Tortured by Copsters in Police State of Tennessee. Lester Eugene Siler's constitutional rights were violated when five cops tortured him in July 2004, caught on hidden tape recorder. The five cops were convicted and sentenced to federal prison for the same crimes most cop actors do every day on TV.
Synopsis by The Dragonater
In a former life as an automotive sales professional, my most memorable test drive was with a police officer and his horrified wife. The cop's purpose for the test drive was to reach terminal velocity, which we nearly achieved. As in death wish. Debrief revealed this former combat soldier had PTSD. Since he failed to buy a car, I have no record of his name. But I suspect this was the same Rockford cop later arrested for first degree murder, for intentionally ramming his patrol car into sportbike rider Micky Laton. No attempt was made for a traffic stop. Had Mr Laton not been a cop riding his bike to work at the jail, with the crash caught on video and eyewitnessed by a THP trooper, it's safe to presume no criminal charges would ever have been filed. Rockford PD was terminated to protect the municipal corporation from legal liability in the $7-million wrongful death case. A Blount County jury decided the killer cop was immune from the death penalty, by ignoring the cop's own in-car video proving the copkiller's perjury. A Blount deputy made the initial radio call to target the sportbiker.
Since RPD only employed 4 cops, it's a 25% chance I survived my test drive with a serial killer. Since I worked in the car biz with several ex-government serial killers with over 60 hands-on kills, not to mention my own military combat experience with mass murder of women and children for Uncle Scam, this serial-killing copkiller cop is just a minor footnote in my personal catalog of decades of governmental deviance.
Speeding, crossing the double centerline, running stop signs and redlights, reckless driving, drag racing, crashes, vehicular homicide, assault, dope dealing, bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, rape, murder, serial killings, Mafia murder-for-hire -- these are the crimes committed millions of times every day by police officers, on-duty and off. Tennessee Code only provides immunity for traffic crimes to police who utilize both the emergency lights and siren. Cops do not have immunity for extorting sex bribes (rape) during traffic stops (as Barbie Cummings proved against THP with her blowjob defense).
New Mexico State Trooper Bert Lopez raping female motorist during traffic stop, with immunity from arrest and was allowed to find a new job
Occasionally, police officers are arrested and convicted for these and other felonies. Usually, the worst punishment doled out to crooked cops is a suspended paycheck while looking for a job at another police department. When the Dragonater busted hundreds of cops running a copkilling cartheft racket out of Knoxville TN, Big Brother refused to arrest the admitted perpetraitors, but did fire 100 towing contractors and banned them for five years. The Dragonater never got his 2 stolen cars back, never got a hearing in court, and never got a parking ticket (on his own private property). This scam is run in every major US city, proven by class action verdicts against police (paid by tax increases).
Police are currently accused by police of kidnapping, raping and murdering TV infobabe Jodi Huisentruit. This missing persons case has similarities to the Franklin Coverup.
Police officers are "required" to enforce unconstitutional laws as condition of employment. Never mind that unconstitutional laws are void, according to the constitutions and supreme courts. The constitutional right to travel bans all "motor vehicle laws" for noncommercial "drivers". Or jailing millions of US citizens for using the cure for cancer.
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
-Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways by automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,under Constitutional guarantee."
-II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
-Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
-Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489
"Government control of communication and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank
"An officer goes through three different stages while working on the force: first, they're gung-ho, then they become very cynical, then they get to the point where I am -- you just don't give a shit."
-Police on Patrol -- The Other Side of the Story
The Milgram Experiement proved 65% of normal people would become homicidal psychopaths within 1 hour, and 30% would hold the victim down while delivering a fatal 450-volt electrocution. Police have electrocuted or murdered 100,000s of people using tasers, usually for alleged noncrimes, without trial, without conviction, without appeal, even little babies and old grannies.
The Stanford Prison Experiment proved that within 6 days, 100% of normal people would torture innocent people, when given the role of police officer.
Ponerology -- the science of evil -- is the study of how societies routinely degenerate into psychopathic governments, with "essential psychopaths" running a bureaucratic "pathocracy". Eventually the psychopaths take over all levels and branches of society, until enough of the good people freak out and kill them.
Law professor Steven Hartwell proved 96% of people would commit perjury when asked to do so by a government official. Cops proudly call their courtroom crimes "testilying". Law professors teach that 100% of cops lie in traffic court, simply because they cannot remember a specific traffic stop out of 1,000s of traffic stop. The memories blur together, so cops use generic boilerplate testimony and arrest warrants in all cases.
"Individuals are told what to do and usually do what they are told. Tasks are typically divided into small parts, and no single person can complete any job alone. Moreover, people are generally not encouraged or rewarded for doing other than their assigned jobs or for undertaking actions independent of their supervisors. It is possible for individuals to do their jobs well and still produce a deviant action."
-Corporate and Governmental Deviance
Fighting a traffic ticket and winning in traffic court requires several skills. Knowledge of the law and legal system, the ability to feel fear but continue to function effectively, and an operational understanding of psychology are very useful, in life and court.
Police personnel files are open public records, including psychological testing (including psychopathic test scores). Forty percent of police applicants fail the psyche test, so they go to school to learn how to cheat (pretend they are not a psychopath).
In a confrontation with a gun-toting psychopath, it makes no difference whether the psycho is wearing a badge or not, survival depends upon implementing a survival skillset. There is no difference between a mugger and a cop, except the cop takes home a lot more money and enjoys a higher caliber of free government trial lawyer.
2. to steal; filch. 3. to buy (narcotics). 4. cop out, a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out. b. cop a plea. 5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence. b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge as a means of bargaining one's way out of standing trial for a more serious charge; plea-bargain.
-Dictionary.com, Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006
"10% of cops are honest, 10% are dishonest, and 80% wish they were honest. The public, what does the fucking public know?"
-Detective Frank Serpico, NYPD, sworn testimony to the Knapp Commission
"My job was to root out and investigate police corruption, and criminals who've infiltrated the police department. Sure I went after other policemen. After other policemen that were criminals who happened to join the police department. There were drug dealers, murderers, rapists. These are the types of policemen that I went after. The general public should know there are real, serious criminals in the police department. I don't believe that it should be hidden. Let the policemen know that someone they worked with was a murderer, or a drug dealer."
—Detective Vincent Murano, NYPD Internal Affairs, Cop Hunter
"I’ll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won’t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won’t hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?”
-Blount County Deals Gap sheriff James Berrong, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005
In Tennessee, the legislature passed a law PROHIBITING criminal background checks on big-city police chiefs and sheriffs, perhaps to counter reports that the state led the nation with dozens of sheriffs convicted for drug dealing.
As Serpico observed, 10% of cops are not psychopaths, 10% of cops are psychopaths, and 80% are virtual psychopaths, as condition of employment to enslave the sheeple and protect violent scary psychopaths from arrest. This is institutionalized psychopathy, where the daily actions of "normal good" people are indistinguishable from the crimes of a psychopath.
The Dragonater arrested by Park Ranger on Foothills Parkway in Blount County. The federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals opined that its okay for police to break every possible traffic law then destroy the audio/video "evidence". No trial by judge nor jury is allowed in Top Secret federal courts.
