schizoid personality/narcissism

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:34 pm

I was reading something online ( samvak.tripod.com/faq67.html ) that made me think that Lizzie certainly could have had these traits. When a baby is attaching itself to its mother it is an important time for the ego to either integrate or fragment. Lizzie's mother may have been labile or unstable enough for Lizzie not to have had the opportunity to develop a strong enough ego so she turned inward because she was the only thing she could be sure of. Or her mother was too detached, sickly or distant for Lizzie to develop normally. And then she died, leaving Lizzie totallt on her own to develop by herself. This is how narcissists become what they are. It's an interesting article.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:54 pm

Lizzie did not exhibit the lifelong traits and decline generally associated with schizophrenia.

Narcissism is a very good possibility with Lizzie. Her good works may have been a manifestation of this.

Pathological narcissism generally begins in adolescence and lasts into adulthood. One of the most common traits is a marked unconcern and lack of sensitivity towards others and in some cases Lizzie appeared to be thoughtful and considerate--however these may have been ploys she used to be seen as such and not genuine concern or caring for others.

Narcissists are often unusually dependant on other people to meet their emotional needs, help them in their daily tasks, etc. They have grand ideas and crave admiration and exaggerated praise.

They generally have a deep sense of inferiority which they mask with their naricisstic behaviors.

To be diagnosed, the general rule of thumb is that a person must meet 5 of the following criteria as observed by a clinician.

Has a grand sense of self-importance

Marked fantasies of unrealistic and intrue levels of success, beauty, intelligence or love

A sense of entitlement

Yearning for and requiring excessive praise.

A belief that they are special or unique and can only be understood by others like them.

Taking advantage of others for personal gain.

A lack of empathy

Marked envy

Arrogance

Lizzie does tend to meet the criteria at a glance-- but it is hard to really say since she cannot be interviewd and observed.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:24 pm

I was not referring to schizophrenia so much as schizoid personality. See behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/schizoidpd.htm

"Diagnostic criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder

A. A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four or more of the following:

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family.
2. almost always chooses solitary activities.
3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person.
4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities.
5. lacks close friends or confidents other than first-degree relatives.
6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others.
7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity.

B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of schizophrenia, a mood disorder with psychotic fratures, another psychotic disorder, or a pervasive developmental disorder and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition."

When I worked as a psychiatric nurse at the University of Wisconsin and at St. Mary's Hospital in San Francisco I saw this frequently.

Lizzie may not be around for us to observe first hand, but we do get some kind of general feeling from those who did.
Not a diagnosis, just a speculation.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:20 pm

It is interesting to speculate!

Many people believe a person would have to have, at the very least a serious personality disorder to murder.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:50 pm

My readings from newspapers and books is that murder is caused by money or sex, to get it or to keep it.
How would you analyze actual people like Willy Sutton, the James brothers, etc?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:06 am

I think some of those outlaws were Sociopaths.

As for Lizzie, I had thought she was a Narcissistic Personality, but in discussion I have heard a possible diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder.

But now I understand there can be a blurring of the lines between these two. That I think is a possible diagnosis of Lizzie as murderer- a combination of the 2. But I don't see her as purely Borderline. It's a compromise for me.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:10 pm

When I think Narcissistic personality, I think of someone like Paris Hilton. Someone who has to be the center of attention (positive or negative) at all times. She's always in feuds with other people which plays into this personality type. The type of person who, if she didn't have mucho bucks, people would go out of their way to avoid.

I don't see Lizzie in that way.

Before the stigmatization of the murder, she was in a respected position in her community. She was known as an excellent conversationalist, and even after the murder, Lizzie had her loyal friends.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:38 pm

I am not licensed in any state, nor do I have a degree. I wonder what educational level is needed to toss around these terms?
Is "narcissistic personality" sort of a catch-all diagnosis? Do they have one term for a "normal personality", or is everyone liable to be labelled?

Would a bonafide expert try to diagnose a person they never met?
But just keep posting your thoughts, I don't want to stop you.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:14 pm

Links to information about Borderline Personality Disorder:

National Institute of Mental Health.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bpd.cfm

National Mental Health Association.
http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/borderline.cfm

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:26 am

My dad has every one of the symptoms of narcissism that Audrey listed. Now I have a name for his behavior. His mom was that way also.

