September 2003 posts

Previous September 2003  

More September 2003

OT - Underworld - Vampire Politics - a twisty tale (No spoilers) -- Brian, 14:48:50 09/19/03 Fri

Just saw UNDERWORLD, and really lilked it. It starts with lots of action, then lots of plot explanation, character development, complications and twists, and then a roc'em, soc'em conclusion. Unfortunately, the very ending just screams "Sequel!"


[> My hat's off to you (Minor spoilers to Underworld) -- Isabel, 09:47:29 09/20/03 Sat

I have to ask. Are you familiar with Goth culture or Vampire the Masquerade or other vampire mythos? I'm not and I'm wondering if that contributed to my 'disappointment' with the movie.

One of my biggest problems with the movie was that they assumed the audience had a level of familiarity with the background social structure. They never explained things like: What were the Courts and the never ending cocktail party? Who closed the doors? Why are vampires in danger of drowning? (And wasn't that a heart beating in that reanimation scene?) Why weren't the werewolves using arrows or stakes? (The vamps were using silver bullets.) Are humans aware of their place as prey?

Some things did work once they started explaining things. Heck, I was totally confused for the first 20 minutes because they called the werewolves "lycans" which I mentally spelled "liken." I thought they were a sub-group of vampires until they started changing shape.

[> [> Re: Perhaps more confusion (spoilers for Underworld) -- Brian, 15:01:14 09/20/03 Sat

I do believe that Victor did have a heartbeat.

Why if you are immortal would you take off two hundred years to sleep the sleep of the dead, and get all thin and veiny?

A werewolf impregnated a vampire who was the daughter of Victor?

When you're a vamp, and you don't eat humans just the local livestock, I'd be at a continual cocktail party, drinking as much gin as possible, with ripe olives, of course, and hold the garlic stuffing.

[> There should be a sequel, there are three books, so far. -- Rufus, 20:15:15 09/19/03 Fri

Underworld pt.1 is for sale at

Coming up on Angel (link to Joss interview, plus really weird spoiler in text of this post) -- Masquerade, 15:34:40 09/19/03 Fri

Got this email in my inbox today.

Took me back to the days of the Fanged Four Fic and our battles over character cross-dressing.

Didn't read the interview. Got spoiled enough by the email!


Hey there Angel Webmasters!

Joss Whedon really, really, really wants you to watch the new season of Angel (premiering October 1 at 9/8c)! Why? Spike in a dress... plus some action and stuff like that. Want to know more? Read the letter he wrote just for you in this webmaster EXCLUSIVE! Get the word OUT THERE!,11116,128486||,00.html

Roberta Kelly
Team Leader


[> Re: Coming up on Angel (link to Joss interview, plus really weird spoiler in text of this post) -- skpe, 09:09:42 09/20/03 Sat

Is this letter really from Joss Weadon or is some one just yanking our chain? I have never seen JW signature before so having a signed letter doesn't mean anything to me. It is just that the whole thing had a 'nudge, nudge wink wink' feel to it.

[> [> It's both. -- Caira, 02:57:06 09/21/03 Sun

[> Sounds like something Joss might say as a joke... -- dub ;o), 19:21:19 09/19/03 Fri

...although I, personally, would love to see it...I'm kinky that way...


[> [> And James would probably do it, too -- Masq, 20:22:14 09/19/03 Fri

He's a trooper!

[> [> [> Well, if you want to see... (weird spoiler referenced, and Chance spoiler) -- Rob, 17:08:22 09/20/03 Sat

...JM Marsters in a dress, all you have to do is get a copy of "Chance." ;o)

No, really!


[> It's a cute letter from Joss. -- deeva, 20:24:23 09/19/03 Fri

[> [> LOL! got to love Joss's sense of humour... -- jane, 21:50:15 09/19/03 Fri

and I can't wait for Oct.1st. I've managed to stay pretty much unspoiled. Yay!

[> I can't get into this - can someone cut and paste it for me, please? (with spoiler heading, natch!) -- Marie, 04:31:52 09/22/03 Mon

[> [> Oh, and Masq? Did we battle? I rather enjoyed writing Spike in a dress! -- Marie, 04:34:33 09/22/03 Mon

[> [> [> ok, now i gotta see what you're talking about--but i don't wanna be spoiled! -- anom, 09:22:27 09/22/03 Mon

Masq, how serious is that spoiler? I've been avoiding this thread because of it, but now I'm really tempted--a battle w/Marie? Spike in a dress?? It might be worth it...(quiet, Rufus!).

[> [> [> As I seem to recall.... -- Masq, 09:29:43 09/22/03 Mon

I was fine with Spike in a dress, too. My battle was to make sure Angelus didn't end up in a dress.

[> [> [> [> LOL! The battle was...oh and an interesting tid-bit from DB -- s'kat, 14:07:05 09/22/03 Mon

D'Herb wanted to put Angelus and Spike in dresses
to fool the Mayor.

Masq refused to put them in dresses (specifically Angelus).

I suggested a compromise, put Spike in the dress and keep Angelus out of one. (partly b/c I agreed with Masq that it went against Angelus' character to be put in a dress also we'd need a reason, can't just do it for fun...well we could, but still)

Masq agreed - having no problems putting Spike in one. (Character -wise? You can do it since he was low vamp on the totem poll - although re-thinking it and knowing what I know now - I don't think our ploy worked.
May have been "Very" out of character. IF ME does it? Trust me, it's not going to be out of character. )

The other FF writers? I think they were all for both characters in a dress - the argument was really just between me/Masq/D'H if I recall?

Interesting tid-bit, David Boreanze has been asking Joss if he could do an episode where Angel and Spike dress in drag.
He keeps suggesting it. Apparently Boreanze likes the idea of Angel in a dress. (LOL!)

[> [> [> [> [> Beeep! Beeep! Beeep! -- Masq, 16:10:52 09/22/03 Mon

That's my "protector of Angel's dignity" monitor going off.

And people wonder why I hated "Sense and Sensitivity" from Season 1. Angel as a geeky tourist. Angel spouting psych-babble and hugging people.


Jeesh. All the work I have to do to keep Angel the Cool, if secretly insecure, Vampire Guy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> And now you have to fight David Boreanze. LOL!!! -- s'kat, 22:28:17 09/22/03 Mon

You're not alone. There's people out there fighting tooth and nail to keep Spike's dignity intact. Personally I look forward to the idea of the dress, but others online?? They are up in arms. They make your disagreement on Angelus look relatively minor in comparison.

That said? I hated that episode, Sense & sensitivity, too for pretty much the same reasons. Actually most of S1 just bugged me for it's treatment of the characters Wes and Angel. I cringed through most of them.

For some reason I can handle Spike being made a fool of better than Angelus...weird. Must be how the actors portray it? Spike usually makes me laugh. Angel? cringe. Could be how the actors portray the characters?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, if Burt Lancaster could do it....! And where's my cut and paste??? -- Marie, 01:31:00 09/23/03 Tue

o/t: update on nyc medieval festival -- anom, 15:48:01 09/19/03 Fri

The 2003 schedule for the Medieval Festival at Fort Tryon Park is now posted here. Unfortunately, so far it lists only the major venues at the Festival, & I'm playing mostly at the minor ones (mainly because I'll be working solo).

The schedule does show me playing at the front gate at 12:30. In addition, I'll be at the Unicorn Forum at 1:30 & at the Triangle Pub at 4:30 (right after the 4:00 "Gypsy Camp Jam" in the same place--pretty much all the musicians jamming, like it says, & well worth catching). Where are those places? Uh, they're...on the map in the program you can pick up at the entrance. I'll also be in the opening procession, & there's usually a procession to the Tournament Field leading up to the Grand Joust, which starts at 5:20. Both processions wind through most of the Festival grounds; don't worry about finding them, they'll find you!

Whew! I hope my playlist is long enough--I just found out today about that 3rd set!

So who can come up to Washington Heights & hear me? cjl & 2 of his friends are coming--anyone else? Take the A train to 190th St., or the M4 bus uptown to the end of the route, & walk into the park (head for the traffic circle). If you're driving, you can find directions at the link above (at the end of the page).


[> Sadly, I decided that a jaunt to NYC was just not on... -- LadyStarlight, 07:35:19 09/20/03 Sat

but wanted to wish you good luck & hopes that everything goes well!

[> can't come but have fun, hope the weather holds -- sdev, 09:00:28 09/20/03 Sat

[> Probably can't come, but hope it goes well -- Dariel, 21:20:24 09/19/03 Fri

I've got a problem in my apartment that I have to deal with, so I may never leave the block!

[> [> OT- apologies for minijacking -- sdev, 16:11:58 09/20/03 Sat

Ashamed but lost your e-mail address. Darn those slippery stickums.

The book is The Man Who Listens to Horses, the story of a real-life Horse Whisperer, by Monty Williams

[> [> [> Re: OT- apologies for minijacking -- Dariel, 20:50:45 09/21/03 Sun

Thanks! I'll let you know what I think of it after I read it. (I think I still have your email).

[> ok, *not* on the map--here's where i'll be -- anom, 08:30:23 09/21/03 Sun

"In addition, I'll be at the Unicorn Forum at 1:30 & at the Triangle Pub at 4:30 (right after the 4:00 "Gypsy Camp Jam" in the same place--pretty much all the musicians jamming, like it says, & well worth catching). Where are those places? Uh, they're...on the map in the program you can pick up at the entrance."

I just signed in for the Festival & had a look at the map...& those 2 places aren't exactly clearly marked. The Triangle Pub is labeled only "Pub"; it's across from the Tournament Field. The Unicorn Forum isn't labeled at all, except w/an outline of a pig (the map's food/drink symbol, 'cause it's across from the park's café). It's north (left, on the map) of the South Lawn. And the processions start at opposite ends of the site: the opening one at the front gate & the one to the tourament field at the Pageant Wagon.

More on School Hard -- Q, 08:23:44 09/20/03 Sat

School Hard
Grade: A

I could go on and on about the exciting plot of this episode, the Die Hardish way the bad guys took over the building leaving our heroes plotting in the shadows. I could go on and on about the development of Joyce/ Buffy, Giles/Jenny,etc. I could go on and on about a lot of things that make this a great episode, but everybody knows that the real reason this will always be among the elite Buffy episodes can be summed up in one word, everybody with me now,-- SPIKE!

The main plot of the whole season is now set up, with new big bad's Spike and Drusilla, the former way overrated and the latter way underrated in my opinion. The actual events inside the school were so edge-of-your-seat exciting that it would be easy to credit the plot with making the whole episode good. However, there were also so many tidbits for future digestion!

* Snyder and the city council know about the vampires!
*Snyder is a bigger @$$hole than we even thought
*Joyce and Buffy's relationship deepens
*Spike and Angel have a serious past together!

These are the things that make a great episode-the little things that add to the whole picture, not just the stuff that make the singe episode great.

A few nitpicks with continuity, now.

"You were my Yoda man, you were my Sire!"
"What's a Sire?"

I know Joss himself "fanwanked" out of this by going on-line and saying "any vamp in Angel lineage could consider Angel his sire", but that's just weak! Spike said he was the sire, we all know that a sire is the vamp that made the vamp in question. They should have just stuck with it! What's the big deal about having Angel vamp Spike? They really needed a more intimate connection between Spike and Dru? Why not have Spike sire Dru-that would have worked out a lot better than going against the mythology laid forth in the show and then making excuses for it later!

You will find, mostly when I get to season 4 and later, that I am totally in agreement with the article claiming Spike ruined the show. Well, not totally in agreement, I sent in a letter agreeing, but that the word "ruined" was way too extreme. The show was still excellent, just never as good as it could have been without castrated Spike aboard!

A big problem I had with season 7 Spike was the promise that Spike would not be a cheap rip-off of Angel. Yet, there was nothing so original it made it worth it to have mopey broody Spike sitting in as Angel. It was just Angel redux! It never rose above that! I bring this up now, because thinking of Dru siring Spike made me realize another reason Spike and Angel are so similar. In season 1 Angel was willing to kill the woman who "gave birth to him", and the woman he spent generations with, Darla, because he had so completely fallen for Buffy. In season 5 Spike was willing to kill the woman who "gave birth to him", and the woman he spent generations with, Drusilla, because he had so completely fallen for Buffy. One of many comparisons that show Spike was never much more than regurgitated story lines of Angel by late in the series.

