Alone With The Devil Psychology paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Alone With The Devil Psychology paper...

Description

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

1

Alone With The Devil: A Book Review Keaton Rodriguez AP Psychology Mrs. Spencer November 26, 2016

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

2 Abstract

This novel discusses the point of view from a Forensic Psychiatrist who later became an attorney. Forensic Psychiatrist: Dr. Ronald Markman, has evaluated hundreds of killers for the purpose of describing their state of mind. Ronald wrote from a behaviorist point of view, explaining how the experiences and observations made in the murders life affect their ability to murder. Alone with, understanding a sociopath's mind. Supporting Marksman’s definition of “diminished capacity”, one journal article was reviewed. Additionally, another journal article was reviewed that looked at murders in a much different way than Markman did. Also discussed is how relevant this book is to everyday life, such as how hard it is to except that each of us is capable of murder. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the novel are analyzed.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY? SUMMARY Alone With The Devil by: Dr. Ronald Markman is a nonfiction novel that shares the point of view from a Forensic Psychiatrist dealing with all types of murders. In addition, to being a Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr. Markman went to law school and received a law degree as well. Being both a Forensic Psychiatrist and a Lawyer gave him a sharper edge because he knew the perspective of both professions from the inside. The legal system in regards to psychiatric evaluation in testimony changed dramatically with the introduction of “diminished capacity”. Diminished capacity is defined as an unbalanced mental state that is considered to make a person less answerable for a crime and is recognized as grounds to reduce the charge. For example, a person could be charged with first-degree murder and have their charges reduced to voluntary manslaughter if it could be demonstrated that they had a diminished capacity at the time the crime was committed. The psychiatric testimony of diminished capacity has made the conviction of first-degree murder much harder to apply. Markman gives a brief explanation of murder charges made by stating, “ In order for a killing to be first degree murder, the defendant must demonstrate three mental elements in addition to killing: he must premeditate, deliberate and harbor malice. If he doesn’t premeditate and deliberate, but does harbor malice, then it’s second- degree murder. If there is no malice, but merely intent to kill, then the killing is voluntary manslaughter. If none of the elements are present, but there is reckless disregard for human life, then the killing is involuntary manslaughter” (Markman 100). The introduction of diminished capacity reduced the amount of prison time served by many defendants. Throughout the book, Dr.Markman examines many killers. Two distinct cases were presented in comparison where they both killed someone, but a diminished capacity defense led

3

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

4

to a much-reduced sentence for one of the killers showing just how perverse the system can be. In the first case in 1985, an all American boy Kevin Green, had the world in front of him. Kevin had a wonderful life, coming from an upper-middle-class family, achieving good grades in school, volunteering in the community, and getting accepted into law school. Although, Kevin had it all he lived a secret life, hiding the fact that he was gay from his family. After prom, Kevin had a party at his parent’s beach house where he could celebrate with his gay friends. Kevin's brother Sean and friend Roger Anderson (who was always armed) had discovered Kevin talking to gay men and had decided to spy on his beach party. At the beach party they saw Kevin go off to another room to make out with a gay man. Sean and Roger immediately rushed into the party and hit Kevin with a giant flashlight and yelled, “faggot” repeatedly. After the party scene, Sean and Roger told Kevin's parents that he was gay. In short, Kevin’s parents disowned him and life as he knew it was over. Although, Sean took back what he said to his parents about Kevin being gay, Roger did not. Shortly after, Kevin was kicked out of the house. He bought an Uzi to shoot up Sean and Rogers’s cars and then kill himself. Kevin went to see Roger to get him to recant his story, but Roger refused by saying “I don't make deals with faggots”(Markman 115). Kevin then fired more than ten shots at Roger, even though killing him was never his intention. Dr. Markman examined Kevin Green and believed he acted with an ongoing “heat of passion” which severely diminished his mental capacity. In short, Markman thought it was not murder, but manslaughter. In the end, the court disregarded and Kevin was found guilty of second-degree murder and was given a sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. In the second case, Dr. Markman examined Dan White. Dan White had resigned his seat on the City Council, but changed his mind and wanted it back. The mayor, George Moscone, told Dan no, it was too late. Subsequently, Dan White broke into City hall and begged the mayor for

