Chapter 21 Chapter 18 The Psychiatrist's Efforts

What kind of person can do such a thing? Bob Ressler and I traveled to Joliet, Illinois, to study serial killers.One day we did an interview with Richard Speck.When I got back to my hotel room that night, I tuned in to the CBS news.I saw Dan Rather talking to another murderer named Thomas Vander who happened to be in the Joliet jail at the time.Fanda was imprisoned for stabbing a woman several times to death.He has been in and out of mental institutions many times in his life.Every time he is "cured" and released, he commits new crimes.He killed another man before getting locked up for that homicide charge.

I called Ressler and offered to have a talk with him.Judging from the talk shows on TV, I can tell that he is a hopeless man.He could have been a murderer as easily as an arsonist.If he had the tools and skills, he could be a bomber. The next day, we went to the prison again, and Vanda agreed to talk to us.He was curious about our purpose, and no one came to see him.Before the interview, we looked at his file. Vanda was white, about 5 feet 9, about twenty-five years old.He is emotionally unstable and often shows false smiles.Even when he was smiling, he still had the same “look”—his eyes were roving, the muscles on his face twitched from time to time, and he kept rubbing his hands.You cannot ignore such a person.He first wanted to know what I was thinking after seeing him on TV.I said he looked good, and he laughed, then relaxed.He talked to us a lot about how he attended a Bible study group in the prison and how it helped him a lot.It's entirely possible.I have seen many soon-to-be-paroleed inmates attend religious study groups and make gestures of sincere repentance.

You may have your opinion on whether this guy should be in a high security prison or in a safer mental institution.After talking to him, I went to see the prison psychologist who was in charge of him.I asked him how Vanda was doing. The psychiatrist, in his mid-fifties, answered me in the affirmative, saying that Vanda was "very cooperative with medication and therapy."The doctor also cited his participation in the "Bible study group" as an example, saying that if it continues like this, Vanda can be released on parole. When I asked him if he knew exactly what law Vanda had committed, he replied, "I don't want to know. I don't have that much time. I have a lot of patients here." He also said he didn't want to unduly interfere with patient relationships .

"Well, Doctor, I'll tell you what Thomas Vander did." I didn't budge.Before he could disagree, I recounted the history of this antisocial, withdrawn man.He was in a religious group, and after a meeting had ended and the crowd dispersed, he courted a young woman who was chairing the meeting.She refused, but Vanda didn't like being rejected like this.It's the same with people like him.He knocked her down, took a knife from her kitchen, and stabbed her numerous times. I can't help but say I'm pretty shocked by this.She was like a rag doll, but her body was warm and bleeding.He's sure to get blood on himself.But he couldn't even depersonalize her, and he managed to get an erection and ejaculate.So you can understand why I said it was a crime of anger, not a sexual crime.He didn't do it out of lust, but out of desperation.This, by the way, is also why it is not advisable for a repeat rapist to be released, even though doing so gives some people the satisfaction and fulfillment of having another person rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.The problem is, they will sin again.Rape is undoubtedly a crime committed in anger.If you cut someone's scrotum off, he's going to be a very angry person.

After I finished talking about Vanda, the psychiatrist said, "Douglas, you disgusting bastard! Get the hell out of my office!" "I'm sick?" I retorted. "You keep saying that Thomas Van Damme is very cooperative with the treatment and you can release him, but when you treat these prisoners, you have no idea who you are talking to. If You don't take the time to look at the pictures of the crime scene or the report of the fact of the crime, you don't look at the autopsy report, how do you know them? Have you seen the report of their crime method? Do you know if it was a premeditated crime? You know what led to it. Criminal behavior? Do you know how he left the scene of the crime? Do you know if he was trying to get away? Was he trying to create an excuse? How do you know if he is a dangerous criminal or not?"

He was speechless.I don't think I convinced him that day, but it touched me deeply.Our department has done research on this issue.As I have said many times in the previous article, the difficulty is that a lot of work in psychotherapy is based on listening to the patient's self-report to diagnose the disease.Under normal circumstances, patients who come to a psychiatrist want to express their true thoughts to the doctor, while a criminal who wants to be released early chooses what the psychiatrist wants to hear.As a result, psychiatrists tend to take the criminal's side of the story without relating it to the rest of the criminal's situation.This may be the real reason why the system fails.The crimes of both Ed Kemper and Monte Rissel (to name just those two) took place while they were in psychiatric treatment, and neither crime was ever discovered.In fact, their performance has "improved" during this period.

I think the problem is that there are some young psychiatrists and psychologists and social welfare workers who are idealistic and taught in college that they can really change these people.After they met these people in the prison, they wanted to get credit for reforming them.They often don't know that when they evaluate these criminals, they are actually evaluating some experts who are good at understanding other people's psychology!Before too long, the criminal will know whether the doctor has prior knowledge of his crime, and if he has not, he will be able to speak less of his crime and its effect on the victim.Few offenders are willing to go into detail with someone who doesn't already know them, which is why it's crucial to be well prepared before going to prison for an interview.