Another problem that is eating me, and it will constantly, was the infamous scene in "Normal Again" where Buffy admits to Willow that her Mom had "committed" her for a short time right after she became a slayer. There is not a single line in the Buffyverse I would rather they had never said. This ruins SO much for me! I already spoke about how it ruined a scene from "The Witch". It also makes it very hard for me to stomach Joyce's reactions in this episode. Knowing the psychological issues Buffy had faced, would she not connect these two incidences?

And even without that revelation from "Normal Again", I am sort of disturbed by Joyce's attitude in this episode. If my daughter had acted like Buffy did, against people I thought to be a "gang on PCP", I would not be proud! I would maybe be grateful for her saving my life, but not proud. I would be worried sick that my daughter herself was part of a gang lifestyle, probably a rival gang, but for sure messing with something that she shouldn't be!

Oh well, despite a few issues I have, I still think this episode is a classic! I loved season 2 and 3 Spike, and think he is one of the creepiest villains ever! I love Drusilla. And I thought the scene when Spike stalked Buffy in the bronze was more sexy, in just as creepy a way, as anything in season 6!


[> Not proud? -- sdev, 09:26:45 09/20/03 Sat

If my daughter had acted like Buffy did, against people I thought to be a "gang on PCP", I would not be proud! I would maybe be grateful for her saving my life, but not proud. I would be worried sick that my daughter herself was part of a gang lifestyle, probably a rival gang, but for sure messing with something that she shouldn't be!

How do you get from point a)Buffy's behavior protecting everyone from a "gang" to point b)Joyce should not have been proud but worried sick that Buffy is in a gang?

I loved the Joyce and Buffy interaction, the way Joyce repeatedly stood up to Snyder, starting here. This side of Joyce always made me regret that Buffy had not included her from the beginning. Joyce would have been a valuable addition to the team.

Also I had a strong sense of-- like mother, like daughter. I could sense the similarities between them most strongly here, and it made some of their differences shown later seem insignificant by comparison.

Question about Anya in "The Body" -- Nino, 11:10:26 09/20/03 Sat

Ok, so Anya's little speech...I love's one of my top 5 "Buffy" moments...and I'm not questioning whether or not it was in character, but rather...were there ever any eps with Joyce/Anya interaction? I know they showed a Christmas scene at the beginning of the ep...but other then that, at any point during season 5 were Joyce and Anya even in the same room together? I seriously can't recall one moment...I'm sure we are to assume that a lot of Joyce bonding happened off-screen since she was not vital to the everyday lives of the Scoobs, and I suppose could easily have been adopted as a mother-figure for the whole group (The Xmas scene suggests that she did spend time with the Scoobs offscreen). But why was Anya so much more emotional then say, Tara, who must have known her about equally as well.

I guess the answer is that Anya was just as upset about the idea of death as she was at Joyce's actual passing, and that her emotional outburst came from more things then just grief over Joyce (confusion about mortality, guilt over causing such pain in the past...). But I was just wondering...anyone remember a touching Anya/Joyce scene?


[> That and Anya ain't shy about saying what she's feeling. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:38:24 09/20/03 Sat

[> Personality types. -- HonorH, 15:06:26 09/20/03 Sat

Tara is much quieter and more centered than Anya. Anya has always been prone to saying exactly what's on her mind, regardless of how appropriate it seems. Tara's grief was present, but quiet. Anya's just burst out of her. Neither way is the "correct" way to grieve; each was right for each girl.

[> To further muddy the issue -- CW, 21:08:16 09/20/03 Sat

The Xmas scene in The Body, like the various daydreams of Joyce being saved at the last moment, is all in Buffy's imagination. If you review the episodes carefully, it's clear Joyce was in no shape to be the hostess for a big Christmas dinner the December right before she died, and Tara would not have been a guest at a dinner held the year before. The best explanation for the scene involves the repeated references to nausea, which Buffy is feeling. It's a way for Buffy's mind to grasp at hope of better times and to explain away her queasiness without adressing the fact that on some level she knows her mother is gone. Interestingly Anya's famous Santa Claus story, is actually a product of Buffy's mind.

[> [> Actually-- -- HonorH, 00:28:50 09/21/03 Sun

Joyce's surgery took place just before "Into the Woods," which was explicitly a pre-Christmas episode. It is, in fact, possible that Joyce was recovered enough to play hostess, especially if Giles and the Scoobies helped her.

[> [> [> Yes, I always thought this was the explanation as well -- Nino, 14:41:05 09/21/03 Sun

[> Re: Question about Anya in "The Body" -- skeeve, 09:04:43 09/22/03 Mon

One of the more negleected parts of Anya's speech was a question. Anya asked why Joyce couldn't just walk back into her body and start using it again. I've rephrased considerably, but were I Buffy or Willow, I'd have wanted to know what Anya knew that I didn't. True, it might have just been Anya asking why the world didn't work the way it ought to work. Then again, it might have been that Anya knew something helpful.

S7 timeline CWDP-BotN -- pellenaka, 15:39:35 09/20/03 Sat

I'm doing a small paper on the Scoobies holding people hostage and I need the timeline from CWDP-BotN to find out how long Andrew was unconscious.

Is this correct?

Airdate - episode - time.
12. Nov. - CWDP - November 12th, 2003 (one night)

19. Nov. - Sleeper - The day after+the following night. - November 13th

26. Nov. - Never Leave Me - The following day+evening/night - November 14th

17. Dec. - Bring On The Night - Should have been the following day, but is 'almost Christmas'.

So either Andrew has been unconscious for a day and Buffy thinks November 15th is 'almost Christmas' or he has been out over at least from Nov. 14th to Dec. 1st.


[> She also says, "I can't believe it's already December" -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:43:41 09/20/03 Sat

This can probably be chalked up to the general match suckiness of Joss and the rest of ME.

Or, perhaps the time and date at the beginning of CwDP were meant to only reflect the air date in the real world and have nothing to do with the show's timeline.

[> [> how many episode in season 7 did a date and time appear? -- luvthistle1, 20:26:30 09/20/03 Sat

[> [> [> Only in CWDP - that was the only time ever there was a timestamp in Buffy -- pellenaka, 01:51:13 09/21/03 Sun

[> [> [> No, no. There was "Same Time, Same Place" first. -- Sofdog, 11:00:17 09/22/03 Mon

[> Time Wonkiness -- Corwin of Amber, 20:31:50 09/20/03 Sat

Didn't Xander comment about "time wonkiness" in there? Another lost plot thread in season 7, or just trying to line up with ATS for the crossovers.

[> Time in the BuffyVerse -- ZachsMind, 15:11:24 09/22/03 Mon

It is true that the only timestamp in the history of the series was CwDP. However, for the most part it's been accepted policy to assume that when events are transpiring, unless specifically notated otherwise (like say in a flashback for example) the time of the events we see are happening about the same time as the first run of the series. Admittedly, from CwDp to Bring on the Night, we have a dilemma, because within the event context, there's no place where we can easily assume several days have gone by. So all the events appear to have occurred within a few days of one another. Then all the sudden Giles is back and it's Christmas. It will become necessary to find a break in the action within one of the episodes, where we can infer that there should have been a time interval, but one was not introduced. Not all the events have to occur immediately after each other, provided we assume nothing particularly meaningful occurred in between the events. (or a lot of neato fan fiction things may have occurred). Failing that, we must fall back on "The Hodgson Mantra" made popular by Joel Robinson, Thomas Servo and Crow T. Robot: "Repeat to yourself it's just a show, you should really just relax." =)

Sunday, Bloody Sunday -- Brian, 08:49:19 09/21/03 Sun

Just killing time until football. Working on a poetry project that I hope to have complete before our Chicago July meet. Here's a continuation of some Haiku that related to the ladies of Buffy being hair challenged:

Bedecked Hair Haiku

Bottle blonde Buffy
Boinks bad bleach bottle body
By burst beams booty.

Dark-haired psycho Faith
Now a jailbird waif
Misses her sharp knife

Hair-challenged Anya
Can't settle for blonde manna
Seeks colors summa

Redheaded Willow
Goes dark, veiny, and sallow
To end tomorrow.

Brunette Cordelia
Cuts her hair way too soona
For Olympia

Dark-haired so bright Fred
Ignores what covers her head
Until love words said.


[> Re: Ok -- Hans, 11:35:17 09/21/03 Sun

[> [> Re: nice -- willowweeps, 11:52:02 09/21/03 Sun

What will you be doing, this Tuesday at 8pm? -- Dochawk, 09:02:11 09/21/03 Sun

This should be the first episode of Year 8. How will you mourn?


[> The show is departed, but Buffy lives on forever. I mourn not. -- OnM, 09:15:57 09/21/03 Sun

[> sounds like the perfect time to rewatch WttH -- Alison, 09:29:29 09/21/03 Sun

[> Let's Have a Mega-Chat! -- dub ;o), 13:32:19 09/21/03 Sun

You're right, Doc--the occasion should not go unmarked. Perhaps we could all meet in the chat room at 9 pm EDT, 6 pm PDT, on Tuesday and cry in our cyber-beer?


[> [> isn't that what we did after chosen? -- anom, 21:22:41 09/21/03 Sun

Not that I'd mind doing it again....

[> Date of the Autumnal Equinox -- Celebaelin, 17:16:57 09/21/03 Sun

Equinox - Sun's path crosses celestial equator.

10:47 GMT Tuesday 23 September 2003

To the Ancients (but possibly not the Ancient Druids) I think equal night and day would mean more (Thursday night to Friday morning).

I commented a while back (without any historical evidence, just an opinion) that I thought Beltane was probably originally the Vernal Equinox as it is a definable solar event (rather than half way between two definable solar events). That would imply that the Autumnal Equinox equates with Samhain, supported by the fact, and concept, of darkness now being in 'ascendance', until the Winter Solstice at least. The day the dead walk the Earth, when the boundaries between the worlds of life and death are weakest. It struck me as an odd co-incidence.

Bearing that in mind I would suggest that you do some trick or treating! The ghost of Buffy is coming to get you, whooo, whooo. I may duck for apples (as Dorothy Parker once said).

If you lived in Alaska (or perhaps even Hawaii) you could get to a place where the equinox happens at the dark of night. At a guess, somewhere between Greenwich and Paris it'll happen at the mid-point of the day.

[> [> I'll be rushing home from work to see "Angel" on Space. -- jane, 21:46:54 09/21/03 Sun

[> [> Re: Date of the Autumnal Equinox -- skeeve, 08:52:33 09/22/03 Mon

The equinoxes are definable primarily as a solar event.
Night and day aren't quite equal because atmospheric refraction provides more day than night.
The equinoxes aren't quite halfway between the solstices because the earth's orbit isn't quite circular.
The etymologically correct definition, equal night (nox) at all latitudes, comes close, but refraction probably screws that up too.

[> [> [> Senset and Sunrise -- Celebaelin, 02:02:53 09/23/03 Tue

When I wrote

To the Ancients (but possibly not the Ancient Druids) I think equal night and day would mean more (Thursday night to Friday morning).

I meant the time between sunset and sunrise is twelve hours exactly. For the UK this is correct, for Hawaii, for example, that's Sunday-Monday. This discrepency between the date of the eliptic crossing the celestial equator and the 'equinox' in the Latin sense is also reminiscent of the Celtic 'time between years' by which notion the day before samhain is the last day of the old year and the day after it the first of the new.


[> [> [> [> Re: Senset and Sunrise -- skeeve, 09:45:14 09/23/03 Tue

Refraction causes early sunrises and late sunsets.
At equinox, there will be less than twelve hours from sunset to sunrise.
I think that there will be more than twelve hours from sunrise to sunset, but the issue is complicated by precisely how one defines the terms.
The sun is about half a degree wide and so takes at least a couple minutes to rise or set.
The times of sunrise and sunset depend partly on the rate of revolution of the earth around the sun. That changes also.

[> [> By my (rough and possibly drastically wrong) calculations -- Celebaelin, 02:32:16 09/23/03 Tue

Equinox at mid point of day in a line through Rossnes (Norway), Ringkobing (Denmark), Oldenburg, Mainz, Baden-Baden (Germany), Sarnen (Switzerland), Trino (Italy), Mechtat Sidj Ahmet Bohh (Algeria), Zurquan (Tunisia), Korgom (Niger) and Oron (Nigeria).

[> Taking a Marketing Class - yes, RL exists. ;-) -- s'kat, 20:06:56 09/21/03 Sun

[> Re: What will you be doing, this Tuesday at 8pm? -- Gyrus, 12:34:00 09/22/03 Mon

I'll be at my gymnastics class, but I won't be setting the VCR before I leave. (Sniff!)