I can't say if Lizzie was that way, based on what I know of her, but I hope not. Anyone who plans a murder has got to have a major problem of some sort though.

-1bigsteve (o:

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:04 am

I just saw something on the news last evening about intermittant explosive disorder that I thought was interesting. They were viewing "road rage" as a possible expression of that disorder, but I was thinking about Lizzie, and possibly her mother. I remember reading about her mother having bouts of anger (can't remember where I saw it though) and it occurred to me that maybe Lizzie had this disorder. The news article said that these people have, on the average, about 40 or more episodes of this in their lifetime where they totally lose it over something and it seems to be a total overreaction to the situation. It could be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. It would have been interesting to know that maybe Lizzie suffered from this during her lifetime and that something could have set her off that day. I remember reading about her bouts with handymen, etc., and wonder if her family had to walk on eggshells around her to keep her on an even keel. This disorder is an impulse control issue, just as kleptomania is.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:35 am

Good point, Ellen.

I've known people with this "flying off the handle" condition but I'm not sure if it is a mental condition or just bad attitude. I'm no expert.

If Lizzie had gone off her nut and killed her parents she sure was calm afterward. She cleaned up herself and was as cool as a block of ice when talking to Bridget, after Abby's killing, and then Mrs. Churchhill and the others. Two blow ups and dead calm in between each seems a bit strange to me. It would be like a tornado ripping through your house and scattering your underware all over the neighborhood but leaving the rest of your house completly untouched. Controlled destruction I guess is what it would be called.

It seems to me that these killings have the ear marks of being more pre-planned than just a spur of the moment situation, especially when we factor in the attempt to buy the cyanide, if she attempted to buy it for killing her parents.

-1bigsteve (o:

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:51 am

I'm thinking more along the lines of having lost it with Abby and then realizing she was past the point of no return anyway so she finished her dad off to protect herself.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:58 pm

That sounds reasonable, Ellen.

I wonder if there was enough time, between the point when Lizzie lost it and the point when she entered the room with the hatchet, for her to cool down. It could have been a situation where Lizzie was alone when she had reached the boiling point, grabbed the hatchet and entered the room for the deed. Or Abby and Lizzie could have been in the room arguing when Lizzie's boiling point was reached, she left the room, got the hatchet and returned to the room and killed Abby.

I've always leaned toward the idea that Abby was the primary target and Andrew's killing was to protect Lizzie, just as you said. Andrew would have known who did it and Lizzie would have been up a creek. Andrew's killing could also have been a means of speeding up the release of Andrew's money. There was no way of knowing how long Andrew would live, 70, 80, 90 years? Lizzie no doubt would have wanted her money when she was still young enough to enjoy it. If Andrew had lived he no doubt would have cut Lizzie out of his Will, maybe even dis-owning her.

So I feel there were several "good" reasons for Lizzie killing her dad. Of course this is based on the idea that it was Lizzie that did the killing or hired it done. There are a lot of possibilities to this case.

-1bigsteve (o:

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:27 pm

1bigsteve @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:58 pm wrote: Of course this is based on the idea that it was Lizzie that did the killing or hired it done. There are a lot of possibilities to this case.
-1bigsteve (o:

It just popped into my head that there were workmen with potential weapons who were working in the next yard that day, one of whom could have had a grudge against the Bordens, saw the comings and goings and could have slipped in to do the deed. But that really wouldn't work because someone would have seen him go or realized he was missing, and the time frame between the two murders is just too wide for that possibility.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:00 pm

Angel @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:27 pm wrote:
1bigsteve @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:58 pm wrote: Of course this is based on the idea that it was Lizzie that did the killing or hired it done. There are a lot of possibilities to this case.
-1bigsteve (o:

It just popped into my head that there were workmen with potential weapons who were working in the next yard that day, one of whom could have had a grudge against the Bordens, saw the comings and goings and could have slipped in to do the deed. But that really wouldn't work because someone would have seen him go or realized he was missing, and the time frame between the two murders is just too wide for that possibility.

