Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reading up on the Breivik case, and having a morbid fascination with serial killers, got me to think. What type is worse? In fact, more then that, would you consider a terrorist worse, in the ranks then a simpler gang land killing? Are mass murderers worse then serial? Are crimes of passion ranked up there with the rest? Can one honestly consider one more or less worse then the others?

Im really curious whats DAKKA's thoughts on this. I know its a rather dark subject, but its in our faces, regardless of the nation you live in. News constantly pumps this kind of act on the TV/news stands so we are all well aware of the dark things humans are capable of. I just wonder what the minds here think on this one.

You know when some one barges into you in the street, you get annoyed but you go about your day because it's not worth it?
Well Brevik doesn't have that. He got annoyed and he couldn't control his emotions. That's all there is to it, he's a normal human being otherwise.

A normal human being that murdered a gak load of people........right. But your post has next to NOTHING to do with the topic I presented. I asked what people's opinions are of how different types of murders/killings rank in their opinion. Not weather Brevik eats his pizza the same way as I do

KingCracker wrote:A normal human being that murdered a gak load of people........right. But your post has next to NOTHING to do with the topic I presented. I asked what people's opinions are of how different types of murders/killings rank in their opinion. Not weather Brevik eats his pizza the same way as I do

well like most things, its measured by the body count.

Breivik is pretty much a textbook psychopath, egotistical and highly intelligent (his attacks, though sickening, were well planned) but also totally insane in his views on the world.

As for differences in crimes, I don't think that there is much difference in how appalling it is to kill one person or one hundred if those killings were premeditated. By planning and executing the plan to kill someone in cold blood you have already shown that you hold no value for human life. If you kill more people then you hurt more people but your opinion on the value of human life doesn't change as it was already worthless to you. I can't think of a more wretched and pitiful creature than someone who cannot find any value in the lives of their fellow humans.

A man recently gouged his partners eyes out after they had an argument. He did this so she would never see her children again. While not murder, I tend to find it equally as repugnant.

It's like hearing about men throwing acid in the faces of their wives/girlfriends/sisters/whatever because of some cultural/religious slight, it sends me into a rage.

I feel like I'm tripping myself up here as there are so many differing examples of murder and violence that could be used as comparisons.

Ultimately murder is judged and ranked, for example it's much worse to murder a child than it is an adult. /simplification

a bit off topic but see i read about these mass murders/ serial killers but they dont make my skin crawl as much as stuff like about that guy who kept a girl in a basement for years as a sex slave

i guess for some reason murder (of adults) dont really bother me. I guess when a person dies, the horror ends there...if for the victim at least.

but when a victim is still alive...*shudder*

KingCracker wrote:Reading up on the Breivik case, and having a morbid fascination with serial killers, got me to think. What type is worse? In fact, more then that, would you consider a terrorist worse, in the ranks then a simpler gang land killing? Are mass murderers worse then serial? Are crimes of passion ranked up there with the rest? Can one honestly consider one more or less worse then the others?

Terrorists are worse most definately, because they not only cause deaths, they create a large atmosphere of terror that is probably one of the most powerful weapons in existence. Look at the U.S. September 11 was over a decade ago and still a lot of Americans are paranoid about it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Breivik is pretty much a textbook psychopath, egotistical and highly intelligent (his attacks, though sickening, were well planned) but also totally insane in his views on the world.

As for differences in crimes, I don't think that there is much difference in how appalling it is to kill one person or one hundred if those killings were premeditated. By planning and executing the plan to kill someone in cold blood you have already shown that you hold no value for human life. If you kill more people then you hurt more people but your opinion on the value of human life doesn't change as it was already worthless to you. I can't think of a more wretched and pitiful creature than someone who cannot find any value in the lives of their fellow humans.

Not to pick you out of the crowd or anything, so please dont feel picked on. But can you explain a bit more why you dont find 1 person murdered (for the sake of keeping it simple, lets just say a quick execution style murder) any worse then say, 15 people murdered? 20? 50? Granted, I dont think 1 persons life is worth less then another, but it seems to me personally, that stacking ON killings, weather mass killing or a "successful" serial killer, is much worse as the numbers stack up.