Maybe I'll mourn by landing my front handspring on my butt instead of my feet. No, wait -- I do that every week.

[> [> Re: What will you be doing, this Tuesday at 8pm? -- Brian, 15:52:27 09/22/03 Mon

Lifting a glass of bourbon to the memory of 7 great seasons of TV.

[> Gilmore Girls! (What? Why is everybody staring?) -- cjl, 17:45:15 09/22/03 Mon

Yes, Lorelai and Rory are congenitally self-obsessed, and their rapid-fire dialogue is practically a separate language. Feels like home to me. ME writers could slip into Stars Hollow tomorrow and not even have to change the scripts. (Just substitute "cute boy" for "vampire" and "campus quad" for "graveyard."

In fact, Jane Espenson wrote the October 15th episode. Come on, aren't you the least bit curious?

[> [> Re: Gilmore Girls! (What? Why is everybody staring?) -- JDP, 18:44:42 09/23/03 Tue

Yah, another GG fan! It might not be Buffy but GG is a good substitute, for now. Check it out, it's pretty funny, and quite addictive.

O/T re: BtVS, but certainly here's real life imitating art-- or is it the reverse? -- OnM, 09:32:12 09/21/03 Sun

Presenting important moral questions without definitive answers, from today's Philadelphia Inquirer:


[> Thank you for posting this article...definitly something to ponder. -- Alison, 10:27:50 09/21/03 Sun

[> But on-topic comparison to Faith and Spike... -- dub, 13:29:22 09/21/03 Sun

Fascinating, OnM. I can't help but compare Krueger's rehabilitation to Faith's, or his potential for "redemption" to Spike's.

Recalling the interminable board discussions about Spike's inability to truly "love" Buffy without a soul, Krueger's behaviour, both during and since the murders, seems to emulate the behaviour of someone without a soul. Granted, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of someone from a single newspaper article, be we are told that Krueger has not expressed remorse for his crimes, or apologized to his victims' families. Certainly he has done nothing since his release to make life easier for those families, or even acknowledged them.

His hard work and academic accomplishments could be seen as entirely self-serving--ensuring that he would continue to prosper and not risk a return to prison. He seems devastated by the revelation of his past, rather than by the fact of it.

In short, it's difficult to develop much sympathy for the guy based on what little we learn of him from the article. I need to know more about the individual before reaching a conclusion on the fairness of his treatment--what kind of a moral philosopher does that make me?

[> [> What is Reality? -- OnM, 15:36:43 09/21/03 Sun

*** His hard work and academic accomplishments could be seen as entirely self-serving--ensuring that he would continue to prosper and not risk a return to prison. He seems devastated by the revelation of his past, rather than by the fact of it. ***

Yeah, that was exactly my take on it. So just like with the fictional Spike and Faith characters, it's a tough call.

[> [> Re: But on-topic comparison to Faith and Spike... -- RJA, 15:45:45 09/21/03 Sun

Interesting points, but I disagree. While I think remorse is imporatant, there should be no real reason to believe that rehabilitation is dependent on expressing it. After all, how easy would it be for a vicious criminal to speed his parole along with words of contrition? And what is more, how much remorse was expected of him when released from prison?

Some would consider it more obscene if he expressed token platitudes to speed his way to freedom. Interestingly, where I live (the UK), murderers are unlikely to be released unless they express remorse. Subsequently we have many people wrongly convicted who spend decades longer in prison than those guilty because they wont express remorse. And the advice of the prison officials is to lie and say sorry to speed them out of here. So how much is remorse really worth?

He is considered the model prisoner, someone who rehablitated himself, and was an active and productive member of society. Yet because of the past, he can no longer do what he is good at, he can no longer usefully contribute to society. And lets not even pretend he woud have got the job if he was open about it.

Its a joke, on the basis of this there is no such thing as rehabilitation.

[> [> [> But he has not rehabilitated himself. -- Arethusa, 18:32:53 09/21/03 Sun

He hid his actions, rather than face the consequences of revealing them. If he'd been honest about what he had done, to the world and, presumably, to himself and accepted the consequences to his material comfort and dignity, he truly would be rehabilitated. He could have still worked in some form-for instance, many former drug addicts act as counselors to other addicts. But instead he lied and hid, choosing comfort and respect over honesty and atonement. He was fired not "because of the past;" he was fired because he lied about his criminal acts of murder. And as long as he continues to lie he can be perceived as a danger, rightly or wrongly.

Why on earth would a criminal not express remorse for what he has done, for the injury he has inflicted on other human beings? The only reason I can think of is that he doesn't feel any.

[> [> [> [> Re: But he has not rehabilitated himself. -- RJA, 18:40:38 09/21/03 Sun

It depends when and where the remorse was expressed. 25 years later to a paper, then I think I can be forgiven not taking any notice of it.

But it would be interesting to note what the parole processes and terms were. Did he express remorse then? If so, to who? Did he feel it inappropriate to express remorse directly to the family? There are many questions, and few answers in the article, but I have doubts that the fact he said sorry would be a sign of his rehabilitation. Its very easy to say words we dont mean, especially if they can change our lives.

And yes, he should have been open about his past. However, he wouldnt have got the job either. Or any similar job. Or anything close. Rehabilitation is a joke when you can never properly re-intergrate into society.

Interesting that we would prefer criminals who have paid their debts to work for sub-wages putting little back into society, rather than doing anything useful.

And as I have said above, someone saying sorry means very little unfortunately, its how they prove it. And I can think of less honourable things than becoming a teacher.

[> [> [> [> [> Not rehabilitated -- Arethusa, 19:15:41 09/21/03 Sun

Losing a father is a devastating, far-reaching experience for a family, which I know from personal experience. He certainly could have reintegrated into society-just not at the same level as before. And accepting that would have meant he was willing to live with the consequences of his actions, a far better way of saying he was sorry than mouthing the words, which as you note could be hypocritical.

I don't want to see people atone, I think public demonstrations of guilt and regret are unnecessary grandstanding. The way we show we have changed is by living a changed life, and this man didn't want to do that. He wanted back what he threw away-a decent life. The kind of life his victims would never have again.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who make mistakes and have to suffer punishments greatly out of proportion for their offences, including being unable to earn a decent living. But living with the consequences of his actions is not an out-of-proportion punishment for this man. His debts can never be paid. He particpated in actions that killed men, left women to suffer terrible emotional pain for the rest of their lives, and deprived children of financial support and the guidance, protection and love of a father.

And make no mistake-prisons do not exist to rehabilitate people. They exist to remove immediate threats to the populace, to make money for the state, and to hold a carrot and a stick before the electorate. Behave, or we'll send you to prison. Elect me, or Willie Hortons will prey on your womenfolk. If they do rehabilitate, it is because of exceptional people who do their best to overcome the system, on both sides of the prison fence, and not because of the system itself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not rehabilitated -- RJA, 14:52:58 09/22/03 Mon

I do think that prisons can, do and should hold elements of rehabiliation for criminals. The ones with time and money do that, what with courses, assessments, work schemes and so on. If there really shouldnt be and isnt any emphasis on rehabilitation, then society is shooting themselves in the foot. And ultimately, this is about society.

How does it benefit the world that if this man is to be released from prison that he spend his life as a road cleaner? Say he has the potential to be the best professor in the world (admittedly an over the top pothesis), should we really say that students shouldnt get the benefit of that because of his past mistakes.

And what incentive is there to not fall back on a life of crime if someone is forever bound by their past actions? If society tells ex-prisoners that they will always be restrained in waht they do, what possible incentive is there for them to conform to society's expectations. Its essentially committing them to a life of crime. Only those with an extreme sense of moral strength could resist that.

I would also query how far someone's debts could be said to be paid on any level. The poster who brought it over made suggestions of teh story's relevance to Buffy and Angel. I think thats a pertinent one. Either we lock them up in prison for ever, or kill them, or we lte them become a useful member of society. And I think the latter goes along way to redressing the balance then the former.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent points -- Rook, 15:11:44 09/22/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not rehabilitated -- Arethusa, 16:25:04 09/22/03 Mon

We are still talking about different things. I am commenting on whether Kreige's hiding of his past puts the depth of his inner change into doubt. I think it does.

The other questions:

Do prisions rehabilitate? Based on a great deal of admittedly annecdotal evidence and a few programs on The Learning Channel, I'd say no, and that society is indeed shooting itself in the foot, but my ignorance is so great that my opinion is only just that.

Should his students be denied the advantage of learning from his past mistakes? Well, you say he should be able to conceal his past mistakes, so that question is moot.

And what incentive is there to not fall back on a life of crime if someone is forever bound by their past actions?

People need an incentive to stay out of jail, besides jail? Someone shouldn't be bound by his actions-he should be able to live without the consequences of his actions? People fall back on a life of crime, instead of choosing it?

One of the reasons I like the Buffyverse so much is that people most certainly do have to deal with the consequeneces of their actions. And when they deny them, as unsouled Spike always did, or Warren, or (formerly) Faith, they suffer the consequences of that too.

I feel odd arguing law and order, since I'm such a liberal lefty. But the question of Kreige's moral development is a real-life reflection of the issues we discuss here so often. I don't think he should be hounded for his mistakes as a teenager, but murder has far-reachng consequences, always, for many many people. Just because he has moved on doesn't mean the ripples won't catch up with him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About concealment -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:43:51 09/22/03 Mon

Isn't there some principle (legal or ethical) that you can't change the qualifications required for a job after you've hired someone for it? For instance, an employer can't suddenly say, "If you aren't bilingual, you're not qualified for the job, get out." If it wasn't mentioned when you took the job, it's not fair to suddenly fire you for not knowing it. Same thing applies to this guy. His criminal record wasn't a factor in getting job, so it isn't fair to suddenly fire him because of it. Now, if they waited till contract renewal time, that would be a different story. But they should at least have let him work till his contract with them was up.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: About concealment -- Arethusa, 18:05:42 09/22/03 Mon

They didn't ask if he had a criminal record. He didn't tell. That doesn't mean the rule against hiring someone with a criminal record didn't exist. His job qualifications never changed in that respect.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If you don't ask someone about it before hiring them, you can't claim it's a job qualification -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:40:38 09/23/03 Tue

I'd hate to get a job and only find out afterwards what I need to be considered qualified. Wouldn't you?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not rehabilitated -- RJA, 12:22:58 09/23/03 Tue

I understand what you mean about whether concealing the past would show his capacity to change or whether he has actually changed. Indeed, I think that a large part of rehabilitation is acknowleding what you have done and taking responmsibility for it. That said, I dont think not revealing it to an employer is proof of fundamental concealment of his past. As far as we know, they didnt ask him. Perhaps they should have, and then it would matter more what he revealed. However, he also told his wife whie they were dating, which does suggest that it was pertinent to him and those in his life.

Should his students be denied the advantage of learning from his past mistakes?

This wasn't actually what I was saying, but rather that a good teacher has more to offer society, and therefore would be contributing more in return for what he took from it, than a menial dead end job ever could.

People need an incentive to stay out of jail, besides jail? Someone shouldn't be bound by his actions-he should be able to live without the consequences of his actions? People fall back on a life of crime, instead of choosing it?

I wasn't saying that people needed an incentive to stay out of jail, but that they needed one to not commit crimes. And give the ever-increasing prison population, and the high rates of re-offending, I would say that prison isn't offering an incentive not to commit crime. A better solution would be to ensure there is no need to commit a crime in the first place. And yes, there is a notional element of choice, but it depends on what the alternatives are. No one is forced to commit a crime, I would never argue that, but at the same time, people are very easily driven there, and society doesn't make it easy for them not to do that. Its not like they don't suffer the consequences of their actions (prison being a mighty big one, as is reduced employment prospects etc etc), but if consequences are such that they can never hope to make a change from their original situation, then it's a self propagating circle, and bad for all of us.

And I know that is slightly off the original topic in question, but it seemed to me to be relevant.

I guess my real issue with the original story is that Kreige is on life parole, he was released from prison because the authorities thought it served no one well for him to remain there, and they kept an eye on him for life, and had no complaint with how he lived that life. Yet, for us, it seems, that's not good enough. The ripples remained a part of his life from the day he committed that act - whereas people seem to be arguing that its something more akin to that terrorist who became a football mom only to be caught decades later. Kreige accepted responsibility and still does, did what society asked from him - and he didn't commit any further crimes. To me that is what rehabilitation is about.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not rehabilitated -- Arethusa, 13:04:27 09/23/03 Tue

A big problem is that what keeps people out of crime is things over which most people have very little contol, except en mass-poverty, addiction, bad parents, prejudice, etc. Society as a whole does have a distressing tendency to condemn the unfortunate-schadenfruend, (hope I got it right) instead of "there but for the grace." we can't change human nature or social inequities (the poor will be with us always), but we should do our best to mold a compassionate society, that doesn't seek to punish people for being born in bad circumstances. I don't think that's happening now-we are being encouraged to condemn them, execute them, villify them. It's horrific.