Most of those who help reform criminals, like Thomas Vander's doctors, are reluctant to know the details of their crimes so as not to prejudice them.But I always tell the students in my class that if you want to understand Picasso, you have to study his art.If you want to know the personality of a criminal, you have to study his crimes. The difference is that people who practice psychotherapy start with the study of personalities, and speculate about their behavior from that perspective.My people and I first study behavior, and then deduce personality from this perspective. Of course, people from all walks of life cannot agree on the issue of criminal responsibility.Dr. Standen Sumner was a psychologist who, along with the late Dr. Samuel Jochelson, a psychiatrist, conducted groundbreaking research on criminal behavior at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington.After years of research, he has mastered a large amount of first-hand information, and gradually abandoned most of the ideas he originally conceived.Sumno concluded in his profound and insightful book "Explore the Psychology of Criminals": "The thinking of criminals is completely different from that of ordinary people." He believes that criminals are not mentally ill, but personality defective.

Parker Dietz, a frequent collaborator with us, said: "None of the serial killers I've studied were legally insane, but none were sane, they were all psychopaths. Their mental disorder has to do with their perverted interest in sex and their personalities. They knew what they were going to do, they knew what they were going to do was wrong, but they did it anyway." It is important to remember that insanity is a legal concept, not a medical or psychological term.It does not refer to whether someone has or does not have "faults", but whether a person can take responsibility for his actions.

If you think people like Thomas Vander are insane, that's fine.Can't say that's not a point of view.However, once the dossier is carefully studied, I think we should face up to this problem: no matter what kind of mental illness Thomas van Dam suffered from, there was a possibility that it could not be cured.If we admit that, we won't let them out to do it again and again and again.Remember, this wasn't his first murder. The notion of a criminal's mental disorder has been widely discussed recently.This kind of discussion is not new. It can be traced back at least hundreds of years ago to the establishment of the Anglo-American legal system, and to the publication of William Lambard's "Judges of the Peace" in the 16th century.

Insanity was first used as a defense of innocence in the 1843 MacNardon trial.Macnadon attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Lord Robert Peel, killing the Prime Minister's private secretary.By the way, it was during Peel's tenure that the Metropolitan Police Force was formed, and the Metropolitan Police are still known today as 'Rob'. The public reaction to McNaughton's acquittal was so strong that the Lord Chancellor was called to the House of Lords to explain why.The justice explained it roughly like this: If the defendant is insane and does not know that his behavior is wrong, or does not understand the nature of his behavior, then he is not guilty.In other words, he cannot judge right from wrong. This theory of insanity then evolved into what is often referred to as the "irresistible impulse maxim," which holds that a defendant who is insane and unable to control his actions or regulate his actions in accordance with the law is incapable. guilty. In 1954 this criterion was not invoked.At the time, Judge David Basilon, ruling in the appeals court on the U.S. government's indictment against Durham, ruled that if the defendant's crime was caused by "insanity or insanity," he would not be liable for the crime. Not liable, because if it were not for this reason, he would not have committed such a crime. Law enforcement officials, many judges and prosecutors have taken the Durham decision seriously because it gave defendants wide latitude and, more importantly, no distinction between right and wrong. In 1972, when another appeals court heard Brauner's indictment, it rejected the approach of the previous case and turned to the standard American law school test to reconsider McNardon and the irresistible impulse.Insanity does not exonerate the defendant unless he is so ill that he cannot tell right from wrong and has broken the law without knowing it.Over