strange answers to the psycopath test.

[sandra L]

It's similar to the "in denial" thing in prisons - there's no way for the prison regime to address claims of innocence, because, according to all of the rules, those who are in prison are there because they have been found guilty. Therefore, the only avenue open to the prison authorities is to interpret claims of innocence as "denial," leading them to have to conclude that the prisoner is still a risk to society because s/he "refuses" to recognise their "offending" behaviour. There's just nowhere within that system to consider the possibility that there may be no offending behaviour to address in the first place.

[sandra L]

Sorry, cross posted - the very thing I was trying not to do yesterday!

[Caroline]

I'm really confused by this thread - the video goes with Jon Ronson's book 'The Psychopath Test' - which I have read and questions the validity of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). This is the test that Jeremy is supposed to have PASSED so shouldn't you be singing it's praises?

Supporters who question the validity of the test, must then question Jeremy's results?

[Stephanie]

It's similar to the "in denial" thing in prisons - there's no way for the prison regime to address claims of innocence, because, according to all of the rules, those who are in prison are there because they have been found guilty. Therefore, the only avenue open to the prison authorities is to interpret claims of innocence as "denial," leading them to have to conclude that the prisoner is still a risk to society because s/he "refuses" to recognise their "offending" behaviour. There's just nowhere within that system to consider the possibility that there may be no offending behaviour to address in the first place.

No, you see Sandra you are doing it again. Not only are you contradicting your posts but the meaning behind what you attempt to convey

My post was about denial in general. So I've no idea why you've posted as you have?

Denial, by the way, for anyone who may be interested, is a coping mechanism that gives one time to adjust to distressing situations.

Remaining in denial however can interfere with ones ability to tackle challenges. If someone is in denial, it often means they are trying to protect themselves, by refusing to accept the truth about something that's happening in their life.

Worth a read imo http://lifehacker.com/5972649/how-denial-negatively-affects-your-choices-and-what-you-can-do-about-it

[Caroline]

It's similar to the "in denial" thing in prisons - there's no way for the prison regime to address claims of innocence, because, according to all of the rules, those who are in prison are there because they have been found guilty. Therefore, the only avenue open to the prison authorities is to interpret claims of innocence as "denial," leading them to have to conclude that the prisoner is still a risk to society because s/he "refuses" to recognise their "offending" behaviour. There's just nowhere within that system to consider the possibility that there may be no offending behaviour to address in the first place.

Not at all, of course some claims of innocence are valid but I'm not talking in GENERAL terms, I'm talking about the Bamber case. MOJ's are your particular interest and that's fine and I agree with you in general - but not in respect to this 'specific' offender.

[nugnug]

his guilt or innocence doesnt depend on the tests simple.

ive allways stated i thought thses tests were complete bullshit.

[sandra L]

Not at all, of course some claims of innocence are valid but I'm not talking in GENERAL terms, I'm talking about the Bamber case. MOJ's are your particular interest and that's fine and I agree with you in general - but not in respect to this 'specific' offender.

Apologies, that explains the confusion! I'm talking in general terms, because I don't know enough about the Jeremy Bamber case to comment specifically about it. Because this thread is in the "Other high profile cases" thread, and was started as a discussion of the Psycopathy Test generally (and not in relation to any particular case), I've carried on treating it as a general discussion except where I have specific knowledge of a specific case (hence my post about the "experts" in the Luke Mitchell case.)

[sandra L]

No, you see Sandra you are doing it again. Not only are you contradicting your posts but the meaning behind what you attempt to convey

My post was about denial in general. So I've no idea why you've posted as you have?

I wasn't responding to your post

[Caroline]

Apologies, that explains the confusion! I'm talking in general terms, because I don't know enough about the Jeremy Bamber case to comment specifically about it. Because this thread is in the "Other high profile cases" thread, and was started as a discussion of the Psycopathy Test generally (and not in relation to any particular case), I've carried on treating it as a general discussion except where I have specific knowledge of a specific case (hence my post about the "experts" in the Luke Mitchell case.)

I agree that the PCL-R test is inadequate - so passing it, is no more valid that failing it.

[nugnug]

it wasnt to be specificaly a discusion of jeremy bamber that why i put it in the off topic thread.

[Caroline]

it wasnt to be specificaly a discusion of jeremy bamber that why i put it in the off topic thread.

So why did you make the post below?

i actully have jeremy in mind specficaly ehen when i posted this

[nugnug]

that was a typo i ment to put dident.

[Caroline]

that was a typo i ment to put dident.

Yeah right! Nice edit though!

[sandra L]

My concern with tests such as this, Eckman's "micro-expressions," polygraph testing etc is the selective ways they are used and interpreted.

Often, when it suits the authorities, they will trot out these tests as validation for whatever it is they are claiming, and vice versa. For example, here in Scotland, an MP by the name of John Lamont was most vocal about rolling out polygraph testing across the country on sex offenders to "check" if they were safe to be released, or to remain at liberty - fail the polygraph and they either don't get out, or are returned to jail.

When Luke Mitchell and his mother both passed polygraph tests, the same Mr Lamont was equally vocal in insisting that prisoners should not be allowed to take the tests, and publicise the results "in these circumstances." Mr Lamont, and others like him, were happy to accept polygraph results as "proof" of guilt, but not as "proof" of innocence.

[nugnug]

Yeah right! Nice edit though!

belive it or not not everything is jeremy bamber related.

i thought the topic i thought the topic was worthy of discussion initself.