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

5

his seat back and was again told no. Since, Dan didn't get the answer he wanted, he pulled a gun and shot Moscone and Councilmen Harvey Milk who was homosexual. Dan white was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, but the prosecutor wasn't able to sustain the charges. The defense brought in psychiatric testimony which declared “Dan White had diminished capacity because he had been depressed, eating a poor, high-sugar diet, and that his mental state had deteriorated significantly, to the point where he no longer had the capacity for malice” (Markman 124). White was eventually convicted of manslaughter. Why was Kevin Green convicted of Second-degree murder and Dan White was convicted only of manslaughter? They both were shown to have a diminished mental capacity in committing the murders. Social prejudice may have played a role in the jury pools of each case. Kevin was gay and killed a “macho man” while Dan White killed a gay man. The difference in the punishments in these cases, demonstrates the perversity of the way the system works. PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Behaviorist theory explains how all behavior is learned through observation and experience. Unlike, some Forensic Psychiatrists, Markman didn’t use neurological exams to determine if there were irregularities in the brain. Determinations as to a killer’s mental status were reached through the quality of interaction using standard tests for personality development and intelligence. One of Marksman’s clients, Lawrence Sigmund Bittaker is a prime example of the behaviorist theory. Lawrence Bittaker was abandoned by his birth parents and was adopted. Bittakers new parents moved several times. By the time he was seventeen, he had already moved to five different states and had gotten into trouble with the police, which led him to dropping out of high school. Soon after, Bittaker dropped out of school “The Long Beach police arrested him for hit-and-run, auto theft, and evading arrest” (Markman 250). From that moment on Bittaker’s

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

6

problems with police kept building. Bittaker claimed, “ his ever-lengthening list of crimes was created “under circumstances that were not totally my fault.” He explained that he had been mistreated, misunderstood, and falsely accused his entire life” (Markman 251). Subsequently, he blames his actions from experience. Although, Bittaker was never declared to have a mental illness he was defined as a sociopath or in other terms, antisocial personality disorder. The scary thing about Bittaker continuously going in and out of prison was “Prisons have often been called “colleges for criminals,” where inmates, rather than being rehabilitated, only learn more sophisticated methods of crime” (Markman 253). But even more terrifying than that was “Inmates form partnerships that raise their combined potential danger far beyond what each would be capable of alone” (Markman 253). In short, Bittaker partnered with another inmate Roy Norris. Norris was a many-time loser as a teen. He dropped out of school at seventeen to join the Navy and served four months in Vietnam. He experimented with drugs. While in the Navy, Norris had been arrested for forcible rape and assault with attempt to commit rape and was given an administrative discharge for “psychological problems” and severe “schizoid personality” (Markman 253). Once, he was out of the Navy he went on to viciously assault another woman and was then committed to a state hospital as a mentally disordered sex offender. He was released after five years and deemed “no further danger to others” (Markman 254). In months, he was right back at raping another woman. He was convicted again and put in prison. This prison stay was where Roy Norris met Lawrence Bittaker. Both Norris and Bittaker were released from prison within months of each other. They met up with each other and they formed their plan by buying a cargo van with a sliding door so they could easily pick up girls. They cruised the beaches of California and over time they raped, viciously tortured and murdered five teenage girls. When Norris and Bittaker were being interviewed by police investigators, they

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

7

each tried to place the blame of their actions onto each other. The probation officer shared his opinion by saying, “Norris “never exhibited any remorse or compassion about his brutal, hideous behavior towards the victims….”(Markman 266). The probation officer continued on by saying his “total lack of remorse about the plight of his victims, means he can realistically be regarded as an extreme sociopath, whose depraved, grotesques pattern of behavior is beyond rehabilitation” (Markman 266). While Bittaker was awaiting his trial he wrote The Last Ride, “...a book telling the story of his partnership with Norris and the details of their rape-torture murder spree” (Markman 267). What really shocked people was how “Bittaker’s attorney said he thought his client had a death wish, not only because he wrote such a document, but then gave it to the police” (Markman 267). Bittaker had a reason for writing this book. Markman described in the book how “He portrayed himself as being continually surprised as Norris led him deeper and deeper into the crime spree. Bittaker said he actually tried to save the lives of their victims, but was himself, overpowered and outmaneuvered by Norris” (267). But, no one believed Bittaker and he was given the death sentence. Whereas, Norris was given a life sentence and is eligible for parole. Furthermore, “Bittaker and Norris had helped each other fulfill their most savage, primitive potential as sociopaths” (Markman 268). Markman explains how a “Sociopathy is not usually classified as a mental illness, but rather as a character disorder. A sociopath knows right from wrong—he simply doesn’t care”(269). Bittaker and Norris both did not have good childhoods. They both were convicted of crimes and released from prison multiple times. When they were together in prison it would seem that the notion of prison being “colleges for criminals” would appear to be true (Markman 253). Therefore, criminals housed together often feed off of one another and go on to commit even more heinous crimes when they are released from prison.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY? JOURNAL ARTICLES: SUPPORT/CHALLENGE YOUR BOOK In the first article, Dr. Dorothy Lewis is a psychiatrist and expert witness that researches the roots of violence, particularly in regards to murderers on death row. She has examined some of the country’s most notorious murderers, Ted Bundy and Joel Rifkin being two (Rowe 1). Dr. Lewis takes a controversial approach in her defense of a criminal’s actions. She does research and question the criminal’s childhoods, but she also has the murderers undergo neurological testing. It is her theory that “When the brain is out of whack, thinking goes awry; when thinking goes awry, feeling goes awry; when thinking and feeling go awry, behavior goes awry. That’s the way it is,” she says” (Rowe 2). Lewis contends that child abuse impairs the development of the cortex resulting in impulsive and criminal behaviors. Dr. Markman and Dr. Lewis look at murderers in a much different light. While Dr. Markman does not ignore childhood abuse and the role that it plays, he does not apply a brain-physiology connection that Dr. Lewis applies to her examination and determination as to a criminal’s mental status. In the second journal article, Is Our Capacity Diminished to Understand Diminished Capacity? The article delves deep into the “diminished capacity” defense and the admissibility of it in a court of law. For example, Wade Davies, the author of the article stated, “...the term “diminished” capacity is misleading. “Diminished” capacity is not sufficient; what is required is not diminished capacity but an incapacity to form the required intent” (27). This article was written in 2014 and Alone With the Devil was published in 1989 and the introduction of diminished capacity was begun in the 1950’s. Markman states that “In 1976,... the California Supreme Court went so far as to rule that a person without a preexisting mental illness could, for all intents and purposes, be provoked into a diminished mental state that would reduce responsibility for a crime” (103). Dr. Markman showed that many of the criminals he was called