The thing that strikes me about this man is that instead of making the best of his circumstances (and a man of his ability would be able to do a lot with his life), he wanted it all to go away. That's not what happens in life. Everyone must deal with the repercussions of their and others' actions, deservedly or not. It's just cause and effect.

eh, gotta run. taken up enough board space

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Competely agree with the first part -- RJA *also leaving to conserve the board space he's taken up*, 13:11:19 09/23/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: But he has not rehabilitated himself. -- RJA, 18:52:42 09/21/03 Sun

I would also say that he didnt necessarily lie. He wasnt asked, and he didnt volunteer. He told his wife years ago, so clearly its not something he cant come to terms with (the central idea behind remorse and rehabilitation, taking responsibility for your actions, which he has done), but he didnt tell his employers. And I dont think an ommission can be considered a lie - or a sign of moral degeneraton.

And the issue is the 'some form of work'. Counsellor possibly. If he was lucky (and indeed, if such an avenue was open to him in the late 70s). But its unlikely. Employers arent favourable to ex-cons. If their intergration into society is meant to mean anything, that should be changed and they should be capable and allowed into all jobs. If they're not suitable to do a job, then are they rehabilitated? Why is it that he couldnt be a professor because he murdered someone? In what way are the two issues linked?

Like I say, a lot of questions. But I strongly believe that if we prevent those released from prison having served their debt to society from fully re-integrating into society, then the idea of rehabilitation is basically pointless, and we are encouraging future crimes.

[> [> [> [> Yes, he has -- Rook, 19:55:38 09/21/03 Sun

Firstly, he never lied about things. He wasn't asked, and didn't tell. Additionally, He was seventeen years old when he committed the crime. Seventeen. Maybe you've lived the life of a saint, but even though I've never committed murder, I wouldn't want to be held responsible for my actions as a teenager, and can think of very few people who would. He committed a random, senseless crime, not for greed, or for any other reason than that he was a severely disturbed individual. But, he was still not much more than a kid. He didn't "throw away" a comfortable life. No seventeen year old, especially not one as severely disturbed as he must have been, is fully able to comprehend the consequences of such an action.

You're outraged at what he did, and rightly so. If the crime had occured yesterday, there would be no reason to assume that he'd be able to be rehabilitated, as people, even kids, that do that kind of thing are usually so far gone that there's no hope of them ever changing. But in this case, we'd be wrong. He reintegrated into society, and hasn't committed another offense since, and now he's 55. That's 38 years. 38 years of living an ideal life. Cases like this are at least part of the reason there are death penalty opponents. Because, sometimes, people can commit horrible crimes and still manage to change. They can become better than they were, or at least we hope so.

What he did was horrible, and can't ever be made right. No apology was going to fix it. Wearing a scarlet letter or living life as a pariah wasn't going to bring those people back. But if we're going to say that living a productive, crime-free life for 38 years doesn't constitute rehabilitation for a crime a person committed as a teenager, then we might as well sentence them all to the death penalty and be done with it.

Forcing the man to live life as an outcast, unable to get work or provide for his family isn't justice. It's revenge. If that's what people are after, then fine, there's certainly a school of thought that sees that as the only answer in a case like this. But din't pretend it's anything but just that: Blind, angry revenge for a thrty-eight year old crime committed by a seveteen year old kid.

[> [> [> [> [> Youth does not negate sociopathy -- dub, 20:31:58 09/21/03 Sun

He was seventeen years old when he committed the crime. Seventeen. Maybe you've lived the life of a saint, but even though I've never committed murder, I wouldn't want to be held responsible for my actions as a teenager, and can think of very few people who would. He committed a random, senseless crime, not for greed, or for any other reason than that he was a severely disturbed individual.

The type of teenage actions I, and most of us, might not want to be held responsible for now are a far cry from Krueger's cold-blooded multiple murder. You don't have to be a saint to consider yourself well beyond the possibility of that. It's the extremely rare 17-year-old, severely disturbed or not, who is capable of having a conversation with strangers and then butchering them. This was not a crime of passion, despite the condition of the bodies of the three murdered men. Krueger wasn't overcome with rage; if anything, he acted as if the whole thing was an experiment.

Sure, teenagers make mistakes, and sometimes people die because of them, but said teenagers should not be made to pay for those mistakes with the remainder of their lives. That isn't what happened in this case. Krueger didn't make a mistake. He did exactly what he wanted to do, and he has continued to do so.

Just my take on it. YMMV.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Youth does not negate sociopathy -- Rook, 20:42:20 09/21/03 Sun

If youth doesn't negate it, and 38 years of clean living doens't negate it, and serving time in prison doesn't negate it, then we're really only left with one option: Gun him down like a dog.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course not. -- dub, 21:08:05 09/21/03 Sun

The other option is, of course, for things to go exactly as they have, i.e., for the nature and severity of the crime to have life-long repercussions and consquences for the perpetrator. Certainly it had lifelong repercussions and consquences for the families of his victims.

I think what Arethusa and I are trying to say here is that Krueger got a really long vacation from having to suffer any consequences at all. How is that just?

In some ways, capital punishment can be seen as being more humane than being forced to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life. Revenge? Or justice?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- Rook, 21:59:47 09/21/03 Sun

When it is proven by the facts of the case that the person will not commit further crimes, will be a productive and useful member of society, and will live in all the other established norms of society, then imposing any sanctions on that individual will not serve any purpose other than to make the families of the victims feel better. It won't keep him from committing other crimes, because he's already proven that he won't. It won't undo the crimes themselves. It won't help the families of the victims in any way, other than to feel good about the fact that the man that hurt them is suffering.

Imposing sanctions and suffering on another person for no other purpose than to increase your own feelings of happiness and satisfaction is a pretty good definition for revenge.

Now, they may be entitled to revenge. Maybe the guy should be stoned to death, or maybe he should spend the rest of his days working as an endentured servant for the families of the victims. I don't know.

But don't say he isn't rehabilitated, because he is. The past 38 years should be proof enough of that. And if there was justice to be done, it was up to the courts to do it, not individuals or private organizations (Whether it be the families or the institutions that now won't hire the guy in spite of his qualifications and work history) and the courts were evidently satisfied with the work they had done, or he'd still be behind bars. Justice in our society is a function of the state, not private concerns.

Everything else is society's revenge. Maybe it's justified, again I don't know. But if people want to see vengeance done to this guy, then I think it's better to be up front and honest about exactly what it is thery're doing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- Rufus, 04:27:08 09/22/03 Mon

Now, they may be entitled to revenge. Maybe the guy should be stoned to death, or maybe he should spend the rest of his days working as an endentured servant for the families of the victims. I don't know.

In the article the victims families aren't asking for revenge, they are in obvious pain, why, because this selfish man has built a new life on the bodies of their loved ones. He says he wants to offer value but in his life built around a lie there is none. I don't care if he finds dealing with his past rough, at least he exists. One thing that would prove to me that he isn't just a high functioning sociopath would be to apologize to the families of his victims, something he has never done. Show those families the compassion he can find for his own, his students, and fellow academics. What has his years of education taught him when he still evades the truth of how he came to be where he is now. He is where he is because of his own actions, be them murder, deceit, or denial. If this man can prove that he understands the suffering of the victims instead of only those connected to a life he values, then I will feel there is something there. Life has given this man an opportunity in adversity to make up for what he has been to move on to become more than he has been. Truth means something and the biggest truth is that this man transferred his inner suffering to first his victims then their families. Til he deals with that in an honest compassionate way he remains a liar and murderer who's first concern remains ultimately himself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- Rook, 14:09:17 09/22/03 Mon

>>because this selfish man has built a new life on the
>>bodies of their loved ones.

Can you please explain how his life is built on the bodies of their loved ones?

He committed the crime, went to prison and did his time. He's on lifetime probation. He has paid his debt to society, because he has done what was asked of him. He went forth, and sinned no more.

Apologies are cheap. Finding Jesus and being contrite, and crying and weeping over your victims doesn't help anyone. They don't mean a thing. Going and living a productive, crime-free life, as this man has done, is the best anyone can hope for.

>>Til he deals with that in an honest compassionate way he
>>remains a liar and murderer who's first concern remains
>>ultimately himself.

He's always going to be a murderer. No act of compassion is going to change that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- Rufus, 14:20:31 09/22/03 Mon

Kruegers debt is not only to society but to the victims and their families. The impact of what this man did will touch them (families)forever. I don't remember mentioning Jesus in anything I've written so let's leave him out of this. I don't expect this man to put on a big show of tears, I expect an apology followed by actions that prove he means it and understands the devastation he has brought to his victims. It's easy to just let it go if this guy doesn't kill anybody, but his impact on the families only continues as long as he is in denial about what he has done. Yes, he will always be a murderer but he hasn't shown me he gets it that murder is wrong, only inconvenient.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- Rook, 14:32:18 09/22/03 Mon

>>I expect an apology followed by actions that prove he
>>means it and understands the devastation he has brought
>>to his victims.

Can you please explain what actions, beyond conducting himself as a model citizen, he should perform?

Nothing the guy does or says is going to let you peek inside his head and see what he really thinks. The best you can do is judge him on his conduct and behavior since the crimes. And for me, he passes that test easily. Obviously not true for you.

You seem to be under the impression that because he's the one that made things wrong, he has some kind of power to put things right, or even make them a little bit better. He doesn't. Some things, once done, can never be made right or even justified. There is no right here. Nothing he says or does will change one single thing.

The only thing we as a society are entitled to demand is that he complete the sentence as dictated by the state, and to commit no further crimes. He has done both. We don't have the right to demand that he feel a certain way, or even that he believe that murder is wrong, as long as he doesn't act on those beliefs.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- dub, 06:36:20 09/22/03 Mon

Justice in our society is a function of the state, not private concerns.

True, but the determination of what is just is every individual's concern.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- sariel, 19:42:34 09/22/03 Mon

Who are we to say that he is not living with the consequences of what he did every day of his life?
How can we judge? Western law varies, but as I understand it, contrition is almost impossible to guage, and so becomes less of an issue. Under the right circumstances, like the Inquisition, you can get someone to say almost anything- but how a criminal, convicted or unconvicted feels about what they did, is personal, difficult to ascertain, and almost impossible to patrol or influence. Therefore, the law's punishments are more about time, confinment, labour or money.
The law required him to spend time in prison as punishment for what he did. He served that time. That is his formal debt to society as the law demands.
What society demands, is different again. People like punishment and revenge- we like neat endings, tear-filled confessions, and tidy deaths, it's what we get in the movies. In my experiences of violence in real life, it has never been that way.
If someone demonstrates they have the abilities and qualities to earn responsibility, and some kind of secure footing in life after that, then they've over-come greater obstacles in their lives than you or I will ever know. I think in a lot of ways, that's something to be proud of. Sentencing this man to be a cleaner or another statistic down at social security isn't productive either. He, like the families of the people he murdered, now have to live their lives. Unless you're going to argue the death penalty- whoops, you killed someone, that's it, you deserve to die- then once someone has served their debt to society and the law, they have the same right as anyone else to work hard, love and live their lives as best they can.
The desire to continue to punish comes from anger and fear- it wouldn't help the families of the people he killed in any real way. There will never be a neat resolution of their pain.
About concealment, I find it interesting that it's said that he told his wife. The person who presumably knew him best, knew this about him. Do you expect him to wear a placard at all times: "Hi, my name's *** and I'm a mass murderer"? Who does that help? Only he can know how he feels about what he did- public self-flagellation down the village street won't accomplish it.
I think one of the things I find most challenging and disturbing about this, is the realisation that we good law abiding citizens really want to believe that we are different or "above" people who break the law. We want them specially marked or tagged for life, so they pose as little risk of contaminating us as possible. It's not even necessarily the worry that they'd offend again. It's more the feeling that there should be some barrier or distinction between "good" people, and "bad" people. So we create those distinctions everyday. Whereas we would never know what we are capable of, if our lives, or the chemistry in our brains, had been different.
"Buffy" and "Angel" are tv shows- we get to see plenty of tear filled contrition (anyone else want to just slap Willow in season 7? I wonder why? she certainly apologized to everyone enough) and lots of cartharsis. We can feel reassured that Willow, while she flayed a man alive, then set him on fire- then killed/injured 30 odd policemen- THEN tried to end the world- that she really is sorry. She tells everyone about it, every chance she gets. (But she never gave herself up and went to jail. Odd.) Resolutions, catharsis, repentance and rehabilitation in real life are far more private things... and from half way across the world, almost impossible to judge.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course not. -- auroramama, 12:03:54 09/23/03 Tue

Whatever it is that we want, justice, rehabilitation, revenge, and/or punishment, I don't see what purpose is served by releasing people from prison to wander randomly around looking for jobs, food, and shelter. If we don't want them back in society, and we're not willing to shoot them or keep them in prison forever, we should give them someplace else to go, even if it's just, "Here's a few low-paying jobs that you are allowed to choose from, and a few places you're allowed to live." I want them to suffer the consequences of their actions, but I don't trust happenstance to be fair. I don't want to inhabit a society full of desperate people with lousy or nonexistent jobs and no health insurance, even if some of those people deserve it. That isn't going to be a nice place to live.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Youth does not negate sociopathy -- Rufus, 21:53:50 09/21/03 Sun

Sure, teenagers make mistakes, and sometimes people die because of them, but said teenagers should not be made to pay for those mistakes with the remainder of their lives. That isn't what happened in this case. Krueger didn't make a mistake. He did exactly what he wanted to do, and he has continued to do so.

