[HN Gopher] The mind of a murderer: the power and limits of fore...
___________________________________________________________________
The mind of a murderer: the power and limits of forensic psychiatry
Author : axiomdata316
Score : 43 points
Date : 2021-06-18 22:59 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I think I might order this book.
| exhilaration wrote:
| Slightly off-topic but related, I started watching the JCS
| Criminal Psychology channel and it's incredible. Police
| interviews of convicted killers, mass shooters, and even a few
| innocent people:
| https://www.youtube.com/c/JCSCriminalPsychology/videos
|
| Their latest video is of the Parkland mass shooter.
|
| Once I finished their YouTube videos their Patreon had a few
| more: https://www.patreon.com/jimcantswim
| Smithalicious wrote:
| I think this channel hit the YouTube algorithm lottery, I feel
| like everyone is talking about it these past few days
| robocat wrote:
| I don't participate in social media (unless hn social media)
| so this feels reminiscent of "did you watch that on TV last
| night", which no longer exists for most of us.
|
| The series is very good, and it reminds me why I am glad to
| live in New Zealand - where most of my interactions with the
| police have been pleasant (being middle class white guy may
| help there). I saw a policeman with a sidearm the other day,
| which was very surprising to me (they don't usually carry,
| although I think they mostly now do have a shotgun locked in
| the boot of the patrol car).
| [deleted]
| diplodocusaur wrote:
| It's interesting to see this mentioned in different places and
| wonder how much "the algorithm" shapes group thought. Or it
| goes the other way? Did you search for it?
|
| I watched them too. They're surprising.
| morsch wrote:
| I didn't search for it, and I have no particular interest in
| the topic, but YouTube has been relentlessly trying to get me
| to watch their most recent video for a couple of days.
| aaron-santos wrote:
| JCS Criminal Psychology is a fantastic reminder and deep dive
| into what happens when you talk to police, why you shouldn't,
| and what you should do instead. It details interrogation
| techniques [Reid] in a way that made me understand precisely
| how lying, leverage, and power factor into getting suspects to
| self incriminate without necessarily admitting guilt. As a side
| note it was fascinating that multiple times, interrogators lied
| about realtime, see through walls, global satellite coverage
| and not once did a suspect question that ability. It was great
| being a domain expert on something to see exactly how far
| interrogators will lie in order to elicit a response. (Not a
| lawyer. Not your lawyer)
| handrous wrote:
| > Not a lawyer. Not your lawyer
|
| You don't need this. "IANAL" was just a (partly tongue-in-
| cheek) way to provide context so people didn't mistake a
| poster for a legal expert if they're writing with an
| otherwise authoritative tone, but really that's just assumed
| unless stated otherwise, and "I am not your lawyer" is part
| of a common disclaimer by actual lawyers to make it 1000%
| clear that they're not providing legal advice in their
| official capacity and so creating a lawyer/client
| relationship, when posting their opinions online. No part of
| this is even _maybe_ needed if you 're not a lawyer, and even
| the "I am not your lawyer" thing is probably an example of
| excessive ass-covering (but the law's all about that, so, no
| surprise there)
| aaron-santos wrote:
| Thank you. It's a tough habit to break after reading it for
| so many years.
| handrous wrote:
| Oh, I get it. It's a weird self-reinforcing meme (in the
| classical sense). People see it, so they write it, so
| others see it, so _they_ write it, some of the ones along
| the line think there must be a good reason so they 're
| _really_ careful to write it, and so on.
|
| Really similar to how language evolves generally, through
| misunderstandings or misappropriated terms that come to
| _actually_ mean the thing they were initially mistaken to
| mean (possibly losing the original sense entirely, sooner
| or later), except that in this case it 's not actually
| signifying anything. Just a linguistic tic.
| c22 wrote:
| Is this legal advice?
| handrous wrote:
| I am a fake lawyer. I am not _your_ fake lawyer. This isn
| 't _not_ fake legal advice.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It's not really about leverage or power. It's more of a
| strategic setting where the winning move is either to be 100%
| truthful (if you're innocent - and even JCS acknowledges
| this!) or not to play.
|
| > As a side note it was fascinating that multiple times,
| interrogators lied about realtime, see through walls, global
| satellite coverage and not once did a suspect question that
| ability.
|
| An interrogator _can_ lie about what evidence they have, and
| yes some interrogators in the JCS videos overdo this in a way
| that 's likely abusive. It _can_ however be strategically
| beneficial to the innocent if done lightly and with proper
| foreknowledge, because _if_ you can precisely and vigorously
| call the interrogator 's BS about what evidence they do or do
| not have, this sets you apart from someone who's just making
| stuff up as they go along and cannot possibly be able to do
| this.
| aaron-santos wrote:
| That's all well and good, but no one is innocent[1], so the
| only winning move is not to play.
|
| [1] https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man
| mattnewton wrote:
| Even a 100% innocent person can make trouble for themselves
| when talking to the police, with virtually no potential
| benefit in the US. Once you are being detained and
| questioned by a detective in the US justice system, you
| should not speak without an attorney, full stop: see
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
| splithalf wrote:
| I have a similar reaction to a lot of YouTube psychology. So
| much confirmation bias and other nonsense passing for facts.
| It takes a lot of caution and care to discuss behavior
| without inadvertently misinforming people. Pinker is really
| excellent in this regard. Scott Alexander would be another
| person who is able to reason about behavior without
| misinforming. I think both should be more active in
| advocating for criminal justice reform, knowing what they
| know. Forensic psychology has a lot of skeletons in its
| closet.
| aaron-santos wrote:
| > Forensic psychology has a lot of skeletons in its closet.
|
| I'm in agreement. One minor example, for as much as anyone
| thinks the Hippocratic Oath has worth - let's be honest,
| this is HN, there is sure to be a spectrum of opinions -
| psychologists are NOT required to swear it.
| fedreserved wrote:
| Because the Hippocratic oaths are reserved for doctors of
| medicine/osteopathy , not for psychologists.
| Psychiatrists are doctors of medicine, psychologists are
| not
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| The first interview in the Parkland video is exactly like Seb
| in the article: cold, disconnected, seemingly unbothered
| they've been apprehended, providing only the facts of their
| murders.
| klodolph wrote:
| I caught some TV archive footage from a Netflix program about Son
| of Sam (David Berkowitz)...
|
| There was a psychologist on TV who objected when someone said he
| had expertise with serial killers. He replied that _nobody_ in
| psychology had expertise with serial killers, because there are
| simply too few serial killers who are in therapy.
|
| The psychology of killers has a lot of allure but the way it's
| portrayed in the media (Silence of the Lambs, Criminal Minds,
| etc.) has little to do with reality.
| user3939382 wrote:
| This interview with Richard Kuklinski is an interesting data
| point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Hb2oRhrLM
|
| There's some evidence that he didn't kill as many people as he
| claims, or work with the mob as he claims, but he's definitely
| a serial killer in any case.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-21 23:01 UTC)