I could understand a grudge against Andrew but, not Abby. It's hard for me to picture a man just getting into the house, unseen by anyone then just walking in on Abby and getting close enough without her screaming to kill her. I also can't picture a man just sitting in a small, hot closet covered in blood waiting for Andrew to come home. Not knowing when and not knowing if Uncle Morse might come home first and risk having two men in the house at the same time.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:09 pm

Would an individual with a personality disorder exhibit the focus we see in the Borden case, that is, Abby and Andrew to the exclusion of others?

If we accept personality disorder, does that remove profit as a motive for the killing?

It seems to me that someone having an uncontrollable drive to act in a certain way would do so despite anything, by definition. It implies that Andrew would have been killed regardless of his affluence, even if he was a poor man.

The murders occurred with a time lapse between them, which implies a progression from Jekyll to Hyde and back twice. That strikes me as a bit too controlled to be a random irresistable urge.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:21 pm

If we decide to believe that Lizzie was a murderer, a kleptomaniac or any combination of the two, we have to accept that she suffered from some sort of personality disorder.

Take some of the far out theories... The boyfriend she covered the crime up for, the illegitimate half brother she allowed to go free and stood trial for... Would a 'normal' person do any of this?

In the past I wanted Lizzie to be innocent, so I believed she was. I actually sort of like her-- and that clouded my judgement. When I finally accepted that she could be a murderer and I could still like and admire her-- I was able to admit that she probably was guilty of the murders.

I do not believe a person can hack two people to death and not have serious issues somewhere.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:40 pm

Murder is exceptional behavior, regardless of personality dysfunction. If a murderer is proven insane, the penalty is lessened, due to an inability to exhibit self-control in a clinical sense. This does not imply that a chosen lack of self-control excuses murder. There's a big difference between clinical insanity and personality disorder.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "personality disorder" implies the existance of a "normal" personality. I just don't know what a "normal" personality is. The term "personal" implies uniqueness.

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:56 pm

I am working in New York City as a psychiatric social worker and one thing I find fascinating is that the DSM IV (the diagnostic and statistic manual) for diagnosing mental illness implicitly recognizes that everyone exhibits "odd" behaviors--for example everyone at some time might be paranoid, or narcissistic, or depressed. But in order to diagnose an illness, the behaviors/symptoms must meet certain criteria (e.g. lasting for a certain period of time, be recurrent or pervasive, or disrupt the basic activities of daily life). Further, the disorders are ranged along five "axes"--Axis I is for the major mental diseases (schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, etc.) Axis II is for personality disorders (narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc.). Axis III is for phsyical disorders (cancer, emphysema, diabetes, etc.) Axis IV is for psychosocial stressors (homelessness, poverty, etc.), and Axis V is an estimate of the person's overall cognitive functioning. From my experience, I can tell you that mental illness definitely does not mean a lessining of intelligence. There are very many people carrying a diagnosis of a mental illness who are extremely intelligent. Further, when we assess someone, we are looking at speech patterns, thought process and content, affect, psychomotor activity, eye contact, insight, judgement (whether the person knows they are sick and whether they can recognize their symptoms) impulse control, etc. etc. So, as a licensed professional I can say that diagnosing Lizzie would be well nigh impossible. We can outline and describe certain traits, but we can't observe her or listen to her. We could make at best "diagnostic impressions"--and, from what I know, I would place Lizzie somewhere in Axis II with a personality disorder. If she had an Axis I disorder, she would have had to be hospitalized or would have had psychotic outbursts at home (a "breakdown") at least once in her life. Further, science does not yet know for sure what causes mental illness. Some mental illness is hereditary. Some can be triggered by life experience, like Post Traumatic Stress Syndrom. Sadly, Axis II disorders cannot be treated with medication. So, even if Lizzie had a mental disorder, she would have to be assessed to find out her level of impulse control. Sounds like she had real issues, if the stories of kleptomania are to be believed.

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:58 pm

In re-reading my post, I see that I wrote "mental diseases"--when, in fact, the recognized term is "mental illnesses"-- I apologize!

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:01 pm

Sorry for the multiple posts. I guess what I'm trying to say is, that Lizzie could have had such an Axis II disorder that she could in "good conscience" have committed murder, truly thinking that this was a beneficial thing to do. This is my opinion.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:56 pm

Thank you for the insight, Robert.

