Monster

[tobyx]

I must say I agree with the mighty 4th that the intention of this thread has become somewhat muddy and we have become unsure what we are discussing here, no-one more so than I . I believe we run the risk of simply replicating every thought we have recently expressed in a thread of a similar nature.

I think you are right.

[hippyroo]

" Once medical science began to explain their behavior it no longer seemed appropriate to cook these people alive on the grounds of demon possession."

What exactly has medical science explained about behavior? Are you calling psychology part of medical science? Psychology is a grab bag of various "schools of thought" each based on their own assumptions. And how do you arrive at right and wrong using the scientific method?

Honestly, when I hear of someone killing their three kids by dropping them off the bridge, I wonder what could have possessed them to do such a thing; I don't assume that given her biochemical makeup and the circumstances in which she lived her life it's no wonder she hadn't murdered them earlier.

[ethsnafu]

" Once medical science began to explain their behavior it no longer seemed appropriate to cook these people alive on the grounds of demon possession."

What exactly has medical science explained about behavior? Are you calling psychology part of medical science? Psychology is a grab bag of various "schools of thought" each based on their own assumptions. And how do you arrive at right and wrong using the scientific method?

Honestly, when I hear of someone killing their three kids by dropping them off the bridge, I wonder what could have possessed them to do such a thing; I don't assume that given her biochemical makeup and the circumstances in which she lived her life it's no wonder she hadn't murdered them earlier.

Greetings 'Roo...

I know I have displayed concern given the duplicitous and repetitious direction this thread has taken but I hope I will be forgiven in perpetuating this state as I would hate Hippyroo to think me at all ignorant of his fine points.

Firstly I believe myself to be misunderstood and hope a review of my post in its entirety will be testament to this but I only sought to note how medical science has allowed epilepsy to be viewed with understanding and that the days when it was cause enough to warrant execution are over. I assert that the Criminal Justice System and Law Enforcement Agencies are right in modifying their approaches and judgements in accordance with new discoveries. A policy of the unconsidered dispensing of punishment at odds with developments in psychology, psychiatry, biology and criminology is both dangerous and blatantly wrong. Theoretical scientists, whatever their modality, strive to find cause, engender cures and hope to fully understand behavior and if they are able to indicate that 'pathology' is a factor in an individual's criminal expressions then it is right that punishment be dispensed with an accompanying view to treatment.

The 'I don't care, kill them' approach is neither helpful nor respectful of the sheer blood, sweat and tears the scientific body invests in order to support the invaluable, and often thankless, work of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice and their insights, studies and revelations should continue to inform the way we format punishment in all democratic nations as they so rightly do.

And yes, whatever your own misgivings Psychology is a very much respected aspect of Medical Science and as a Clinician I cannot express strongly enough the astounding efficacy of this system and the advances it has afforded Medicine in the treatment of inorganic disease.

I echo, as I did before, that my views are not in anyway a personal disagreement simply an expression of my thoughts though I assert that if anything further needs to be added to this train of thought it be done so in the thread already addressing these issues ad infinitum.

Further Evidence We Are Heading For The End

This was intended to be a 'Monster' thread after all.

I hope you think no ill of me Hippyroo for daring to disagree and I believe it valuable that the both our stances are considered as a lone view is never desirable.

My Best wishes to you,

Eth

[Guest Jim McLean]

Honestly, when I hear of someone killing their three kids by dropping them off the bridge, I wonder what could have possessed them to do such a thing; I don't assume that given her biochemical makeup and the circumstances in which she lived her life it's no wonder she hadn't murdered them earlier.

Without wanting to bring up what Eth has pointed out, has been done before, how can you legitimately wonder what possessed people to do something if you don't look at all aspects of their behaviour?

In context to our chats about the show, surely that's very much the point of MM - that we understand people's wrong and callous doings by understanding what makes them who they are - and as much as a society we want to distance ourselves from these people and let them carry their own mistakes, quite often an analysis of their lives shows how they medical or family or social background are key inhibitors to their actions; that how society and biology "treats" individuals can be instigator in tragic outcomes.

This doesn't mean that empathy or understanding of root behaviour has to mean kid gloves. As Frank shows, you can understand a person without sympathising or being more lenient. "Know thy enemy" is the key ingredient if you are fighting any way, be it on a battlefield or anti-social trends.

