[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever, can you add something to the discussion or were the posts too long for your attention span?

[rwwff]

Sorry, I should have waited. I was surfing and typing on my mobile internet terminal at the time. I just couldn't get the witch-hunt feeling out of my mind.

I worry about any situation where we start convincting people of being something, rather than convicting them of having done something. These pathologies are subject to diagnosis by an expert; and in a post peak environment, the expert would almost have to be a local resident. As a local resident they have their own objectives and agendas like everyone else; and every time someone gets in the way of their agenda it becomes a temptation to diagnose that person away.

Just to put a chill on this... Perhaps on the East Coast or California, the greatest concern might be these pathologies; but what would stop an East Texas resident expert from simply going around and diagnosing all homosexuals as sociopaths and having them put down for the good of the community. Choosing between the gregarious person who shows some unusual emotional flaws, and the gay guy that likes to take the somewhat effiminate persona, or the hyper-buff persona; the gay guy will quickly find himself tossed in prison with the doors welded shut. He'd be lucky, post peak, if they remember to feed him regularly. Of course his land would be "auctioned" into the community, personal property divied up to the "needy".

Stick to prosecuting people for what they do. Sociopath or not, if someone commits murder, hang-em and forget it.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

I do not, nor would I advocate a mob situation, a lynching, or summarily executing someone, nor did I infer as such in my posts. But why should we avoid talking about this just because some might be afraid of the possibility of a witch hunt?

I think this topic has been hashed out already and is one of the main reasons why some of us peakers (myself included) would avoid a communal living arrangement.

Let me pose this again in what I hope is a clearer form. If it is recognized that we have a psychopath among us, who has clearly killed, injured or maimed someone, at what point would it be acceptable to stop acting like a bunch of social workers and realize that this person can not be rehabilitated back into society?

[gg3]

Rwwff, you've got your facts wrong and the interpretations that follow.

First of all, ABI is a research compound that would be used with volunteers who have given informed consent, for the purpose of tracing the neurophysiology of the painful boredom state. The outcome of that research would be the development of a medication that could be used to treat the painful boredom state. The going hypothesis here is that alleviating that state will restore a normal range of emotional responsiveness, thereby preventing or halting the development of sociopathy.

No one is going to be given ABI as a punishment for anything. After the medication is developed, ABI gets put back on the shelf and the medication is made available for treating patients.

Second, who you callin' a hippie? I sure as hell ain't one. (Disclosure: I was a punk rocker, them's not hippies dammit!)

Third, what you callin' defeat? The battle has scarcely begun.

Fourth, no one's hunting witches. Witches are welcome aboard, along with others whose theology is nature-based, along with monotheists, pantheists, atheists, and agnostics for good measure. And we sure as hell aren't going to go passing constitutional amendments preventing any of them from getting married (speaking of scapegoating!).

---

UnknownElement:

External enemies vs. threats from within: Every community will need to develop its own public safety & defense protocols. Anyone living in a democratic society can easily lift the relevant points from their own country's existing traditions. For example in the US, public safety = police, courts, penal system, which are civilian agencies entirely separate from defense which is the military. Separate chains of command in order to prevent muddying the lines and risking excessive consolidation of power.

In our organization it's understood that "intel prevents risks turning into threats, and diplomacy prevents situations turning into risks." The emphasis is on diplomacy as the first-line operational component in external relations.

Diplomacy is the pro-active conduct of external relations to keep peace, conduct trade, and preserve the lawful order. Diplomacy is the small increment of effort that one adds to every external interaction to maintain and strengthen good relations, and solve problems before they can escalate. Intel involves deliberate and directed efforts to gain useful information: this is a lot more work, requires people and budget items, and when it has a major project it consumes person-hours like crazy. If a situation has escalated into a risk and then into a threat, an awful lot of people haven't been doing their jobs. The last thing any sane person wants is to have a fight on their hands; though of course you have to be prepared for that contingency, ideally to a degree that has a strong deterrence effect.

By analogy, it takes a lot less effort to deflect an asteroid from hitting Earth by nudging it a little when it's far away, than to have to blast it to pieces when it's getting close.

