Iago: Shakespeare's Psychopath

By Heidi Hiatt

Will you, I pray, demand that demi-devil

Why he hath thus ensnared my soul and body?

-Othello

While reading a legal newsletter I subscribe to this week, I came across an article about Iago, the villain in Shakespeare’s Othello. Dallas lawyer Michael Maslanka asked “What Can Lawyers Learn From ‘Othello’?”

Maslanka makes two fantastic points in this piece about being on guard against manipulation and rationalization. In Othello, Iago manipulates everyone around him to achieve his goals of revenge and self-promotion. He does so as if he’s everyone’s friend and is genuinely concerned about their well-being. He plays all sides against each other.

“One of the ways he’s so successful at controlling others is by leveraging their positive qualities to serve his own ends,” Maslanka says. He also points out Iago’s ability to disguise himself as something he is not: “Always remember, as Iago warns us: ‘When devils will the blackest sins put on, They do suggest at first with heavenly shows, As I do now.’”

When Iago’s mind-bending, seductive influence finally drives Othello to kill his wife, Othello rationalizes the murder as an honor killing. Noting Othello’s attempt to justify this atrocious act, Maslanka reminds his audience that people often believe what they want to believe. For that reason, people’s ability to “impose narratives on events”, he says that attorneys should “be skeptical… rigorously examine their narratives, and probe for the story beneath the story.”

Why didn’t I think of this? Iago is the perfect example of the type of sociopath/narcissist I wrote about in my Hypnotic Milfoil blog entry earlier this week. He has been referred to as the greatest of villains and loathed for his cunning destruction of others’ lives for over 400 years.

When I began to think about just how perfectly Iago represents the self-serving, scurrilous vampires I write about, I was floored. As a longtime believer in the validity of Dr. Robert Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), I reviewed that list of common characteristics of psychopaths to find that Iago fit the bill:

• -glib and superficial charm
• -grandiose estimation of self
• -need for stimulation
• -pathological lying
• -cunning and manipulativeness
• -lack of remorse or guilt
• -shallow affect (superficial emotional responses)
• -callousness and lack of empathy
• -parasitic lifestyle
• -poor behavioral controls
• -impulsivity
• -irresponsibility
• -failure to accept responsibility for own actions
• -criminal versatility

There were only six characteristics on the list that I did not see in Iago, sexual promiscuity, early behavior problems, lack of realistic long-term goals, many short-term marital relationships, juvenile delinquency, and revocation of conditional release.

Perhaps if we knew Iago’s backstory, or more about his private life, we would see those traits as well. It is interesting to note that Iago and his wife Emilia were not close, and it is Emilia who exposes him for what he is.

Iago also meets many of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for narcissism:

• -a grandiose sense of self-importance
• -is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
• -requires excessive admiration
• -has a sense of entitlement, unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his expectations
• -is interpersonally exploitive, takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
• -lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
• -is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
• -shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

There is an ongoing debate in academia about the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths, both being people without conscience that use and abuse others for their own ends. Some argue that psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made, although that may be too simplistic of an explanation.

Modern science has shown that there are physical differences in the brains of people with issues like psychopathy and borderline personality disorder. But some scientists have shown that you can have such a brain and never indulge its negative potential; it is external factors combined with personal choices that usually turn the mental disconnects on.

Iago was an opportunist who probably wasn’t new to his game of manipulating people, and ultimately, he admits his crimes but refuses to speak about them. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll refer to him as a sociopath, one notch down on the “people lacking empathy” scale from a psychopath, which is considered the most extreme form of this condition. His deviancy may have been formed as he went through life and found chances to exploit others instead of being inherent.

Now that we know what Iago is, we can put this in perspective. Othello begins in Venice with Iago and his friend Roderigo discussing their dissatisfaction over two major events. Roderigo has just learned from Iago that the woman he wanted to marry, Desdemona, has eloped with Othello, a Moorish general in the Venetian Army. Iago is complaining to Roderigo that Othello has made a younger man, Cassio, his lieutenant instead of him.

Iago, already Othello’s ensign, believes that he is far more deserving of the rank of lieutenant because of his firsthand experience with battle. Cassio is well-educated and qualified for the position, but does not yet have real world experience with war. We have no reason to question Othello’s judgment in promoting Cassio to lieutenant or in marrying Desdemona; he obviously recognized qualities in both of them that made them most worthy of their titles.

Because Othello and Desdemona were married in secret, Iago incites Roderigo to tell her father, a senator, before the happy couple can. They wake the senator in the middle of the night and inform him of the marriage in an inflammatory and discriminatory way. Iago then goes to Othello and tells him the senator is coming for him.

Othello successfully defends himself to her father and others, then leaves for Cyprus to quell a Turkish invasion. When Othello, his wife, and their staff arrive there, they find that the Turks’ ships were destroyed in a storm, and they host a celebration. Iago seizes this opportunity to get Cassio drunk, and uses Roderigo to start a fight with him. Cassio gets blamed for the altercation, and Othello demotes him, allowing Iago to move in closer.

Othello and Iago had a history, but Othello should have maintained a strictly business relationship with him. Instead, Iago becomes the demon whispering in his ear, dropping lies into his brain like poison into a glass of wine. When Iago, feigning unwavering loyalty and deep devotion, convinces Othello that his wife is having an affair with Cassio, Othello makes him lieutenant.

Cassio, in the meantime, has asked Desdemona to intercede on his behalf since he has been falsely accused. Othello misinterprets her advocacy for Cassio as further proof of her infidelity, and Iago is able to plant evidence to further Othello’s suspicions.

Believing that Iago’s great “love” for him is real, Othello proceeds to abuse and humiliate his wife. His hatred of her becomes so strong that he publicly attacks her, strikes her in front of her family, and falsely accuses her. Desdemona, completely innocent and genuinely in love, cannot understand why this is happening to her. She knows she has does nothing wrong and is horrified at her husband’s behavior.

Othello subsequently loses his post and Cassio rises to take his place. Iago convinces Roderigo to murder Cassio, and while Roderigo is attacking him in the street, Iago, in disguise, sneaks up behind Cassio to join in. Cassio does not die but is seriously wounded, and Iago comes back to the scene to coordinate the rescue effort. Iago kills Roderigo to hide their plot and accuses Cassio’s love interest of the crime.

Desdemona, reeling from her husband’s abuse, tells her maidservant, Emilia—who is also Iago’s wife– that she cannot comprehend that any woman could be capable of committing adultery. She is completely committed to Othello and would never do such a thing to him.

Even so, Othello calls his wife a litany of degrading, insulting names, and after she begs for one more night to live, then one more half hour, then just one more prayer, Othello kills her. By this time he is so ensnared by Iago’s web of lies that he tries to convince himself this was necessary.

Emilia arrives soon after the murder and realizes that her husband, Iago, is responsible for everything. She exposes his deception and manipulation based on hard evidence, and here Iago’s true nature explodes into vivid Technicolor for all to see. He can no longer hide the self that has been seething below the surface, moving other human beings around like pawns on a chess board.

