|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Why They Kill by Richard Rhodes
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: General Discussion:
Why They Kill by Richard Rhodes
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 08:00 pm |        | I just finished reading this book which says not a word about JTR directly. Nonetheless it was interesting. The book is based on the work of a man who has a doctorate in Criminology, Dr. Lonnie Athens. Athens postulates four stages in the development of a violent criminal: brutalization, belligerency, violent performances and virulency. His work is based on dozens of interviews with violent offenders. According to Athens the process of "violentization" begins when the individual is brutalized themselves, usually by someone close to them. He describes what he calls violent subjugation for this stage. Sometimes the same effect is put in place when the subject sees a loved one brutalized. This he describes as personal horrification. The other component of brutalization is "violent coaching" when an older individual incites the subject to violence. Usually they are encouraged to beat up anyone who messes with them and to resolve conflicts through violence.
The second step is belligerency. Fed up with being beaten and abused and coached to solve his problem through violence he begins to brood over his situation.
This leads to the third stage where the subject decides that the only way to deal with his problems is to hurt people, but only when seriously provoked and only when he has some chance of success. This stage, where he finally strikes out for the first few times is called violent performance.
If he resolves his conflicts through violence, "wins" and does serious harm to his tormentor(s) he is surprised to find that he is getting a reputation and people are starting to fear him. On the one hand this often leads to social isolation as people want to avoid those who would hurt them. On the other hand, he finds that nobody wants to provoke him any more and he receives a new level of respect.
This leads to the fourth stage, virulency. He now enjoys violence for its own sake because it gives him a sense of power over others. He now attacks people without provocation.
I wonder if Jack's first victim (I won't try to guess whether it was Tabram or Nichols) said or did something that made him real mad. He would have been all the way to stage three by the time he attacked her. And then the hoopla starts. What he has done is on everyones lips. He is now a big man. Athens says they get rather cocky at this point and far from having a poor self image they are arrogant.
All the excitement over the first killing has moved him from stage three to stage four. With each kill the community becomes more hysterical and more afraid of him. Now he is on an ego trip. The killings give him a sense of power he never had before.
Athens also postulates four reasons why these people initially start attacking others. 1. They feel threatened physically (but their response to this goes way too far -- no court would accept what they do as self defense) 2.They are frustrated by someone (somebody is blocking them from something they want to do, like not turning over a wallet in a robbery, or not cooperating in a rape) 3.Malefic (they think the victim is scornful, belittling, or otherwise contemptuous of them -- this leads them to believe the victim is evil or malicious and deserves to be assaulted or killed) 4.frustrative-malefic (the victim's efforts to frustrate the perpetrators goals lead him to believe the victim is evil and deserves to be punished)
I plump for #3 or #4 for Jack. If one of his early victims said something that was not too nice or tactful he would have proceeded to murder and mutilation. Maybe he even tried to buy her services and was scornfully rejected? |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 06:37 am | | This is good Diana , but I think there is something missing from the first part ; namely , what leads a violent person to actually kill ? There are guys who go to bars simply looking for a fight , they want to beat the living daylights out of some poor little chap but they don't necessarily want to kill him. Often violent people gravitate towards violent company - criminal gangs , drug dealers , Hell's angels , Neo-Nazis , the KKK , football hooligan gangs - because they can get some respect from their peers that way. With a killer there has to be some social inadequacy that would prevent him doing this. I think what you say may be true in the case of Matha Tabram , perhaps she belittled the killer on his inadequate sexual performance and he just snapped , pulled out his knife and then stabbed her. Then he went overkill with his penknife. There was certainly a lot of anger involved in the commiting of this crime , if Jack was an SK then this could have been the start of his career ; with the other murders I feel Jack went out planning to kill however. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 07:15 am | | Diana,
hmm...I'll repeat here what I've written on the Martha Tabram board on Monday, November 22, 1999 -09:30 am:
"Now I will be treading total subjectivity. But if I think about the way she was killed, I am first inclined to think that her murderer was a customer (a one-time customer at that and a stranger).
The stabbing frenzy relating to rage indicates a spur of the moment kill. That the killer of Martha Tabram did not went along with her with the intent to kill her, but just as a needy customer.
The need to silence her and the rage manner of how to silence her, shows it was very personal intended to Martha Tabram. Thus I believe she had said some very nasty things to her last customer. She personally had hurt and enraged her customer either with words or acts just previously before the attack.
There are some indications of personality of the killer, IMHO.
It was a person who had the need to carry 2 weapons, a normal pen knife AND a longer bayonetlike weapon. For his occupation, maybe?
It was a person who could become enraged by the comment of a lady of the night. Some sexual problem, maybe? A feeling of inferiority? A proud character?
He must have appeared to Martha as a person she could insult easily without danger, inferior looking, for her to do so. If indeed she did, of course.
It was a person who could be dangerously aggressive by bottling up a lot of his frustrations, and unleashing them all in one time opportunity. So probably most of the time, known as a silent character. "
AND on Monday, November 22, 1999 - 07:16 am:
"I don't even think he wanted to inflict pain. He wanted to silence her, and so he did."
Diana- Fits nicely in what you have written, I shall take it into account as pro-JTR-victim for Martha, although I still have some strong not-JTR-victim arguments which I can't scratch. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 08:01 am | | I agree with you completely here Jill. I think the long knife was something he was carrying but that he wasn't used to using in that fashion , the penknife he was more comfortable with. If the killer was a soldier then the bayonet would have been the first thing to hand and thus he grabbed it and stabbed Martha with it. Then he got his penknife out as she slumped backwards and he attacked her with it viciously. I don't think the weapon would have been a worktool as the day was a Bank Holiday , a day-off. The killer , if he hadn't planned his attack , would have been probably in his best suit. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 08:08 pm | | | As to the fine distinction of why violent offenders kill rather than just assault, I'm not sure that intent is as significant as we might think. This stage four person is programmed to hurt people because he likes hurting people, so he starts punching or kicking or stabbing or whatever else it is that he does and sometimes it results in the death of the victim, sometimes it doesn't. In Jack's case the goal was the opportunity to mutilate, so he would have set out to kill. |
|
|
|
|
