|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Amy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 2:17 pm: | 
|
I am doing my A Level coursework on whether Jack the Ripper was insane or not. I would welcome any suggestion anyone had on this matter that I could research into. Thank you |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 720
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Hi Amy,
As far as I know most serial killers suffer from personality disorders rather than mental illnesses, although this doesn't mean that therefore Jack the Ripper was more likely to be a psychopath.
The first group has rigid personality structures and often incapable of connecting to people. However, they're not mad. Psychopaths are basically 'bullshitters', if I may use that term, who are capable of presenting themselves as normal and of having, or perhaps rather, feigning relationships. They are also charming, but often lie, cheat and manipulate in order to get what they want. As such, they may 'control' their murders quite well (the abducting of a victim, the choosing of a location, etc.)
The latter group may, to a varying extent, lose contact with reality and act on what they see as real. Because people suffering from mental diseases are usually not great at presenting themselves as normal all the time or perhaps most of the time, they tend to disconnect themselves from society around them, that way becoming loners.
That doesn't mean they have to act like raving lunatics, though. If their illness is a mild one, they are able to hold a job, perhaps even socialize in a general or superficial sort of way. Such people (this may sound a bit demeaning, but no offence) may come across as timid or even odd, but not necessarily as plain mad or threatening. Their murders are generally of a more impulsive nature.
Hope this helps you along.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Hi Amy
That of course depends on what you mean by 'insane'. It is a term used in a variety of ways, not always very precisely.
My advice would be to initially spend some time exploring/defining your terms (any A level examiner will expect that anyway), and specifying what you are going to use the term to mean.
Your approach will depend on the context of your coursework - what subject are you studying; is you perspective primarily historical, sociological, or psychological for example.
Bear in mind before doing your research on the killer and crimes (let alone reaching any conclusions) that the question you are actually addressing is not whether a specific individual was psychologically disturbed or what the nature of that disturbance might be. We don't know anything about the perpetrator's personal background or history, which is necessary to make those judgements. The only evidence we have to go on is the internal evidence of the crimes themselves - and even then, as a glance through these boards will show, which of the killings were by the same hand is a hotly disputed subject. You might usefully make some comparisons with other known muderers who committed similar crimes, but beware of taking the parallels too far - each criminal is an individual with his own personal history and agenda, patterns and echoes of other crimes can be suggestive of many things including the nature of the mental stae of people who commit those types of offence, but ultimately only take you so far.
So what you will likely be left with is a question of whether an individual who feels the need (and acts on it) to repeatedly attack, kill, and brutally mutilate the bodies of his fellow human beings in a way that is suggestive of psycho-sexual motivation, can in any meaningful way be described as anything but severely psychologically disturbed. The implications of how far such an individual is 'responsible' for his actions in moral, legal, psychological terms can then be teased out on a general and hypothetical basis. You choose, ultimately, whether to put the label 'insane' on those potential types of mental aberration. As long as your reasoning is sound and backed up with carefully cited sources, the judgement will be a valid if subjective one.
Beste
Cate |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Hi,
I agree with much of what has been said here. First of all you must decide what definition of insane you are going to use - the medical or the legal.
Bob Hinton |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