8

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

9

to examine did have a “diminished capacity” as was accepted at the time of his expert testimony. Markman, at the time did not have to show that a criminal had a preexisting mental illness. In 2014, the Phipps/Hall standard of “diminished capacity” is explained by the court in three main points: “1) The defendant must suffer from a recognized mental disease or defect. 2) The disease or defect must cause the defendant to lack the capacity to form the required mental state. 3) The expert testimony must otherwise satisfy the rules for admission of expert testimony” (Davies 27). Thus, what is accepted as admissible in court has evolved since 1989 and in the case of “diminished capacity” much stricter criteria must be met today. SUGGESTIONS/RELEVANCY Dr. Markman is not only a Forensic Psychiatrist, but he is a Lawyer as well, which gave him the ability to understand both sides. In my opinion, Dr. Markman helps to give us a clear understanding into the world of killers and their penalties. Personally, I absolutely think the advice given in this novel is relevant to everyday life. At the beginning of the novel Markman makes a rather fascinating, but alarming statement: “It’s unfortunate that, in our society, killers can become celebrities. Our morbid fascination with them is simple human nature-we’re curious about killers, almost drawn to them. We want to know more. There is something inside them that is also inside us, and we are attracted to them so we can find out what that something is” (4). Neighboring that statement, later on in the book Markman states, “We all share the inner forces that drive people to kill other people. We’re all capable of murder, which is why all religions contain specific commandments against it and why it’s against the law. If we weren’t all capable of it, there would be no need to forbid it” (44). Studying the minds of killers is captivating in the same way that we gawk at a traffic accident scene. We don’t really want to see something horrific, but our mental curiosity takes over. We ask ourselves, “How could someone murder

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

10

someone so senselessly and have no remorse in doing so”? For instances, television shows such as Law & Order, Criminal Minds, and C.S.I have been on for greater than ten seasons because people are drawn to criminal investigation. Solely, I think our society has not done enough to remove the stigma of treating or diagnosing mental illness. Consequently, what additional information I’d like to know is how can we reduce the stigma and shame of having a mental illness? STRENGHS/WEAKNESSES The title of the book “Alone With The Devil” captured my attention right away, but the first few chapters of the book weren’t near as captivating as I had anticipated. The weakness of the novel is certainly it’s slow start, but it gained momentum with each additional chapter. The strengths of this book out number the weaknesses in helping a person to understand how someone could be charged with first degree murder and yet, only be convicted of manslaughter. Dr. Markman showed the importance of psychiatric evaluation in respects to someone's criminal behavior. Overall, with the exception of a sociopath, each killer was vastly different from the other, which added the hunger to read more.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

11

REFERENCES Markman, R., & Bosco, D. (1989). Alone With The Devil: famous cases of a courtroom psychiatrist(First Edition ed.). 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York: Doubleday.

Davies, W. (2014). Is Our Capacity Diminished to Understand Diminished Capacity? Tennessee Bar Journal, 50(11), 26–29. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Rowe, C. (2000). Are Killers Born or Made? Dr. Dorothy Lewis Explains Why People Turn Violent. Are Killers Born or Made? 4(9), 5. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

DIMINISHED CAPACITY? APPENDIX A

12

DIMINISHED CAPACITY? APPENDIX B

13

DIMINISHED CAPACITY?

14...