A psychopath is defined as a person (predator) without conscience or remorse, with a relative lack of fear, whether or not criminal activity is involved. Violence or homicide is not required to be diagnosed as a psychopath.
At least 4% of everyone you have ever met or seen on TV is a psychopath. According to Serpico, police departments employ 200% more psychopaths compared to the percentage found in society (4%), or 2,000% more psychopaths, depending upon how you interpret his testimony to the Knapp Commission.
The words "psychopath" and "sociopath" (same thing) have been deleted from current psychiatric textbooks. This is because intelligent, relatively sane psychopaths are in complete control of the medical industrial complex and governmental operations. "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and "narcissist" are the new code words for psychopath, the delay retaliation and retribution from the masses. Narcissist and sociopath may be considered synonymous with a subclinical/subcriminal psychopath who has not been arrested, yet, i.e. a successful/functioning psychopath.
"Since the first edition of this book, revisions of the nomenclature have been made by the American Psychiatric Association. The classification of psychopathic personality was changed to that of sociopathic personality in 1958. In 1968 it was changed again to antisocial personality. Like most psychiatrists I continue to think of the people who are the subject of this book as psychopaths and will most often refer to them by this familiar term. Sociopath or antisocial personality will sometimes appear, used as a synonym to designate patients with this specific pattern of disorder. The psychopath presents an important and challenging enigma for which no adequate solution has yet been found."
-Hervey Cleckley, M.D., The Mask of Sanity
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the "psychic driving" concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His "driving" experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions. His treatments resulted in victims' incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents. It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Dr. Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method.
Lying without guilt is the forte of the psychopath. Police officers are required to lie every day as condition of employment, and are never sworn under oath to tell the truth outside of court. Cop shows on TV portray lying cops as the best quality of dicks (detectives), who trick the defendant with false "evidence", imaginary "laws", and non-existent plea offers. "Testilying" is the police term for perjury by police in court to ensure conviction of the "guilty" (and innocent). Citizens who allegedly lie to police are arrested for "obstruction of justice" (Martha Stewart was not under oath when she voluntarily "cooperated" with police). Cops in "police intelligence and organized crime" divisions are required to pass a lie detector test while lying.
Everyone tells "little white lies" and has psychopathic tendencies, and the human race would probably not have survived without them (psychopathic tendencies, if not psychopaths). Perhaps this explains why civilization tolerates psychopaths, and in fact rewards them and worships them every day, even when they are caught committing the most heinous mass murders on live TV?
Defending oneself, family and nation from predators, both animal and human, often requires justifiable homicide. Vegetarians would argue that every carnivore is a psychopath, and many psychopaths are cannibals. Yet many homicidal vegetarians are psychopaths (Adolf Hitler Shicklegruber Rothschild, Bill Gates).
Arrested for speeding very very fast, Gates now impregnates mosquitoes with GMO WMDs and releases them by the millions upon an unsuspecting sheeple
"Civilization" itself is psychopathic, in that corporations (including municipal corporations, i.e. "government") are legally defined as "persons", which by definition are incapable of conscience, remorse or guilt while stealing and killing animals and humans. Humans are only expendable cogs in the corporate machine.
Blount County deputy's in-car video proved deputy broke 6 traffic laws, case dismissed with costs paid by the State
The intelligent non-psychotic violent psychopath will seek employment in government for the benefit of virtual immunity to arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration or execution. If the psychopath wants an especially high bodycount, they will seek federal employment. Wars bombing innocent nations that pose no threat (US invasions of Vietnam, Cambodia, Loas, Thailand, Bosnia, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, etc), false-flag terrorist bombings of their own nations (Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, USS Liberty, Oklahoma City, 9/11), assassinations (JFK, RFK, MLK, JFK Jr), FDA approval of deadly sabotaged drugs, etc.
Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy describes the fact that medical doctors genocide over 10-million US citizens every year. For every baby aborted, a child or adult must also be murdered, to balance the profits of insurance, pension and Social Security Ponzi schemes.
"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."Police officers fill prisons with millions of people who dare possess foods that legally cure cancer (marijuana/hemp/cannibis) or legally relieve pain (opium, cocaine) -- "drugs" that are currently prescribed by medical doctors in every hospital in USA.
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, Death by Medicine, March 2004 (plus 10-Million annual aborticides in USA)
"Harold Shipman, the British family doctor who murdered more than 200 of his patients to become one of the worst serial killers of all time, hanged himself in his prison cell."
—Reuters, Britain's worst serial killer Dr Death dies in prison, Jan 13, 2004
"'People are too trusting, people don't ask the right questions.' Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when he would say that and say, 'People don't ask the right questions,' it was almost with a sense of regret, as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting."
-Dr. Lawrence Dunegan MD, quoting Dr. Richard Day MD who was director of a corporation paid $1-billion by the U.S. Govt to successfully genocide 100-million U.S. citizens, New Order of the Barbarians
Intelligent psychopaths work together to accomplish their mutual goals of stealing wealth and power, with the most-ruthless rising to the top of the pyramid scheme (combined with the Eye of Lucifer/Satan it becomes the official seal of the US Govt).
"The whole government is a Ponzi scheme. Am I a psychopath?"
-Jew Bernie Madoff, convicted founder of the NASDAQ stock exchange who stole $150-Billion...more than all other criminals in USA combined (not counting the quadrillion$ stolen by the foreign private "Federal" Reserve Bank)
There is no known medical or psychiatric treatment for a true psychopath, since there appears to be brain "damage" involved. Identification and indefinite incarceration or execution of psychopaths is the only known cure.
It takes one to know one?
The survival of the human race shall require all nations to learn how to identify 100% of psychopaths -- not to recruit them into the conspiracy, but to incarcerate and execute them en mass. Families, schools, media and religions shall be required to prevent manufacturing psychopaths, by emphasizing daily human contact and family ties. Removing children from homes and incarcerating them in "schools" (surrounded by locked doors and fences patrolled by armed police officers exercising deadly force) only increases production of psychopaths.
The following is a review of the literature investigating police officers as a psychopathic subclass, among other mental illnesses.
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (not the same as obsessive-compulsive disorder) (DSM-IV code 301.4): characterized by rigid conformity to rules, moral codes and excessive orderliness. In 2005, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, interviewed and gave personality tests to high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminal psychiatric patients at Broadmoor Hospital in the UK. They found that one out of eleven personality disorders were actually more pronounced in executives than in the disturbed criminals: Histrionic personality disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation. Furthermore, they found no significant difference in the average scores of executives and the disturbed criminal offenders on two out of the eleven scales: Narcissistic personality disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence. Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder
According to the National Institute for Mental Health: OCPD has some of the same symptoms as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, people with OCD have unwanted thoughts, while people with OCPD believe that their thoughts are correct. Perception of own and others' actions and beliefs tend to be polarised (i.e., "right" or "wrong", with little or no margin between the two) for people with this disorder. As might be expected, such rigidity places strain on interpersonal relationships, with frustration sometimes turning into anger and even violence. This is known as disinhibition. People with OCPD often tend to general (pessimism) and/or underlying form(s) of depression. This can at times become so serious that suicide is a risk. Research into the familial tendency of OCPD may be illuminated by DNA studies. Two studies suggest that people with a particular form of the DRD3 gene are highly likely to develop OCPD and depression, particularly if they are male. Genetic concomitants, however, may lie dormant until triggered by events in the lives of those who are predisposed to OCPD. These events could include trauma faced during childhood, such as physical, emotional or sexual abuse, or other types of psychological trauma. Theodore Millon identified five subtypes of compulsive: Bureaucratic compulsive—including narcissistic features.
