clear answers we create them so satisfy our need to know/control.
I wrote about this very thing myself this week -- the dream logic of sensation and meaning, and how we default to stitching them into narratives: https://moperry.substack.com/p/dream-logic
So we find out why. The next murderer has a different why or set of whys. No one can truly know what is in the mind, heart or soul of another. No one murder is any more a tragedy than any other.
This is the first time in quite a while that I've been told how (or, more precisely, how NOT) to feel about one of the 45 murders that happen every day in my country, by so many different sources.
As a psychologist who has interviewed many children and adolescents with severe behavior problems (including jailed offenders), I agree that humans are complex creatures, that it's common for a single behavior to have multiple motives, and that the person may not always be fully aware of their motives. It is NEVER helpful to ask them "why" they did something, either because of their lack of self awareness, and/or it makes them defensive. Having said that, I also know that establishing rapport with such a person and engaging in authentic active listening without judgment often reveals a great deal about the thoughts and beliefs that led them to commit an action. While there is no perfect prediction, I have found the FBI report, "The School Shooter: A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE," based on their extensive study of school shooters, helpful in carrying out a threat assessment. When you read about these kids, you tend to learn there are SO many instances when intervention could have helped and we ignored it. I agree that media speculation on motive is more titillating than insightful (but also very human because we all want to know why). But as a profession, call me naive, I still think we can learn valuable information in talking to such folks, when they don't commit suicide. Oh, and motivation and intent is also relevant to the legal case:
Given the sheer size of humanity, the fact there are so few, relatively speaking (notwithstanding news hysteria) says to me that being overly focused on prevention is akin to:
"Zero Covid!!!!"
"Zero terrorism!!!!!!"
"Eradicate illness!!!!!!!!"
It's a mindset I completely fail to see the logic or rationality of.
Absurd, unproductive, and potentially dangerous is a bad combination! Thank you, Dr. Ostacher. I remember being baffled at O.J. Simpson's temerity in posing as an innocent man in the courtroom. Duh; talk about clueless. A double murderer is not going to balk at trying to appear righteous. We human beings have a lot in common; but there's also a lot we do not have in common.
If we assassined CEOs at the same clip as we experience school shootings and we'd have stricter control of firearms by the following week.
I 100% agree that there is an overemphasis on trying to establish a "so-called" motive. It is mostly a waste of tax-payor resources to do this. "Motive" is defined as: "something which causes someone to act". The proximate motive here clearly is that the suspect desired or wanted the victim to be dead and therefore he intentionally killed him. It was clearly not an accident. The most important question is this: Was the killing intentional? In other words, was the suspect's intention to kill the victim. If so, then the proximate motive is that the suspect wanted the victim dead and that is all the "motive" we really need. It should really not matter if there is intentional killing due to race/creed/color/politics/revenge/wealth/social status or insanity or even psychosis of the suspect IMHO. Of course, cases where the motive was to kill for self-defense/self-preservation must be teased out from those wherein the victim was not initially threatening the life of the suspect. My 2 cents. Thank you.
In a nutshell, “don’t speculate.” In theory, yes. But humans speculate about everything. It’s what makes us human. So I offer the counter argument: speculate. You may not find the exact answer you’re looking for. There may not be an absolute answer. But that doesn’t make it futile because everything you learn along the way, mistakes especially, contribute to your growth.
I agree with the author. If that guy had a mental illness, then it’s a tragedy all around. And perhaps there were system failures that did not get him off the streets sooner. And we can have discussions such as have been started by folks like Freddie DeBoer and Scott Alexander, where the logic follows to an endpoint of forced incarceration, perhaps indefinitely, for certain mental illnesses. And as a society, we can grapple with the implications of that.
OTOH, if that guy had a beef and wanted to be a vigilante, there’s not much to see there either, beyond “don’t be that guy”. Even if you could peer deep into his soul, why would you want to?
As for The Onion, they’re on point with guns per usual. It’s 2a and the law of the land. The end. To try to rationalize why guns are allowed to the extent they are in the US (as opposed to any other western nation) is pointless and beyond stupid. It is what it is. There is no good, or other, reason. And ain’t never gonna change, given the threshold for constitutional amendments.
Except that the U.S. is not unique when it come to murder, mass murder, and mass killing. Even assuming more killing are caused by guns than in other countries, mass killing are committed in other countries in other ways.
I just saw this headline, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/20/death-and-injuries-in-germany-as-car-ploughs-into-crowd-at-christmas-market
Yes. Anything can be used as a weapon. The point is that guns are unique in its ability to take out many people in short period of time, at a distance, where you don’t need any physical advantage to inflict harm.
Yes, a car killed 2 in Germany. And we hear about it….cuz it’s so darn unusual. 2 gun deaths in 1 incident doesn’t even make the news in the US since it doesn’t even qualify as a mass shooting…and although I don’t have the statistics at my fingertips, it would hardly surprise me if that was a daily occurrence.
"Multideterminism": observable behavior is always the downstream result of multiple interacting factors and vectors.
Thanks for referencing McCuller's masterpiece. I just read it for the first time and was blown away by the writing and character development.
I would like to write a guest post in response to this--is there a way to do that? Another psychiatrist point of view, and I have written extensively about the idea that involuntary psychiatric treatment is away – – or not – – to prevent mass murders. My email is dinamiller@yahoo.com
See the about page. We accept submissions at sensiblemedicine2022@gmail.com
An awful lot of time and energy is seemingly wasted trying to discern motive. I doubt that a single act of violence has ever been averted by identifying motive. It may, of course, be of value in identifying the culprit. A small percentage of the population are psychopaths; they have no conscience at all and are unable to feel or understand empathy or guilt. A larger percentage are sociopaths. They are basically skilled con men who may have some conscience but are able rationalize their actions in order to overcome any twinges of guilt. Unfortunately, many of these people gravitate to politics where they can commit endless crimes with impunity.
Is it not the height of sanity to kill a serial murderer?
I hate exposing myself but the truth is one must have a criminal mind to fully comprehend criminal behavior. Sadly my own was finely honed after 18 years of addiction where I found it easy to manipulate people to get what I wanted. Or at the time believed I needed. I used to say that addiction policy and criminal policy should be made by recovering folks because they know what it takes to help a person change their behavior. And it doesn’t come from pharma.
I prefer comparing different types of murderers.
There are cowardly disgusting men who kill their children and significant others
There are perturbed youth (incl young adults) who commit school shootings
There are Mangiones, who are in so much pain (any type of pain) who at least aim properly
and yes, a few crazies, but not many.
Dr. Ostracher makes excellent points. As a psychotherapist, I have worked with many people to understand that attempting to figure out "the why" doesn't always lead to more peace or resolution to grief, trauma, loss, etc. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X18302551
Dr. Cifu--crazy does not equal violent. Sure, do I think you've got to have something kicking around upstairs that causes one's self to act in such a way? Sure. But that's my biased view from influences of mass media. But what does the Evidence tell us:
-The overwhelming majority of those with mental illness are not violent people nor commit violent crimes/acts;
-Those with mental illness are much more likely than the general public to be victims of violent crime (not perpetrators);
-There is a slight increase in violence among others with mental illness but is mostly connected to co-morbid SUD, recent hospitalization, and is usually pointed toward members of perpetrators closest circle (friends, family, caregivers).
The research below is helpful to understanding that the belief that mental illness=violence is mass media sensationalism that is not based in actual fact.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315791736_The_Link_Between_Mental_Illness_and_Firearm_Violence_Implications_for_Social_Policy_and_Clinical_Practice
https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/mental-illness-and-violence-is-there-a-link/
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness#:~:text=Grandiosity%2C%20grandiose%20delusions%2C%20and%20mania,5%2C%202014).
Society has become obsessed with divining causation. The fact is most murders are not by crazy people. Killing IS a normal part of life. In pre-civilisation days any slight could result in death. Then came the 10 commandments, so that us plebs were no longer allowed to kill, but the elites continue to kill at leisure (wars, policies), for that is the purpose of that law, to prevent the plebs from killing the elites who oppress them. It's a very effective system. And on occasion, lone wolves (critical thinkers, not crazies, unless you define as crazy as anyone who doesn't believe in the system) break the law.
Excellent point Tracy! We humans hate ambiguity and not knowing. So even in the evidence of clear answers we create them so satisfy our need to know/control.
Beautifully said.
I wrote about this very thing myself this week -- the dream logic of sensation and meaning, and how we default to stitching them into narratives: https://moperry.substack.com/p/dream-logic
So we find out why. The next murderer has a different why or set of whys. No one can truly know what is in the mind, heart or soul of another. No one murder is any more a tragedy than any other.
Amen.
This is the first time in quite a while that I've been told how (or, more precisely, how NOT) to feel about one of the 45 murders that happen every day in my country, by so many different sources.
I find that very interesting.
As a psychologist who has interviewed many children and adolescents with severe behavior problems (including jailed offenders), I agree that humans are complex creatures, that it's common for a single behavior to have multiple motives, and that the person may not always be fully aware of their motives. It is NEVER helpful to ask them "why" they did something, either because of their lack of self awareness, and/or it makes them defensive. Having said that, I also know that establishing rapport with such a person and engaging in authentic active listening without judgment often reveals a great deal about the thoughts and beliefs that led them to commit an action. While there is no perfect prediction, I have found the FBI report, "The School Shooter: A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE," based on their extensive study of school shooters, helpful in carrying out a threat assessment. When you read about these kids, you tend to learn there are SO many instances when intervention could have helped and we ignored it. I agree that media speculation on motive is more titillating than insightful (but also very human because we all want to know why). But as a profession, call me naive, I still think we can learn valuable information in talking to such folks, when they don't commit suicide. Oh, and motivation and intent is also relevant to the legal case:
http://okcca.net/ouji-cr/4-63/
Given the sheer size of humanity, the fact there are so few, relatively speaking (notwithstanding news hysteria) says to me that being overly focused on prevention is akin to:
"Zero Covid!!!!"
"Zero terrorism!!!!!!"
"Eradicate illness!!!!!!!!"
It's a mindset I completely fail to see the logic or rationality of.
Absurd, unproductive, and potentially dangerous is a bad combination! Thank you, Dr. Ostacher. I remember being baffled at O.J. Simpson's temerity in posing as an innocent man in the courtroom. Duh; talk about clueless. A double murderer is not going to balk at trying to appear righteous. We human beings have a lot in common; but there's also a lot we do not have in common.