time, the test has grown in popularity with courts. Discussing this issue is often a dead end, like discussing how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.I think what we need to discuss more is the question of danger. A case in point in the ongoing battle of psychologists is the 1990 trial of Arthur Shawcross for the serial murders in Rochester, New York.Shawcross was accused of killing many local prostitutes and street prostitutes.Their bodies were found in and around the Janis River Valley.The murders continued for nearly a year, with some of the later victims dismembered after death. Greg McClary studied the development of the perpetrator's criminal behavior before coming up with a specific profile—which turned out to be predictable.After police found a dismembered body, McClary realized the killer was returning to the site to dispose of his prey, and urged police to scour the woods for the body of another missing woman.Spy on that place if possible, because he believed they would eventually find the murderer there. After several days of aerial reconnaissance, New York State Police found a body in the Salmon River near Interstate 31.Meanwhile, John McClary spotted a car parked on a small bridge over the river with a man in it.State and city police were called in to track him down.They later arrested the man, Arthur Shawcross. Shawcross was interrogated by a team of interrogators led by Dennis Bryce of the New York State Police and Leonard Poriello of the Rochester Police Department.Shawcross confessed to several crimes.In the trial of the Shawcross accused of murdering 100 people, a key question was raised: Was he insane at the time of the killing? The defendant invited Dr. Dorothy Lewis, a well-known psychiatrist, from Bellevue Hospital in New York.Dr Lewis is known for his research on the impact of violence on children.She is convinced that most, if not all, violent crimes are related to childhood abuse or molestation by the thug as well as some physical condition such as epilepsy, trauma, lesion, cyst or tumor.Charles Whitman is an example. In 1968, the 25-year-old engineering student climbed to the top of the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin and shot at those below.When the police surrounded the clock tower and shot him 90 minutes later, 16 people were killed and 30 others were injured.Before the incident, Whitman had complained that he was sometimes annoyed and wanted to kill.Doctors performed an autopsy and found a tumor in the temporal lobe of his brain. Was Whitman's madness caused by this tumor?We have no way of knowing.Lewis wanted to tell the jury that an MRI scan of Shawcross showed a malignant cyst in his temporal lobe.She described this form of epilepsy as "partial complex convulsions" due to the trauma of the Vietnam War and his self-proclaimed childhood abuse by his mother, so Arthur Shawcross was not responsible for his extreme violence responsible.In fact, she testified, he was in a sort of fugue state as he killed each of the women; he had limited or no memory of each crime. There was a problem with this line of reasoning: Shawcross could still pass on specific details to Poriello and Brycexin weeks or months after the murders.On several occasions, he also led them to several dump sites that the police never found.It was possible for him to do this because he had had many reveries about each location and remembered them well. He took the practice of destroying some evidence so that the police could not catch him.When he was caught he wrote a very logical letter to his girlfriend (who has a wife of his own) saying he wanted to enter the insanity plea because being in a mental institution was much more comfortable than jail . On this point, Shawcross is well aware of his situation.His first criminal offense came in 1969, when he was sentenced for burglary and arson in the Watertown area, north of Syracuse.Less than a year later, he was arrested again and confessed to strangling a boy and a girl and molesting the girl.He was sentenced to 25 years for two offences. After 15 years, he was released on bail.If you remember from the previous chapters, you know why Greg McClary got the age wrong in his profile.Shawcross's 15-year sentence was an exceptional case. Now, let's go step by step.First, if you ask me, or any of the hundreds of police officers, prosecutors, and FBI agents I've worked with over the years, you'll get a resounding answer: the criminals who murdered two children The sentence of 25 