Would you ever write to someone who has commited a crime like murder, sexual assault, child abuser that kind of crimes. Why would u and why wouldn't you? Im curious about that :p
Advertisement
Must read Terms of Service & Privacy Policy and be at least 18
Advertisement
Last post
I wouldnt write to someone associated with any crimes against children simply because I have one and I just think that if I was saying things in a letter about my son then he/she may be thinking different things and nope not for me.
I wont write to anyone on Death Row because I know what its like to get close to someone there and im just not strong enough emotionally to deal with that...selfish I know but thats the way it is.
The circumstances surrounding every single persons crime are different so I guess you should just go with what your comfortable with.
I write to a few guys in for murder. I don't think I'd be able to write to a child abuser/molester.
I will never write to someone who has committed a crime against a child.
Nope sorry i can write to anyone but not a child abuser. My childhood was not good if you know what i mean and sorry its just makes my blood go cold. I think anyone can kill but it takes something evil to child rape.
I don't want to write to someone who commited a murder, rape and child molester. Burglary and assault turn me off too but one of my pal is in for burglary. I can make an exception if he seems nice. I've been carjacked and someone broke into my home twice :hopmad:... i have a real problem with it!
I have no interest in writing to sex offenders or child abusers. I could handle murder depending on the circumstances. Generally I wouldn't write to serial killers or mass murderers unless it was out of pure curiosity, but I doubt I would even bother.
I really don't think I could ever feel comfortable writing someone who had committed a sexual assault regardless of whether the victim was a child or an adult. I think because I see my penfriends as good people who made mistakes, but I don't see sexual assault as being a mistake someone could make, it is a choice and one that I think is much more violent than murder. It is the same reason I might feel comfortable writing someone in for murder under a lot of circumstances, but I would never write a serial killer.
When I first started I thought I wouldn't be able to write to someone who had murdered, but I came across my TX pal's ad and really liked what he had written so I researched the circumstances of his crime (armed robbery gone wrong) and made an exception for him and I don't regret it.
Just like gentoo :yup: And yes I believe there are special circumstances too.
Wow, I guess that just leaves you with drug-related cases only!
I would never write to a child abuser or someone who molested a women or man. There's nothing you can say or do that would make it better in anyway. I would write to a murderer if for example he killed someone who was trying to kill someone in his family or if it was a live or die situation but I wouldn't write a murderer who did it just for the fun of it or something like that.
Oh no, you would be surprised, i had plenty of choice :o between drug charges, possession of firearms, escape the police, fraud, DUI, shoplifting, robbery, RICO, white collar crimes, conspirancy and so on
I honestly have no problem writing to someone who's in for murder. As has been said before, every case has difference circumstances. I wouldn't put it past myself if I ever wrote to a serial killer or someone that just plain out killed someone (no special circumstances). And the reason why I wouldn't put it past myself is because, like many others, I would be curious. God knows I've always, again.. like many others, had a very strong interest in (serial) killers and their minds. So while I wouldn't put it past myself, I wouldn't go into it/treat them like a science experiment though either. AND, it wouldn't mean that I condoned what they did. So far I haven't written to anyone like that, but it wouldn't shock me if maybe I did in the future. As I said earlier though, I wouldn't be able to write to someone that committed a crime involving a child. Be it sexual or murder. My boundaries may seem blurry/weird to some people, but that's just how it is for me.
As a parent, I couldn't bring myself to ever write to anyone I knew had committed a crime of any sort against a child. I also don't think I could ever write to anyone who had sexually abused or even battered another adult - just indicative of a deep well of ugly temper that I don't think I want to tangle with, even on a pen pal basis. I can and have written to people convicted of murder, although the ones I have written too mostly committed their crimes when they were still basically children, or very young adults.
Anyone that committed a crime against a child is a no-no for me. J is in for murder, R is in for capital murder. And I know this sounds ridiculous, but I wouldn't ever write to someone that will be getting out of prison. I know... crazy, huh? Death row or LWOP guys are the only ones that have ever phased me.
No it doesn't sound so crazy :) I don't know if i could write to someone who's in death row. Eventually the moment is there when they are going to do it and if you are writing for several years that should be hard I guess.
I don't want to write with sexual offenders and people who harmed a child. Generally, I would write murderers and DR inmates (which I do now) but as many posters said it depends on the circumstances. Once I have seen an ad of a DR inmate and thought his ad was OK, when I looked his crime up I just wanted to vomit. Murders are always terrible but there are some special cases which are so disgusting to me that I do not want to write anymore.
I'll write to someone in for murder (and I do btw) but it was a gang/drug related offence. NOt some weird, creepy BTK type killing. I draw the line at Child Molestation, Sexual Delinquency, Possession of child porn. Rapists as well, leave me with a bad feeling. So sex crimes basically is my boundary.