But first, what does a psychopath look like? Are they bloodthirsty cannibals like Sgt Jeffrey Dahmer talking their way out of traffic stop with half-eaten corpses in their trunk? Are they rising stars in the Republican Party who dig up rotting corpses to have sex with them like Ted Bundy? Are they presidents of the United States who run around naked holding Rabbi David Rockefeller's penis while performing ritual human sacrifice to Satan and hunt naked women with guns then rape and/or kill them like Dick Cheney (who personally offered the Dragonater's wife a job at the Pentagon)?
US presidents performing snuff kiddie porn in the land of fruits and nuts while protected by Sonoma County sheriff deputies, FBI and Secret Service cops
"It is these psychopaths - the ones who avoid detection - who become successful and ruthless politicians and government insiders, as was the case with Hermann Göring and Lavrentiy Beria (who will be discussed in future columns) and is probably the case with contemporary politicians like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, American ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. These men achieve the heights of power, and they are dangerous."
-Ponerology 101: The Psychopath's Mask of Sanity
"Why shouldn't fact be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, HAS to make sense."
-Mark Twain, aka Sam Clemens, member of Bohemian Grove
Psychopaths… we usually only know them from Hollywood movies. We never expect them to enter our real life. But, the psychopath is closer than you think. Experts believe their number to be as high as one in a hundred. Most of them function incognito in high-powered professions…all the way to the very top.
But… it takes one to truly know one. In this intriguing documentary, Sam Vaknin, a self-proclaimed psychopath, goes in search of a diagnosis. In a scientific first, he allows himself to undergo testing to find out if he was born without a conscience. He knows he’s narcissistic and cannot empathize with others. By his own admission, he’s pompous, grandiose, repulsive and contradictory, ruthless and devoid of scruples, capricious and unfathomable… but he believes, he’s not a bad person. What he is is indifferent…he couldn’t care less. Unless, of course, the topic is himself.
Vaknin and his long-suffering but ever-loyal wife, Lidija, embark on a diagnostic road trip. But, it’s uncharted territory… deep into the mind and life of a psychopath. The 47-year-old convicted corporate criminal has agreed to take part in the pursuit of his own diagnosis… meeting the world’s experts in psychopathy in the hope that science will provide some answers for why he is like he is. These experts put Vaknin (and his wife) through a battery of rigorous psychological tests and neuro-scientific experiments.
Vaknin is shocked at the results. Sam, his wife, the scientists, the film-makers – will they ever be quite the same again?
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, by Sam Vaknin was first
published in 1997 and is now in its fourth impression. The author is a self-diagnosed "Narcissist" who reached this conclusion while incarcerated in an Israeli prison. Mr. Vaknin describes a process of examining how he came to be in prison, with his marriage over and his finances in shocking condition. Mr. Vaknin has stated that he has never attempted to work through his issues in a formal therapy, rather he believes that his writing to be his therapy. It is my understanding that since this book first came into print that he has also come to describe himself as schizoid and misanthrope. It is interesting that he likes America well enough to buy a degree from one of our diploma mills, and obtain a counseling certificate from one of our online schools, thereby obtaining credentials without doing the work required of others.
Blount County Bogus Degrees, No Apology, No Moral Compass - The recent article in the The Daily Times about the Circuit Court Clerk, former deputy Tom Hatcher, purchasing a bogus Bachelors degree with $3910 of County money highlights the absence of a clear moral compass in the county administration. It also shows the result of inadequate policies to govern the behavior of our county officials. Hatcher purchased the "degree" from an outfit called Columbus University in Picayune, Mississippi. He issued a county purchase order on 12/29/04 to pay his $3910 "tuition." Apparently he was able to zip through his course requirements, while holding his full-time county job, because he claimed on his county website (until yesterday) that he was awarded his "Bachelors Degree" from Columbus in 2005. All of this may have been feasible, since the Daily Times showed that the mailing address of Columbus University was actually the location of 'The Renewed Attitudes Massage and Body Sculpting Studio'. Hutcher's son Dustin Hatcher, a Blount County judicial commissioner with a degree from Automotive Stereo School, pled guilty to raping a minor in the Justice Center.
Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness and sometimes (sexual) apathy, with a simultaneous rich, elaborate and exclusively internal fantasy world. SPD is not the same as schizophrenia, although they share some similar characteristics such as detachment or blunted affect; there is increased prevalence of the disorder in families with schizophrenia.
Misanthropy is generalized dislike, distrust, disgust, contempt or hatred of the human species or human nature. A misanthrope is someone who holds such views or feelings.
The Horrific Life of the Police Officer
by Mark R. Crovelli
March 24, 2011
Few people in the world seem to appreciate just how awful it is to be a government police officer. It’s not that the job involves particularly physically demanding work, or that the job is particularly dangerous. In fact, the work is not nearly physically demanding enough (as the cop fatness problem demonstrates), and neither is it particularly dangerous (being a cop doesn’t even make the top ten most dangerous jobs). Nor is the job terrible because of the unstated obligation to wear a tawdry mustache in public. Instead, what makes the job so horrific is the fact that it requires living a completely contradictory moral life.
Unlike normal human beings, whose jobs require adherence to the same moral standards that apply in their private lives, police officers are required to act in ways they would never even consider in their private lives. For forty hours a week (or more, if they are trying to milk their departments’ overtime rackets), police officers are required to forget the moral standards that govern their private interactions with their own friends, families and neighbors and adopt the moral outlook of the sociopath and the gangster.
Specifically, the job of the police officer involves giving orders to strangers and locking them up in cages if they choose not to obey. Unless the police officer is a complete sociopath, he would never consider acting in such a way in his private life. With his blue polyester in the closet, for example, the off-duty police officer would never consider putting his grandpa in a cage if he refuses to obey orders. He would never consider electrocuting his children or his grandmother for refusing to do what he tells them. He would never consider beating up his neighbor if she refused to stop her car and show a picture of herself embossed on government plastic. But he is expected to do precisely these types of things to people he doesn’t even know in his "professional" life if they refuse to do what he and his bosses tell them.
The fact that many, many police officers are indeed complete psychopaths should thus not come as a particular surprise. Indeed, the job is tailor made for the psychopath and the sociopath who is comfortable with feelings of cognitive dissonance. People with normally calibrated moral compasses would shudder to think that they would be required to lock people up in cages, electrocute them, or beat them with clubs for not doing as they are told. It would confuse and trouble the normal person to think that by putting on a blue polyester suit, mustache, and riding boots it was suddenly morally acceptable to order people around at the point of a gun (not to mention the icy shudder they would feel at the thought of wearing the ridiculous kit itself). It would horrify the normal person to think that part of his job involved smashing down strange people’s doors, taking their children, shackling them, locking them in cages, stealing their drugs and guns, and shooting them if they happen to resist.