years in prison is itself unpopular.Secondly, I think that to release this guy early, two prerequisites should be considered. The first premise is that despite Shawcross's terrible background, growing up in a broken home, claiming to have been abused, lack of a good education, violent criminal history, and other issues, life in prison has served him well , the spirit is sublimated, the horizon is greatly broadened, and the body is recuperated.His conscience was awakened, he realized his mistakes, and he was well reformed in prison. He decided to change his mind and become an upright and law-abiding citizen. Well, if you think this premise cannot be satisfied, how about the second one?Prison life is terrible. He spent years in prison, miserable, and had enough punishment.He has a dirty past and still has the desire to rape or kill children, but he doesn't want to go to jail again, so he goes to great lengths to avoid a second entry. I think that's also unlikely.Since you can't satisfy the two prerequisites, why didn't you consider that he is likely to kill again, why did you let such a person out? Clearly, some murderers are more likely to repeat the crime.Except for the purely violent criminals and rapists, I think I agree with Dr. Parker Dietz: "It's hard to imagine the circumstances under which they could be released from prison." Ed Kemperby I interview The other murderers I've ever had were far more intelligent, and much better at personal observation.This person said bluntly that he could not be released. There are too many frightening things.I interviewed Richard Margett, who in his twenties was charged in Oregon with a string of escapades—attempted rape, fighting—and then picked up a man at a Portland bar. The woman, who wanted to have sex with her but was rejected, raped and killed her and dismembered her body.He fled the area, was placed on the FBI's Most Wanted list, and was finally caught in California.He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Twelve years later, he was released on parole and later arrested again for killing and dismembering two women.Why on earth would the Parole Board be so obsessed with thinking that such a person was no longer dangerous? I can't speak for the FBI, DOJ, or anyone else, but I can say that my conscience tells me that I'd rather keep a murderer behind bars, whether or not he would be motivated to kill again. in prison, and would never have innocent men, women, or children killed by him for letting him out. Americans have a characteristic that they think that things are always turned to a good side, and they can always be turned to a good side. They think that as long as we make up our minds to do something, we will be able to do it successfully.But the more I look at it, the more pessimistic I become about the idea that some criminals can be reformed.They had a terrible experience as children.The harm they suffered at that time may not be able to undo later.Contrary to the wishes of judges, defense lawyers, and psychiatrists, the fact that prisoners perform well in prison does not necessarily mean that they will behave reasonably after they are released from prison. In fact, in every respect, Shawcross's performance in prison was exemplary.He doesn't make noise, doesn't socialize with others, is very obedient, and doesn't cause trouble.But in the process of helping these people reform and psychoanalyze, my colleagues and I have tried to make a point to others: the dangers vary according to the circumstances.If you can put a man in an orderly environment, and he has no other choice, he will probably do better.But if you put him back in the environment where he performed badly before, he is likely to relapse. Take the case of Jack Henry Abbott, for example.The murderer wrote a vivid and moving memoir of prison life: "In the Belly of the Beast."Admiring his extraordinary writing talent and believing that anyone so perceptive and insightful would have to be a new man, some literary masters, including Norman Mailer, came forward to launch a campaign to bail Abbott.He became a figure of concern to New Yorkers.But within a few months of being released on bail, he had an argument with the waiter in Greenwich Village and killed the waiter. As Al Brantly (formerly a Behavioral Science Instructor and now a member of the Investigative Support Section) put it in a lecture at the National Academy: "The best predictor of future performance or future violence is looking at the past Violence." Nobody would