Just my take on it. YMMV.


One thing a sociopath will do, and that is to avoid any talk of the victim. Time may heal wounds for those with enough distance not to care about the past victim, but I get concerned when someone can talk all about themselves and conveniently leave out anything about the victims they have left behind.

Now to rehabilitation...I think the guy has done a wonderful job of educating himself and moving forward in society. What I'm not clear on is how he feels about his past actions. He may never offend in exactly the same way again but if he has no feelings about his actions what does that say about remourse? As there just isn't sufficient information for me to make a fair judgement I can only state the doubts I have about the guy, it there were more I may change my mind about him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Youth does not negate sociopathy -- RJA, 14:59:19 09/22/03 Mon

Thats fair enough, and we really dont have enough information to say one way or other what his state of mind is or how much remorse is.

Yet this man was released early from prison, for life long parole, which seems to have gone without a hitch until now. So someone, somewhere, certainly has a very good idea as to whether he is capable of rehabilitation.

And I'd rather it were the case that the parole board were the ones to assess that rather than trial by media/public.

[> [> [> [> [> He lied by ommission....which to me is still a lie. -- Rufus, 21:47:46 09/21/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Then every single person on the planet lies in job interviews -- Rook, 22:13:14 09/21/03 Sun

No one, not one single person, goes in to a job interview and volunteers negative information about themselves that doesn't have a material effect on their ability to perform that job.

His offense may have been greater than most, but to expect that anyone, regardless of their level of remorse or rehabilitation, would volunteer information in a job interview that puts them in a bad light is ridiculous.

THey wouldn't have hired him because of this, sure. But many places also wouldn't hire someone that admitted in the interview that they cheated on their wife, or that they had shoplifted, or that they were homosexual. Do you expect that every person that those things apply to is going to talk about them in an interview? Of course not.

If he wasn't going to kill anyone else, and he obviously wasn't, why would he bring this up in a situation where he's trying to present himself in the best light possible?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Then every single person on the planet lies in job interviews -- Rufus, 00:37:19 09/22/03 Mon

Noel Little***Dave Carson***John Fox

When the bodies were autopsied, they were so damaged by gunshots that the number of bullet holes could not be determined.

I quess since I've never had to lie in a job interview or have I murdered anyone that I'm in some obscure minority. Cheating on your wife, shoplifting, and being a homosexual are hardly appropriate comparables to the crimes Krueger did. Three men offered a dinner table to Krueger and his friend and were rewarded with death.

"The bitterness may not show up in my voice, but he's got it made," Morgan said of Krueger. "Here he's out doing well for himself, but he left three families in one hell of a mess. He robbed all those children of their fathers, just for a whim."

Carson's wife, Bonnie, kept the family together, surviving on her husband's Social Security and her job at the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station. Dave and Bonnie's son, David, never married. He lives today with his mother, taking care of her.

Many say Krueger would never have been able to develop an academic career if employers had known about the 1965 murders.

I'll let the few words Krueger said speak for themselves....

In that Aug. 19 interview, he was asked: Can society forgive and forget? "I can't forgive myself," he said. "I've tried for 38 years to atone for this. And the most I can hope to do in the classroom is offer value."

When asked if it was a relief to have the secret come out, he said: "It was tragic. It's difficult for my family, my friends, my students, my colleagues."

He made no mention of his victims or their families.

Krueger said he would like to offer value, but what does that mean if his life is based upon a lie. I understand you may feel that we should forgive and forget but the fact this man made no mention of the victims after talking about the impact to his family, students, and colleagues, is plain troubling to me. To equate this killer with a homosexual trivializes the killing and demeans the homosexual community. So excuse me while I cry into my plastic hand.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you've misunderstood my intentions -- Rook, 04:27:28 09/22/03 Mon

You said omission is still lying, a blanket statement with no explanation or qualifications.

I pointed out some other examples of omissions, and the fact that we do these things in the same situation that he did. I didn't equate the omissions to his killing, they were simply other examples to refute your blanket statement.

Please point to anywhere where I said anything about forgiving and forgetting. I made some points about his age to put the crime in perspective, because I think it's relevant to whether or not this is "justice" or "revenge", and to make the point that if we don't think a 17 year old can be rehabilitated, then we might as well say that rehabilitation for adults is a fantasy.

Please go back and re-read my messages, preferably after your knee stops that spastic jerking thing it's doing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you've misunderstood my intentions -- Rufus, 14:23:09 09/22/03 Mon

I think the only knee that has been moving much has been your own. You are the one who tried to compare murder with homosexuality. You are the one that tried to trivialize this mans actions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you've misunderstood my intentions -- Rook, 14:34:15 09/22/03 Mon

If that's really what you get from reading my messages, then you need some remediation in reading comprehension.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um, guys... and I use that in collective form of the word -- fresne, 11:40:16 09/23/03 Tue

I hope that I am not writing out of turn if I ask that we all take a deep calming breath.

This is a very complex issue and while the article seemed quite balanced:
· Giving a description of the murdered men,
· The violence of the act itself,
· The victim's families,
· The murderer, as a boy, with some background information, and as a man,
· The family of the murderer, both long lost then and little boy now,
· The lives of the victim's families since that sea shore swept day.

And yet, it's an article. A brief brush stroke, which cannot possibly tell us all of the facts. And what are facts? Hard dry things that lawyers love. Lumps in the bed as we shift and try to sleep. Cannot tell us all the emotions. Can only give brief brush strokes as we paint a tragedy.

It ends on a sorrowful note and we are left to contemplate the gaps that are left behind. Personal because there are details rather than cold statistics.

We argue from several steps remove and given the sheer range of topics being covered, I'm not certain how can there be any resolution.

Not that we should not discuss it. Issues like this are the very heart at what every citizen, every human being must consider. Because sorrowful as it is, this is not an isolated story. A lone example, shimmering in the distance.

Having grown up listening to the beginnings of so many such stories (my father was a prosecuting attorney for over twenty years), to read about the following chapters, the scroll of justice/life, as it unfolds, is, well, interesting is too paltry a word. A blue folding slashing stroke of sorrow.

My own view, just so I can be said to have had one, is to agree that this is a story, a glimpse of a truth, in which there are no winners. Not for that ten year old boy suddenly confronted with an ugly truth about his father. Who would never have existed if his father had not been paroled. Not the potential of other children those men could, might, have had. Not those daughters walking to their weddings on some other arm. Not society, which speaks with so many voices, waffling between punishment and reformation and therefore can have neither. But must deal, because what is to be done with those who have "done" their time? Time, going only one way. How then to spool forward?

As a Christian, I'll admit I don't think Kreuger's contrition is mine to judge, but that's just my view. And please believe me when I say that I only mention the barest bones of my religious beliefs as a way of explaining my point of view. As a citizen, I'm inclined to think that Caesar rendered what justice that is Caesar's to give. Those dead men could not speak for themselves and so police officers and lawyers and a judge and jury did their best to speak for them. As a human being, I don't know. Nothing in this life can bring the dead back to life. Nothing can undo what has been done. Not what was done a lifetime before my birth, not the human beings, that statically speaking, were murdered while I was typing this post. All that is left is to live in the world that we make.

If I had a solution, I'd give it. But, time is out of joint and this isn't a story with tidy resolutions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> brava, fresne! so needed, & so well said -- anom, 12:10:25 09/23/03 Tue

I've been more & more bothered by the highly reactive mix of poster opinion in this thread. People's buttons are being pushed hard, & they're pushing back, in a feedback that's approaching frenzy. I'd been trying to get it together to say something even remotely resembling what you did. I'm glad you said it 1st, & so much better.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Let fresne be Caesar! -- Ponygirl, 13:03:03 09/23/03 Tue

Very well said indeed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> very well said. And very true. -- s'kat, 13:17:49 09/23/03 Tue

I have a little more information than the article gave from people who did talk to faculty at PSU and I can say that
we did not in any way shape or form get the whole story from the article. We got a blurb. After talking to my friends who know more than the article? I still don't have everything. Certainly not enough to form a good judgement.

[> [> [> [> [> [> It's wrong to call an omission a lie. -- skeeve, 08:28:39 09/22/03 Mon

Such behaviour cheapens the term "lie".
It makes it harder to call attention to actual lies.
You become the same kind of impediment to communication as those who call Playboy violence or a racial epithet genocide.

That you disapprove of an omission does not make it a lie.
Call it evil if you want, just don't call it what it clearly is not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's wrong to call an omission a lie. -- Rufus, 14:27:55 09/22/03 Mon

You have put a word in my mouth that I didn't say. I didn't mention that a lie by ommission is just evil. I said that a lie is a lie. Kreuger knew about his past and attempted to move on like it never happened. This tells me that there is a certain amount of denial going on here. Because the crime he did is so evil, I have to wonder about the thoughts of a man who can get all misty over the impact his lie has brought to his immediate family and friends but avoid the impact he has had upon his victims. He's lucky some judge didn't vote him off the island and allowed for this man to have a chance at happiness and continued life he took from his victims.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, he has -- Arethusa, 09:33:02 09/22/03 Mon

What I find most interesting here is not society's reactions to Krueger's crimes-it's Krueger's reactions to his crimes. Like Angel, he must deal with the repercussions of murders committed when he was "a different person." Angel could very well have said what Krueger said: "I can't forgive myself,".... "I've tried for 38 years to atone for this. And the most I can hope to offer value." And although I like Angel much more than Spike, I have more respect for Spike's bald admission of guilt and acceptance of how that affects people's opinions of him than Angel's inner refusal to take total responsibility for his actions.

[> [> [> [> [> Interesting: Clockwork Orange, Prisons, Rehabilitation vs. Punishement -- s'kat, 14:43:29 09/22/03 Mon

What you've discussed above reminded me of several things.
As an aside, this is a very tricky and emotionally volatile topic for people. Particularly those who have suffered from violent crimes. I'm not sure it's possible for some to discuss it objectively or even rationally.

That said, Here's the things Krueger's case and your response reminded me of:

1. Anthony Burgess' novel : A ClockWork Orange - which I'm surprised no one here has mentioned. A Clockwork Orange plays around with the idea of the state rehabilitating someone by removing his choice. Alec is a sociopathic hood in his teens in the novel - who does acts very similar to Krueger's. Alec - rapes, vandalizes, murders, robs, etc.
The government catchs him and he is conditioned to abhorr violence - the conditioning is akin to punishment in a way - since Alec is made ill and forced to reject his favorite music Beethoven's 9th which is played during the conditioning. At the end of the conditioning - Alec is rehabilitated. He no longer kills - not because he chooses not to - but because it makes him ill. His former victims, which include a man he crippled, use him to get back at the government by forcing him to break his conditioning - and commit violence against himself. This is a sort of revenge.
The new regime unconditions Alec. In the movie - Alec reverts back to the sociopath. In the book - Alec grows up and puts his sociopathic ways behind him. The author felt the other ending was untrue and would make the story an allegory.