The man with a normally calibrated moral compass is equally disturbed to contemplate that the purported justification for acting in these barbaric ways was that politicians, of all people, told them to. It is not as though God Himself or the Pope gives the police officer sanction to lock people in cages and to order them about. Quite the reverse, the sanction comes from people of such sterling moral character as the coke-snorting drunk driver, Bush II, and the drug-cartel-connected perjurer, Clinton I. The sociopath and the psychopath are not troubled by the fact that their only justification for ordering strange people around is that a pack of corrupt millionaires in Washington or Denver told them to, which is what makes such people sociopaths and psychopaths in the first place. The normal person, in contrast, is not willing to do things to other people that they clearly resent or despise, or to order them to do things they oppose, just because a politician says so.
The person with a normally calibrated moral compass would begin to wonder why the moral standards that govern his private life with friends and family, and which produce relative peace and harmony in that sphere of his life, do not apply to all situations. Why, the normal person will inevitably wonder, is there any peace in his family, when no one wears a special blue suit or has the right to order everyone around and shackle resisters? How is it possible that he can get along with his friends at the bowling alley, when none of them is assigned to break into cars to search for substances the politicians dislike, and none of them has a right to steal anyone else’s children? In short, the normal person will begin to wonder why the people who claim to "protect us" are not held to the same moral standards as everyone else.
The answer to these questions is simple, even if the person with a normally calibrated moral compass often cannot see it through the clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the normal person feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to.
The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers.
The key to liberating the police officer from the contradictory and perverted moral life he currently leads is simply to privatize the provision of defense services. Freed from the need to push arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on strange people, the police officer would then be a moral equal to everyone else in the world who was striving to make money by serving consumers. He would also, one hopes, be liberated from the requirement to wear the most ridiculous bureaucratic costume ever devised by man.
click main article link for sublinks
The Impact of Police-Perpetrated Domestic Violence
from Domestic Violence by Police Officers. Donald C. Sheehan (ed.) pp 375-382. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000
Many of the same qualities valued in on-duty police officers can make those same officers dangerous perpetrators of domestic violence. All abusers employ similar methods to control and abuse their intimate partners. Officers however, have an arsenal of skills and tactics not commonly possessed by civilians. Professional training in the use of force and weapons, intimidation, interrogation and surveillance techniques along with the cultural climate coalesce into a dangerous and potentially lethal combination in a domestic situation. Victims face the bias of law enforcement agencies and the legal system, psychological intimidation, and high risk of lethality.
This article examines the dynamics of police-perpetrated domestic violence and how it impacts the victim, the department, and the community. It explores how a police officer's training and professional life contribute to his arsenal of techniques and tactics of abuse. Finally, the article describes in detail the unique dilemma encountered by victims whose abusers are members of law enforcement.
Historical ChallengesDomestic violence is unique in that the parties share a personal, emotional and sexual relationship. By definition, domestic violence occurs within the family and generally within the privacy of the home. Only physical abuse or the threat of physical abuse is against the law. Discussion of verbal, emotional, sexual or psychological abuse is thus often considered irrelevant.
However, domestic violence is not solely about physical abuse. Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behaviors used to intimidate and manipulate the victim for the purpose of gaining and maintaining control. It is precisely because of the non-physical types of abuse that the physical abuse "works" to control the victim. Talking exclusively about physical abuse takes these acts out of context and makes them similar to assault or battery by a stranger.
This pattern of violence takes place in a confused climate of intimacy and love mixed with hope, fear, isolation and intimidation. It is common for a woman to tell her counselor that she cannot call the police on her intimate partner or have him arrested because she does not want to betray his trust. She defends his character and makes excuses for his behavior. She may take responsibility for the abuse believing that she provoked it. She feels she must protect him out of a combination of fear and love.
Twenty years ago domestic violence advocates were considered radical when they suggested that a woman call the police when battered by her intimate partner.
This notion confronted men's sense of entitlement to dominate and to rule in the privacy of their homes. In step with the civil rights movement, women's right to be safe from bodily harm, even within their own homes, was recognized. States passed laws to protect women from violent husbands and intimate partners, moving domestic violence into the criminal arena.
Some police officers were reluctant to recognize domestic violence as a criminal offense and avoided enforcing the law. Years ago, police commonly told us that breaking up "marital disputes" and "lovers' quarrels" was not police work, but social work.
Many police officers still express frustration when victims call for intervention and then plead with the officer not to arrest the abuser. Police are discouraged by the number of cases in which the victim drops criminal charges. Over time, and with education on the dynamics of domestic violence, most police officers have come to consider domestic violence within the range of legitimate police work.
The final obstacle to overcome is police officers' reluctance to consider domestic violence a crime when it is perpetrated by one of their own.
Their strong sense of the police family dissuades them from considering police domestic violence a criminal offense, not unlike their attitude toward civilian domestic violence twenty years ago. Victims of police officers not only challenge the image of the personal family, they challenge the concept of the police family as well.
When domestic violence occurs in a police home, police departments choose to keep the incident a family secret and deal with it in-house. By treating the crime of domestic battery as a private matter or a marital problem, police departments regress to the approach of twenty years ago. The department hesitates to interfere in an employee's private life, and is extremely uncomfortable with the legal requirement to treat the offending officer like a common criminal. The victim, not the abuser, is identified as the traitor. The forces gather to silence her and to protect him.
Misuse of Institutional PowerPolice abusers differ from other abusers only in that they are tougher and more dangerous. They have training, a badge, a gun and the weight of the police culture behind them. Smart police do not hit, slap, kick, or choke their partners. It is not necessary. They exercise their power and control by intimidating, isolating and terrifying the victim. These forms of abuse need to be addressed when the perpetrator is an officer. They are misuses of institutional power — the badge, the gun, the support of the department — and there is the constant threat that he will use them all against her.
Police are trained to walk in and take control of any situation. Their mere presence, voice and stance are used to establish their authority. They learn a full range of information-gathering techniques ranging from interviewing and interrogating to vigilant surveillance. The proficient use of these investigative techniques requires the ability to be manipulative and deceptive.
Training includes much instruction on the use of escalating degrees of force and the use of deadly force. The use of force by a police officer is a serious matter and force is to be used only when necessary to enforce his position of authority. Police know which situations justify the use of force and how to adequately explain it should they have to defend their actions in a court of law.
Tactics of Abuse
The same characteristics and skills that are developed in training to produce competent officers are those that, when used in an intimate relationship, make police officers the most dangerous abusers.
The problem occurs when the officer walks through the front door of his home with the same mind-set he has in his professional life. His sense of entitlement to authority and respect from civilians carries over to his intimate partner. He cannot conceive of an egalitarian relationship. He must always be dominant and in control. Even a minor disagreement is perceived as a challenge to his authority which he will not tolerate. He uses his many finely honed skills and tactics to impress upon the victim that he has total control over her life.