blame Arthur Shawcross for being as clever as Jack Henry Abbott, yet he could convince the Bail Board that he could be released on parole.After being paroled, Shawcross moved to Bingham, where angry residents staged a campaign against him, so he moved after two months.He then settled in another area of ​​Rochester, working as a salad preparer for a food delivery company.A year later, he was killing again—this time with a different, but equally vulnerable target.During Shawcross's examinations, Dorothy Lewis hypnotized him on several occasions to "return" to his formerly abused life, making him recall how his mother had stuck a broom handle into his rectum.In an enigmatic scene reminiscent of the movie Psycho, she finds him taking on several different personalities, including his mother's. (His mother, however, denied abusing her son and accused him of lying.) Lewis documented several cases of compulsive multiple personalities in abused children while working at Bellevue Hospital.These children are so young that it is impossible for them to deceive others.Lewis gives several rare examples of how multiple personalities develop in early childhood, often before learning to speak.For adults, it seems that only when facing a murder trial do they become human beings with multiple personalities.For some reason, it only manifested itself at that time. The murderers of the hillside strangulation in San Francisco in the 1970s were a pair of cousins.Killer Kenneth Bianchi claimed to have multiple personalities after his arrest.John Wayne Gacy also used this method. (I often joke that if you have a criminal with multiple personalities, as long as I can lock up his criminal ones, I'll let the innocent ones develop.) Prosecutor Charles Siragusa did an excellent job at the Shawcross trial.He asked Parker Dietz to represent the defense.Dietz asked Shawcross as broadly as Lewis.Shawcross went into great detail about the murder.While Dietz isn't making any absolute judgments about the veracity of the masochism claims, he thinks at least there's some truth to the claims.However, he believed that Shawcross had no symptoms of temporary memory loss and found no connection between his behavior and any neurological ailments.He concluded that whatever was wrong with Arthur Shawcross, mentally or emotionally, he knew what was right and what was wrong, and could choose whether to kill or not.On at least 10 or more occasions, he chose to kill. When Leonard Poriello asked him why he killed those women, he simply said, "That's my business." True psychopaths—those who are completely disconnected from real life—don't often commit serious crimes.When they commit this crime, their minds are often in a state of confusion, without thinking about how to avoid detection, and they are often caught quickly.Richard Trenton Chase killed women because he believed he needed their blood to live.He is a psychopath.If he couldn't get human blood, he substituted blood from any animal he could catch.After putting Chase in the madhouse, he still caught rabbits, bled them, and injected them into his arms.When he caught a bird, he bit off its head and drank its blood.This man is really mentally ill.And the person who can get away with it 10 times must be a veteran.Don't confuse a psychopath with a lunatic. During the trial, Shawcross kept his emotions in check and remained motionless.In front of the jury, he was almost to the point of being nervous and delirious, as if in a trance, not knowing what was going on around him.But the police and officers who guarded and released him reported that he relaxed when he was out of the sight and hearing of the jury, talked more, and sometimes cracked jokes.He knew that acting insane could save his life. Of the criminals I've studied and interviewed, the smartest, most scheming -- and I'd say most charismatic -- was none other than Gary Trappnell.After he became an adult, being in prison has become commonplace.Once, he actually persuaded a young woman to drive a helicopter and landed on the open space of the prison area in an attempt to rescue him. This jailbreak in the early 1970s was one of his high profile crimes.He was in the plane parked on the ground, thinking about how to get out.During the negotiations he raised his fist for photographs and demanded: "Free Angela Davis!" "Release Angela Davis? What does 'Release Angela Davis' mean?" Most of the people in law enforcement working on this case were taken aback.From Trapnell's background, there is no evidence