On and on second thoughts, no serial killers.
It doesn't matter to me what crime they are serving time for. I don't feel that I am condoning their actions by writing to them. 3 of my pals are in for murder: 1 originally had a rape conviction included with a murder but that was overturned on appeal, 1 was convicted of killing an adult but was also charged with killing a child, 1 was convicted of killing 2 adults. My husband is also doing time for murder.
It's fine if people don't feel they can write to inmates with those kinds of convictions, but I can so I do.
my boundaries: sexual offenders and murder
I've written to all three and I find it and treat them no differently and they are no different than those who went in for drugs, the only exceptions I have made and continue to make are those who are habitual criminals who I cannot see being friends with as find they have no remorse and the only guilt they have is that they got caught and will continue doing so as soon as they get out. And to a [U]much greater extent[/U] and those whom I consider [I]the worst of the worst[/I] are serial killers.
BTW, if this were a question of "which crime is worse", well then my obvious choice is murder since, unlike all the others, there is no coming back from death.
[QUOTE=Stagnated;1026544]I've written to all three and I find it and treat them no differently and they are no different than those who went in for drugs, the only exceptions I have made and continue to make are those who are habitual criminals who I cannot see being friends with as find they have no remorse and the only guilt they have is that they got caught and will continue doing so as soon as they get out. And to a [U]much greater extent[/U] and those whom I consider [I]the worst of the worst[/I] are serial killers.
BTW, if this were a question of "which crime is worse", well then my obvious choice is murder since, unlike all the others, there is no coming back from death.[/QUOTE]
I'll give you that, that there's no coming back from death but i think killing someone in a live or die situation or raping a child is a huge difference. So in that point of view I think raping is worser.
Ha!! I originally wrote with the intention that the inmate wasn't going to be getting out anytime soon to now advocating for his release!! Ironic, ain't it? To me, criminal drug offenders/petty crimes are sketchy and unreliable (have a sister who is a repeat "guest" in CA DOCS, as one example at present) so they were weeded out of my would-be mailing list as would ANY child abuser on ANY level. I don't hold a grudge with adult rape since there are so many "he said/she said" cases between two consenting adults and then sometime later....NOT consenting. I have to still be impartial....so I guess that leaves MURDER as my desirable crime worthy of writing. Hahahahahahahaha....I love it!! It sounds wrong but its so right. Not many in my circle get it, though. Oh well....
Ive got the feeling that murder is the most acceptable PP crime to date. Everyone seems to be snapping murderers up like no body's business.
My sister in law asked me what my guys were in for and I told her that I had 2/3 in for murder and she was like "oh okay,good". She would have had a fit had I said "oh, a child molester and a rapist". Goes to show you.. it's not just us.
Not everyone can rape or molest a child- you have to be wired in a some bizarre way in your head. But we can all lose our temper and kill someone. Highly unlikely for me to be honest, but never say never.
as i said before in here, there are many reasons for killing.but i agree with you a child killer/molester is just wrong wired.there is a special place in hell for those types of people.
i'm seriously trying to understand your reasoning. do you mean that drug crimes and petty crimes are sketchy cause of the fact they got a better chance of getting out and meeting you face to face? or because you think they are what?? just so you know since you are new(i think) lol. i'm coming up on my 3 yrs. drug free anniversary on 11-04-11. i decided to turn my life around so i'm sure other people with "sketchy" crimes can turn their lives around to. but i think you just don't want the possibility of ever being in a real on the outside relationship or friendship.
I've never really given the issue much thought.
In most cases I've not known the actual crime until we'd been writing for a while.
The crimes listed on the conviction so often to not indicate what actually occurred. Especially in the USA, where plea bargaining is allowed.
I honestly don't know what I'd do if I found out that a person that I'd already made a committment of friendship with, turned out to be a serial rapist.
One guy on death row that I wrote to for a very long time turned out to have murdered a child. I looked into the case, got hold of the court records, spoke to both the prosecution and defence lawyers on the telephone, and discovered the circumstances. I continued to write to him, and still do.
I like what Tyler said and want to add that although I don't see myself as the one who grabs the gun from the center console mentality, there is a way I could be driven to it, like anyone, and that is survival mode.
If someone threatened my child's life, in that moment, yes I could kill them. I might lament later that I took a life, any life, but in that moment there would be no impediment to me doing it. Mother bear syndrome can be as powerful as the will to protect my own self. So it wouldn't be losing my temper that made me kill, it would be protecting children or my nervous system kicking in and telling me "kill or be killed."