I lean toward the idea that Lizzie had the mental ability to plan, carry out and clean up after, the murders. Her Alibis were not too tight but I feel the killings were accomplished by a calculating mind in control of the process. But I'm not very knowledgeable in mental problems.

By the way, If you want to change anything in your post after you hit "submit" just click the "edit" button in your post. I do it all the time to correct my terrible spelling.

Thank's again.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:28 pm

Thanks Robert Harry!
I tend to my opinion based on reading true crime for 30 years. I'm not a professional.
I did once meet a man who told me he was afraid he was a sociopath, so I asked him some questions which traits he did not meet. He was relieved but I told him to seek help.
He was the auto dealer who sold me my first new car!
(People tell me strange things).

Anyway, I have this piece of note paper with red writing on it. I have been cleaning up my piles of notes on the case and couldn't quite throw this one away. Once I post it, I will.

I don't know who wrote it- me...someone else...a book...I don't know.

It says:
If she gets off free she'll think she was justified. She has no remorse."

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:35 am

Thank you for the insight, Robert Harry! The stumbling point for me is the two separate(?) murders. Wouldn't the disorder have to be pervasive to allow for that? If it were pervasive, then the murders might not be discrete events. The disorder would also have to allow for focus and selectivity.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:44 am

Robert Harry @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:01 pm wrote:Sorry for the multiple posts. I guess what I'm trying to say is, that Lizzie could have had such an Axis II disorder that she could in "good conscience" have committed murder, truly thinking that this was a beneficial thing to do. This is my opinion.

I truly believe that was the case. I think, if she did it, she felt totally justified in stopping some kind of mistreatment or abuse, and that's why she went on with her life in a relatively normal fashion. She felt she had removed what she perceived to be the source of evil in her life and she was probably relieved it was finally over.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:52 am

Audrey has a good point, anyone who commits murder probably exhibits some sort of dysfunction. If Lizzie commited the murders, then she probably exhibited some form of personality disorder, but she didn't suffer from it, Abby and Andrew did.

Murder is aberrant behavior and something either allows or justifies it in the murderer's mind. The problem lies in the legal liability for the behavior, not the thought process.

If Lizzie thought she was justified in removing some perceived abuse from her life then she certainly exhibited narcissistic tendencies. The reality was that it was Andrew's house, Andrew's money, and Andrew's life. She had the option to move out of the house if she objected to the living conditions or the company. Nothing compelled her presence except that which she conjured up. I realize that women weren't expected to move away from home and live on their own at the time, but would that be any more stigmatized than murder?

Personality disorder certainly goes a long way toward explaining behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:15 am

I would never try to excuse her behavior. I'm just fascinated about how someone's thought processes would get her to that point.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:53 am

I must apologize Angel, I didn't mean to imply that you were attempting to excuse her behavior! I certainly could have chosen better wording.

My point was that no matter how justified Lizzie thought she was, she was responsible for herself and her actions. She bore more responsibility for her living situation than anyone else, she chose to remain at home knowing what the conditions were for 32 years.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:06 am

Good grief, you don't have to apologize to me.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:27 am

Angel, you are indeed a graceful lady, and I thank you for that!

I'm interested in how a personality disorder might affect thought processes, specifically, whether the thought processes become predictable and, if so, to what degree. This would bear directly on motive.

If Lizzie attempted to purchase poison the day before the murders and went to Alice Russel with a prophecy the evening before, then the murders weren't spur of the moment, they were premeditated. There seemed to be an immediate need of some sort present.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:19 pm

Angel @ Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:06 am wrote:Good grief, you don't have to apologize to me.

I wonder what you could say about the following well-known people?
Mother Theresa
Princess Diane
Ann Coulter
Paris Hilton
Elizabeth Batory

You can look them up as needed.

PS they are making a movie about the Countess.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:24 pm

Here are some others for you to analyze. It is a test.
Laura Bush
George W. Bush
Hillary Rodham Clinton
William J. Clinton

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:39 am

RayS

Most of us are not afraid of a bit of speculation. I look at it as an ongoing search for "The Probable(!) Reality".