that he has any emotional connection with the radical young black professor in California, nor does he have any political intentions, but now he has made such a request, demanding that Angie La Davis is released from prison.This guy must be crazy.This is the only reasonable explanation. Later, when I interviewed him at the federal prison in Mario, Illinois, after he surrendered and was sentenced, I asked him about this request. Here's what he said: "I saw that I couldn't get out and I knew I was going to be in jail for years. I figured if Big Brother Black thought I was a political prisoner, I wouldn't be molested in the prison shower. " At that time, Trapnell was not only sane, but also prepared in advance, not insane at all.In fact, he also wrote a memoir, titled "Foxes Are Crazy, Too."This is a very valuable material, which tells us what kind of strategy we should adopt when negotiating.If someone suddenly proposes some completely unacceptable conditions, it may mean that he already has a plan in mind for the next step, and the negotiator can also adapt to the situation and respond accordingly. Trapnell also told me some very interesting things.He said that if I gave him a copy of the recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and gave him the symptoms of one of these disorders, he could convince the psychiatrist the next day that he did suffer from that disorder.Here too, Trapnell is bolder than Shawcross.It doesn't take much brains to know that if you tell the psychiatrist that you're feeling better and not interested in molesting young boys, you're likely to be paroled.If the jury sees you in a trance, they will be more likely to believe the fugue state explanation. Law enforcement has long sought to rely on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to determine whether someone is seriously insane.Yet most of us find this handbook of little value to our work.That's why we published The Handbook of Crime Classification in 1992.This book is based on my doctoral thesis.My co-authors on the book were Ressler, Ann Burgess and her husband, and Allen, a professor of management at Boston University.Other members of the Behavioral Science Investigative Support Unit Greg Cooper, Roy Hazelwood, Ken Lanning, Greg McClary, Yod Rae, Peter Smerick and Jim Lai Te is also our contributor. With the Crime Classification Manual, we can classify serious crimes based on behavioral characteristics and analyze them scientifically from a psychological point of view, which the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders failed to do.For example, you won't find a description of the O.J. Simpson case in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but you can find it in ours.We're trying to separate the wheat from the bran through behavioral evidence to help investigators and judges focus on what's relevant and what's not. It is not surprising that defendants and their lawyers try to justify the defendant's actions with as many excuses as possible.Among the many factors cited by the Shawcross Task Force for his insanity was the trauma of the Vietnam War.After investigation, Shawcross did not participate in the battle at all.But this approach is not an invention, it has been used before. On December 9, 1975, Duane Sampels defended himself by citing the trauma of the Vietnam War during his trial for disemboweling two women in Silverton, Oregon.Only one woman died, but I've seen pictures of the crime scene.The bodies of both women appeared to have been dissected.Robert Ressler discovered that Sampers also hadn't been in combat as he claimed.The day before he attacked the two women, he wrote a letter saying he had been having fantasies about slitting the belly of a beautiful naked woman. In 1981, Ressler traveled to Oregon to help prosecutors explain why the governor should not support the release of Sampels.His words worked, but Sampers was released 10 years later. Is Sampers insane?Was he momentarily insane when he disemboweled the two women?People tend to say that anyone capable of such a horribly deviant behavior must really be "wrong."I wouldn't dispute that either.However, does he know that his actions are wrong?Did he do it on purpose?I think these two questions are very important. The trial of Arthur Shawcross in Rochester Municipal Court lasted more than five weeks.During this period, public prosecutor Siragusa's psychological analysis in the legal sense was actually deeper and more thorough than any doctor's analysis I