2. A couple years ago, a woman was executed by the state of Texas for violent killings she made as a young adult/teen.
She'd been on death row for several years. Rehabilitated herself. Become a counselor for other prisoners. Helped with worthwhile causes. Converted to Christianity. The Warden, several conservative and liberal groups came forward to ask the Governor to pardon her. But he didn't b/c it would be unfair to other prisoners on death row and the law as it was written did not provide "rehabilitation" as a pardon from the death penalty in texas.

3. While counseling a prisoner in 1993, I made a nice eloquent speech about how prisons were set up for rehabilitation. The prisoner told me I was wrong - explaining prison was all about punishment. Society really did not care about rehabilitation nor did it believe in it.
I disagreed. The prisoner in question had rehabilitated himself - he'd shown remorse, cleaned up his act, become a drug counselor - but he should have been up for parole ten years before I got him released to a detainer. A detainer means - he was released from FEd custody only to go to state custody to continue to serve his term.

Later in 1994 - I sat in on a state senate debate on the death penalty. The legislatures in their debate used chapter and verse from the old testament to support their decision and fight for the death penalty. They used personal revenge stories. It was clear that the death penalty would cost the state more than life imprisionment.
It was clear that not all individuals sentenced to death penalty were guilty. The most disturbing speech was given by a woman senator about how it should be an eye for an eye. Let the punishment meet the crime. The death penalty was passed in that state btw.

Prison is about punishment. It is also about keeping society safe. We don't want people roaming the streets out to murder, rob, rape, pillage, etc.

4. East of Eden by John Steinbeck - this novel discusses the Cain and Abel story. In this story - Cain kills his brother in a fit of jealousy. God places a mark on Cain's forehead so no one will kill him. He tells Cain that thou mayest over come sin. (What Steinbeck examines in the novel is the three versions of the Bible - the American Standard which says Thou MUST or Do (an order), the King James which states Thou Shalt (a promise), and the HEbrew version which has the word Timshel which Steinbeck translates as Thou mayest. Choice. You have the choice to rise above your evil actions, your sins and live a better life.) According to that story - humans came from Cain (Able was dead) and marked with that sin we choose to rise above it, transcend.

Interesting. There seems to be two rules here - an eye for an eye and forgive and allow someone the choice to become better. I think the one we chose to live by, may be the secret to our own ability to chose to rise above our own animal instincts and be better people. Easier said than done. It has been almost a year since my own negative experience and while I have not taken any vengeance or asked for any retailation against my former boss, there are moments like today, that I feel the desire for it or wish I had.

Difficult topic.

PS:for the record, I agree with much of what you said Rook.
It fits with my own experience.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting: Clockwork Orange, Prisons, Rehabilitation vs. Punishement -- Rook, 15:04:29 09/22/03 Mon

>>Prison is about punishment. It is also about keeping
>>society safe. We don't want people roaming the streets
>>out to murder, rob, rape, pillage, etc.

Nicely put. I think the key is trying to balance these two things with the realistic expectations that we can have for people that have committed crimes. At some point, you have to look at a man's actions and say "He has learned not to engage in criminal activities." and let it be. What the man feels and believes after that is between him and his god, as long as he obeys the rules of society.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Karma and Conscience -- Arethusa, 18:07:00 09/22/03 Mon

The death penalty, Karla Faye Tucker, the efficacy of prisions and issues of rehabilitation-these are all separate issues. My question was: does hiding his crime indicate he wasn't truly rehabilitated? Not, does rehabilitation work or is the justice system flawed or should we forgive and forget peoples' crimes. My other questions was: isn't it unrealistic to not expect to suffer the consequences of your actions, no matter how long ago they were or how much you have changed?

My arguments must be unclear.

I agree with you on the death penalty. It's a shamefully ugly political tool, and I can't imagine how a pro-life governor like Bush could execute Karla Faye Tucker or anyone else, no matter how hideous their crime.

Alec's an interesting correllary. But nobody enacted revenge on Krueger. He just lost his job when his employer discovered that he'd committed a capital crime. It's their policy (an extremely common one), he was found out, he was fired. He didn't think he should have to follow their rules. He was wrong. It would be better if his employer (and everyone else) were able to take circumstances into account, but as a university legally responsible for the safety of teenagers and very young adults, is it realistic to expect them to abandoned their rule?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you..:):) -- Rufus, 18:31:56 09/22/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Karma and Conscience -- s'kat, 22:42:35 09/22/03 Mon

Actually, somewhat embarrassed to state this - but I didn't read much of the thread and was only responding to some of the tidbits I liked in Rook's statements, statements I generally agree with based on my own world experience. I also agreed with Rahael's for some of the same reasons. YMMV. So this was in no way meant as response to what you said, since, I didn't read it and didn't know what it was until now. Cherry picking. (Nothing against you - just time alottment.)

I've decided to steer clear of the whole employement/PSU issue right now because I don't believe I can rationally argue anything regarding unemployment without saying some things I'll regret later. So forgive me if I steer clear of that part of the topic.

I was interested in the corollaries I addressed above and how the topic reminded me more of Clockwork ORange and Crime and Punishment issues. I know it's not an exact corollary, what I was interested in were the similarities.

Again - I'm steering clear of the debate on the University's actions. The only thing I'll add is that a friend of mine is an alum of PSU and visited the campus recently, he told me that PSU was defensive about it, his friends in the alumni association and who taught there, knew Krueger and felt that PSU was wrong in their actions.
Apparently Krueger left wayyy before any of it came out publically. This is old news.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Karma and Conscience -- Arethusa, 05:17:16 09/23/03 Tue

You mean you don't read my every word?!? Gasp!

Seriously-I don't disagree with everything Rook said either. It just wasn't germain to what what I was trying to discuss and I didn't want to get bogged down in a no-win argument. The victims' families were compassionate even through their pain, which I admire greatly. The murderer seemed to have genuinely changed. The university was trying to protect its students and reputation. Nobody wins.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can certainly agree with this -- Rahael, 06:04:59 09/23/03 Tue

Btw, in all the jobs I've ever applied for, I've had to fill in part of a form declaring whether I have any outstanding criminal convictions etc. Which meant that if I didn't declare it, I couldn't complain if I got sacked for lying.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> agree as well - a little objective review on legalities -- s'kat, 10:29:48 09/23/03 Tue

Don't know what the law is in other countries, but in the
US - you may include the question: Have you ever been "convicted" of a felony? What you may not ask or inquire about on an interview is what felony the person was convicted of - that's illegal. Nor are you permitted to push the person to disclose what crime they were convicted of.

Every application I've seen and I've seen quite a few - states quite clearly have you ever been convicted of a crime?

The article isn't clear on whether or not the PSU application had this question or if Krueger responded to it.
I do know if any of his employers asked "the type" of conviction it was or "what" he was convicted of? He could sue them and win. That is a discriminatory question. (Something I learned this weekend in a class).

Before everyone starts feeling sorry for the employer - the employer can check and see what the conviction was by going to the public records in the state the applicant originated from. Or just federal records in their own state - with a social security number. It takes less than ten minutes to search and does not require anything more than the name and SSI of the applicant. I used to check public records for employers, believe me it's easy. IF the applicant forges their social security number or lies on their application in any way? That is automatic grounds for dismissial - if Krueger lied on his application than the crime he committed 30 years ago is not the reason he was fired, it's just an ancillary reason. The reason is the lie. They can't fire Krueger for the 30 year old crime. That's discriminatory. They can fire him for lying on an employment application or a resume, which is a completely different issue. The crime Krueger committed goes to Krueger's motivation for telling the lie - but it does not work as a defense for telling the lie nor does it excuse the lie, since Krueger was (I'm guessing) in no way compelled to explain the conviction on the form - just asked whether he'd ever been convicted.
BTW you cannot ask: 1) have you ever been arrested or 2) have you ever been convicted for a sexual crime (you can only ask question 2 - the sexual crime - if the company is a day-care company or a school).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the info, SK - v.interesting -- Rahael, 06:14:13 09/24/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A bit more information from inside sources -- s'kat, 13:12:32 09/23/03 Tue

Talked to my friends again today and it seems that the University may not have included the question on the application.It was not mentioned anywhere - so no, he didn't lie. Apparently Universities don't always do it. My friend said that PSU did not find out about it. It came out b/c of another job at another university he applied to. He was planning on leaving PSU to go to this other job, that university did a full background check and found out about the conviction and released the information to PSU.

Also the crime in question was drug related. According to my friend the kids were involved with drugs and the violence had to drugs in some way not mentioned in the article.

So we definitely don't have all the information here. My friends (who are trustworthy) heard all about it from PSU
in August.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooooooo the demon made me do it. -- Rufus, 13:32:59 09/23/03 Tue

Two things that bugged me about the reaction to the article. The ease in which people discounted the victims, and the fact that they are fine with someone just as long as they don't impact them. I raised doubts about this guy along with dub about the potential of him being a sociopath. I didn't say he was one or did I say he deserved to die. I've dealt with sociopaths before and a few things that this person has done made me think he was possibly one. Mainly the fact that he lied about his past to get a job, the fact that he has never done anything that shows he feels any remourse for what he has done, and his ease in crying "poor me and mine". For me it's easy, he lied by ommission regarding something a little more serious than shoplifting or perhaps having a joint or two as a teen. The fact that there were drugs involved doesn't make me feel any better as how many people who take the same drugs don't go on to kill. Remember "what we once were informs all that we become"...the act of murder will always be part of this man, and while I don't want it tattoo'd on his face, I still find it discomforting the fact that he can't seem to care about the victims or their families. Once this guy lied by ommission (even if there was no question on an application form, I bet over the years on some others there were)he set himself up to be fired.

As a victim of crime this topic is red hot for me. I survived...yay me...but I didn't get free education, free counselling, and because I was harmed I didn't use it as an excuse to harm someone else. From what I read I don't feel very sorry for this guy because I can only identify with the families of the victims, I understand how each time he goes on about how his family and friends have suffered it would feel like the reliving the original pain all over again for the victims. What makes me feel sad is the fact that much of society takes an attutude that if this man doesn't kill them or their own, they don't really care. There is plenty of compassion out there for the rehabilitated criminal, not a hell of a lot out there for the suffering victims and their torment can become eternal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Arethusa, 18:24:48 09/23/03 Tue

I wrote a long post but erased it because it was too grim. This is an unbridgeable divide, between those who've been victims of a violent crime and those who haven't. All we can do is not get angry because others look at the problem from different perspectives based different life experiences. People don't realize that it's just luck that they've never become victims, and joined the others who were forced to change their perspective under terrible circumstances. This man's story sets off huge warning bells to me too, but I doubt we could convincingly tell others why.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rook, 21:06:50 09/23/03 Tue

>>People don't realize that it's just luck that they've
>>never become victims, and joined the others who were
>>forced to change their perspective under terrible

I'd also add that most people don't realize it's just luck that they didn't suffer from circumstances, or mental problems, or an upbringing that made committing crimes seem like a reasonable choice.

There are two sides to every story. Looking at things from only the victim's point of view is just as bad as looking at it from the criminal's. It doesn't answer any questions, solve any problems, or move one inch towards coming up with a solution that doesn't end with everyone involved dead or in jail.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rufus, 21:37:08 09/23/03 Tue

I'd also add that most people don't realize it's just luck that they didn't suffer from circumstances, or mental problems, or an upbringing that made committing crimes seem like a reasonable choice.

I'd put up my shitty circumstances next to some offenders anyday. The difference is that while I was an abused child I didn't take out my anger at the world or some poor innocent victim. I knew poverty, living with an alcoholic, been beaten, burned, neglected, and almost suffocated, and worse, all by the age of 8. Don't try to jerk me off with the sob stories of someone who took out their pain on someone else, it bores me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rook, 22:02:18 09/23/03 Tue

>>I'd put up my shitty circumstances next to some offenders
>>anyday. The difference is that while I was an abused
>>child I didn't take out my anger at the world or some
>>poor innocent victim. I knew poverty, living with an
>>alcoholic, been beaten, burned, neglected, and almost
>>suffocated, and worse, all by the age of 8. Don't try to
>>jerk me off with the sob stories of someone who took out
>>their pain on someone else, it bores me.

Interesting. We seem to have very similar backgrounds. I don't know what the difference is, but I'd guess that you've been unable to let go of your anger and find some peace with yourself. It took a lot of time, but that's what I've been able to do, and it's left me with the ability to look at things objectively without inserting an excess of emotion into them.

Anyhow, this isn't about sob stories, excusing the crime or even forgiving the offender. It's about answering the larger societal questions of "what constitutes rehabilitation?" and "What do we do with violent offenders?"

If the only course of action we can see is revenge, then that's all we shall have. I'm suggesting that in some cases, there may be alternatives.

And, if all you have to respond with are angry, ad hominem attacks, then I'd prefer you didn't respond to my postings and simply move on. You were badly abused. So was I, and with some things far worse than what you've described. You're not going to convince me to join a lynch mob, and if you can't get past your anger, then I'm not going to be able to convince you to drop the rope.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rufus, 23:18:38 09/23/03 Tue

Lynch mob...the only one who has mentioned a lynch mob is you. You know nothing of anger. You know nothing about me. You have assumed a lot and discounted much. You got the short list of what happened to me cause I'm not sharing anymore. What disgusts me is the fact that you seem to think that victims should just tough up and move on while getting all misty about people who care about no one but themselves. My priority is victims of crime and if you think I'm a viscious bitch then I wear that title with pride. This thread shows just how far things have gotten in favor of offenders. I'd like to see some equity and some compassion for victims. I'd like to see a day when a victim isn't forgotten and told to get over their anger....what people like you forget is the victim wasn't angry til they were targeted by the types of assholes that you care more for. If someone has changed and I mean really changed and not just adopted a way of speaking that superficially indicates they are now of "value", then I have no problem with them. When someone still sings a sad tune only about themselves and nothing about the victim I feel nothing but contempt for them as they are only acting. If you don't like my posts because you think I'm angry then too bad. The only one making personal attacks is you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rook, 00:01:28 09/24/03 Wed

>>What disgusts me is the fact that you seem to think that
>>victims should just tough up and move on

Hmm, I'm not clear where you're getting this from.

>> My priority is victims of crime and if you think I'm a
>>viscious bitch then I wear that title with pride.

I don't think that, but obviously you do. If that's your armor against letting yourself deal with your pain, I'm certainly not going to judge you for it.

>>If you don't like my posts because you think I'm angry
>>then too bad.

I think that's a little bit disrespectful, but I certainly can't stop you from posting, nor would I try. It was just a polite request for you to stop personally attacking me. If it really makes you feel better, then by all means continue.

>>The only one making personal attacks is you.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from either, unless it was the "knee jerking" thing, which I didn't really think anyone would take seriously.

You're the one that seems to be spewing out a lot of venom over this. It's obvious you are taking it very personally, and that's too bad. I think injecting a lot of emotion into things like this prevents any real rational discourse on the topic.

You pointed out earlier that there are people that have been hurt badly by criminals that don't turn into criminals. This is true. I'd also like to point out, that there are people that have been hurt just as badly as you that are still able to hold rational conversations about these kinds of topics.

Please try to keep in mind that reasonable minds can disagree.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rufus, 03:31:30 09/24/03 Wed

I didn't bring the lynch mob into the conversation nor did I try to compare shoplifting or homosexuals with a murderer.

this isn't about sob stories

I guess that depends upon the sob story presented. You seem to want to discount anything coming from a victim of a crime. If I'm supposed to feel sorry for a guy who got caught lying then presents his sob story, then why can't the story of the victims he left behind count as well? I stated I had concerns about this guys ability to worry about only himself when forgetting about how he got where he is now. Once he tried to make a new life with a clean slate there was the chance he would be found out.

I'd also like to point out, that there are people that have been hurt just as badly as you that are still able to hold rational conversations about these kinds of topics.

I've never invited the lynch mob to the situation, you did. If you don't like my opinion then don't reply to my posts. You want to have it one way, where the victims simply don't count and I think they do. It's an insult to call the story from a victim of any crime a "sob story" while expecting everyone to feel sorry for a criminal. Rational discourse doesn't mean that you forget simple human compassion...wait a minute, you do.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rook, 04:31:47 09/24/03 Wed

>>nor did I try to compare shoplifting or homosexuals with
>>a murderer

Neither did I...but I've already responded to that accusation.

>>You seem to want to discount anything coming from a
>>victim of a crime.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything resembling that. You do know that there is more than one possible point of view here. Just because someone sees that there's more going on than just what happened to the victims, doesn't mean that they don't also understand the victim's side of things. It is possible to examine issues from multiple points of view.

>>You want to have it one way, where the victims simply >>don't count and I think they do.

Again, I never said anything like that.

>>It's an insult to call the story from a victim of any
>>crime a "sob story"

I don't remember doing this. I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to twist things around, or if you're genuinely misreading my posts.

>>Rational discourse doesn't mean that you forget simple
>>human compassion...wait a minute, you do

Again, I'd request that if you'd like to reply, you stop personally attacking me. It's not really conducive to having a rational conversation.

Not everything has to be about "Us vs. Them", "Me vs. You", etc. I really don't think the situation is as simple as that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rufus, 14:59:26 09/24/03 Wed

If you look at my posts and dubs you will realize that we went from rehabilitation in the sense you are talking about and mentioning the fact that "38 years of clean living" doesn't take away from the impact to the victims of the guys crime. Kreuger's past caught up with him and my reaction to some of what was said in the article was to point out the fact that there is a troubling lack of remourse when he speaks of the victims, instead he does stress himself and his family. When you do an act there will be consequences. Rehabilitation doesn't negate future consequences that won't have anything to do with time served in prison. Krueger took a chance by starting a new life where he carefully omitted his past. When his past was found out he was fired. I pointed out that I was troubled by the lack of mention of victims of the original crime by the man who committed them. We did digress into a conversation about victims that you seem to take offence at. Every action will have a consequence and Krueger found that out when he got fired. You have made comments about lynching that have nothing to do with anything dub or I have said about victims of crime. You didn't even bother to find out how we felt about capital punishment, you assumed a lot. We mentioned victims of crime and the fact that they are marginalized and forgotten, any of my replies to you were because your posts just proved the fact that the way victims are treated is true. You wanted us to only talk about Kreuger post prison time when we made it clear that he is the sum of all his actions and part of those actions include the crimes he committed and the impact they had upon the families.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rook, 16:30:29 09/24/03 Wed

>>You have made comments about lynching that have nothing >>to do with anything dub or I have said about victims of
>>crime. You didn't even bother to find out how we felt
>>about capital punishment, you assumed a lot

It was metaphorical lynching. Not actually killing him, per se, but acting outside the confines of the law to exact further punishment. That's a fairly common use for the term, as far as I know.

>>We mentioned victims of crime and the fact that they are
>>marginalized and forgotten, any of my replies to you were
>>because your posts just proved the fact that the way
>>victims are treated is true. You wanted us to only talk
>>about Kreuger post prison time when we made it clear that
>>he is the sum of all his actions and part of those
>>actions include the crimes he committed and the impact
>>they had upon the families.

Actually I didn't really want to talk specifically about Krueger at all, but it was his story that gave rise to my larger point. I'll repeat it again: If living crime free after serving any imposed prison time doesn't constitute rehabilitation, then what does? Is rehabilitation possible for murderers? Can they live useful, productive lives, or do we feel it's necessary to relegate them to the status of endentured servants, where they must be forced to work at menial tasks for the rest of their lives in order to satisfy our desire that they be punished? And, if rehabilitation is not possible, then why do we continue to hold that out as a goal of our system?

Note that those questions aren't about Krueger, they're questions about society as a whole.

The points I know that we disagree on are 1) that we have a right to expect Krueger to express remorse, or to feel a certain way about the crimes, because I don't believe this is relevant. I don't care about the man's feelings. I care about whether or not he's, or people like him, can be released into society without continuing to kill. And 2) That his firing was justified because of his past coming to light. None of the evidence presented has convinced me that he lied (And I don't agree that keeping information unrelated to job performance from your employer is lying), and the evidence presented strongly suggests that they didn't ask about his criminal past before hiring him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rufus, 18:29:11 09/24/03 Wed

Sorry, I will talk about Kreuger.....

Yet Krueger rarely mentioned his family or anything personal. "I knew less about him than most of the faculty," said Richard A. Hanson, Augustana's academic dean at the time. "It was a little odd."

In 1999, Krueger earned a second doctorate, in education, from the University of Southern California. That year he told Hanson he had accepted a position at another school, which he declined to name. It was one of the country's most prestigious public research institutions - Pennsylvania State University.

At Penn State, he taught mostly graduate courses in workforce training and ran the Institute for Research in Training and Development. Just as at Augustana, Krueger's criminal record was never revealed.

From that I take it he deliberately concealed his past from the appropriate people to obtain employment. How his past caught up with him was this way.......

Many say Krueger would never have been able to develop an academic career if employers had known about the 1965 murders.

They're right. When a fluke - new rules on reporting the whereabouts of parolees - recently alerted Penn State to the triple murderer on its faculty, Krueger and the university parted company. In a statement, Penn State said, "The university and Dr. Krueger both recognize that his ability to carry out his responsibilities effectively... has been compromised in light of the revelations about his history."

Krueger also lost a pending job offer from National University in La Jolla, Calif. He had reached out to the school after Pennsylvania parole officials said he was in the state illegally and had to leave. But when news about the murders came out in late July, National severed its contract with Krueger. "While the university recognizes Dr. Krueger's efforts to rehabilitate himself in the years since the conviction," National said in a statement, "his employment as a faculty member would be inconsistent with National University's institutional values and the best interests of its students, alumni, faculty and staff."

There were conditions to this mans parole and he decided to break those conditions. Just because he didn't commit another murder didn't mean he had the right to conceal his past or to go where he was prohibited to go in his parole conditions. The schools were well within their rights to fire him. To be rehabilitated you have to obey ALL the conditions set out in your parole, Krueger didn't and it caught up with him. I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of behavior in a person who got a second chance his victims never will. If he had been honest and got to the position he did without deception I would agree that he had been rehabilitated, but his deception along with his lack of concern for his victims leave me with concerns about him.

Others are more critical. "Paul Krueger has been a very good model for rehabilitation," said Bryan Collier, director of the Texas parole system. "But to be a perfect model for rehabilitation, you have to be up-front with employers about your past. You can't hide it."

Krueger did not respond to several requests to speak about the issues raised by the revelation of his past. He did, however, approach ABC News' Good Morning America to appear on television, so people could "see me as the different person I've tried to become."

In that Aug. 19 interview, he was asked: Can society forgive and forget? "I can't forgive myself," he said. "I've tried for 38 years to atone for this. And the most I can hope to do in the classroom is offer value."

When asked if it was a relief to have the secret come out, he said: "It was tragic. It's difficult for my family, my friends, my students, my colleagues."

He made no mention of his victims or their families.

I very much agree with what Collier said about Krueger. A real changed man is one who can be honest about his past, instead Krueger has attempted to blot it out and when caught can only worry about himself and his own.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Arethusa, 21:59:18 09/23/03 Tue

Rook, your compassion for murders and rapists is positively saintly. (I'm not being sarcastic.) I hope you will never have cause to lose that compassion for criminals.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Adding more when I said I wouldn't., sorry. -- Rook, 22:17:31 09/23/03 Tue

It's not about compassion. It occurs to me that people are assuming that I'm somehow on the criminal's "side" because I'm not caling for his head. I've never said anywhere that I didn't think punishment was in order. It's just in this particular case, I believe that society has meted out the punishment that it was entitled to, and it appears to have worked. What it didn't do, and what it really can't be expected to do, is make people feel better about what happened. I see this as a case where the system worked, and I think that the people reacting from emotion don't, because they don't see the criminal suffering.

We have a system in place to deal with these kinds of things, and the system has had its opportunity. We promise rehabilitation, but if we don't really believe that it's possible, why keep holding it out as one of our goals?

People seem to want to see this person suffer eternally. But the problem is, if we're going to be something better than a savage lynch mob, then we've got to let the legal systems we've put in place do their jobs. And part of that is accepting the outcomes, even if it means that some of these people are able to go on to productive, comfortable lives after committing horrible crimes.

Put the systems in place, and let them do thier work. If you don't like the outcomes, then change the systems, but don't try to work around them with vigilantism or other extra-legal means, such as private economic sanctions, because then you might as well not have the systems in the first place. And in the end, all you'll be left with are systems that don't work and anarchy.

Do I, as an individual, LIKE it? Not really. Do I think that it's a crucial part of creating a just society? Absolutely.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And likewise.. -- RJA, 09:57:57 09/24/03 Wed

People don't realize that it's just luck that they've never become victims, and joined the others who were forced to change their perspective under terrible circumstances

I do find this to be a massive assumption, and more than a little unfair, that if you are the victim of a violent crime, or indeed any crime, it will automatically mean that you can only ever consider the victims in all discussions on a forum like this, or indeed in any situatin. But to a large extent, forums like this are anonymous - I had no idea (until volunteered) which posters have or have not been victims based on what they wrote, just as I would not like it assumed that my experiences have only been of one kind based on my views. Experiences can shape us, but they do not have to dictate our thoughts and beliefs.

It reminds me of a TV news show the other month, in which the presenter told a victim's father that the father was dishonouring his son's memory in preaching forgiveness. That sickened me far more than the idea of compassion for a killer - especially when it was tied to political point scoring. My wider point is that few feel the same way about everything, and just as someone shouldnt be told they have to forgive or care about a criminal, those who also have suffered shouldnt feel compelled not to.

[> [> [> [> [> Very much agree with all you say here -- RJA, 15:13:59 09/22/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> "kid..."--ok, show of hands -- anom, 22:49:18 09/21/03 Sun

How many thought of "Alice's Restaurant" when they read Arethusa's subject line? (Sorry, I know it's a serious subject, but that was my 1st reaction!)

[> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Arethusa, 07:18:00 09/22/03 Mon

I'd forgotten about that movie. Did you know Norman Rockwell painted Officer Obie?

[> [> [> Re: But on-topic comparison to Faith and Spike... -- skeeve, 08:40:07 09/22/03 Mon

According to Krueger, the police didn't find a motive because there wasn't one.
That implies that he has just as much motive to kill now as he did when he was seventeen.

Krueger killed people for no apparent reason.
The reason, if any, wasn't even apparent to Krueger.

[> He did express remorse -- Vickie, 22:15:05 09/21/03 Sun

The article quotes him as saying:

"I can't forgive myself," he said. "I've tried for 38 years to atone for this. And the most I can hope to do in the classroom is offer value."

[> [> Right -- Rahael, 07:49:14 09/22/03 Mon

I think the quote that Vickie highlights is very important. If that isn't a true recognition of the depth of the crime, what is? There is no real or meaningful atonement for the victims, because the murdered aren't going to come back.

The article says that the families of the victims did not go for the death penalty on principle. In my opinion, that act of mercy is the one that deserves the gratitude of anyone who has benefited from the subsequent productive life. I do recognise Arethusa's and others' arguments about his lack of revelation to the community. But I can understand, if not sympathise with the decision not to reveal.

This is all based on hypotheticals, on the details as presented by the article.

In my opinion, this man went on to do what we take for granted that most people around us do - no special cause for congratulation. No cause for being made much of, or being lionised. Inadvertantly, his silent pursuit of a normal life may have spared the victim's family the pain of those who might have wanted to make much of him.

[> [> [> Re: Right -- Rufus, 14:34:09 09/22/03 Mon

I'm not at all moved by his statement because of the continued pain his victims families are in because he seeks to manipulate his reality to wipe out something he has done by forgetting it exists. I have to wonder why he can't forgive himself...because he got caught, or because of the act itself. His behavior and avoidance of the victims and their families while boo hooing over his own is troubling to me. With the information we have so far I'm not feeling too sorry for him. That doesn't mean I want him dead or that he shouldn't be able to find employment. I do however feel that his employers have the right to know who they have in a position of teaching young people. Until he shows that he understands that the men he killed have the type of value he wishes to teach his students I can't feel that he has any value to add to the students lives. I hate it when there is more talk about the murderer than the victims they leave behind.

[> [> [> [> Shows to who though? -- RJA, 15:12:56 09/22/03 Mon

Would we generally welcome criminals seeking out the family to apologise for their crimes? And if that did happen, would we still say this was an attempt to make the criminals feel better about themselves, or would it really help relieve the families grief?

And should not the state insist on this meeting if its the only real way of showing remorse - and if that is true, how easily could this be abused by those seeking an easy way out of jail?

The problem to me with what you say is that you seem to equate a criminal's public handwringing as some proof of remorse or a reformed character. There isnt any hard and fast rules about how remorse should be expressed, and which is more meaningful. Certainly, I really have doubts about how far direct interaction with the victims is helpful.

Ultimately, all we can do is speculate. I'm British so I realise there might be some differences in the way parole and prisons are structured in the States, but here certainly, there are professionals well equipped (but even then not totally satisfactorily) to consider whether someone can or has rehabilitated themselves. And thats why they do that job, and everyone else reads the papers and grumbles about how criminals have it too easy nowadays.

[> [> [> [> [> Canadian here. -- Rufus, 18:07:25 09/22/03 Mon

Yes all we can do is speculate, but as someone who has done work for victims of crime I'm disgusted at how easily people forget the people who count in these situations. We don't execute our prisoners here and I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I do believe in life in prison without parole. If this guy were an offender who hadn't physically harmed another person I'd feel more sympathy form him, but he is a killer of 3 men. These 3 men have been forgotten by everyone but the families who are tormented by their loss. This guy seems to only be worried about himself and his family and friends...forgotten and discounted are the victims and it's a shame.

[> [> [> [> Oh, I wasn't moved by his statement -- Rahael, 02:48:25 09/23/03 Tue

But his seeming acknowledgement that there is no real redress he could make was refreshing. That is the true seriousness of his crime.

(Though I will admit - in my own situation, a public apology would be an amazing, but only for its political significance, not a personal one.)

I too hate an excess of attention on the perpetrators and not on the victims - actually to clarify what I dislike is not so much a focus on the perpetrator but a focus on the gory details of the crimes - it's a real pet peeve of mine. I'll stop here lest I reawaken that whole, messy, painful argument that occurred the last time I sounded off about this.

I noted that the families of the people he killed sounded humane, generous, tolerant and compassionate. It was their statements that moved me, not his.

I have much sympathy for your views on life sentences, and yet, I can see persuasiveness in the other arguments too. It's just that this is the kind of issue that is so complex, lacking in clear right and wrong answers, that many viewpoints appeal to me. I wouldn't even venture to judge the case on a should he be in prison or not thing, or what kind of employment law criminals should be subject too - those are such broad areas of public policy involving a country that isn't even familiar to me, so ...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I wasn't moved by his statement -- Rufus, 04:23:38 09/23/03 Tue

I didn't imply that you were. I think that the article was fair in how far it went telling about this guys crime. It's impossible to get all the facts, but my reaction to this article is disgust at the fact that people end up more concerned about this guy who got a second chance his victims never got. Victims of crime are forgotten and marginalized. They are expected to just get on with it and forget their pain. Every time this guy goes on about himself and his family, I cringe because at least he has one and I feel it just opens up new wounds for the families he has devastated. He cares about himself and his own, the victims...I think they are just inconvenient. As long as his victims are afforded little value, my feelings are that he has little to offer to his students.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I wasn't moved by his statement -- RJA, 13:08:50 09/23/03 Tue

I just want to say that despite the opinions I have stated above, I don't care more about the perpetrator than the victims, and I rarely do. But in a post that seemed to touch on issues of rehabilitation, redemption and the such like (by the fact that it was brought to a Buffy board), then I think a reasoned evaluation of the perpetrator and his situation is not at all unreasonable. Not because I care for the man (his son and wife yes, the victims yes, and I don't think that should even have to be said, frankly), but because how we treat criminals, and those that get released into society impacts on every one of us. That is my concern in the implications of this story - that there needs to be a balance between respecting the victim and ensuring that the punishment is meted out is fair and just, and unfortunately, that means the criminal can never be forgotten about.

I would also say that this man has not gone directly to the family to rub his happy new life in their faces, to show them what he has got and they have not (although in this thread there are those who suggest that contact with the victim is the only way of showing remorse - I think it's a situation with no answers really, and how can it, given such a terrible crime). It was not this man, but the media that alerted them to his situation, that read the quotes, that contacted them. How many times do you see it in the AP news when mere days after some tragedy or serious crime, there is either a comment made by the families, or even more disturbing, the phrase 'the family did not return any calls'. The media, and to an extent us, the readers, have a prurient interest in such crimes which ensure that we wont allow the families to deal with anything. The crimes must be dredges up time and again, for years, so that we get to have a snippet of their tragedy in the name of 'public interest'. What this man did can never be undone, but he is not the sole person responsible for these re-opened wounds.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I wasn't moved by his statement -- Rufus, 13:39:28 09/23/03 Tue

What this man did can never be undone, but he is not the sole person responsible for these re-opened wounds.

He is and he is not. Sure he didn't alert the press to his situation but his reaction to adversity has made both dub and I wonder just how far he has come. He created a situation of suffering for many people and doesn't seem too cut up about it. Warning bells go off when I hear anyone like him go on about themselves while either scapegoating the victims or ignoring them completely. I feel that dubs concerns are well founded. The big wound is still reopened by a man who ended up with a secondary gain in his crime (prison education) speaking still only about himself. For a victim it feels like the crime is happening all over again. To forgive is one thing, but to forget, that only seems to be something the murderer seems to be able to do.

[> [> [> [> victims should come first -- MsGiles, 08:02:11 09/24/03 Wed

I join in as someone who has not experienced violent crime, being very aware of that in the company of those who have.

Thinking about crime, I sometimes feel like someone watching the broiling lava of a volcano, seeing it touch others. Above all, I want it not to touch me. My self-interest rises to the fore, when I think about the issues of crime and punishment. I think 'how can me and mine be best protected?' Will prison keep me safe, or will the rehabilitation of offenders? Will compassionate drug programs or branding and chipping do the trick? As I get older, I notice my liberal instincts being eroded by fear. Like the feeling that drives the film 'Minority Report', which visualises a future where people can justifiably be arrested for thinking of committing crimes.

What I do not want to think about, and what I suspect no-one who has *not* been attacked wants to think about, is what happens once the worst has happened? I, and others, focus on the 'perps' because we want to work out a way of being safe. We forget, or ignore, that even in the most perfect world possible, no-one is perfectly safe. Even in the happy village idylls of the rural past, when everyone left their doors open and helped their neighbours, sometimes bad things happened.

I think you're right that we should learn to focus on healing victims, and only then turn to the possibility of healing criminals, who have expressed their problems by hurting others, and must take second place. We're all scared to be hurt, but it happens. We need to face that and get on with it. A doctor is no good if they are so obsessed with trying to work out what caused the bleeding that they forget to bandage the wound.

I can't bring myself to feel very sorry for Kreuger, on the evidence given. He's had more financial and social success, over a long period of time, than many. He's had a chance to build up a family, and to build trust with them that may enable the family to stay together even now. His losing his job is not the worst thing that's ever happened to a person, nor the most unfair. People lose their jobs because their boss takes a dislike to them, because they develop a work-related illness, because they get pregnant. They lose their lives through war, natural disaster, or because of young idiots on drugs. Kreuger may have been stupid rather than evil, who knows (particularly if drugs were involved), but since then he's been lucky. I don't think he rates either a lynch mob or a support campaign (not that anyone here is advocating either of those things). The people he deals with should know he has this violence in his past, though. It's part of his life, now, and however long he lives, it won't be undone. People can move on, but not be reminted, new.

[> [> [> Very Well said. Agreed. -- s'kat, 14:48:50 09/22/03 Mon

[> Is Krueger a Sociopath? -- dub, 07:10:10 09/23/03 Tue

My lack of sympathy for Krueger is based on the suspicion that he is a sociopath. That suspicion is based solely on this single article, which is an interpretation of the situation by a single reporter/columnist. It could very well be wrong.

My point, however, is that if Krueger is a sociopath then his years of sterling behavior are immaterial in determining whether he will kill again. His motivations will always remain entirely selfish.

Antisocial Personality Disorder results in what is commonly known as a Sociopath. The numbers of persons with this disorder are much higher than generally thought, with nearly 6% of men and over 1% of women having this disorder.

The criteria for this disorder require an ongoing disregard for the rights of others, since the age of 15 years. Some examples of this disregard are reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, deceitfulness such as repeated lying or deceit for personal profit or pleasure, and lack of remorse for actions that hurt other people in any way. Additionally, they must have evidenced a Conduct Disorder before the age of 15 years, and must be at least 18 years old to receive this diagnosis.
People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes.

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want immediate rewards and gratification.

There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of conduct disorder.

(Derek Wood, RN, BSN, PhD Candidate;

[> [> Re: Is Krueger a Sociopath? -- Rook, 14:29:52 09/23/03 Tue

I don't have any particular sympathy for him, but there's no way to make this kind of diagnosis from the information provided. In particular, this bit:

"reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors."

Doesn't at all describe the man presented in the article. If this was the case, there would likely be a string of crimes dating from the time of his release. He certainly appears to have had consistently lawful behavior for the past 38 years.

There are several other characteristics which do not match (His relationship with his wife, good performance at his job), but there isn't enough to say for sure.

Current board | More September 2003