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:59 am

I think some of these dysfunctual behaviours can be somewhat predictable. Even just within the home, by the family living with the person.
However, when substance use or abuse is entered into the equation, all bets are off. That's when the unpredictable happens- maybe even unpredicted by the person acting-out. That lowering of the final inhibition, coupled with already poor impulse control- bad recipe.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:04 am

That's true, dysfunctional behaviors are often tolerated as "quirks" by family, especially if they are predictable. Perhaps this is especially true when co-habitation takes place for 30-odd years. Subtleties in increasing magnitude may be overlooked or "gotten used to" by family members. There may be a social stigma associated with the behavior so it could be actively covered up in certain cases.

I think it may be fairly common to tolerate the youngest child, peraps to excess, in most families.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:46 pm

The purpose of my questions is to test the analyzers.
There are places that contain information sometimes used by students in doing homework. One test is to ask about a subject that is not likely to be on some site.
Asking about the well-known or not well-known is one test for those who claim expertise. Is it only those in bad repute who can be analyzed?
"Elizabeth Batory" is not a person from American history. Some called her the "female Bluebeard"; you can look it up.

I once read that these analyses are only about people who are is disrepute. One test is to ask about well-known people.
If they can't analyze the living, what about Presidents like FDR, Truman, Ike, or Reagan? Are they exempt from analysis? Historians don't think so.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:28 pm

I expect it would be easier to analyze the dead than the living. They are no longer available to disprove an analysis by acting outside the confines of an "always/never" behavior pattern. People exhibiting extraordinary behavior are more likely to be the target of analysis, but it does seem that those in disrepute are the primary targets. I have to wonder if Mother Theresa has ever been analyzed!

The value of an analysis would be to gain insight into why a person behaved in a certain way. While it does not provide an excuse for the behavior, we might at least understand the thought processes. Once we realize the person built the garage using a meter-long yardstick, we know why the 4X8 plywood doesn't fit properly and can adjust accordingly.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:01 pm

Yooper @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:39 am wrote:RayS

Most of us are not afraid of a bit of speculation. I look at it as an ongoing search for "The Probable(!) Reality".

The problem with speculation is that it knows no bounds. It usually has some built-in bias or assumption, so it turns into a tautological exercise, or begging the question. See the examples, which usually assume Lizzie dunit, and try to discover how the impossible happened. IMO

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:39 pm

I agree that speculation has the tendency to get out of hand at times. I think the best plan is to look first at what happened, then consider what was physically possible, then try to separate the probable from the possible. Examine what everyone did rather than what they said. From there, the inconsistencies can be sorted.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:47 am

Has anyone noticed or had experience with these personality disordered people who do tend toward substance abuse?
I'm wondering if they drink/take drugs to get a sort of *vacation* from themselves, but it probably ends up blowing up in their face.
I've seen it.

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:52 pm

I work with a lot of people who are dually diagnosed--that is they have a mental illness plus a substance abuse problem (sometimes this is called the "MICA" population--for "mentally ill chemical abusing"). From my experience, the great majority of these people (if not all) started using substance to medicate themselves. Most often, the addiction is present before the mental illness is diagnosed, because these people do not realize what is wrong with them and start taking drugs to feel some relief from their symptoms. But it's a "chicken-or-egg" question. Which came first--the mental illness or the substance abuse? Most often, it's the mental illness and the substance abuse is an attempt to self-medicate.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:49 am

Thank you! I was wondering.
I do think the mental illness comes first.

For a bi-polar person (This is my laymen's term) I have known of a friend who *self-medicated* and when I told him Kurt Cobain's claim before he died that he always had a terrible *ache in his belly* and he shot up to get relief, my friend was agog! He said he had always had that *ache in his belly* too. My friend had been on prescribed medication for a long time and has done very well- not going off it, and living rather *normally.*

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:57 pm

Yooper @ Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:52 am wrote:Audrey has a good point, anyone who commits murder probably exhibits some sort of dysfunction. If Lizzie commited the murders, then she probably exhibited some form of personality disorder, but she didn't suffer from it, Abby and Andrew did.

Murder is aberrant behavior and something either allows or justifies it in the murderer's mind. The problem lies in the legal liability for the behavior, not the thought process.

If Lizzie thought she was justified in removing some perceived abuse from her life then she certainly exhibited narcissistic tendencies. The reality was that it was Andrew's house, Andrew's money, and Andrew's life. She had the option to move out of the house if she objected to the living conditions or the company. Nothing compelled her presence except that which she conjured up. I realize that women weren't expected to move away from home and live on their own at the time, but would that be any more stigmatized than murder?

Personality disorder certainly goes a long way toward explaining behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.

There is a scene in 'The Godfather' where Kaye(?) says the President never killed anyone. Her husband Michael just looks at her and asks "Who's naive now?"
Murder is any unjustified killing. If you can justify it its is not murder. Some people may not have this definition clear in their mind. Probably due to the mistranslation of the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
That is why I listed the past and present Presidents.
Does anyone know if Andrew Jackson killed anyone?
What about a Presidential candidate like Adlai Stevenson?

What, does the cat have your tongue? Or fingers?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:16 pm

RayS @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:57 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:52 am wrote:Audrey has a good point, anyone who commits murder probably exhibits some sort of dysfunction. If Lizzie commited the murders, then she probably exhibited some form of personality disorder, but she didn't suffer from it, Abby and Andrew did.

Murder is aberrant behavior and something either allows or justifies it in the murderer's mind. The problem lies in the legal liability for the behavior, not the thought process.

If Lizzie thought she was justified in removing some perceived abuse from her life then she certainly exhibited narcissistic tendencies. The reality was that it was Andrew's house, Andrew's money, and Andrew's life. She had the option to move out of the house if she objected to the living conditions or the company. Nothing compelled her presence except that which she conjured up. I realize that women weren't expected to move away from home and live on their own at the time, but would that be any more stigmatized than murder?

Personality disorder certainly goes a long way toward explaining behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.
There is a scene in 'The Godfather' where Kaye(?) says the President never killed anyone. Her husband Michael just looks at her and asks "Who's naive now?"
Murder is any unjustified killing. If you can justify it its is not murder. Some people may not have this definition clear in their mind. Probably due to the mistranslation of the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
That is why I listed the past and present Presidents.
Does anyone know if Andrew Jackson killed anyone?
What about a Presidential candidate like Adlai Stevenson?

What, does the cat have your tongue? Or fingers?

I'm not sure what the question is here. Justification for killing might be as an act of war or in self-defense. There is no justification for murder, only the perception of being justified in the killer's mind.

The question about the cat having anyone's tongue or fingers is a real mystery!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:42 pm

"Murder" is any unjustified killing. If you can justify it, it is not murder.
Self-defense is an obvious example.

The last sentence was about the lack of response to earlier questions about a personality. What say you, is a king or president immune to moral judgments?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:15 pm

Right or wrong is not determined by what can be "gotten away with". If a king or president has to intellectualize over whether something is right or wrong, then he or she is not a moral person. While a king or president may get away with having someone killed, it's still murder. They may have someone killed under the guise of protecting others, but unless they would be directly affected, it's still murder.

In times of war, the rules change. It is understood to be a matter of self-defense. Those in harm's way are well aware of it. They should also be well aware of the potential harm they bring to others (civilians) when they continue to fight among them.

serendipity · Post by **serendipity** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:56 am

I think violent behaviour is a moral issue not a medical one.

Lizzie (or whoever it was) was very very angry in a most destructive way.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:32 pm

Yooper @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:15 pm wrote:Right or wrong is not determined by what can be "gotten away with". If a king or president has to intellectualize over whether something is right or wrong, then he or she is not a moral person. While a king or president may get away with having someone killed, it's still murder. They may have someone killed under the guise of protecting others, but unless they would be directly affected, it's still murder.

In times of war, the rules change. It is understood to be a matter of self-defense. Those in harm's way are well aware of it. They should also be well aware of the potential harm they bring to others (civilians) when they continue to fight among them.

You haven't answered the question. If Andrew Jackson or Adlai Stevenson had killed somebody, what would you say about them?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:03 pm

Well, violent behaviour as moral or legal (medical) is still debated in courts throughout the land. But if the murder is horrible juries usually convict, whether the accused is mentally ill or not. See Andrea Yates- killing methodically, all her children. But morally she thought she was sending them to her Lord above. Saving them by killing them. Is that moral or medical? I don't know. It's just very sad.
She's getting a new trial.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/yates/