knew.The whole process of the trial was broadcast by the TV station, and Siragusa became a local celebrity.The jury found Shawcross guilty of second-degree murder on those charges less than a day after the arguments ended and the case went to the jury.The judge determined that Shawcross could not be given another chance to repeat the crime and sentenced him to 250 years in state prison. The defense of insanity often doesn't work for a reason many people don't realize: Juries don't like this defense, so they tend to hold their own. I think they have this attitude for two reasons.One is that most people don't think a repeat murderer keeps committing crimes because he is cornered.Remember, none of the serial killers we met felt compelled to kill, even in the presence of a uniformed police officer. The second reason the jury disagreed with the defense of insanity was more important.After all the legal, psychoanalytic, and academic arguments had been dismissed, when it finally came down to depriving the defendants of their liberty for life, the jury instinctively recognized that these men were dangerous.I don't think any decent man or woman in Milwaukee who thinks Jeffrey Dahmer is sane or insane would want to entrust their safety (and the safety of their community) to a madhouse because they It is not at ease whether it can effectively restrain the evil mental patients.If they had thrown him in jail, he would have been much less likely to be a danger to society again. I'm not saying that most psychiatrists or psychotherapists intentionally keep dangerous criminals out of prison so they can do more bad things.I mean, in my experience, in most cases these people don't know enough about what we do to make a good judgment call.Even if they had experience in the law, it was limited to that particular area, and that's what he was diagnosing criminals in. When I first started my profiling work, I came across a case of killing an elderly woman.The deceased, Anna Berliner, was killed at her home in Oregon.The local police consulted a psychotherapist and asked him what type of person the perpetrator was.The deceased's wounds consisted of deep pencil stab wounds to the chest in four places.The psychiatrist had interviewed about fifty murderers.Most of the interviews were conducted in prison.Based on his own experience, he predicted that the perpetrator had spent a lot of time in prison, perhaps a drug dealer, because only in prison is a sharpened pencil generally considered a deadly weapon.His reasoning was that no one outside prison would think of killing with an ordinary pencil. When the police came to me, I offered the exact opposite opinion.I think the age and vulnerability of the victim, the multiple fatal wounds, the fact that the crime was committed in broad daylight and that no valuables were lost suggest that the perpetrator was an inexperienced teenager.I don't think he has studied carefully how to use a pencil as a murder weapon, because there was a pencil at the time, and he used it.Finally they caught the perpetrator - an inexperienced 16-year-old boy.He had gone to her house to get a fundraiser for a walk-a-thon, which he wasn't participating in himself. 犯罪现场的主要特点是，所有行为方面的证据都证明作案者是一个对自己没有把握的人。有前科的人如果在一个老年妇女家里加害于她，对自己的行为是比较有把握的。只从简单的事实(如弗朗辛·埃尔夫森一案中的黑人毛发)是无法得出全面的结论的。在安娜·伯林纳谋杀案中，简单的思维方式可能会导致我们做出与事实全然相反的结论。 在我们的工作中，最难回答的问题是：这个人是不是，或者会不会成为危险人物。心理医生往往使用“对别人来说他是他自身的威胁”这类术语。 1986年前后，联邦调查局接到一卷从科罗拉多寄出的胶卷，让实验室洗了出来。照片上是个三十岁上下的男子，身穿迷彩服，站在他的4X4车的尾部，一手拿着步枪，一手拿着一个被他折腾得不像样子的芭比娃娃。他这么做并不犯法。我说这人不会有前科，但我也告诫说，在这个年龄段上，他很快就不会满足于在芭比娃娃身上这么干了。他会做出进一步的举动。仅仅从照片上，我还看不出这种消遣在他生活中占多大分量，但事情发展到这一步，已不能等闲视之。我说要密切注意这个人，要找他谈谈，因为这是个危险信号，说不定什么时候悲剧就会发生。我不知道心理医生是否会与我所见略同。 虽然这件事看来很怪，可是它令我想起多年来所接触到的几桩“芭比娃娃案”。所有案件的作案者都是成年男子。在中西部，有个案犯把布娃娃身上扎满针之后扔到当地精神病院里。你或许会以为这是魔鬼崇拜者、相信巫毒教的人或者认为自己会巫术的人留下的东西，事实全然不是这样。他没有在布娃娃身上留下针对某个人的名字。这反映的是一种施虐倾向，是一个人对女人有仇恨的典型特征。 对这个人我们还能说出些什么？他也许折磨过小动物，也许经常这样做。让他这样对待同年龄人(不管是男是女)，他还难以做到。当他长大之后，在比他小，比他弱的人面前，他就会以强凌弱，或者表现为施虐狂。他已经或者终将迈出这一步，因为这时候他开始不满足于在布娃娃身上实现他的幻想了。你可以就他是否“有毛病”的问题进行争论，但不管他有没有毛病，我可以告诉你，我真正担心的是他的危险性。 那么这样的危险行为可能在什么时候发生呢？这个人是个一事无成的失败者。在他看来，每个人都在跟他过不去，没有人承认他的才能。当他生活中的紧张性刺激变得让他无法承受的时候，就是他为实现幻想向前迈出一步的时候。对一个伤害布娃娃的人来说，采取进一步行动并不是说在他这个年龄层的人当中寻找目标，而是寻找比他年轻，比他弱小或者比他更不中用的人。他是个胆小鬼。他不会以同伴为目标的。 这并不意味着他一定会以儿童为目标。芭比是发育成熟的女子形象，不是未成年的少女。无论这个家伙的心理如何反常，他想跟成熟的女子接触。如果他是在伤害或者虐待布娃娃，那么我们就有另外一些问题要解决。 可是，这是个把扎满针的布娃娃扔到疯人院的家伙，他的行为是很反常的。他不会有驾驶执照，他在人群中会显得很古怪。那个穿迷彩服的人危险性更大。他有工作，因为他有钱买枪，有车，有照相机。他能在社会上四处“正常”活动。一旦他活跃起来，就有人要倒霉。大多数心理医生或者医疗人员会看出这种区别吗？我认为不会。他们不知道这些人是危险的，也没有朝这方面去想。他们的论断没有得到证实。 我们研究系列杀人犯依靠的是真凭实据。