“Villainous whore!” he shouts at his wife. “Filth!” Out of loyalty to Desdemona, Emilia refuses to be quiet or go home as Iago is screaming at her to do, and enraged, he stabs her to death. Like the coward he is, he runs away as reality begins to melt Othello’s hypnotic obedience to him.

Othello berates himself loudly and mourns his wife, realizing that he was manipulated into homicidal rage by the scheming Iago. Iago is brought back to the scene by Cassio and others, and Othello plunges a sword into him, only to wound him, not kill him. Othello wants him to live with the consequences of his actions.

Othello apologizes to Cassio, at which point he asks him about Iago, “Will you, I pray, demand that demi-devil/Why he hath thus ensnared my soul and body?” Then, after admitting that by killing Desdemona he threw away a priceless treasure, he acknowledges the extreme pressure that reduced him from being a renowned general to a game piece. Before he can be taken into custody, he kills himself.

It is critical to understand one truth about this story: no one was having any problems until Iago came along. Had he never come into the story, Othello and Desdemona, and everyone else, could have had a wonderful marriage and happy lives, barring any future problems. Iago and his sociopathic influence over others started the chain of events that led to their demise.

Through the centuries, people have analyzed Iago as if he were some exceedingly complex creature that is difficult to understand. This is not an original thought, but there is nothing complex or gifted about Iago. By his nature, not even by virtue of his intelligence, he instinctively exploited others’ areas of weakness and attacked what was dearest to them.

This is typical sociopathic behavior that such people can exhibit without consciously trying. This is a base, average human being with its conscience and empathy stripped away. There is a fundamental part of them that is suppressed or missing. Sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, and others like them are possessed by their condition. It’s not a part-time job. It’s who they are.

Nothing—no conquest, no rank, no triumph, no accomplishment—would have been enough to satisfy the bottomless pit inside this cowardly sociopath who got everyone else to do his dirty work. His insatiable hunger cost Othello, Desdemona, Roderigo, and Emilia everything.

The promotion he gained when he robbed Cassio of his position only served to fuel his ego. He was not satisfied with convincing Othello that Desdemona was having an affair, he had to take it farther and destroy Othello for not giving him that coveted promotion in the first place. Iago wrongly believed that what Cassio had was rightfully his.

Because of his nature, Iago was incapable of ever really being loyal to anyone but himself. That is what we as individuals and a society need to realize about what author Sandra Brown calls the “Low Empathy/Conscience Spectrum Disorders”—sociopathy, psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, borderline/borderpath personality disorder, and combinations thereof.

People with many of these disorders are their own god; in some cases, nothing truly matters more than themselves. These are not disorders that anyone else can fix for them—there is no amount of love or punishment that can cause permanent change. Many such people stay this way for life, and without the invited intervention of God’s grace combined with repentance and long-term commitment to suitable therapy, there is unlikely to ever be change.

Please be mindful that sociopaths and psychopaths are particularly adept at using their presence in church, in counseling, in support groups, and in the social realm as “proof” that they have changed. This can be especially true when there is a repeated pattern of them utilizing these means to convince others that they are reformed. Christianity is an often-cited cover for those lacking a real conscience. They know exactly what terminology to use and actions to showcase to convince others of their “sincerity.”

Sociopaths and psychopaths are largely beyond conventional help, meaning that counseling and other means of self-improvement may have no genuine effect on them. Even more disturbing, they may be using their self-help quest to learn to become better at their deception. They can also use therapy to shift the blame for their issues onto others, acting as if their family or partner has shared responsibility for the hole in their soul.

If we are to protect the genuine and the innocent among us, we must acknowledge that there are truly wicked, soul-sucking, pathological people out there—Iagos– who will never change. They may mellow with age, they may improve at hiding their true nature, but they are driven by forces of darkness that rejoice in the destruction of others, use others without remorse, and rationalize deception. They may be so used to their condition that they are not even consciously trying to be this way.

Othello, the great leader, the exceptional man who earned a position of prestige in a prejudiced society, the distinguished husband whose stories of trials and tribulations had won the heart of an adoring, faithful woman, was reduced to being Iago’s pitbull. By allowing his insecurities and fears to be probed and his ego to be stroked, he lowered his standards and became someone quite different from his authentic self to “satisfy” a sociopath.

Here in the 21st century, the same tragedies and consequences of sociopathic behavior are playing out all over our nation. Because of power-hungry devils like Iago, healthy relationships are broken up, loving marriages are stopped in their tracks, and children who would have otherwise existed will never be born as a result.

Innocent children repeatedly have their hearts broken by such self-absorbed behavior, and are conditioned to experience personality disorders, dysfunction in their own relationships, substance abuse, and domestic violence through it. Innocent men and women are increasingly finding their lives and livelihoods blown apart by it. Entire family trees and family legacies are being obliterated by the Iagos of our time.

Let us pray that the Iagos in our lives are exposed for what they are before they escalate and do even worse damage than they already have

Hot Dog, It’s Healin’ Time

By Heidi Hiatt

We all wear masks, and the time comes when we cannot remove them
without removing some of our own skin. -André Berthiaume

Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door, said, “The most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.”

I find it very disturbing when people fall for this mind game, a trap that low to no conscience types and their defenders instinctively set when cornered. Finding themselves in the hot seat, they divert onlookers’ attention from their misdeeds to all other possible causes of their behavior, including how society, their parents, their education, and their uncle’s former college roommate’s cousin’s deranged hedge trimmer-wielding hamster all have responsibility for their “mistakes”. Heaven forbid they should have to take responsibility for their own choices.

When Congressmen Anthony Weiner’s resignation speech was broadcast live on the radio this week, I couldn’t help but slip into psychology mode and analyze the content. The speech began with a recap of “what the people wanted” and how he became a Congressman because of their will. It came across as “remember, happy campers, you want me. Resignation isn’t what you want. Everything I do, I do it for you.”

Then, as he spoke over hecklers who exhibited the maturity of a seventh grade locker room, he embarked on a progression of pseudo-apologies that peaked with a statement I found curiously similar to the “apologies” serial killers give in court. The congressman said something to the effect of, “most importantly, I need to take time out for myself, so I can heal.”

Um… dude. Really? That’s all you’ve got? That’s the pinnacle of a weird attempt at remorse? Where’s the apology for lying, or to any victims, or to your wife, or…? You’re the most important person, the most harmed individual in this? Wow. That’s pathetic. Sounds like the greatest love… of all… was happening to you… (Whitney Houston voice). It’s clear that he was looking out for number one.

I really didn’t care about what Congressman Weiner was doing until I heard a teenager might be involved and then learned he lied about it. Sometimes we just have to admit we’re wrong and do better. According to his initial public statements, though, it sounded like those tighty whities photos just magically teleported themselves to the cell phones of random female fans. It was one of those “I’m sorry, do you think your 300 million fellow Americans are stupid?” moments.

Weiner’s attempted Jedi mind tricks were hopelessly ineffective and transparent. I don’t know enough about him to speculate about his inner condition, but can say that his recent laments sound narcissistic. Many saw through the spins being put on his ethical logjam, but I’m concerned that a case much closer to home is not being seen as objectively.

Yesterday serial burglar, thief, vandal, firearms law violator, fire starter, et cetera Colton Harris-Moore pled guilty to a handful of charges in federal court. He will be sentenced October 28th. The media is reporting that he may serve up to 6½ years in prison, and that he has to “forfeit” or “give up” the profits that will result from his exploits (movie deal, books, and so on). One news site reported that Harris-Moore and his attorneys had a hearty chuckle when the federal prosecutor forgot to mention the theft of a TV dinner (oh, pssht, no biggie even though he had to break into someone’s house to get it, right?).

Note the terminology being used widely in the Seattle area media: he is going to “forfeit” the profits. He has to “give up” the money he could otherwise be making off of his crime spree. This “forfeiting” means he is paying “restitution” to the victims. His attorney says there will be enough money to “pay back” the people he terrorized and stole from (keeping in mind his crimes went far beyond the million dollar mark).

Just as I said, “huh?” as Anthony Weiner “apologized,” now I’m saying, “this is restitution?” How do you “give up” something you don’t have? If you’re “forfeiting” profits, doesn’t that imply that you are foregoing the acquisition or retention of money that belongs to you? I realize that without this stipulation, Harris-Moore could keep the money he’s made off of the victimization of other human beings.

My point is that he’s not earning it, or working for it, or making an effort to pay the victims back himself. He’s “paying them back” by taking advantage of them in the first place. While I applaud the U.S. Attorney’s office for ensuring that this condition be part of the plea deal, it should not be labeled true restitution. Restitution would be breaking rocks in the hot sun, since he fought the law, and the law won. In other words, he should have to do something other than sit back and let the money roll in.

This reminded me of when Harris-Moore “gave” the animal shelter in Raymond $100 while on the lam. Fans cheered his thoughtful act of charity, but others of us thought it unlikely that he had $100 to give; he was probably donating stolen money. At the time I said I hoped his fans would inundate animal shelters with money if they were so happy about it (it would be nice to see some genuine good come out of the followers’ frenzy).

Another strange and murky aspect of the Harris-Moore case that lingers like the stench of a refried beans eating contest in an airtight tour bus is the optimism over his upcoming “rehabilitation.” I don’t know if any psychological evaluations have been conducted since he’s been in custody or who has conducted them. Even if there has been an appropriate assessment of his internal state, the public may not be privy to it (though they should be).

Douglas Adams once said that the most misleading assumptions we make are the ones we don’t even know we’re making, and there is a widespread assumption that because of Harris-Moore’s age and intelligence, he will be rehabilitated. I want to post a billboard-sized neon caution sign with flashing red lights on it right here: we don’t know that. We should not assume that. From what we know through the media’s coverage of Harris-Moore’s crimes, even without seeing the official police and prosecutor’s reports, there is evidence of an almost lifelong pattern of antisocial behavior that’s escalated over time.

People with low to no empathy and remorse, in many cases, are not rehabilitated. Some experts will argue that they can’t be or that the only way to effect any change is to have them engage in a cost-benefit analysis of how their behavior affects themselves. When they are finally convicted of a criminal offense (many are not), they spend their time in prison studying, networking, researching, and impressing everyone with their “model prisoner” status. The parole boards love them and some only serve part of their sentence.

This is how swindlers, rapists, murderers, burglars, and other convicts weasel their way out from behind bars to return to their hunting grounds and strike again. Similar to how some who perpetrate domestic violence get to go to “treatment” to hone their abusing skills, then come out of treatment more deceptive and stealthy than ever, some antisocials, sociopaths, and psychopaths leave prison as “success stories” when in actuality they’re better equipped than ever to victimize others.

Harris-Moore has so many fans, and such an emphasis has been placed on the terrible circumstances of his childhood, youth, and intellect, that some people think he’s going to turn it all around and use his “superpowers” for good. I would remind them that for every Superman, there’s a Lex Luthor. Some use their gifts selflessly, some selfishly.

It is rare that someone entrenched in the wasteland of vanity and megalomania sheds their scales for a cloak of righteousness. They can appear to; those are the scariest kind of people, the ones who appear charitable and moral while pillaging the lives of others for their own ends. As the Good Book says, Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Do I want Harris-Moore to spend his time in prison productively and become a better person? Of course; that’s what we hope incarceration does for people. I can’t limit God’s grace or be certain of the outcome of this mess. Through the lens of forensic psychology, however, I see a lot of red flags that indicate a low potential for genuine change and a number of reasons to be concerned about this guy’s future impact on society.

When people say, “he hasn’t killed anyone,” I want to sit them down and point out that this is how such criminals develop. Besides that, he could have already killed someone—he started a fire in a home in front of a small child, may have fired at police officers, illegally flew planes he didn’t know how to land, and broke into homes.

He also stole an assault rifle from a deputy’s car, was frequently armed, and even fired a gun when apprehended. He seemed paranoid, telling witnesses before his arrest, “they’re going to kill me.” Let’s not forget the time he bailed out of his neighbor’s stolen Mercedes after aiming it towards a large propane tank when deputies were pursuing him.

That childhood people are quick to use as an excuse for his behavior is the same set of circumstances that research is now showing to be a huge contributing factor to antisocial behavior and psychopathy. Some researchers theorize that child neglect or abuse could actually be the “on” switch that activates the sociopathic personality (with the caveat that many sociopaths also have normal childhoods).

Personally I believe that no matter what biological, environmental, or other factors you’re dealing with, you still have a choice as to how you treat others. It is interesting, once you start delving into the excuses people make for someone else’s behavior, how the very factors they believe should exonerate the subject may be the exact things that make them so dangerous.

Logically, the more we believe that elements other than a suspect’s free will influence their victimization of others, the more we should be trying to protect society from them. If they’re not in the driver’s seat, then we need to keep them off of the road and stop sending them back for remedial driver’s ed.

Harris-Moore has yet to face the courts in Island and San Juan County. He may well be sentenced to more time, yet I won’t be surprised if he’s allowed to serve his sentences concurrently. I hope not; he is a danger to society and needs to be punished for his flamboyant, repetitive patterns of evil behavior. While I can’t diagnose him from a distance, I want to be on record as warning the public that all that glitters is not gold, and that “forfeiting” profits from crime is not an indicator of real remorse.

Pleading guilty yesterday was in his best interest. It avoids the risks and costs of a federal trial and he knew he had to pay the piper at least a little. I’m bothered that he probably won’t spend more than a few years in prison (6½? I’d be shocked) and that his mother can still profit from the domestic terrorism spree she helped fuel. I hope that Randy Gaylord and Greg Banks, for the sake of the public they serve, are not merciful and prosecute Harris-Moore to the fullest extent of the law.

Additionally, I want to address the significant number of people who call speaking out against Harris-Moore’s behavior “hatred.” I saw this accusation of “hating” resurface on newspaper discussion boards yesterday. Condemning criminal, dangerous, selfish, and/or antisocial behavior is not hating someone. It is hating the behavior. There is a big difference.

There are people in my life I love, but I abhor the sick and abusive things they do to others. I can hope and pray for the best for them, but I can also keep my distance and do what I can to stop their selfish behavior. My faith does not compel me to tolerate it or accommodate it. If anything, I’m called to stand up for myself and for the victims. That’s what our criminal justice system is supposed to do as well.

Returning to my rant on the self-absorbed woman in the grocery store last night, we have to stop excusing and allowing bad behavior. I can’t join the quasi-religious mysticism of the Colton Harris-Moore cult or think of him as Camano’s own Bart Simpson, just an impish cartoon character who commits endearing acts of comical mischief. No, he’s an adult who has exhibited some strange impulses and hazardous decision making. While an attitude of contrition lingers in the air, I see a smokescreen. Time will tell.

Just as recent presidents have trumpeted the infringement of civil liberties and beefing up of an inefficient government as “for the benefit of the American people,” certain people caught in lies in the news this week may be squirting the same ink. Don’t believe everything they say.

Dig deeper. Look for the spins. Analyze the words and phrases that are being used repeatedly. Think things through for yourself, and don’t let other people make up your mind for you. Ask the ancient Roman question, “qui bono?”—who benefits?

‘Cause hey, buddy, this is about you. You’re the American people. This is what works best for everyone. You wanted this, remember? This is fair. It’s all working out like it’s supposed to. The dishonest among us just need time to go heal themselves. They’re the real victims here. Just give them time, and it’ll all be okay. Right?

Right?

Heidi Hiatt is a Generation X woman who is proud to advocate for crime victims, including domestic violence survivors, people with food allergies, children’s issues, animals, personal privacy rights, government accountability, and ethical law enforcement practices. Read her blog:Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

Open Court

By Heidi Hiatt

Those who’ve read my article on police records might be interested to check out an experiment in Massachusetts called OpenCourt. Here’s an explanation of it from their site:

OpenCourt is an experimental project run by WBUR, Boston’s NPR news station, that uses digital technology to make Quincy District Court more accessible to the public. Anyone with an internet connection will be able to see and hear what goes on in court.


I have no doubt that this concept will spread and it will be deemed a success by open government advocates. On the surface, it sounds like a decent use of modern technology that will contribute to government transparency.

Yes, I have some questions about and issues with this. I’m already on the record as a proponent of open government, but not at the expense of people’s privacy. Yes, I’ve heard it all, “there is no right to privacy,” “the Internet killed privacy,” and so on. But if we weren’t concerned about privacy, then government agencies wouldn’t be advising people to take steps against identity theft or try to keep crime victims and children safe.

My first concern is that victims and witnesses may have to go before a camera. It is true that the public can already sit in on many courtroom proceedings. But this is different because not only does it capture images and intimate details of proceedings, but it puts it on the world wide web. We bloggers know– once on the web, always on the web.

Second, this is what I mean about the distinction being victims and suspects being blurred. Subjecting both to video that goes on the web means they are being treated equally. Are projects like this going to blur out a victim’s likeness or distort their voice? Probably not, given that these broadcasts are streaming live.
While written court records are very open, allowing anyone access to video of victims is disturbing. The way our justice system handles records can victimize innocent parties a second or third time. Not only does a victim, witness, or complainant have to come forward a first time to report a crime or be interviewed, they may be investigated, have to testify against the suspect, seek a protection order against them, or have personal details of their lives released openly.

Now they have to be on TV? I looked around the OpenCourt site to determine if they show victims in their broadcasts, but so far am not finding anything that says they don’t. It seems wrong that these men, women, and children have gone through so much already, and then their anguish, anger, tears, confusion, or fear might be broadcast live. I can just imagine hungry sociopaths searching for their next victims via court TV.

My third concern is for juveniles. It appears that this particular court is not broadcasting cases involving juveniles. That is a sound decision, because many states protect juvenile records and generally don’t release images of kids. As the live streaming practice spreads, however, yet another class of formerly protected parties in the justice system may find their likeness and records publicly disclosed.

Fourth, this could be a safety risk for law enforcement personnel. Some cops I know are not okay with pictures of themselves being on the Internet. Some police departments shield digital images of their officers from public disclosure in the interest of their safety. I can’t speak for the cops in my life, but I’m confident that some of them wouldn’t be too fond of this.

Finally, projects like this make it seem like the traditional divide between having open records to police the conduct of government rather than the conduct of the individual is gone. This is a media-sponsored project, and the media is often heavily involved in open government advocacy. While I’m a firm believer in a free press, that does not mean that everybody’s business should be aired without restraint all of the time. I also remind myself that most media outlets are for-profit businesses.

This level of transparency may be useful in holding public officials accountable. But it can be detrimental to other participants in criminal and civil cases. It’s easy to say, “oh yeah! Now those judges can’t get away with anything!” or “it’s pretty cool to be watching live court from home.” However, putting yourself in the shoes of the people who may not want to be on TV and feeling what they feel might give you a very different perspective.

There has to be a balance between the public’s right to know and people’s personal information. But in the digital age, public records seem to be becoming a free-for-all in which nothing seems sacred anymore and everybody wants to watch. It will be interesting to see how this project deals with such issues.

Privacy is the right to be alone—the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized man. –Louis D. Brandeis

The Questionable State of Police Records

By Heidi Hiatt

In 2006, King County, Washington Councilmember Reagan Dunn was roundly panned for drawing attention to an issue with county records that were accessible to anyone via the Internet. His constituents’ social security numbers and signatures were displayed on many documents that were considered public record.

Obviously such information could be misused for identity theft or forgery purposes, so he was right to point this out. But he was criticized for increasing the risk of such crimes by doing so. This article may be similarly criticized, but this is about what your government is doing with your personal information, and to fix it, the public needs to be fully aware of what’s happening.

For more than eight years, I worked in the Records Division of a suburban police department. Records Specialists must master a wide range of time-sensitive duties, and some of us find our niche among those. I found that I was able to indulge my passion for the law by handling public records requests. It was challenging and required a lot of networking, research, and public relations skills. I took great pride in responding to these requests efficiently and by the book. I loved talking to and assisting crime victims, making sure that their personal information stayed safe.

In time, however, I realized that there was a tremendous disconnect between what the law said and what was actually happening statewide. I knew a lot of people at other departments with similar frustrations, and created an informal email network so that we could help each other do our jobs right. About 130 people from 70 agencies were on that list when I left in 2007, including a few administrators and a police chief. Some of those people remain close friends and confidantes, and to date it seems that many of the frustrations we addressed then remain unresolved.

Many of these people experienced what I had. We were trained to do a job one way, by veterans with formidable legal know-how and experienced peers. But we wound up being required to deviate from our state’s Public Records Act and case law to satisfy those who threatened our agencies with lawsuits. People like me also learned that attorneys and the media could be given access to just about anything by management regardless of what the public records laws said. We Records personnel were doing things by the book while watching department policies and state laws become meaningless as some parties received preferential treatment.

The most glaring example of the trampling of public records law happened after a Washington State case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. This had to do with a request for all traffic accident reports at a certain intersection, presumably to ascertain the safety of that location. Until this point, traffic accident reports were considered confidential under state law and only released to involved parties, mainly drivers, vehicle owners, attorneys, and insurance companies.

When this case reached the Supreme Court, they ruled that the requestor could obtain these reports through discovery. But our state Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion that was interpreted to mean that traffic accident reports were now open to the public via the Public Records Act, which is different than discovery. Armed with this information, an enterprising attorney representing himself as a publishing company (media) began to submit blanket requests to police departments for all traffic accident reports within a certain time period.

Three times I told him no, which is what I was trained to do and what the law said. The front page of traffic accident reports contains names, addresses, phone numbers, medical information, information on children, birthdates, vehicle information, insurance policy information, and driver’s license numbers.

Supposedly driver and vehicle registrations are confidential and not disclosable under federal and state law, law that has been clearly upheld in the courts. You don’t just run names and plates for private citizens, but right now they’re getting the same things from police reports and Dispatch call notes.

When I’ve questioned why this information hasn’t been redacted from traffic accident reports, I’ve been told that the person getting the report isn’t obtaining the information from the Department of Licensing, but from the report. That’s like saying my Cuban cigars come from New Jersey because they go through a warehouse in Hoboken on their way to Seattle. But what do I know. I don’t even smoke.

Working in law enforcement, I was well aware of how that information could be misused and sold, and my agency had trained me not to disclose such information except to people with a legitimate interest. Legal counsel at many agencies across the state decided to allow this attorney to get what he wanted based on the Attorney General’s opinion. While once we were all on the same page, everybody started doing something different to satisfy the bully tactics, an unfortunate manifestation of the Harry Truman quote, “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

Having to fulfill such blanket requests, which were ongoing and designed to gain access to all traffic accident report records all of the time, forced us Records personnel to put off regular records requests and make citizens stand in line. Records personnel at many departments, myself included, were not only having to spend hours and hours satisfying these requests, but the requestor obtained the reports for free, unlike regular people. If we failed to respond within the time period allotted by state law, these requestors could sue and make $5 to $100 a day we “delayed,” just like inmates who bombard agencies with requests designed to make money do.

Traditionally my agency had charged a flat fee per statute for these reports; others charged a per page fee. But this attorney sent his employees into our agencies’ lobbies with scanning equipment so they could scan in the front page of these traffic accident reports—using publicly funded facilities and utilities. We also had to deal with relentless angry phone calls from this attorney, who constantly threatened to sue if he didn’t get what he wanted.

Along with others, I pointed out that this issue was a question of law, and if this guy challenged us in court, I believed he’d lose. He was also selling the information he was obtaining from these reports for profit, a reality emphasized when one of our own employees received a mailed solicitation from a chiropractor after being involved in a traffic accident a block from work.

It should be noted that this attorney/”publisher” had been stopped from doing this in several other states, including by direct order of the governor in one. I took this concern to our state capitol and testified before a legislative committee to tell them of the problems and dangers this was creating. I was grateful for the legislators who took me seriously, but it wasn’t enough. By that time “open government” had come to mean that citizens’ information contained within those records was transparent along with the conduct of government. The original intent of our state’s public records law had been lost.

In the past ten years, the open government/open records movement has gained momentum and has helped open the actions of government up to we the people. Some of the people leading the charge are friends, and I respect what they’re trying to do. I’ve spent nearly a dozen years in government and at times have been floored by what I’ve seen managers get away with—theft, domestic violence, and worse. One of my least favorite aspects of public service is seeing taxpayer dollars go towards the accommodation of managers’ mistresses. (For those who work in public service and have tried to right these wrongs, you’re all too familiar with the phrase “it can’t be proven.”)

So I see the need for transparency and to prevent administrators from hiding behind their agencies’ honors and credentials. But this should not be done at the expense of people’s personal information. This is what I feel that lawmakers and open government proponents do not understand—they are operating in the realm of theory. Police records operate in the realm of reality. Tightening or loosening the rules on public records may have little effect on what actually happens. Creating new policies or conducting training across the state will not change the practices of the attorneys and police administrators who do whatever they want.

If readers gain one takeaway from this lengthy article, I hope it is that what the manual says and what the workers do, in this area, can be two radically different things. From my worker bee perspective, augmented by a formal education in criminal justice and forensic psychology, I see four levels of police records reality, not one. I want our state’s Sunshine Committee to be aware of this as well as the taxpayers who are paying for these services.

At the bottom we have the hard-working Records Specialists who may or may not be trained in public records law. They do what they’re trained to do and have great empathy for the people they serve, crime victims in particular. It can be very frustrating for them to have to adjust to the whims of administration and politics when that contradicts their training or the law or seems unethical. If you want to keep your job though, you generally go with the flow.

Unions, civil service commissions, and whistleblower policies don’t do much, if anything, to help you when your job’s been threatened for not being flexible. People can bully you in ways that don’t meet the legal definition of harassment and make it look like you’re being difficult or insubordinate. I’ve been there. My standing up to the unbridled disclosure of crime victims’ information was blamed on me pushing my own agenda because of my domestic violence experiences. No, it’s what the law said, it’s what they had me trained to do, and I did my job that way long before I had to fight my own battles. In my case there were other circumstances at play as well, but it’s an example of how hard it is to effect change.

Above the Records Specialists we have supervisors who may or may not be trained in public records law. Supervisors may be hired without any police records training or a law enforcement background. This can work against the integrity of sound records policies because decisions can become discretionary rather than fact-based or law-based. A supervisor without proper training also leaves no line of defense between administration and the Records Specialists to explain why they adhere to traditional procedures. A lack of expertise on the subject works against any positive change.

Law enforcement administrators may be proactive and brilliant with public records law or they may know almost nothing about it. I’ve known administrators, including police chiefs, who stay involved with and up to date on the latest developments in records practices and case law. In an effort to help my agency’s officers have a functional knowledge of records laws, I taught in-service classes to familiarize them with current statutes and practices. I don’t know if administrators have such a thing, but it would be helpful if the International Association of Chiefs of Police or FBI Academy took a greater interest in this issue.

The fourth level of public records reality involves the attorneys of various state and local agencies. I have learned a lot from this sector and admire those who can maintain the balance between the public’s right to know and people’s private information. Like the other levels I’ve mentioned, this can be a thankless job with long hours that is constantly dealing with upset or angry people. This can also be the level of police records reality with the most power. It is per this level’s advice that the Tower of Babel effect took hold in regard to traffic accident reports, with agencies issuing a wide range of responses to blanket, for-profit requests instead of staying on the same page. On that note, I believe this level may also have the most power to influence a remedy.

I’d like to delve into some specifics of public records law that desperately need to be addressed by lawmakers, agencies’ attorneys, and administrators. We need to unify instead of jeopardizing our agencies’ credibility and integrity—as well as our public’s safety and security—by continuing to allow the disclosure of police records to be discretionary. What readers know as redactions have become largely a myth. I have often heard proponents of open government/open records say, “there’s no danger to people by releasing police reports. You just redact any sensitive information.”

Wrong. For decades, police departments did redact information that could be considered private or sensitive. Some still do. But what has happened in the wake of the blanket traffic accident report requests is that things that may used to have been considered private—a sexual assault victim’s name, a domestic violence victim’s current address, a driver’s license number, nonconviction arrest records, and so on—are now considered public.

One rationale I have heard for this is, “it’s all available on the Internet anyway.” When this was said to me once, I replied, “fine, let them go to the Internet then.” Additionally, how does such information find its way to the Internet? How have stalkers been able to find everything they’d ever want to know about their targets by Googling them and instantly finding a number of sites with detailed profiles? Government records. Our open records laws sustain multibillion dollar private companies who glean information from public records and sell it. Is this really the purpose of open government? Should taxpayer funded public agencies be used to make money for private entities? Do we just accept that this is how it is, or do we do something about it?

Supposedly victims, complainants, and witnesses can request “nondisclosure.” I used to think that this meant their statements and personal information wouldn’t be disclosed. At minimum, it would seem that their names, addresses, dates of birth, and medical information wouldn’t be released. But the statute that allows for the vague concept of “nondisclosure” has become another perhaps unintended consequence of threats to sue and the open government movement. Even agencies that do respect the right to request nondisclosure may not have a way to guarantee it. Some check a box on the officer’s report, but will the data entry personnel or employee in charge of disclosure see that? The handling of nondisclosure varies whether or not a guarantee exists at all.

Do not assume that your personal information is treated as private. The current definition of “private” in this state, that something has to be “highly offensive to a reasonable individual” and “not of legitimate public interest,” is largely meaningless. Just how offended does a person have to get? Whose measuring stick are we using? In some cases, the only way a regular citizen has to protect their personal information is to take action in court—on their own dime—to block the release of records. That’s if they are notified of a pending release at all. Does this not seem utterly backwards to put the legal and financial burden on the victim, witness, or complainant?

The modern way in which victims, witnesses, and complainants are treated blurs the distinction between them and the suspects. It can allow them to be victimized a second time. The suspect in a case may be able to walk into a police department, make a public records request, and a few days later have your address, the names of your children, and copies of anything you said. So can the media. So can your neighbor. So can your ex-wife. Is the victim notified of this disclosure? Rarely. Some victim advocates stay on top of this, but they don’t work in records either.

There’s nothing in the law that says victims have to be notified. I acknowledge that suspects and their attorneys may obtain copies of everything through discovery with the prosecutor’s office, and court records are very open. But our public records practices have reached a new level of irrationality when anyone has access to anything through the Public Records Act. It was supposed to function differently than the other two ways of obtaining records.

When I wrote an article on records disclosure for my municipality’s magazine ten years ago, there were 40 categories of records exempt from disclosure in the Public Records Act. Nowadays, I don’t know what’s considered private or is actually protected. That can vary from agency to agency since there is no higher power ensuring compliance to a meaningful level. This goes back to my premise that information may be protected in theory when it’s released in fact.

There is one exemption in Washington State’s Public Records Act that is wisely crafted and often implemented. I went to Olympia to testify in favor of it and was happy to see it become law. The addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, and other personal information of public employees is exempt from disclosure. This happened after a vengeful convicted criminal was abusing police officers’ personal information to the point that he was harassing and endangering their family members, even their small children.

Making such information exempt was the right decision. I had been married to a cop and was a civilian law enforcement employee myself. I had heard horror stories from other police employees that underscored the need for this information to be protected (regardless of what is found on the Internet—the government should care even if the Internet doesn’t). But it’s always bothered me that we chose to protect public employees’ information while not extending the same protections to private citizens, especially crime victims. I was told that because the law does not say “address,” “phone number,” et cetera in regard to regular citizens like it does for public employees, that information was subject to disclosure.

Records storage is another area that needs to be addressed by policymakers. Some agencies do a good job of letting just a few authorized personnel have access to police records. Other places, it can be a fre-for-all. Technology has done a lot of inadvertent damage in this area and our laws have yet to catch up to it. For example, police reports used to be handwritten or typed, then put in a case file and filed away in a locked room. Now most reports are typed directly into computers (their narratives, at least), and anyone with access to a department computer, employee, volunteer, or otherwise, may be able to modify or print the report. Security has gone out the window.

The same is true of digital photos. When agencies transitioned from logging developed photos and negatives into their property/evidence division to taking digital photos, there may not have been protocols established for their storage. In some cases, photos were downloaded onto a common drive and left there. As with computerized reports, this meant that anyone with access to a department computer could view and print them. Most people have the integrity not to abuse that information, but not everyone does. Nude photos of a deceased governor were circulated at a party not that long ago.

The issues surrounding digital photos became disturbingly clear to me one day when I went onto a computer to fulfill a public records request. I saw a number of photos of a domestic violence victim who had sustained multiple injuries. In some of the photos, she had to reveal her buttocks to show the trauma. I felt like puking. What if that were me? I wouldn’t want revealing photos of my body placed on a computer drive where hundreds of different people could look at them. I’d want them treated as evidence, as something sensitive and personal.

This also struck me when I saw pictures of an unclothed dead man (and heard “dead people have no privacy rights”—how about his family?) I know that the officers downloading this information meant no harm; administration just hadn’t ensured a better way of doing things at that point. These photos weren’t treated like evidence anymore.

Here’s the most disturbing part. If we no longer consider personal information as private, cave in to lawsuit threats, and store information in a way that too many people have access to it, pray tell what is preventing photos like these from public disclosure? What statute or piece of case law are we standing on if we deny a request for a victim’s address or photos of their sexual assault? I don’t know. I don’t know what sliver of law is left that will protect the very people the criminal justice system exists to defend.

When Washington State’s Public Disclosure Act (now Public Records Act) was created in 1972, it recognized that you can have transparency and accountability in government without misusing people’s personal information or jeopardizing crime victims’ safety. Its language made that distinction. Public records laws were created to focus on the conduct of government, not the conduct of individuals and intimate details of their lives.

We must maintain that distinction. It has gotten lost in the whirlwind of the open government/open records movement and unchecked police administrative powers. So many people assume that individuals are protected when they are not. Personal information is being sold and whatever right to privacy individuals have has been largely abandoned. If we can spell out what of public employees’ information should be exempt from public disclosure, then we can do it for everyone else.

Ultimately, we have to ask the same question the Romans did—qui bono? Who benefits? Do the Records personnel who try to juggle the various philosophies on the subject? No. There can be a high cost for standing up to your bosses when you’re trying to do things by the book or standing up for the victims. Do the citizens? No. There are only risks and dangers associated with the reckless dissemination of identifying and sensitive information.

The people who can benefit from the questionable practices that have overtaken police records are those who can use such information to gain cooperation and mutual aid from entities like the media, or private companies who make money off of the taxpayers. Let’s not forget that terrorists can benefit from identity theft.

Critics of my stance may ask when the last time identity theft was committed straight out of government records, but it may not occur until another stage of its disclosure. It is disheartening to know that this is one of these issues on which policymakers might not act until someone is hurt or killed as a direct result of the government’s actions.

Finally, I’d like to add a word of caution. Many government employees are hard-working people who assist frustrated citizens all day long. It is a minority who make policy decisions and exercise discretion in this realm. Please do not go to your local records division and treat them as if they’re responsible for any problems. Identify and write to the policymakers instead, in a civil and respectful manner.

In my experience, the women and men who work in police records are a compassionate and intelligent group of people who have tried their best to rectify any problems. While this article was written to protect the personal information of citizens first and foremost, a category we all fall into, I also want to acknowledge the contributions and sacrifices records people have made to this area.

Epictetus said that to live a life of virtue, you have to become consistent, even when it isn’t convenient, comfortable, or easy. God knows that trying to protect our fellow citizens in this way hasn’t been convenient, comfortable, or easy. For some, there has been a heavy cost, but we can use those injustices to prevent costs to others as well.

This work isn’t done. It’s just beginning. And we need to involve everyone, from Records Specialists to governors to stop the runaway train that police records law (or lack thereof) has become.

Defeat the Vampires!

By Heidi Hiatt

WordPress.com blogger annotoole posted the first video listed below today. After I watched it, I realized that a well-known author has posted a whole series of videos to arm the public against manipulative and abusive people.

(Sarah! When did you do this? These are brilliant! What a fun and interesting way to help people avoid and break free from those we’ve always called vampires. Well done, and I love the nods to Lindner and Cleckley. My only beef is the swearing, but I understand why it’s included.)

Ladies and gents, we’ve dated, been engaged to, and married these people. We’ve worked for, are related to, and socialize with them. Some of us may be with them now. Like moths to light, they are drawn to strong, sensitive, successful, giving people that they can use as power sources in an attempt to fill the bottomless pits inside of themselves.

They come to us with a tragic circumstance or critical need that we loving people feel that we are destined to fix. They read us carefully and parrot our values, likes, and dislikes back to us so that we feel instantly bonded to them. They hide truths about their pasts and presents so that we will fit neatly into the niche in their lives that seems to have been custom-made for us.

But once we find that there is a disconnect between their words and actions, that they frequently say they’ll do things they don’t do, that they refuse to maintain proper boundaries with the opposite sex, and so on, they will start to push us away. We become the enemy. Everything becomes our fault. We are constantly reminded of what horrible people we are and how wonderful their other targets (partners) are in contrast.

The more you know about the hidden parts of their life and their affairs, the more you will be attacked. They will enlist the help of others to make you look like the instigator, and cut you loose without any regard for your well-being to allow them to finish their other meals. Because ultimately, they are predators, and you, as a whole, loving, sacrificial child of God, are a feast to them.

I remember what I said before I made the terrible mistake of trusting a vampire: either he’s the smoothest talker I’ve ever met, or he’s the one. He turned out to be the former, the exact type of soul-sucking black hole vortex these videos discuss, to whom I was merely a filling station on the highway of life.

Lacking light, hope, faith, and warmth in his life, he turned to multiple women at once to satisfy his sickness and moved on to more. The endless lies allowed him to act as if he were a serious relationship candidate but be something else entirely. His past, once verified, was different than he said or perceived that it was.

When questioned he could not inflict enough head games, gaslighting, and insults combined with compliments to keep me off balance. When you’re not standing on your own two feet you can be dragged along behind the psycho wagon easily, questioning if something’s wrong with you when the problem is in fact him.

Both men and women are capable of this behavior. Most adults have either experienced these people or know someone who has. They come from every walk of life and class in society. They pry their way into our hearts with pity and consume us like fire.

But remember– we are stronger than them. That’s why they were attracted to us in the first place.

Years ago, I began to realize that the people in my life who attacked me for not bowing to their soul-sucking darkness all seemed to be inwardly deformed by the same disease. When I started to research this, I read Dr. Robert Hare’sSnakes in Suits and was floored to find that someone had already penned a book about one of my experiences.

Since then, other experts have continued to affirm my experiences in words eerily similar to my own records of what has happened. The experiences of vampires’ victims are universal. As their misdeeds and predatory exploits are brought into the light, victims are learning how to beat them at their own game.

Arm yourself with the knowledge in these videos, draw on God’s unlimited strength, grace, and mercy, and break free from these vampires forever!

Mr. Invincible – The Invisible Psychopaths Among Us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YaVYBsQXTo

The Old Soul Mate Trick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BLMp1Xbso&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Mr. Duplicity – The Passive-Aggressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88tcoLQHqU&feature=related

Extreme Energy Vampires Amongst Us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oMa7yvzW_Q&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Exposing the Mask of Insanity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXEgzhMKGeg&feature=BF&list=ULvc1aD1xexV8&index=1

Dark Souls– Mind Games, Manipulation, and Gaslighting:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwWBHRKFYCA&feature=BF&list=ULvc1aD1xexV8&index=9

The Silent Treatment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IwEnZPa0N8&feature=BF&list=ULvc1aD1xexV8&index=14

Getting Rid of a Psycho: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuReWbacyPY&feature=BF&list=ULvc1aD1xexV8&index=20

Empaths and Narcissists– What Do They Have In Common?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Gw6OUVuwY&feature=related

An evil man is ensnared by the transgression of his lips,
But the righteous will escape from trouble.
-Proverbs 12:13

Pathology is usually quite subtle, at least in the beginning. –Sandra Brown

MAOA-L on CSI

From http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MAOA

By Heidi Hiatt

This week’s CSI episode was riveting even with Justin Bieber guest starring as a less than convincing troubled teen/domestic terrorist. There are not many episodes that are worth rewinding the show immediately to watch segments again, but this one was.

Besides the explosive subplot in which Bieber’s hair actually wound up a bit messy, Targets of Obsession pitted Dr. Ray Langston (Laurence Fishburne) against serial killer Nate Haskell (Bill Irwin) in court. Haskell had previously tried to stab Langston to death through the bars of his cell with a piece of his glasses.

Haskell decides to act as his own attorney and calls an expert witness, Dr. Corey, to the stand. Corey claims that Haskell has a gene that makes him 400 percent more likely to be aggressive, giving him a medical excuse for trying to murder Langston.

This exchange follows, with Haskell playing to the crowd that includes his adoring groupies:

Haskell: So Dr. Corey, it is your expert opinion that I cannot be held responsible for my actions, for any of them.

Corey: That is correct.

Haskell: So it’s true what they say, that I am a monster. But– a monster made of biology beyond my control. So– convicting me of attempted murder would be like convicting a blind man of being unable to see. Who’s the real victim here? Who’s the real victim?!

Langston is summoned to the witness stand and questioned by one of the prosecutors. He calls Corey’s assertions neuromythology, not neuroscience, pointing out the many conflicting studies on the subject. He goes on to explain that biology alone does not cause crime:

Langston: Alcoholics are genetically predisposed to alcoholism which is a known disease. But we don’t give drunks a pass if they decide to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill people. The law is interested in whether or not a person understands the different between right and wrong. And the defendant knows the difference between right and wrong. He takes pleasure in committing sadistic crimes that he knows are against the law. The fact that he has tried to cover up those crimes is evidence of his consciousness of guilt.

Prosecutor: No further questions, your honor.

Haskell: I have nothing but questions. Dr. Langton, are you a psychiatrist?

Langston: No.

Haskell: A neurologist?

Langston: No.

Haskell: A geneticist?

Langston: No, my field is research pathology.

Haskell: Then you have no expertise in this area at all. Correct?

Langston: No.

Haskell: No. You mean yes. You just testified to a complete lack of credentials. So, on what would you base any expertise?

Langston: Personal experience. Like you I was abused by an alcoholic father as a child. Like you I have the MAOA gene. DNA isn’t destiny. We’re all responsible for our own actions. I share the same gene with you, Nate, but I’ve never murdered anyone. I take satisfaction in bringing justice to victims, not killing them and torturing them.

I almost stood up and cheered. Oh yeah! Go Dr. Ray! As science increases our understanding of the biological factors that play into antisocial behavior, we can’t dismiss the importance of other factors, especially free will.

The gene in question here is a variant of the MAOA gene, sometimes called the warrior gene. Specifically, the variant known as MAOA-L is most often implicated in aggressive and antisocial behavior, although MAOA-H has entered into the discussion. The L indicates low activity of MAOA, and the H high activity.

Some researchers say that people with the active gene are more likely to respond with aggression when provoked, become mired in credit card debt, and join gangs. Childhood abuse or stress are supposedly the biggest triggers of this genetic trait. About a third of the people in Western populations have it.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information says that the MAOA gene “…encodes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. The protein localizes to the mitochondrial outer membrane. The gene is adjacent to a related gene on the opposite strand of chromosome X.”

In their March 2008 article MAOA and the neurogenetic architecture of human aggression (Trends in Neurosciences, Vol. 31, Issue 3), Joshua Buckholtz and Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg make a similar point to what the fictional Dr. Langston did: “Although aggressive behaviors and temperament are highly heritable, clinical and trait associations for the most promising candidate gene for aggression, MAOA, have been largely inconsistent.” They go on to propose a methodology intended to resolve some of the inconsistencies, but their point is valid; this is a developing concept.

Our understanding of the human brain is increasing in leaps and bounds. We already know that it is possible to have a brain scan that appears the same as a sociopath’s, but not be a sociopath. You might have heard of James Fallon, the neuroscientist who discovered that his brain appears that way. He had a PET scan done when he learned of a high incidence of antisocial behavior on his dad’s side.

Fallon’s story is part of a 2010 Talk of the Nation show on NPR. The audio and transcript are at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128339306. NPR host Neil Conan and correspondent Barbara Bradley Hagerty discussed how researchers like Fallon believe that both nature and nurture factor into sociopathic behavior:

Conan: So you can have a genetic disposition, but that is not fate.

Hagerty: That’s right, exactly.

While nature and nurture may well factor into behavior that harms others, I do not believe that biological and environmental factors are the only explanation of it. You can have a terrible, hellish childhood and still grow up to be a loving, considerate, productive member of society.

Even though biology and environment may increase the temptation to lash out in some people, a majority of human beings have the ability to consciously choose whether to indulge their inner demons. As MLK Jr. said, “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

If biology is the sole or the most influential factor in a person’s moral choices, then wouldn’t someone with no control over their actions be constantly making violent choices? Wouldn’t they frequently harm themselves? Or wouldn’t they be lashing out at random rather than targeting specific victims, or a specific type of victims? They would be like a runaway car with no brakes, striking everything in its path, not just selected objects.

Instead, people without conscience tend to use and consume specific others because of what they get out of it. They may engage in a cost-benefit analysis when selecting their victims. They may choose victims with a similarity to others who they perceive have wronged them. Many crimes are solved because of patterns and predictability, because criminals develop certain tastes.

While CSI‘s discussion of the MAOA gene was basic and designed for television, Langston’s point was right on the money. Haskell is not a victim; despite similar childhoods and genetics, Langston fights for victims while Haskell rapes and kills. Biology is not an excuse for criminal behavior.

Does our legal system believe that though? Already, in the United States and other countries, we have seen sentencing soften when neuroscientific evidence is used. It may seem merciful to go easy on the minority of the population that have certain biological characteristics. By doing so, we may be rewarding bad choices, freeing dangerous people to offend again.

If someone truly does not have control over their actions due to a biological factor, then society should be protected from them. They should not roam freely. Thus the biological theory backfires on itself. If a crime-causing condition is permanent, the only surefire way to protect everyone else is to keep such “zombies” locked up.

As a side note, the actor who plays Nate Haskell is shockingly believable in that role. He oozes sadism, narcissism, and lack of conscience. Originally a highly regarded circus clown, Bill Irwin has also been Elmo’s buddy Mr. Noodle and was in the Don’t Worry, Be Happy video with Robin Williams and Bobby McFerrin. His range is remarkable, and he and Fishburne are an excellent match.

I hesitate to bring up the stereotype about clowns and serial killers, but as I was writing this, a certain Jack Handey quote popped into my head: “To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kinda scary. I’ve wondered where this started, and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus and a clown killed my dad.”

Well Jack, maybe that clown had MAOA-L, an eerily quiet orbital frontal cortex, a crappy life, no soul, and no concept of good and evil, so he should be free to return to the big top. Never mind that many of the other clowns grew up in less than ideal circumstances, are violent crime survivors, have faced various injustices, and even have the same genetics, but volunteer at a crisis clinic in their off time.

I look forward to learning more about the biology of criminals and watching how our legal system and society responds to those findings. It is a fascinating field and I’m all for increasing our knowledge of human biology as it relates to crime. I just don’t agree with using it as an excuse for crime. We are more than skin-covered robots with a predetermined destiny.



The “why” of his disease is less important than “what” you are going to do about your situation. -Sandra Brown