If someone threatened my life and I had a mode to do it with, I might kill them too because survival mode kicks in and trumps anything in your brain that had said killing is wrong. If your life is threatened, life or death situation, most people would try to fight back.
This is of course all very different than killing for sport or because you see people as objects or because you're anger issues make you insane. But I believe that even I have the seed within me that could take a life if threatened or my child was threatened.
But everyone *does* have the ability to kill without being in survival mode. I had mentioned somewhere else, we ALL have the ability to be a serial killer. We ALL have one trigger that will just make us snap and kill people. Most of us (thankfully) just never had that trigger set off. Serial killers aren't demented, or psycho. They're completely SANE, and that's the scary part. They know exactly what they're doing. Yeah, we may look at them and think "what a demented freak," but they are never found too "insane" to stand trial. Think about it.
Thought about it a lot. Just because they stand trial doesn't mean they are sane
Australia's three worst in my lifetime: (you can google them if you're interested)
Belanglo State Forest (7 confirmed, probably more)
Snowtown (11, possibly more) and
Port Arthur (36) [pleaded guilty, so there was no trial]
All these guys were clearly insane, although there were no definitive diagnoses until they began serving time.
We all have the ability to be a serial killers, certainly, but very few of us have the inclinatiions, and even fewer have that "trigger" that you talk of.
Correct, they know [I]exactly what they are doing[/I] and usually continue doing so until they are caught.
The true 'insanity' is how society has put them on a media pedestal and in certain respect made stars out of them so that they have become 'high profile'. Just what type of 'sane person' would go out of their way to write such people. But write to them they do, by the mail bushels, often without placing any ad, or even seeking a penpal, just because someone saw them on TV :roll:
This is interesting and more interesting to see how it pans out. BBC News - Bexleyheath murder: Nicola Edgington 'unfit' for court
While most serial killers have been found to have personality disorders (anti-social, bipolar, etc.) that doesn't mean they are legally "insane." People diagnosed with personality disorders are not "crazy." They're psychopaths, yes. That's a personality disorder, not mental illness. They'll try to claim schizophrenia (Son of Sam) or something, blame it on an alter ego (H.H. Holmes), but they are not insane. And yes, we may all sit here and say things like "I can control my anger," or "I would never do that," but how do you know? Maybe your trigger hasn't been activated yet. The really scary part is that serial killers are more rational thinkers than you and I probably are.
Ted Bundy was triggered to kill white women with brown hair, parted down the middle, because the woman he was in love with (who had brown hair parted down the middle) wouldn't marry him.
You know how that reads, right? :P
OH and :worship: amen! God knows I've had "crazy" hurled at me a million times.
I think everything you're saying in both comments is important to keep in mind when we're writing to people - not to focus on, but just to know. It's hard to think about because we care about them, but at some point in their lives, no matter how long ago or distant the circumstances - they went there when the average person does not.
Abnormal psychology class in college.
There is a difference between being trained to kill for your job, be you in the military or, say, an executioner. There's a totally different area - that "trigger" I'm talking about. That one thing, no matter how small (see my Ted Bundy example) that will make you snap and kill people to satisfy this urge to kill people. I think you're either being wrongly insulted or not understanding what I'm saying (or both).
And the psychology of serial killers isn't the same as John Doe who got pissed off at baby mama for having another man so he hacks the both of them to death. Two different psychological profiles.
When was it decided that personality disorders were not mental illnesses? And by whom?
The most rational definition that I've been able to come across is that "any disorder that can be treated or controlled by psychotropic medication should be treated, primarily, as a mental disorder".
The sane/insane question is too black/white to be a useful dichotomy.
(Most people with with personality disorders are neither crazy nor psychopathic.)
I keep discussing serial killers because that's how this whole conversation started. Someone said we all have the capability of killing, someone said we didn't, and I said that we all have the ability to become serial killers. I'm not saying everyone has the ability to just go kill someone they hate, they want revenge on, or anything like that. I said we all have that one thing that will cause us to snap. Different things. Maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate.
When was it decided that personality disorders are a mental illness? The problem with defining them as such depends on interpretations of definitions and other assorted crap. Having been diagnosed with a "personality disorder," I don't like being classified as "mentally ill," because I'm not. I have quirks. Just because I'm not whatever people want to call "normal" doesn't mean I'm sick in the head.
No boundares, but just as long they don't
hint around about money.
Please just be honest and come out
and say it.
It's like a secound shoe to drop.
No boundares, but just as long they don't
hint around about money.
Please just be honest and come out
and say it.
It's like a second shoe to drop.
This all comes down to the negative stigma that is attached to mental illness. I to have been diagnosed with several personality disorders: (OCD) I'm a neat freak. (Religious Mania) I go to Mass every day. But I don't baulk at being in the mentally ill basket. I have yet to meet a single person who I would call "normal". But none of the labelling of my personal quirks has ever led me to seriously deny the experts in the field. They sometimes get it wrong, but when they realise that, the mistake is corrected. Examples - homosexuals and people with epilepsy. (I fit both of those definitions as well)
I don't get your reference to dropping shoes. Is that like dropping hairpins?
Yes I can agree with that.
Tyler, just to throw another wrench in... what you're saying... it's touching to me because I think about things from a Buddhist perspective. In this thread I said that I knew I could kill if it came down to my children or the enemy, or myself and my enemy (and I meant- a gun is to my head, trigger about to be pulled, "if" I could make it so the perpetrator died instead of me because one of us had to die in this hypothetical thing, yes, I would go for them to die instead of me.)
People may not want to hear this but: I would have great shame in that. I would wrestle intensely in that case with my spiritual beliefs vs. my survival instinct, after the fact. I am intriuged here by what trumps: spiritual (or moral, whatever you want to call it) beliefs or automatic nervous system overriding everything to save your own ass. It's not decision time any more when the gun is to your head, according to your nervous system. And yet... and yet...what you're saying. Yes.
I know for a fact that my survival mode would kick in if attacked, ahead of my spiritual mode. Though I'm on the path, I do not have it deeply enough engrained in me as I know some practioners of Buddhism do, that would cause them to kill nothing and no one.
There are some that sweep the ground in front of them when they walk so that they step on no bugs and kill nothing. They are deeply ingrained on the path, living and breathing it. I am merely a spectator to such heights.
That was really REALLY hard to realize but I've known it for a while. Nope, wouldn't happen...Mother Bear would trump Buddha's teachings for sure in that regard. There are Buddhists who would not kill under any circumstances, as you said about some soldiers, that and then there are Buddhists that have protested in the streets against government regimes and used violence when violence was directed at them from governments that wanted to crush them. (Monks invented martial arts, after all! Being attacked all the time in their monastaries. Stick fighting!)
I feel that I would rather die myself than take a life, spiritually. Yes, I can believe that for myself. In fact when I think of this whole thing I only see myself with an attacker of my child, defending my child to the death. I can't really conjure up in my mind doing it for myself though I know I would probably die trying. I know this is completely different than the sanctioned government killing in war and I'm jumbling up what I'm trying to say, just: yes, I get what you are saying. For many reasons, not just spiritual, some that can't even be named, there are people who could not cross the barrier and take a life. I almost wish I was one, that would put me very far to where I want to go indeed but at this point I admit, Mother Bear rules.
As it is, if I "had" to kill in this made up scenario we are discussing, it would probably ruin me in some ways, knowing that I had to breech my true beliefs due to violence perpetrated against me or mine by the depths of what the human mind is capable of. Perhaps it is different when you face: kill to save your own child or, kill faceless person in a war. But it brings up a lot of the same issues. What do we want to be to ourselves? What are we forced into and what are we going to object to doing with our very being? My being rejects killing yet, I am a mother.
As to the argument of whether I could become a serial killer, I say that while I may have the brain chemistry that all humans possess, I would say that in this case, my spirituality which runs very deep in my life, would trump the trigger. For me, that is. I know others have had their triggers much closer to the surface and accessed easier. The things that seem to trigger them are not the things that would trigger me: political beliefs, jealous rages, sport, violent urges against a certain type or gender. Thank god I got none of that.
I was touched by what you said of the victims' families that had lost children to perpetrators and had kept their triggers under control somehow. Indeed.
I rambled. Hope I somehow made sense. Y'all spoke articulately on it and I feel I garbled it but anyway, yeah, it makes me think a lot.
[B]Important because[/B]: I am very close to a person who took a life. We talk together a lot on these subjects. He wants to know if it makes him a bad person forever. Or not. I'm very close to this topic.
Anyhow my point was, I was touched by your references to soldiers in this way, too. -sorry so long-
dropping the other shoe means: "waiting for the other shoe to drop," since you take off both shoes, first one, then the other, you're waiting for the bomb to drop, the other part of the scenario to happen, so to say. Lay it on me brother, where's the bad news. Get it?
I so wish I could comment in depth on this (speaking from experience).... However I know there is that something inside everyone. 99.9% of us never even get close to that trigger, and wouldnt recognize that we were getting close to it if we did. Have you ever screamed at a sibling, spouse or child, way beyond what was rational under the circumstances? How easy was that to fly off into that rage? Even if only momentary? Why then if that is possible, that you cannot see it as possible to have a bigger, deeper trigger? One that will send you into a deeper and longer lasting rage? What just happened was A trigger, but not THE trigger. That my friends is only APPROACHING the trigger.. Think about it.