而你们依靠的是犯人的自述，那至少也是不完整的，说得难听些，是不科学的，没有意义的。 对危险性的判断有很多用处。1982年4月16日，纽约的美国秘密特工就如何处理一些恐吓信向我咨询。这些信是1979年2月以来由同一个人写的，威胁要刺杀总统(第一封信把目标指向吉米·卡特，后来的信全针对准罗纳德·里根)和其他政要。 第一封信是一个“孤独忧郁的人”寄给纽约秘密特工部门的。信是手写的，写在便笺纸上，共两页，威胁说要“打死卡特总统或者其他有权的人”。 从1981年7月到1982年2月，又先后出现八封信，其中三封是寄给纽约秘密特工部门的，一封寄给了纽约的联邦调查局部门，一封寄给了华盛顿的联邦调查局部门，一封寄给了《费城每日消息报》，还有两封直接寄到了白宫。它们都是那个“孤独忧郁的人”的手笔，可是落款都是C． A． T． ，寄信地点是纽约、费城和华盛顿。信中表示要杀死里根总统，并把里根称为“上帝的坏蛋”和“魔鬼”。支持里根总统的其他政要也受到威胁。信上提到了约翰·欣克利，并发誓要继承他的未竟事业。 还有许多信，分别寄给了众议员杰克·肯普和参议院阿方斯·德马托。秘密特工部门特别关注的是，信中还有参议员德马托和纽约市众议员雷蒙·麦格拉思的照片，而且都是在近距离拍摄的，表明这个C． A． T．的威胁不是闹着玩的。 第十四封信是1982年6月14日寄给《纽约邮报》编辑的。信中声称等他把总统(他用“魔鬼”指代总统)除掉之后，大家都会知道他是什么人了。他说没有人相信他的话，大家都笑话他，这些我都不感到奇怪。 可是在信上，他也对这家报纸做出“承诺”，说当他完成自己的历史使命后，他们可以跟他谈话。这正是我们要寻找的机会。 C． A． T．愿意，也许还急于和这家报纸的编辑谈谈。我们将提供这样一位编辑。 从写信人使用的语言、遣词造句的方式、信的投寄地点和收件对象来看，我断定此人是纽约市人。我做出了侧写，此人是个单身白人男子，年龄在二十五六到三十二三岁之间，纽约本地人，住在市郊，也许是独居，智力水平中等，受过中学教育，也许后来还学过政治和文学，是家中的老小，也许是独生子。我还怀疑他一度是个瘾君子和酒鬼(或者两者中的一个)，现在偶尔还解解馋。他会把自己看成失败者，辜负了父母或其他人对他的期望，他有很多目标没有实现，很多“未竟”事业有待完成。我估计当他在20到25岁的时候，心理上受到过让他难以承受的压力，也许跟服兵役、婚变、生病或者失去亲人等有关。 对C． A． T．代表什么或者象征什么有很多猜测。我告诉特工们不要在这个问题上花费太多时间，因为它也许没有任何意义。在细节问题钻牛角尖是一种倾向。其实，这也许是因为写信人喜欢这个缩写念出来的声音，或者喜欢它写出来的形状。 秘密特工得回答这样的问题：这个家伙有没有危险性？因为有许多发出威胁或者写恐吓信的人从来就没有采取过什么行动。但是我告诉他们，这些人这么做是有目的的。他们寻找政治组织或者偶像，可是没找到。还有些人认为他们是怪人，不把他们当回事，所以随着时间的推移，问题变得越来越严重。他们会找到一个使命，以使自己的生活有一定的意义。他因此而感到自己在进行操纵。他喜欢这种感觉，这将导致他冒更多、更大的险。冒险的人是危险的人。 我认为他对武器比较熟悉，喜欢近距离攻击，尽管这可能意味着无法逃脱。由于他的做法带有自杀性，他会留下一部日记，以使世人知道他这个人。 C． A． T．跟胶囊投毒犯不同，他不想藏形匿迹。当他对生活的恐惧超过对死亡的恐惧时，他就可能进行暴力犯罪。在行动之前，他可能表现得非常沉着。他会把自己伪装起来，会使自己与周围环境融合为一体。他会跟警察或者特工交谈，会让人觉得他是普通百姓，给人一个没有危险的假象。 在某种程度上他和约翰·欣克利是一类人。欣克利的案件及其审判在新闻中已有许多报道。他似乎非常崇拜欣克利。我们很了解欣克利。我当时对特工说，他们最好到亚伯拉罕·林肯总统遇刺的华盛顿福特大剧院去看看。欣克利在向里根总统开枪之前就去过那儿。我还建议他们到附近那家欣克利曾经呆过的饭店去看看。如果有人打听欣克利住过的房间，那个人很可能就是他。 那家饭店的确报告说，有人要那个特殊的房间。特工当即出动，到那里之后发现是一对老年夫妇。他们新婚时住过那个房间，以后也住过多次。 8月份，秘密特工部门收到两封署名C． A． T．的信，都是写给华盛顿总统办公室的。两封信上都有发自加州贝克斯菲尔德的邮戳。许多刺客为了跟踪自己的目标，一直在全国各地流荡。所以这个人很可能行踪不定，这很令人担忧。信上说，由于“心理健全，身体健康(此处用了醒目的大写体)，我要求自己尽可能多组织一些美国人，让他们拿起武器，从内部消灭这个国家的敌人。” 这封冗长、满纸胡言的信中，他谈到了“折磨和地狱”，承认自己在一举清除“上层”那些渣滓时很有可能被杀害。 我仔细看了这两封信，得出的结论是，我们所对付的是一个抄袭他人做法的人。这些信用的都是手写体而不是早先那种大写印刷体。信上称里根总统“罗恩”，而没有用“魔鬼”或者“老头”。我认为写信的人很可能是个女人，尽管信上的威胁和谩骂令人不快，但我觉得这个人还没有什么危险陛。 真正的C． A． T．完全是另外一种人。我认为最好采用“技术手法”将他拿下。在电话上拖住他，直到我们查出他的位置。我们派一名特工装成编辑，向他就如何装得像一些，以及该说些什么做了简单的指导。我特别交代他要设法让C． A． T．多说一些，把他的事加以全面报道。一旦建立了某种信任，这位“编辑”就应当建议他们见见面，但要安排在深夜，要在比较僻静的地方，因为这位编辑要显得比C． A． T．更注意保密。 我们在《纽约邮报》刊登了一则措辞经过推敲的启事，C． A． T．做出了回应。他开始定期与我们的人通话。我想他打电话的地点会是一些大型公共建筑，如中央火车站或者宾夕法尼亚车站，也可能是图书馆或者博物馆。 大概与此同时，联邦调查局从默里·迈伦博士那里得到了另一种评估。这位锡拉丘丝大学的著名心理语言学家和我一起做过研究，我们联名发表过文章。我认为他是这一领域中最出类拔萃的。电话对话开始后，默里给联邦调查局写了一份分析报告，说他认为C． A． T．不是什么危险分子，而是一个想出名的骗子，他想操纵那些政界要人。默里认为肯定应当把这个人抓起来，但是没有像我一样认为他是个危险分子。 渐渐地，我们能在电话上拖他一段时间了。1982年10月21日，由秘密特工和联邦调查局特工组成的联合小组在宾州车站一个公用电话亭抓住了他。当时他正在跟那个“编辑”交谈。此人叫小阿方斯·阿莫迪奥，是个27岁的白人男子，纽约市人，中学文化程度。 联邦调查局和秘密特工到弗洛勒尔帕克，去了他那破破烂烂、蟑螂肆虐的公寓。这个家庭似乎并不和谐。阿莫迪奥太太在接受我们访谈时，对她儿子的描述倒与我们的侧写相符。她对特工说：“他恨它(指这个世界)，而且觉得它也不喜欢他。”她谈到他情绪的波动。多年来他一直在收集报上发表的文章，已经集了两三个文件柜的剪报，文件夹上是各个政要的姓名。他在儿时口吃很厉害，所以上学比较晚。他去当过兵，可是基础训练刚结束，他就开了小差。特工们发现，他在几篇日记中都称自己是“胡同里的猫”，此外没有发现其他与C． A． T．有关的东西。 阿莫迪奥被关进贝尔维尤心理治疗所。在对他进行审判之前，地方法院的律师戴维·埃德尔斯坦请一位进行心理治疗的社会工作者对他进行评估。这个人发现被告的精神紊乱，对总统和其他政府官员构成很大的威胁。 阿莫迪奥承认自己就是C． A． T． .审问他的特工没有发现他有什么政治阴谋。他这样做只是为了显示力量，为了引起别人的注意。 他现在已经不在疯人院了。这类人有没有危险性呢？我认为他不会成为直接威胁，但是如果紧张性刺激继续增加，而他又没有办法对付，那我就要担心了。 我会注意什么呢？信中的的语气是个关键。如果写信人在给政要、影星、体育明星或名人的信上语气越来越强硬(“你对我的信竟然不理不睬”)，那我就要认真对待了。一个人如果一直处于高度紧张的状态，无论从心理上还是从体力上他都会很快承受不住。久而久之，这个人就要开始崩溃。这下子你又可以把这个人的行为解释为他有心理毛病了，但我所关心的是他到底有多大危险性。虽然我们访谈过一些女人，像图谋行刺的女子以及曼森家族的同情者莱内特·弗罗姆和萨拉·琼·莫尔，我们所公开的监狱研究材料却只涉及男子。尽管你发现偶尔会有女杀人犯，但你会注意我提到的所有系列谋杀案或者强奸杀人案的作案者都是男性。有一项研究表明，几乎所有的系列杀人犯都有受过性虐待或身心虐待的经历、吸毒或者酗酒等机能障碍以及与之有关的毛病。在处于同样糟糕背景的情况下，女孩比男孩更容易受到虐待或者猥亵。为什么没有多少女孩像男孩长大后那样去犯罪呢？像艾莉恩·武奥诺斯那样被指控在佛罗里达的州际公路上杀害男子的女系列杀手少到了可以忽略不计的地步。 对这个问题我们的把握性还不大，因为人们还没有对此做过深入的研究。正如有些人所猜测的，它可能与睾丸素水平以及其他荷尔蒙和化学物直接有关。我们只能根据我们的经验肯定一点，女子似乎使她们经受的紧张性刺激内在化了。她们不向他人发泄，而往往以酗酒、吸毒、卖淫和自杀的方式来自惩。有些女人可能在自己家里对家人不断施行心理或身体上的虐待，就像埃德·肯珀的母亲显然做过的那样。从心理健康的角度来看，这是非常有害的。事实是，女人不像男人那样去杀人或者做出任何类似的举动，她们另有发泄的方式。 对付危险能采取什么办法呢？我们怎样才能及时阻止有精神或心理缺陷的人犯罪呢？遗憾的是，没有简单快捷的办法。在许多情况下，处于维护纪律与秩序前沿的不是家庭，而是执法部门。这对社会来说是危险的，因为等我们介入的时候，已经太晚，难以补救了。我们最好能防患于未然。 如果你想让学校来解决这个问题，你的要求也太高了。你不能指望一个负荷已经很大的教师每天用7个小时来开导一个处于不良环境中的孩子，这种事不大可能发生。再说，另外17个小时又怎么办呢？ 人们常问我们，通过研究与试验，我们现在是否能预测什么样的儿童长大后可能变成犯罪分子。罗伊·黑兹尔伍德的回答是：“当然可能。不过一个优秀小学教师也有可能。”如果我们能较早进行强化治疗，情况可能会有所不同。一个好的老师可能会影响孩子的一生。 特工比尔·塔福亚是我们匡蒂科的“未来学专家”。他提出大规模推行“启智方案”，至少在未来10年中集中足够的资金和资源，其投入相当于我们海湾派兵的投入。这是最行之有效的长期防范犯罪的计划。他认为加强警察力量并不是好办法。他提出组织一支社会福利工作者大军，向受虐待的、无家可归的孩子提供帮助，帮助他们找到一个较好的、愿意领养孩子的家庭。他提出以税收激励方案来支持它。 我不知道这是否就是全部的答案，但它会是个重要的开端，因为一个可悲的事实是，心理医生可以按自己想法去努力，我和我们的人则运用心理学和行为科学来帮助抓获犯罪分子，而等我们用上我们的一套时，严重的破坏已经造成了。

---

Notes: