g m g D e s i g n . c o m

What do you get when you cross someone who is impulsive, thrill-seeking, deceitful, and completely without a sense of right and wrong? A psychopath, of course.

And despite the high rate of recidivism of psychopaths, perhaps they should be cut some slack. After all, they can’t help their neurological make-up. In a sense, it’s really not their fault, or at least that’s the argument that lawyers will be making.

A psychopath is someone who has no capacity to empathize. Note that the term psychopath does not suggest that someone is crazy. In the movies, “psychos” are invariably portrayed as killers. That reputation does have a basis in reality, but it is certainly not always the case. In “Snakes and Suits” (a book co-authored by Dr. Hare, the inventor of the psychopathy checklist), the authors describe psychopaths who attain high positions in corporate America, taking credit for the work of others and spreading enough confusion and misinformation to keep their opponents in check and their bosses happy with their “work.”

Psychopathic individuals already have a good chance at getting out of trouble. They can lie remorselessly and convincingly, persuading even the skeptical recipient that he or she is wrong and the psychopath is correct. Psychopaths are expert human predators — societal parasites who will use our weaknesses against us, sometimes for no obvious reason.

Throughout history people with psychopathic tendencies have gleaned power for themselves at the expense of many. I certainly can’t prove that Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam were psychopaths (per the checklist), but it seems highly probable that they were.

Psychopaths in America aren’t quite as powerful as the aforementioned psychopathic candidates, if only because our system is more effective at incarcerating them. A disproportionate share of the prison population scores high on the psycopathy checklist. Rather than attaining power, they go to prison.

Some people with psychopathic tendencies, such as James Arthur Ray*, attain wealth from his gullible followers before being exposed. But, as is typical of psychopaths, not everyone is convinced that they’ve been duped, even after the predator is exposed. On one of James Ray’s “vision quests,” three people died and multiple people were injured due in no small part to negligence on Ray’s part. Unsurprisingly, Ray fled the state (Arizona) following the incident and, to my knowledge, never took responsibility for his actions. I suspect he will face no serious repercussions for his criminal negligence, in large part because he will likely have no trouble persuading a jury of his “innocence.”

Having read about the chilling, disturbing, cold world of psychopaths, it’s tempting to believe that psychopathy itself should be criminalized. Maybe that’s a bit draconian. But in regards to this talk of cutting psychopaths some slack, I say that it’s a dreadful idea. A psychopath would de-fraud you of your wealth or kill your family and not feel bad about it for an instant. Feeling sorry for these predators is a travesty for the line of victims left in their wake.

* Note – at no point have I claimed that James A Ray is a psychopath. I cannot prove that and will not make such a claim. I merely point out that, based on media reports, he has psychopathic tendencies.

We’ve all heard about Michael Phelps–gasp!–having fun at a party. Here’s an interesting perspective from the WSJ. Excerpt:

The attitude of most Americans, Richland County’s sheriff aside, is “Who cares?” After all, smoking pot didn’t prevent Barack Obama from becoming president. And obviously, recreational marijuana use hasn’t harmed Mr. Phelps, whose prodigious performances have garnered 14 gold medals, the most in Olympic history. If he can smoke pot and perform at such a superhuman level, then perhaps we should reconsider the effects of — and punishments for — use of the substance.

Today, not only is it illegal to smoke marijuana, but, most people are surprised to learn, the number of arrests for marijuana use and possession are increasing. In that bastion of liberal values and political views, New York City, close to 400,000 people were apprehended for marijuana misdemeanors in the decade ending in 2007. This was almost 10 times the number arrested in the previous decade. In 2007 alone, nearly 800,000 Americans were arrested for simple possession of marijuana, according to FBI statistics.

But, you’re probably thinking, very few presidents, Olympic champions and college students are arrested for drug use. My daughter attends a prominent private university in the city, and she tells me many of her peers smoke pot. Yet neither she nor I had ever heard of a single arrest for this crime on campus.

So what determines who gets in trouble for pot?

Neighborhoods, social status, police activism, lingering racism, money and power, legal representation: It’s a giant ball of wax.

You got that? It’s a giant ball of wax… whatever that means.

I know why crack-cocaine is illegal (and heroin, and methamphetamines). But marijuana? It perplexes me that that particular substance be a schedule 1 (illegal) drug. The THC (psychoactive substance in cannabis) can at least be used for legitimate, medical purposes (via prescription). Why isn’t it? It’s probably a ball of wax… but I think the main reason is economic. How many people in law enforcement financially benefit from pot’s status as an illegal drug? A lot, I’m guessing.

That was the title of Foreign Policy magazine about a year or so ago (from memory, I don’t recall the precise date). Now, an update. Apparently the US imprisons way too many people for drug-related crimes. Here’s Dr Thomas Barnett’s take on this in a pithy blog entry entitled “Hear ye, hear ye: U.S. is number one in prisons!” Check out the first para and a 1/2:

We are five percent of global population but house almost one-quarter of prisoners, but that fits our share of garbage, pollution, energy use, GDP production, etc., so hardly a shocker.

Bigger problem is that we produce more ex-cons that anybody on planet, and that’s bad for business.

I’m no “pro-drug radical,” but the “what about the children?” argument in favor of draconian drug policy is bogus (unless you’re OK with your children spending time behind bars and having a permanent record due to one night’s bad judgment). And pragmatically, it’s hurtful as well; prison over-crowding often means that prisoners are let out early, even those who are more prone to recidivism. Then, there’s Barnett’s argument against the economics of it.

Lastly, and importantly, is the libertarian argument: does the government–esp the central gov’t–really have the right to tell us what we can or cannot put in our bodies?

John Stossel presents a compelling argument against zealous gun control laws. Check it out:

As for the first option, “carefully controlling guns,” how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

By that rationale, advocates of strict gun control legislation are, in effect, advocates of criminals who utilize guns to perpetrate crimes.

Then again, I personally don’t think it should be trivial to obtain a gun, esp a hand-gun.