Police officers use professional skills, police equipment, and the mobility of the job to keep their partners under surveillance. They run license plates of her friends and have access to information about anyone with whom she associates. They follow in their squad cars, park their squads or unmarked cars outside the victim's home for hours on end. They install recording devices in the victim's home or on her telephone. They use binoculars to observe the victim's activities from a distance. These methods serve as a constant reminder to the victim that she is always within the abuser's reach. He comes to be seen as omniscient and omnipotent, almost god-like.
The abuser uses verbal intimidation and degradation to communicate to the victim that she has no power in their relationship. He uses words as weapons to embarrass and humiliate her. He screams at her as if she was a criminal on the street — his voice and face changes; he uses vile language. He tells the victim she is no better than the whores and scumbags he deals with on the job every day.
Sometimes the verbal attack is used to provoke a confrontation for which he can then retaliate. If the verbal intimidation fails to gain control or earn the appropriate level of respect desired, the police abuser uses his training in the use of physical force. He then blames the victim for pushing him too far and making him batter her.
Physical abuse in police-perpetrated domestic violence is extremely brutal. It includes punching, choking, kicking, choke holds and body slams as well as techniques that inflict great pain yet leave no bruises or broken bones. He may hold a loaded gun to the victim's head or a fire a shot in close proximity to her sleeping child.
The abuser reinforces the victim's sense of isolation and hopelessness by frequently reminding her that there is no escape. He tells her she can call the police, but asks her who she thinks they will believe — him, or her? He tells her she can leave, but wherever she goes he will hunt her down. She can press charges against him, but she does not have enough evidence or credibility to make them stick. If she does manage to get him convicted, he will lose his job and then she will have no financial support for their children. He threatens that if he loses his job, she will lose her life.
Community Response Missing
If the victim has ever tried to escape before, she knows the truth in what he is saying. The victim knows that he will find her if she goes to a shelter because he knows or can easily find out where shelters are located. Most of her family and friends are afraid of him and afraid to be involved.
In general, the smaller the town, the fewer options she has; and the higher his rank, the fewer people who are willing to help her.
If the woman calls the police, she sees that when the police arrive at the scene and learn that the alleged perpetrator is a police officer, a shift takes place. The responding officers are now responding not to the victim of a crime, but to an officer in need.
Because most police departments do not have a policy addressing police-perpetrated domestic violence, the responding officers, who are the abuser's colleagues, use their discretion in handling the call. The responding officers are likely to discourage the victim from signing a complaint. They urge her to consider his career, to think about all the good things they share, to think about their kids. They assure her that he's a good man and a good police officer, that he's just under a lot of stress. They promise to talk to him off the record and invoke the code of silence. The responding officers do not inform their superiors and life goes on, for the abuser, as if nothing ever happened.
Laws and Policy Backfire
Victims must overcome nearly insurmountable obstacles to pursue charges.
Where the victim does press charges, she is accused of being vindictive and going after his job. Obtaining a protective order is perceived as an act of aggression. The victim faces a legal system that is hostile and foreign to her, but is his daily work environment. He knows the system and the players in the system are his acquaintances and co-workers.
The court's leniency with perpetrators who are members of law enforcement has intensified since the passage of the Lautenberg amendment that prohibits anyone convicted of a domestic battery from possessing a firearm. The amendment provides no exemption for police officers even though the performance of their official duties requires possession of a firearm.
The law backfires on the victim because her complaint jeopardizes the officer's career. It is unlikely that losing his job will deter future wife abuse. Most often the violence will escalate because he will blame her for the loss of his job. In some cases the violence will be lethal because the abuser will feel he has nothing left to lose. His job is his identity. Confiscating the abuser's service weapon may protect the department from liability, but it does not protect the victim.
If the victim goes to the department, her complaint is received in a defensive or hostile manner. The victim is perceived as hysterical, exaggerating, or lying. After this initial response to her complaint, the victim reasonably can conclude that the subsequent investigation, should there be one, is often biased in favor of the abuser. The victim does not know where to turn.
When the victim is a police officer, her jeopardy is compounded. Her family, her career, and her life are at risk. She defies everyone's stereotype of a victim and image of a police officer. Her colleagues question her professional competence. If her abuser is also an officer, she is breaking the police code of silence by exposing him. Her colleagues may well turn against her and side with her abuser. Abused officers are often disciplined by the department whether they report or fail to report the abuse.
Confidentiality in Question
Some departments have an in-house victim advocate. Victims understandably are reluctant to confide in the advocate because the advocate is an employee of the department. The victims fear that their confidentiality will be compromised. For example, a department advocate may deem a breach of confidentiality to be in the victim's best interest. The advocate may decide to breach confidentiality in an effort to cooperate with the department or in response to a conflict between the advocate and the department.
Some departments employ social workers. Their crisis intervention in domestic violence cases frequently includes counseling both the victim and the offender. The same limitations that restrict the effectiveness of a department advocate restrict the effectiveness of a police social worker. The victim is acutely aware that the police social worker and the abuser are co-workers. The daily cooperative working relationship between the social worker and the officers presents a serious conflict of interest and loyalties. It is ludicrous to expect these victims, of all victims, to trust anyone employed by the police department.
In the same vein, many employees refuse to utilize Employee Assistance Programs when they have problems that jeopardize their careers. Employees simply do not trust that their confidentiality will be protected. Domestic violence advocates' concern is that many EAP-referred therapists and social workers lack training in the field of domestic violence.
Misinformation or unrealistic advice could have lethal consequences for all parties involved.
Mandated Batterers' Counseling
Departments could begin to address the problem by mandating abusive police officers into counseling affiliated with a domestic violence program. In Illinois, a certification process ensures that counselors who work with offenders follow a state-approved protocol.
Some police administrators suggest that offenders' treatment would be more palatable to the officers if there were groups exclusively for police officers. Rationalizations for an exclusive group must be closely examined. The primary assumption is that a police officer will be in an uncomfortable, embarrassing, or compromising position if he is required to attend batterers' counseling with civilians with whom he may later have professional contact. Surely doctors, lawyers, ministers and others in the community who attend batterers' groups have those same concerns regarding their personal reputations and careers.
Creating special groups for police officers only reinforces their elite status and reinforces the concept that they are somehow superior to the average criminal offender.
Police abusers differ from civilian abusers only in that they have the advantages of their training, their badge, their gun, and the weight of their tight-knit culture behind them.
This distinction makes their criminal behavior more egregious in that it is a misuse of official power and privilege. Perhaps it would be a good thing for an officer to be in a group with the guy down the street whom he arrested on a domestic violence call. He can see just how similar they are — except for the training, the badge, the gun, and the police to back him up.
Victims and abusers desperately seek ways to remove the burden of responsibility from the offender and to place it elsewhere. For example, the stress of police work, unstable working hours, and frustration with the system are often professed to be the factors that cause police officers to batter their intimate partners. Attributing the use of violence to a chemical imbalance or a personality disorder is also problematic. Alcohol and drug use, stress, posttraumatic stress, poor impulse control, intermittent explosive disorder, and poor anger management are common defenses.
However, these all beg the question as to why they manifest only in the presence of others who are powerless against the abuser. Rarely do we hear of police officers using violence against a superior officer or a judge in a court of law. We must remain focused on the dynamics of power and control in our analysis of police violence, and not be distracted by analysis of stress or anger management.
Confidential Victims' Advocacy
Victims of police-perpetrated domestic violence should be referred to a local domestic violence agency. There the victim has the protection of confidentiality. She knows that her counselor is not aligned with the police department that employs her abuser. She does not run the risk that her advocate will share information with the department. Domestic violence advocates in domestic violence agencies can learn the dynamics unique to police officer-involved domestic violence. Though vastly intensified, the dynamics of power and control are the same as in civilian cases.
An advocate can discuss numerous options with the victim, including the option of informing the police department of the abuse. A victim's desire to inform the department is often based on the hope that the department can somehow hold the abuser's violence in check. A realistic discussion of this option requires knowledge of the department's attitude, policy and procedures. Both a policy and a cooperative working relationship between the domestic violence agency and the police department are essential.
If a woman decides that she wants to talk to the chief, an advocate can act as a liaison and a source of emotional support and advocacy. The advocate works with the victim to set realistic expectations as to what intervention is within the chief's power.
Some victims want the department to discipline the abuser, others want the department to mandate that the abuser receive counseling. The advocate advises the victim that the department becomes liable once the chief is informed. Depending on the severity of the abuse, the chief may terminate the officer's employment. Many times this is not a practical solution for the victim because she and her children are financially dependent on his income. Other times, the victim fears that the abuser's retaliation would cost her life and so chooses to remain silent.
Building a support system for the victim ideally includes assistance from the chief of the involved department. I met with police chiefs in our suburban area. They assured me that they do not condone the abuse of police power and privilege demonstrated by abusive police officers, nor do they wish to bear the liability for an abusive officer in their department. We discussed the risk to the victim in coming forward, what action the department would take to protect the victim, and what action the department might take to hold the officer accountable.
I informed them of the advantages of having a domestic violence agency, independent of the department, provide information and counseling to victims of police officers. We discussed the prevalence of police-perpetrated domestic violence and whether there is need for a formal policy and procedures in responding to officer-involved cases.
Impact on Community
There is serious impact on the community when police officers gain a reputation for getting away with domestic violence. The media have exposed many cases in which little or nothing has been done by police departments or the criminal justice system to hold the abuser accountable or to protect the victim. This breeds skepticism and distrust of the police in the general public, and affirms the worst nightmares of the victims. Abusive police officers are validated in their belief that they are above the law.
When I speak to community groups about our program, it is clear that members of the community are very concerned that the same police officer who terrorizes his family could respond to a domestic violence call in their own family or neighborhood.
It greatly disturbs their sense of safety when they learn that complaints are made by victims and the department looks the other way because the perpetrator is one of their own. When people doubt the integrity of the police officers in their community it undermines the effectiveness of the police and puts all citizens at risk.
We have grave concerns regarding how police officers who commit the crime of domestic battery respond to domestic violence calls in the community. Obviously, their attitude may be less than appropriate in dealing with either party. Moreover, a police officer who is sympathetic to an abuser may not adequately protect a victim, projecting his own beliefs that women exaggerate the danger.
An officer who feels he is unjustly restrained by court order from contact with his wife or children may feel that other men are also unjustly sanctioned. That officer may be reluctant to enforce a protective order. Another potential problem is that police officers frequently testify in criminal cases against civilian abusers. We fear that testimony may be tainted due to personal bias when the witness is himself an offender.
Most police perpetrators' greatest fear is the loss of their job. A department's policy and attitude may be the most influential factors in deterring police domestic violence. Police departments have a responsibility to their employees and their employees' families to confront this problem. Domestic violence is not a private matter in any household. It is a crime. The claim that society is holding police officers to a higher standard is clearly unfounded. Officers are sworn not only to enforce the law, but to abide by it.
Did you know President JFK was shot in front of the Dallas Police Department and offices of the FBI, Secret Service and military intelligence as part of Operation Northwoods, and the patsy who claimed innocence was murdered inside that same police station by a jewish mobster, who said he was murdered by lethal injection in that same jail after winning a new trial?
The psychopathic deviate scale of the MMPI in police selection
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology
Volume 10, Number 4, 57-60, DOI: 10.1007/BF02812870
The Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Scale of the MMPI is often used by police departments in police selection. Unfortunately very little research data exists to substantiate the power of the Pd scale in police selection. In this study, self-ratings of satisfaction and performance of police officers were assessed using the Zytowski Personal Data Questionnaire. The Pd scale showed promise but the correlation between Pd and rated satisfaction was non-significant. When the scale was divided into Pd Obvious and Pd Subtle and correlated with satisfaction, a significant correlation between Pd Subtle and rated satisfaction emerged. When male officers alone were assessed, the results were even more significant. Included in the Pd Subtle are less transparent items which is a partial explanation of the results. For males, the Pd2 Authority Problems scale correlated significantly with both satisfaction and performance. The promise of the Pd Subtle as well as the Pd2 scales need to be investigated further.
Download full text PDF (311.2 KB)
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - MMPI-2
History of the MMPI-2
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was developed in the late 1930’s by psychologist Starke R. Hathaway and psychiatrist J.C. McKinley at the University of Minnesota. Today, it is the frequently used clinical testing instrument and is one of the most researched psychological tests in existence. The MMPI is not a perfect test, but it remains a valuable tool in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.
Use of the MMPI-2
The MMPI-2 is most commonly used by mental health professionals to assess and diagnose mental illness. The MMPI-2 has been utilized in other fields outside of clinical psychology. The test is often used in legal cases, including criminal defense and custody disputes. The test has also been used as screening instrument for certain professions, especially high risk jobs, although the use of the MMPI in this manner has been controversial. The test is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment programs, including substance abuse programs.
In the years after the test was first published, clinicians and researchers began to question the accuracy of the MMPI. Critics pointed out that the original sample group was inadequate. Others argued that the results indicated possible test bias, while other felt the test itself contained sexist and racist questions. In response to these issues, the MMPI underwent a revision in the late 1980’s. Many questions were removed or reworded while a number of new questions were added. Additionally, new validity scales were incorporated in the revised test.
The revised edition of the test was released in 1989 as the MMPI-2. While the test received revision again in 2001, the MMPI-2 is still in use today and is the most frequently used clinical assessment test. Because the MMPI-2 is copyrighted by the University of Minnesota, clinicians must pay to administer and utilize the test.
Administering the MMPI-2
The MMPI-2 contains 567 test items and takes approximately 60 to 90 minutes to complete. The MMPI should be administered, scored, and interpreted by a professional, preferably a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, who has received specific training in MMPI use. The MMPI should be used in collaboration with other assessment tools. Diagnosis should never be made solely on the results of an MMPI test. The MMPI-2 can be administered individually or in groups and computerized versions are available. The test is designed for individual’s age 18 and older. The test can be scored by hand or by computer, but results should always be interpreted by a qualified mental health professional that has had extensive training in MMPI-2 interpretation.
The 10 Scales of the MMPI-2
The MMPI has 10 clinical scales that are used to indicate different psychotic conditions. Despite the names given to each scale, they are not a pure measure since many conditions have overlapping symptoms. Because of this, most psychologists simply refer to each scale by number.
Scale 1 – Hypochondriasis: This scale was designed to asses a neurotic concern over bodily functioning. The 32-items on this scale concern somatic symptoms and physical well being. The scale was originally developed to identify patients displaying the symptoms of hypochondria.
Scale 2 – Depression: This scale was originally designed to identify depression, characterized by poor morale, lack of hope in the future, and a general dissatisfaction with one's own life situation. Very high scores may indicate depression, while moderate scores tend to reveal a general dissatisfaction with one’s life.
Scale 3 – Hysteria: The third scale was originally designed to identify those who display hysteria in stressful situations. Those who are well educated and of a high social class tend to score higher on this scale. Women also tend to score higher than men on this scale.
Scale 4 - Psychopathic Deviate: Originally developed to identify psychopathic patients, this scale measures social deviation, lack of acceptance of authority, and amorality. This scale can be thought of as a measure of disobedience. High scorers tend to be more rebellious, while low scorers are more accepting of authority. Despite the name of this scale, high scorers are usually diagnosed with a personality disorder rather than a psychotic disorder.
Scale 5 – Masculinity/Femininity: This scale was designed by the original author’s to identify homosexual tendencies, but was found to be largely ineffective. High scores on this scale are related to factors such as intelligence, socioeconomic status, and education. Women tend to score low on this scale.
Scale 6 – Paranoia: This scale was originally developed to identify patients with paranoid symptoms such as suspiciousness, feelings of persecution, grandiose self-concepts, excessive sensitivity, and rigid attitudes. Those who score high on this scale tend to have paranoid symptoms.
Scale 7 – Psychasthenia: This diagnostic label is no longer used today and the symptoms described on this scale are more reflective of obsessive-compulsive disorder. This scale was originally used to measure excessive doubts, compulsions, obsessions, and unreasonable fears.
Scale 8 – Schizophrenia: This scale was originally developed to identify schizophrenic patients and reflects a wide variety of areas including bizarre thought processes and peculiar perceptions, social alienation, poor familial relationships, difficulties in concentration and impulse control, lack of deep interests, disturbing questions of self-worth and self-identity, and sexual difficulties. This scale is considered difficult to interpret.
Scale 9 – Hypomania: This scale was developed to identify characteristics of hypomania such as elevated mood, accelerated speech and motor activity, irritability, flight of ideas, and brief periods of depression.
Scale 0 – Social Introversion: This scale was developed later than the other nine scales as is designed to assess a person’s tendency to withdraw from social contacts and responsibilities.
Validity Scales of the MMPI-2
The L Scale: Also referred to as the “lie scale,” this validity scale was developed to detect attempts by patients to present themselves in a favorable light. People who score high on this scale deliberately try to present themselves in the most positive way possible, rejecting shortcomings or unfavorable characteristics. Well-educated people from higher social classes tend to score lower on the L scale.
The F Scale: This scale is used to detect attempts at “faking good” or “faking bad.” Essentially, people who score high on this test are trying to appear better or worse than they really are. This scale asks questions designed to determine if test-takers are contradicting themselves in their responses.
The K Scale: Sometimes referred to as the “defensiveness scale,” this scale is a more effective and less obvious way of detecting attempts to present oneself in the best possible way. Research has demonstrated, however, that those of a higher educational level and socioeconomic status tend to score higher on the K Scale.
The ? Scale: Also known as the “cannot say” scale, this validity scale is the number of items left unanswered. The MMPI manual recommends that any test with 30 or more unanswered questions be declared invalid.
TRIN Scale: The True Response Inconsistency Scale was developed to detect patients who respond inconsistently. This section consists of 23 paired questions that are opposite of each other.
VRIN Scale: The Variable Response Inconsistency Scale is another method developed to detect inconsistent responses.
The Fb Scale: This scale is composed of 40 items that less than 10% of normal respondents support. High scores on this scale sometimes indicate that the respondent stopped paying attention and began answering questions randomly.
Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy, and Psychopathy
Hare's PCL-R 20-item checklist is based on Cleckley's 16-item checklist, and the following is a discussion of the concepts in the PCL-R.
But first of all, here is Cleckley's original list of symptoms of a psychopath:
1. Considerable superficial charm and average or above average intelligence.
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
3. Absence of anxiety or other "neurotic" symptoms considerable poise, calmness, and verbal facility.
4. Unreliability, disregard for obligations no sense of responsibility, in matters of little and great import.
5.Untruthfulness and insincerity
7. Antisocial behavior which is inadequately motivated and poorly planned, seeming to stem from an inexplicable impulsiveness.
7.Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
8.Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience
9. Pathological egocentricity. Total self-centeredness incapacity for real love and attachment.
10. General poverty ot deep and lasting emotions.
11. Lack of any true insight, inability to see oneself as others do.
12. Ingratitude for any special considerations, kindness, and trust.
13. Fantastic and objectionable behavior, after drinking and sometimes even when not drinking--vulgarity, rudeness, quick mood shifts, pranks.
14. No history of genuine suicide attempts.
15. An impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated seX life.
16. Failure to have a life plan and to live in any ordered way, unless it be one promoting self-defeat.
"...More often than not, the typical psychopath will seem particularly agreeable and make a distinctly positive impression when he is first encountered. Alert and friendly in his attitude, he is easy to talk with and seems to have a good many genuine interests. There is nothing at all odd or queer about him, and in every respect he tends to embody the concept of a well-adjusted, happy person. Nor does he, on the other hand, seem to be artificially exerting himself like one who is covering up or who wants to sell you a bill of goods. He would seldom be confused with the professional backslapper or someone who is trying to ingratiate himself for a concealed purpose. Signs of affectation or excessive affability are not characteristic. He looks like the real thing.
"Very often indications of good sense and sound reasoning will emerge, and one is likely to feel soon after meeting him that this normal and pleasant person is also one with -high abilities. Psychometric tests also very frequently show him of superior intelligence. More than the average person, he is likely to seem free from social or emotional impediments, from the minor distortions, peculiarities, and awkwardnesses so common even among the successful. Such superficial characteristics are not universal in this group but they are very common..."
"...It must be granted of course that the psychopath has some affect. Affect is, perhaps, a component in the sum of life reactions even in the unicellular protoplasmic entity. Certainly in all mammals it is obvious. The relatively petty states of pleasure, vexation, and animosity experienced by the psychopath have been mentioned. The opinion here maintained is that he fails to know all those more serious and deeply moving affective states which make up the tragedy and triumph of ordinary life, of life at the level of important human experience..."
1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example. >
2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.
10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.
11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.
12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.
18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.
19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.
20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.
The Antisocial Personality Disorder Homepage
Dr. Hare's Psychopathy/Antisocial Personality Confusion article
The Internet Danger Zone: Psychopaths or Sociopaths
Cleckley, Hervey (1903-1984) The Mask of Sanity, Fifth Edition, 1988. Previous editions copyrighted 1941, 1950, 1955, 1964, 1976 by St. Louis: Mosby Co.
Fishbein, D. (2000) (ed) The Science, Treatment, and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Giannangelo, S. (1996) The Psychopathology of Serial Murder. Westport: Praeger.
Hare, R. (1991) The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. (1993) Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among us. NY: Pocket Books.