It's easy to mark acts as evil, its harder to look and see that its not always as simple to judge when science has shown that its not "evil" which drives people, but far more earthy elements. Doesn't mean they need to be let out instead of kept away from society, but the more we understand, the more we can stay one step ahead of social problems and maybe, just maybe, find ways to inhibit them. Locking people away for being simply evil will never bring us the answers or solutions to these terrors - I think MM was very much about that, and itself wasn't an answer but a question; so much of MM dealt with human choices built from biological or human experience, yet occasionally (say, Gehenna), there was the question of actions being mainfested of "pure" evil.

Which is great, because while I doubt myself and Hippyroo will ever find a middleground to our personal ideologies, at least the show we both love reflects both our opinions on this subject, and as Eth said, its good to use these threads to convey these opinions rather than look to prove one over the other. I hope this post isn't too much of the latter and a little more of the former. :)

Edited March 20, 2008 by Jim McLean

[Raven Wolf]

Firstly I believe myself to be misunderstood and hope a review of my post in its entirety will be testament to this but I only sought to note how medical science has allowed epilepsy to be viewed with understanding and that the days when it was cause enough to warrant execution are over. I assert that the Criminal Justice System and Law Enforcement Agencies are right in modifying their approaches and judgements in accordance with new discoveries. A policy of the unconsidered dispensing of punishment at odds with developments in psychology, psychiatry, biology and criminology is both dangerous and blatantly wrong. Theoretical scientists, whatever their modality, strive to find cause, engender cures and hope to fully understand behavior and if they are able to indicate that 'pathology' is a factor in an individual's criminal expressions then it is right that punishment be dispensed with an accompanying view to treatment.

Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

A culture must always be growing and learning and changing with new discoveries, as well as seeking more, otherwise, it is doomed.

[Gunslinger]

Without wanting to bring up what Eth has pointed out, has been done before, how can you legitimately wonder what possessed people to do something if you don't look at all aspects of their behaviour?

In context to our chats about the show, surely that's very much the point of MM - that we understand people's wrong and callous doings by understanding what makes them who they are - and as much as a society we want to distance ourselves from these people and let them carry their own mistakes, quite often an analysis of their lives shows how they medical or family or social background are key inhibitors to their actions; that how society and biology "treats" individuals can be instigator in tragic outcomes.

This doesn't mean that empathy or understanding of root behaviour has to mean kid gloves. As Frank shows, you can understand a person without sympathising or being more lenient. "Know thy enemy" is the key ingredient if you are fighting any way, be it on a battlefield or anti-social trends.

It's easy to mark acts as evil, its harder to look and see that its not always as simple to judge when science has shown that its not "evil" which drives people, but far more earthy elements. Doesn't mean they need to be let out instead of kept away from society, but the more we understand, the more we can stay one step ahead of social problems and maybe, just maybe, find ways to inhibit them. Locking people away for being simply evil will never bring us the answers or solutions to these terrors - I think MM was very much about that, and itself wasn't an answer but a question; so much of MM dealt with human choices built from biological or human experience, yet occasionally (say, Gehenna), there was the question of actions being mainfested of "pure" evil.

Which is great, because while I doubt myself and Hippyroo will ever find a middleground to our personal ideologies, at least the show we both love reflects both our opinions on this subject, and as Eth said, its good to use these threads to convey these opinions rather than look to prove one over the other. I hope this post isn't too much of the latter and a little more of the former. :)