Back to what I said about separation of public safety from defense. Public safety structures are designed to operate within the framework of law, where the goal of protecting society is balanced with the necessity of respect for individual rights including the rights of accused persons. Defense structures are designed to operate in instances where there is an external threat that is beyond the scope of the public safety sytem.

For example, one trespasser is a public safety issue; an armed gang is a defense issue. For example a murder is a public safety issue; a terrorist act is a defense issue. The lines are drawn differently when you live in an area that has immediate law enforcement response to emergencies, vs. when you live in an area where the only law enforcement agency is the county sheriff's department and response times are slower due to the spread-out geography. In the latter case, you have to be prepared to capture & hold until the sheriff's officers arrive.

---

As far as dealing with sociopaths & psychopaths in community is concerned:

If a crime is committed, the accused should be turned over to the police & courts as far as possible. Here it should be emphasized: one of the primary tasks of sustainable communities during a collapse scenario is to do whatever is necessary to support the continuation of the existing justice system. This means supporting tax & bond meaures and voluntary contributions, providing labor for tasks such as washing police cars, sweeping up at the court building, doing free repairs on those buildings, providing fresh food to the county jail (prisoners have to eat, after all!), and so on: things that would otherwise be cost items to the relevant agencies in times when money is scarce and resources are limited, so they can concentrate their tax dollars or other resources on their core jobs and the system can continue to operate.

If there is not a crime but instead a case of a person who is habitually lying, manipulating, and so on, i.e. a sociopath who knows enough to stay just this side of the law: This is where community bylaws come into play re. conduct for which a person can have their membership terminated and be evicted. These points need to be spelled out in detail, explicitly, with clear procedures and penalties. Evictions when needed, should be followed up by going to court to get restraining orders to prevent the offender coming back, and to provide the means for having them arrested should they try. And the record of such actions should be public in order that other communities, employers, and so on, can check background on individual applicants whose stories seem fishy.

---

Re. the hypothetical "what if your loved one was an accused person?", this is a concrete example of why we want to maintain the existing criminal and civil court systems. We cannot allow fear or expediency to drive us away from the fundamental foundations of civilized society. The fact that the present Administration has done just that, by suspending habeas corpus and allowing disappearances, detention without charges, torture (we got waterboarding from Imperial Japan in WW2, for which they were charged with war crimes!), trial without evidence or lawyers... my God!, this is practically the same list that was raised in the Declaration of Independence! We cannot allow ourselves to go down that road, regardless of what comes.

---

Re. executions: This is another reason to support the existing justice system: if you can get someone convicted and locked up, there is no need to even consider execution.

Execution is only justified where there is a) incontrovertible proof of guilt for a relevant crime such as murder and b) there is no way to confine the individual e.g. in a lifetime prison sentence, or when a prisoner continues to commit or cause to be committed such offenses from behind bars.

At some point the prison system is going to be unable to spend its resources handling nonviolent offenders, and those individuals will be released on probation, leaving only violent offenders behind bars. And as long as the courts and prisons are operational, communities will have the ability to hand over violent offenders, testify for the prosecution, be reasonably assured that convicted persons will be sentenced to prison, and be able to get civil restraining orders to keep away those who are still considered a danger.

---

Restorative justice: Sure, if we're not dealing with dangerous violent offenders with high risk of repeat offenses. Particularly with juveniles, as well as with people whose crime is a one-off case or has a "reasonable" explanation e.g. person with no criminal history commits a robbery to prevent their family from starving.

And I agree, rules and penalties must always be clear, and justice must always be swift, consistent, and decisive (by which I do not mean unduly harsh, biased against defendants, or any of that). This can and should start at an early age: household rules need to be clear, rewards and penalties spelled out, and applied consistently. Kids should grow up knowing that if they make a bad mistake they will have the chance to fix it, and if they deliberately harm others they will be penalized accordingly, and if they behave responsibly they will be rewarded.

But here it must be emphasized: a law-abiding society does not come from fear of punishment. It comes from people internalizing the principle that a society of law and justice, liberty and equality, is inherently good, and that they want to be law-abiding citizens for the sake of upholding these principles. Do what's right because it's right, that kind of thing.

---

Mom is watching the kids playing. Suddenly little Joey, age 6 pushes his sister Suzie, age 4, and she falls on her rear-end and cries.

Mom: Stern voice: "Joey, come over here, now.""

Joey: starts to whimper.

Mom: "You know the rules. No fighting, no biting, no hitting or pushing or shoving. Now we're going to hold court with Dad." (calls Dad, who is going to serve as judge because he did not witness the act)

Dad to Mom: "What's the trouble?"

Mom: "Joey pushed Suzie, and she fell down on her rear end."

Dad to Joey: "Joey, do you plead guilty or not guilty?"

Joey: "Not guilty. She called me a scaredy-cat. Bwahhh! (starts to cry)"

Dad to Suzie: "Let's hear your side of the story."

Suzie: "I did not! He pushed me and my rear hurts!"

Dad to Mom: "What did you see?"

Mom: "They were playing and then I saw Joey push Suzie and she fell on her rear."

Dad to Joey: "You have two witnesses saying you did it. Are you saying they're wrong, or do you want to remain silent, or are you doing to change to pleading guilty?"

Joey: "She called me a scaredy-cat. (whimper)..."

Dad to Joey: "Okay, here's the decision. Joey, you know the rule is that you fight words with words. If Suzie called you a scaredy-cat you should have told her to stop, and if she didn't stop, you should have taken it to Mom. Suzie said you pushed her, and Mom said she saw you push Suzie. No one has been accused of lying, and everyone knows the penalty for lying is the same as the penalty for the thing you lied about. Therefore we can conclude that they told the truth. My decision is that you are guilty of pushing Suzie, which breaks the no-fighting rule. You know the rule, and you know the penalty. No desert after dinner, no hug and no bedtime story before bed, for one night for the first offense. You get to choose which night: tonight or tomorrow night. Do you have anything else to say?"

Joey: "bwahhh!" (cries)

Dad: "Joey, you have until before dinner to tell me whether you'll take your penalty tonight or tomorrow night, otherwise I'll flip a coin to make the choice. This concludes court for today. I'm going outside to rake leaves, anyone want to join me?" (Mom and both kids come along, and have a normal afternoon doing their chores...)

Later that day: Dad to Joey: "Have you decided? Tonight or tomorrow night?"

Joey: "Tonight... (whimpers)..."

Dad: "Good for you, get it over and done so you can make up and get back in good standing."

At dinner: Dad: "Joey's decided he's going to pay his penalty tonight. So, no ice cream. Joey, when the rest of us are eating ice cream, you can stay at the table or go in the other room and read so you don't have to watch, OK?"

Joey: "OK (sniffle)"

At bedtime: Dad: "Joey, it's bedtime, so I'll take you upstairs and tuck you in, but you still have two parts of your penalty to pay. So when you're going to sleep tonight, instead of listening to a bedtime story, I want you to think about how you want to be when you're playing with Suzie, OK?"

Joey: "OK (sniffle...)"

Next morning: breakfast. Joey comes downstairs, runs over to Suzie, gives her a hug and says he loves her and he's sorry. Big smiles all'round, problem solved. And, one would hope, lessons learned.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'F')irst of all, ABI is a research compound ....

[gg3]

Re. Rwwff, second posting: Good, we're back on the same page. I agree, charge & convict based on what someone does, not what one thinks someone is.

Re. UnknownElement, at what point switch from social workers to judges & jailers: When a crime is committed, i.e. a violation of state or federal law, hand over the person to the established justice system. This is why we have to support that system as far as possible.

Re. "communal living," fact is you're in a community right now, but you don't have the chance to choose who will become your neighbors. If you've ever been in college or the military or worked in a startup company's early phase, you've also been in a community with its own rules and processes. There's no way to avoid it, even in the big anonymous city you're part of a community.

I'm certainly not proposing "communal" living. Gaaack!, the idea of having to discuss things such as "doing the dishes" is enough to make me run in the opposite direction! What I have in mind, what I am in the process of forming, and what many of us have in mind, is halfway between a small village and a condominium association or tenants-in-common arrangement, on a piece of rural land, privately owned.

In that context one does choose one's neighbors, because each new membership is voted on by the village council, subject to individual objections. This will reduce the risk of sociopaths and psychopaths considerably. Frankly it will also mean a certain degree of self-selective discrimination, but so long as we're not talking about public accommodations or other such cases, I have to concede that if some group wants to buy land privately and include only members of their own ethnicity or religion or gender/sexual orientation, that's their right. (This, I think, is consistent with a kind of Goldwater libertarianism updated for the times.)

The place where I will always draw the line, is with respect to staying within the principles of liberty, justice, and equality under law. If a group want to exclude from its private land (not public accommodations) those who aren't like themselves, that's their right (and it's my right to not do business with them, though it's still smart policy to maintain diplomatic relations). If they want to enact discrimination into the federal, state, or local law, that's wrong and will not stand.

---

As for "hanging 'em," as long as we can capture & arrest, and there is a functioning justice system, we can and should handle it that way. If someone is engaged in a violent attack, it's justified to use force in defense, and if that force turns lethal, the case goes into the courts accordingly. The latter point should serve as a check-and-balance against excess.

For example, if you end up in combat mode against a group of armed intruders and kill one of them, if you have the entire encounter recorded on video, you have pretty good evidence when you go to court to plead that it was in self-defense.

Any community public safety and/or defense plans should include routine audio/video recording of entire encounters, in the event such things occur. Ideal case is that you have someone in the community duly sworn as a law enforcement officer, who can make legal arrests and detain suspects to turn them over to the county sheriff; and you have someone in the community who is an attorney with relevant training in criminal and civil law.

This stuff is deadly serious. When facing a collapse scenario it's too easy to get scared into thinking that everything is going to come down to tooth & claw. But consider how you would like to live: in a society of tooth and claw, or a society of justice and law?

As a practical matter it is far simpler to maintain the existing structures & systems through a difficult transition, than it is to try to reconstitute them after they have broken. Simple things, such as volunteering to fix the fence at the sheriff's office, sweep up at the county courthouse, and bring surplus farm produce to the county jail, go a long way toward reinforcing the value of these things in the larger external community.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

One mindset I've observed as being fairly prevalent here among peakers is the ideal of a hermit on a few square acres. I think that as things get scairier it is more likely and indeed fairly typical of people to withdraw into their shells (homes) when things start to go down hill.

I think that would be both a good thing and a mistake. While it is smart to do as some have suggested and look like you have less and are suffering along with the masses, we need to strike a balance between hiding and the need to maintain diplomatic relations and get to know your neighbours.

No matter what you are doing, its always easier if you have others to do it with you (ie: old fashioned barn raisings). I think we are fairly safe in that most sociopaths are easily recognizable by their titles in city hall (small joke).

But in reality we are too "them vs. us", "black vs. white thinking" and wonder if just knowing or figuring out how to classify people (on a personal scale) might not help you in identifying future threats. It certainly might help women avoid abusive men and vice versa. Like why aren't these kinds of things more accessible to the average person?

[gg3]

Re. UnknownElement "why aren't these things more accessible to the average person?"

Because they are not taught and they should be.

Everyone's heard the usual list of "signs and symptoms of drug abuse among teenagers." If your kid wears long sleeves in the hot summer and sunglasses indoors at night, something's up.

Everyone's heard the list for depression, for anxiety, and so on.

Of course it helps that all of those are well-understood to be treatable.

What we need to do is promote awareness of sociopathy and psychopathy equally strongly. And as for treatment, fund Shulgin's research.

As for prevention, the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are actually doing a darn good job of what I have in mind, with their radio ad series "Family: it's about time." More of that, saturating the airwaves with it, will show results by shifting the social norms back to engaged parenting and so on.

[Doly]

GG3, I think you are being too optimistic about prevention.

I'm thinking of a cousin of mine that has practically all the ticks for sociopathy. He's considered in the family as a disgrace, because he has been all his life as selfish as one could possibly be. When he was little, he regularly blamed others for things he had done wrong. He was discovered because sometimes he blamed kids that were too little to have possibly done it. On the other hand, he can be quite charming when he wants to. His girlfriend is intelligent, has money and social status, and has probably been very effectively fooled into believing he's a prince charming. But people that know him better suspect that his choice had a lot more to do with her money and status than with really liking her. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Now, this cousin has a brother two years older than him. He is quite a nice guy and has none of this sociopathic behaviour. They were both educated in a completely similar way. I can't help but thinking that, whatever is wrong with my cousin, it was there since he was very little, and had little to do with his upbringing.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') can't help but thinking that, whatever is wrong with my cousin, it was there since he was very little, and had little to do with his upbringing.

[TorrKing]

Doly

It may very well be due to upbringing. Children are treated differently by their parents. The first one will often be given more attention etc... Also, breastfeeding and physical contact with the parents may be different from one child to the next. Both prevent development of such disorders, from what I have read.

Physical appearance will also influence on how people react to you. Unwillingly, people treat beautiful individuals better than ugly ones.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') can't help but thinking that, whatever is wrong with my cousin, it was there since he was very little, and had little to do with his upbringing.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

We are talking about people here who are more than just "a little off" if you know what I mean.

I'm the black sheep of the family and they have always thought I was "a little off" but that is mostly becuase my IQ is a good 38 points higher than most of them and I look on their antics as annoying pissy little machinations. I couldn't give a fat flying f*** about half of the stuff they go on about.

This is partly because I won't fit into the mold they have in mind for me. don't want to, couldn't care less really.

But I care about other people, I love my kids dearly, I have two of the greatest friends on the face of the earth, and many more less so. I just couldn't care about most of my family. I think theres only two or three I'd throw a life preserver to. REALLY.

We are not talking about odd people, eccentrics or loners. We are talking about diagnostically maladaptive individuals who are "broken" in the sense that they don't care if they hurt, toture, maim or kill another person, and some who actively do this to others (which is a catagory I think most of my family would fit into, that is if you consider punishment with a cat of 4 tails sufficient for pissing them off).

I'll finish this later, gotta go out for coffee

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

If we are talking about a post peak world where the lucky survivors have retreated to their homesteads or co-op/ communes etc, there won't be the resources to keep the oil intensive jails populated.

Even with the emphasis on paroling offenders there were still 12,900 people serving a conditional sentence whereas the jail population was a mere 10,600 for the year 2002/2003 (this is Canada so our jail population is nothing compared to what you americans are facing).

Does anyone here think we are going to have the resources to checkup on 12,900 offenders serving community sentences when there are other areas like the medical field (911 paramedics and prescription drugs) demanding the few resources that will be left? How about the 10,600 we will have to keep in jails?

This is an area that will be of increasing concern. Mark my words. In the US your population is going to hit 300,000,000. care to guess how many offenders and disturbed people are in that population? Forget how many psychopaths, how about "entitled" individuals who think they have a right to your stuff/life/food/home?

Wanna choke? How do you like this: "America's prison population topped 2 million inmates for the first time in history on June 30, 2002 according to a new report from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)." HA. Sucks to be you.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', 'W')e are talking about people here who are more than just "a little off" if you know what I mean.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', 'W')anna choke? How do you like this: "America's prison population topped 2 million inmates for the first time in history on June 30, 2002 according to a new report from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)." HA. Sucks to be you.

[NEOPO]

Oh wow (revelation moment) so the more of us there are the more deranged serial killers there will be???Now thats one F'D up thought aint it?

Doly - I thought everybody has at least one cousin like that ..no?
I am sure that to some people.... WE are that cousin... hahahah
crazy peak oil freaks!!!!

I dont know - genetic or evil or just the perception of evil.
The other day was clearly a case of perception of evil unless you wish to believe that evil truly exists outside the mind of mankind.

Guy felt dirty so he wanted to go feel dirty some more then kill them and himself because of the dirtyness!!!
After he drops his own kids off at school!! wtf!!
Was that guy in colorado very religious??
I love you, praise jesus now to go kill some kids.....how TF does this logic occur?

ok maybe it is genetics - that explains it as much as anything I suppose yet the neocons could seize on something like this and have all of our peak oil asses sitting in fema prisons or worse

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'O')h wow (revelation moment) so the more of us there are the more deranged serial killers there will be???Now thats one F'D up thought aint it?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', ' ')The first time I looked into a young inmates eyes and realized he'd died inside was trippy. (mostly because I was probably looking at him with the same eyes).

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are just being sympathetic and humble here I hope. Really? Or are you saying your eyes were mirrors?