Hare, R. (1996) Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:25-54.
Jenkins, R. (1960) The psychopath or antisocial personality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 131:318-34.
Lykken, D. (1995) TheAntisocial Personalities. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
McCord W. & J. (1964) The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal Mind. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Millon, T., E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith & R. Davis (1998) Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior. NY: Guilford Press.
Robins, L. (1978) Aetiological implications in studies of childhood histories relating to antisocial personality. In R. Hare & D. Schalling (eds) Psychopathic Behavior. Chichester: Wiley.
Rogers, R., R. Salekin, K. Sewell & K. Cruise (2000) Prototypical analysis of antisocial personality disorder. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(2) 234-55.
Sher, K. & Trull, T. (1994) Personality and disinhibitory psychopathology: Alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103:92-102.
Toch, H. & K. Adams (1994) The Disturbed Violent Offender. Washington: APA.
Is the state a criminal conspiracy?
Murray Rothbard famously called the state "a bandit gang writ large", or as it is more commonly rephrased, "a gang of thieves writ large". I have to admit that the first time I read this I was quite taken aback. I think I was first exposed to this idea early on after becoming a libertarian, and I wrote it off, in large part, to fiery rhetoric intended to get readers' attentions. Fortunately, it didn't scare me off, and as I read more and more, I came to understand the logic behind the assertion. As it usually goes for me, I have trouble seeing the forest for the trees right away.
This assertion -- government as a criminal gang -- often accompanies, or occurs during, a discussion of taxes. In fact, I had a discussion with someone just this past weekend during which I said that taxes were theft because I had never consented to them. Invariably, this leads (as it did in this case) into discussion about helping the poor, benefits of services paid for by tax revenue, and "civic duty" and what it means to be a "good citizen". The argument goes: taxes are fine and good as long as we put them to "good" use; to be against taxes is to be against the good that taxes provide. Don't get me wrong. I believe in helping the poor; I drive my car on roads; and I'm all for peaceful cooperation and being a productive member of society. I simply differ from the bulk of the population on how these ends should be achieved.
Since I'm likely in agreement with most about what can be achieved with the proper use of tax revenue (assuming the "proper" use could really be known), let's back up a bit and look at taxes themselves. A tax is simply a financial charge imposed by a state (or functionally equivalent "legal" entity), the payment of which is enforced under penalty of law. This is a somewhat euphemistic definition, though. A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" according to Black's Law Dictionary. With that definition in mind, we begin to see now the shape of the criminal gang metaphor. The state imposes a financial charge on its subjects and enforces the payment of said charge with force. In less civilized societies, failure to pay may be immediately met with the state's armed enforcers stopping by to collect the charges. In more civilized societies, one might first be given a trial in a state-run court, after which failure to pay will be met by the state's armed enforcers. The result is always the same, though. Taxes are ultimately, always collected by force be it through property confiscation or (the threat of) incarceration. (A discussion of the equality of the threat and actual use of force is omitted.)
When a criminal gang takes money by force, it is theft. When the state does it, it is taxation. The difference is curious, to say the least. Looking back at Black's definition of taxation, note that taxes are "exacted pursuant to legislative authority". So, despite all outward appearances, taking money from someone against their will is not always a crime; the legality of the act depends on who is doing the taking. The state is empowered by "legislative authority" while the "criminal" gang has no such authority. So, let's step further back and examine from where the state derives this authority.
Imagine, for a second, a person living alone on an island. For all intents and purposes, this person owns the island and everything on it, if for no other reason than there is no one else contending for ownership. Now let's add a second person into the mix. There are myriad ways for the two to decide how to divide up the land and coexist, but they all begin with the question of the proper ownership of each person's body. The simplest, most common sense solution to this question is that each person is the exclusive owner of his or her body. After all, it doesn't make sense for each person to own the other's body but not his or her own. Nor does it make any sense for the two to own both bodies jointly. These latter solutions would only produce conflict as the two would never be able to agree on how best to use their bodies. Indeed, the only viable solution is for each person to be the exclusive owner of his or her own body.
If we accept this premise, then it follows that the initiation of force/violence against another (without this other's consent) is never justified as it constitutes a violation of the person's ownership of his or her body and sole discretion as to how that body should be used. It further follows that if a person does not have the authority to initiate violence against another, he or she cannot contract this authority out to a third party, namely, the state. That is, one cannot grant power or authority to another that one does not have in the first place. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that the initiation of force/violence by the state is never justified, and since all state actions are predicated on the use of force, we must further conclude that all state actions are without proper authority, at a minimum, with respect to those who do not consent to violence against them.
By now, it should be clear that there is little difference between the actions of a "criminal gang" and the state in terms of their authority to commit those actions. The only place where the two may differ is in the fact that, occasionally, the state may use its ill-gotten gains to help the public in the form of welfare, roads, etc. But the state is no Robin Hood. It steals from the rich, the middle class, and the poor, alike. Not only that, but it pays its bureaucrats first and then uses what's left to pay for these services. So, even when the state does good, the taxpayers are forced to overpay for these services since they can be provided by and found in the private sector -- often the state ends up contracting with private sector businesses -- with less bureaucracy and the added benefit of market competition to keep prices down. We must also note that money left, after paying bureaucrats, is further reduced by the state's spending on warfare and all that that entails. Taxpayers really aren't getting a good bang, no pun intended, for their buck.
All of this talk about how the state spends money, though, is simply a giant misdirection intended to confuse the issue. After all, we don't tolerate crime when the proceeds are used for ostensibly "good" purposes. Nor would we tolerate it if the criminal offered to give us a partial say -- a vote if you will -- in how he or she might use the proceeds. The criminal act must be addressed first and foremost, and this should be no different when it applies to the state. When there are different rules for the state and for the subject/citizen, what we have is most definitely not the rule of law.
The state is indeed criminal in its actions; the next step is to establish conspiracy. Strictly speaking, a conspiracy is "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud,or other wrongful act". Under this definition, a conviction of the state is all but certain. This isn't exactly what I have in mind, when I say conspiracy, however. Conspiracy, in reference to the state, implies to me some larger goal: not only to keep power but to further and further enhance and centralize it. It also implies that the state is always working toward this goal as an end unto itself. Now, I won't argue that this isn't what happens, in practice; however, I have a hard time believing that the state, at all levels, is always and everywhere conspiring toward this end for one simple reason. Again, Murray Rothbard:
[I]n a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos.
If Mr. Rothbard is correct, which I believe him to be, that most people are "good", then we must conclude that either a significant number of people working for the state are "good" or that by some sort of social malfunction the state exclusively employs the "bad" people in society. There is certainly a good argument to be made for the latter possibility, but I'm a believer in the former.
If I am correct in that belief, then there only remains the question of why the state continues to exist. I believe there are two, related reasons: 1.) people do not understand the nature of the state, and 2.) people believe that they are not responsible for the actions of the state. I've addressed the former in this post; I'll try to address the latter in the next.
"Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences. Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes. Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure. Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state."
-Congressman Ron Paul, candidate for president in 2008 and 2012, U.S. House of Representatives, Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002
I, Jewish Psychopath
Cop says cops kidnapped, raped, murdered TV infobabe