Howdy Lareo, great post as always. I can see what you are trying to say, but on the other hand, dealing with dirtbags first hand for the past decade, it's hard to have such a clinically detached point of view. I understand and definitely believe that we should always "know thy enemy", but I will settle for knowing where I can find them and knowing I can help put them away for bringing harm upon others. I freely admit that my view on this topic is most likely seriously biased and for that, I apologize, I do try to stay objective and manage to do so in almost all regards, but when you see the damage that people do to one another on a daily basis and the ramifications thereafter on families, especially children, I suppose your sphere of concern tends to shrink somewhat and become jaded. When I see that someone has received 10 years for a third strike domestic abuse charge, my main thought is to immediately think "they will be out on parole in two years, more buffed out with a chip on their shoulder." Evil, in my opinion, does not change, its a constant, like the tide, like death and taxes. It's always here, it's always something to be looked around the next corner for and that is the job, to always be ready to do what we can to put it away, to kick the tide back this time, every time, so our families and loved ones can sleep peacefully at night knowing they are at least a little safer. I have never understood, nor do I want to, how people can be so evil to one another for what is usually such trivial reasons. I do understand though, that a stand has to be made, not to explain why people are the way they are, but to be there at the floodgates to show that there is hope and that all humans are not inherently evil. I do think its very important to learn why people bestow such horrors upon one another, I think it much more important to help in any way take these people down and put them away so the next child, battered woman, ex-spouse, or any other type of victim can maybe sleep a little easier knowing they don't have to fear for the their lives, even if only for a shor time. Semper Paratus.

[hippyroo]

"I hope you think no ill of me Hippyroo for daring to disagree and I believe it valuable that the both our stances are considered as a lone view is never desirable.:

This forum is just fun discussion for me,E. I understand that we all have different views on certain subjects. I know that I speak rather bluntly, but if you could hear my tone, you would know that I am just talking' not ranting.

On your point, I do know that psychology has helped many people, but I also know it is full of quackery as well. I also believe in mercy and justice over blind application of the law; however, I also believe we have gone overboard with enabling criminals to continue their evil paths in the name of fixing them.

[hippyroo]

"Which is great, because while I doubt myself and Hippyroo will ever find a middleground to our personal ideologies, at least the show we both love reflects both our opinions on this subject, and as Eth said, its good to use these threads to convey these opinions rather than look to prove one over the other. I hope this post isn't too much of the latter and a little more of the former. :)"

Good points L, and yes I know my perspective is based on an "outdated" religious world view. I have seen the evil in myself and in the world at large. So, I see in MLLM a battle of good and evil, and the temptation of Frank by evil.

[hippyroo]

"here, it's always something to be looked around the next corner for and that is the job, to always be ready to do what we can to put it away, to kick the tide back this time, every time, so our families and loved ones can sleep peacefully at night knowing they are at least a little safer."

Thank you G, for standing at the gate and taking care of what most of us only deal with in the abstract One of my brothers has been a "country mounty" for over 25 years, and my son-in-law is in his third year as a city cop. Few people realize how much you guys see and do.

[Guest Jim McLean]

I freely admit that my view on this topic is most likely seriously biased and for that, I apologize, I do try to stay objective and manage to do so in almost all regards, but when you see the damage that people do to one another on a daily basis and the ramifications thereafter on families, especially children, I suppose your sphere of concern tends to shrink somewhat and become jaded.

A very open and candid post. :) What you describe is simply human nature, and the nature of constant negative exposure to our worst elements would make anyone jaded. It's easy to stay objective when you are not directly involved. Anyone having to see the most horrible social occurrences over, and over again will indeed start to get jaded.

But as you yourself - and the term infers - jaded isn't objective (which of course by no means that you can't be objective in your job, personal feelings don't necessarily dictate professional control - no aspersions are intended). Those who suffer the whole toll of jobs that cover such sordid or unjust actions are bound to find themselves losing empathy for those who commit them. For those whose jobs have culprits who are often nonchalant, unrepentant or simply devoid of human feelings are naturally going to find themselves with less and less feelings for these elements. Many a homicide cop no longer sees the murderer as anything but a problem to overcome, there even comes a point where the body on the floor ends up as being nothing more than a piece of meat.

Over-exposure de-sensitises. It's a human curse and blessing. It allows us to deal with issues, but it also draws us away from the object of our work. Keeping things simple is how the mind deals with horrible things. It's how we cope with issues that threaten to damage us.

I can totally understand you, as I had a father who became as jaded in his variety of nasty roles as a copper, having to deal with very nasty criminal elements.

However, if you are jaded and can admit it, that's pretty cool - if you can see that your feelings don't necessarily represent the answer to the problem but merely reflect your personal perspective, that's something I respect.

There's that old Christian adage about judging not, which I think is very shrewd. Sure, we can have our personal opinion and certainly we need to judge so far as social justice to keep our children - and ourselves - safe, IMO should a "monster" be punished is something we can leave to a higher power. Until we've walked those shoes, been in their place, had their life, experienced their impulses - who are we to judge, as much as who are they to judge ours?

This is the beauty of MM (and I'm keen to keep on topic with this). We have Frank who does see the horror, he's seen the suffering, but he keeps his objectivity (until maybe season three when the fight against the group becomes an emotionally personal issue). He sees what makes a monster, he understands what they might have suffered, or the torment they endure, or the impulses they can't control - doesn't mean he agrees with them, or sympathises with them - he just deals with the problem as it is presented. Notice the character isn't pro punishing them, or judging, simply his mandate is to keep those people - whatever their motivations - away from those who harm others.

When I see that someone has received 10 years for a third strike domestic abuse charge, my main thought is to immediately think "they will be out on parole in two years, more buffed out with a chip on their shoulder." Evil, in my opinion, does not change, its a constant, like the tide, like death and taxes. It's always here, it's always something to be looked around the next corner for and that is the job, to always be ready to do what we can to put it away, to kick the tide back this time, every time, so our families and loved ones can sleep peacefully at night knowing they are at least a little safer. I have never understood, nor do I want to, how people can be so evil to one another for what is usually such trivial reasons. I do understand though, that a stand has to be made, not to explain why people are the way they are, but to be there at the floodgates to show that there is hope and that all humans are not inherently evil. I do think its very important to learn why people bestow such horrors upon one another, I think it much more important to help in any way take these people down and put them away so the next child, battered woman, ex-spouse, or any other type of victim can maybe sleep a little easier knowing they don't have to fear for the their lives, even if only for a shor time. Semper Paratus.

I think that's an eloquent and honest perspective. I think that line "I do understand though, that a stand has to be made, not to explain why people are the way they are, but to be there at the floodgates to show that there is hope and that all humans are not inherently evil." is a fascinating one; that beyond understanding and enlightening to the social problem there is an importance to de-construct the "power" of the "evil"; to break down the walls that make us think monsters, and see them as people.

I think this is a point that is VERY important, not simply to enlighten people away from unhelpfully simple classifications which prevent us from understanding and learning what we need to know to help stop "monsters" from harming, but to break down the notion of "them" and "us".

Now this dovetails into "Monster" (thank god, a link!), given people refuse to believe the sweet child could be a "monster" - why? Because "evil" has its own classification and idiom; that evil has a "face" - like a cartoon.

So many injustices occur because people have preconceptions of "evil", that it has to be done by people looking shifty or people they'd never equate nasty things with. You'll see people stand up for their friends and relatives as good honest people who they know could NEVER do an evil act, only to find that those people were the culprit, and were doing things they never dreamed, with secret impulses they couldn't but give in to. Anyone is capable of "evil" because evil isn't a simple absolute. Motivations and drives can bring it out anywhere - again, just as in Millennium. Working class, middle class, upper class, black, white, married, single, hetro, homosexual - all candidates.

And the more we expose "evil" as being part of a social and biological condition, born of behavioural growth, abuse and impulses that can manifest in the strangest places, in the most surprising people and for such a vast array of reasons, the better we have at targeting and dealing with the problem effectively.

I recall reading one of the biggest problems with US juries is they exist under prejudice; a dealer goes into a court looking respectable because - god forbid - someone looking civilised is less likely to be a dealer; if a man has an "innocent face" he's probably a victim of the system; unless you have a motive - like in Agatha Christie - you can't possibly lock someone up, even if you have a gun, witness and a body... we have such simple presumptions of evil acts and the "types" that do them, the sooner we knock down these presumptions and show how bad things can be done by the most unlikely people, the more people we may help*.

* of course statistically, certain social groups are more prevalent to disorderly behaviour - so in some cases, stereotypes have a natural merit, but that also leads us to the question, if a certain class or group of people are prevalent more debase and terrible crimes, does that not show the inherent inadequacies of the social system we uphold than an arbitrary spread of evil?

"Monster", while arcane in its plot, the symbolism is very much about how bad things can be done by people who don't fit our expectations; and that we never like to face the notion that bad things can be done by seemingly innocent people - in this case, children.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Jim McLean