Backerofish - " I guess when a person dies, the horror ends there...if for the victim at least"
I almost see your point here, but then I think of some of the REAL sick feths out there, and think even still, the events leading up to their death, just makes it that much worse. Look up Albert Fish "the Grey man" or read into BTK Dennis Rader. Radar especially, because he would strangle women till near death, and then revive them. And do this as many times as he could. I mean, how can one say the horror ends in death, in situations like that.

Theyre all pretty fethed up.

I can at least accept that terrorists believe in something, specifically suicide bombers. Youve gotta appreciate their dedication to a cause, however rediculous.

Terrorists are better than crimes of passion are better than gangsters are better than serial killers.

It's motivation, IMO.

KingCracker wrote:
Backerofish - " I guess when a person dies, the horror ends there...if for the victim at least"
I almost see your point here, but then I think of some of the REAL sick feths out there, and think even still, the events leading up to their death, just makes it that much worse. Look up Albert Fish "the Grey man" or read into BTK Dennis Rader. Radar especially, because he would strangle women till near death, and then revive them. And do this as many times as he could. I mean, how can one say the horror ends in death, in situations like that.

actually that was the point i was trying to make in a way. if the psycho is prolonging the agony by keeping their victim alive then thats scarier for me than say... a psycho who makes skinsuits. the body is dead...the person isnt there anymore, its just a corpse.

at least thats how i feel.

KingCracker wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Breivik is pretty much a textbook psychopath, egotistical and highly intelligent (his attacks, though sickening, were well planned) but also totally insane in his views on the world.

As for differences in crimes, I don't think that there is much difference in how appalling it is to kill one person or one hundred if those killings were premeditated. By planning and executing the plan to kill someone in cold blood you have already shown that you hold no value for human life. If you kill more people then you hurt more people but your opinion on the value of human life doesn't change as it was already worthless to you. I can't think of a more wretched and pitiful creature than someone who cannot find any value in the lives of their fellow humans.

Not to pick you out of the crowd or anything, so please dont feel picked on. But can you explain a bit more why you dont find 1 person murdered (for the sake of keeping it simple, lets just say a quick execution style murder) any worse then say, 15 people murdered? 20? 50? Granted, I dont think 1 persons life is worth less then another, but it seems to me personally, that stacking ON killings, weather mass killing or a "successful" serial killer, is much worse as the numbers stack up.

I can't really put it into words. It's like you look at the deaths of say 20 people in a rampage but instead of seeing 20 deaths lumped together you see 20 lots of 1 death. Each of those deaths will affect a different group of people, different families and friends, they are contained within their own sphere. For me to take a life is the ultimate act of evil, with only very extreme circumstances justifying it. You take everything that that person is and everything they ever will be. To me saying that the death of 20 people is worse than the death of one devalues the one and ignores the fact that each of those 20 is a one to somebody. They are equally tragic. A killer killing more does not make his crime any more evil, only himself.

The difference mostly comes down to motivation and technique they use to determine which is worse.

If they brutally tortured their victims they would have more of an impact than say a crazy guy with a gun who just started shooting; to a point of course.

I rate plenty of people as worse than Breivik.

Breivik did what he did for 'good motive', for whatever that is worth. Had he killed those people for fun or profit he would be farworse than he is, in his own mind he was 'saving' Norway.

Punishment must fit crime and motive, when the crimes is as off the scale as it is here the motive matters little. Either way he deserves lifelong incarceration, however i do rank a number of criminals who did comparatively little as worse than Breivik morally.

Rapists, and those who maim or kill for jollies; and others who commit major crimes of pure greed and selfishness are in my opinion less fit to remain on this world.
However its difficult to express this in light of the scale of Breiviks crime, best way to compare it therefore to compare him to Harold Shipman, who killed about as many people.

Breivik is a misguided madman, lock him up for life and move on, but he is IMHO undeserving of further punishment. I will not consider it unfair if he gets a comfortable life. Shipman however deserved an uncomfortable sentence, and had one uncomfortable enough that he committed suicide, which was no loss. If Breivik eventually has an epiphany and kills himself out of shame I would actually call that part of the trajedy.

Well, to be a pedantic jerk, I don't think Breivik is technically a serial killer; I think he's more accurately a spree killer.

It's a fine distinction, but I don't think a guy who snaps and goes postal is as evil, per se, as a Ted Bundy type guy. Bother terrible, of course, but still.

Speaking of horrible, did you read this story? Man this bothers me in a way I can't articulate, the horror of what the kid told the cops.

Worst

Serial Killers
Spree Killers/Mass Murderers
Crimes of Passion
Gangland Killings

Least Worst


Strictly speaking from a utilitarian standpoint, serial killers are worse than mass murderers because although they generally will both target completely innocent victims, the spree killers or mass murderers generally only get one shot, whereas the serial killers will keep going until they're caught. While the serial killers generally will have lower body counts, their category also includes sexual assaults and torture, whereas spree killers & mass murderers will rarely do so. So therefor, it akin to aksing whether it's better to have ten people die quickly, or have seven people raped and tortured to death first. I say the latter is worse. Then comes crimes of passion, because while they often have a semi-justifiable excuse, often times (road rage) they do not. And least are gangland killings, as while they often will have innocent people as collateral damage, in most cases the people involves are "in the game", so to speak.



...And I think this makes me a bad person.

Ouze wrote:Well, to be a pedantic jerk, I don't think Breivik is technically a serial killer; I think he's more accurately a spree killer.

It's a fine distinction, but I don't think a guy who snaps and goes postal is as evil, per se, as a Ted Bundy type guy. Bother terrible, of course, but still.

Speaking of horrible, did you read this story? Man this bothers me in a way I can't articulate, the horror of what the kid told the cops.

Gah, that story is terrible! That poor kid. And I also dont think Breivik is a serial killer at all, mass murder/spree killer for sure.

azazel the cat wrote:Worst

Serial Killers
Spree Killers/Mass Murderers
Crimes of Passion
Gangland Killings

Least Worst


Strictly speaking from a utilitarian standpoint, serial killers are worse than mass murderers because although they generally will both target completely innocent victims, the spree killers or mass murderers generally only get one shot, whereas the serial killers will keep going until they're caught. While the serial killers generally will have lower body counts, their category also includes sexual assaults and torture, whereas spree killers & mass murderers will rarely do so. So therefor, it akin to aksing whether it's better to have ten people die quickly, or have seven people raped and tortured to death first. I say the latter is worse. Then comes crimes of passion, because while they often have a semi-justifiable excuse, often times (road rage) they do not. And least are gangland killings, as while they often will have innocent people as collateral damage, in most cases the people involves are "in the game", so to speak.



...And I think this makes me a bad person.

I dont think it makes you a bad person, everyone has thought about it at least once in their lives, again I think its partially due to the news always shoving this stuff in our faces. And I think I agree with your break down as well. To me serial killers are far worse because of the way they go about it. Only a small few actually reach a huge body count, most are under 10, but its the way they kill their victims that makes it such a terrible act. They make it so personal, and they enjoy reliving that moment as much as possible. Perfect example IS Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer. And speaking of, those two are reasons why Im some what fascinated by serial killers, I guess I try/want to know how someone could not only do such horrible acts, but also want to prolong it, or never let their victims "go" I know its because Im a normal individual and I couldnt possibly think that way, but its what makes me and them so different is the part Im curious about I guess. Where as mass murderers just do it once really, and thats it, and normally its because they flipped out.

"Daddy ate my eyes"

Holy crap, thats literally harrowing.

Yea, you know that kid is going to need life long therapy form that. Same with the police officer that heard that. I bet he wakes up hearing that in his dreams.

I keep thinking about it myself :s Whats worse is i imagine the tone of that poor kids voice, to be devoid of emotion, just stated matter of factly.

Thats like Albert Fish The grey man, I was talking about earlier. One of his victims mothers asked why he killed her son, and the guy told her in detail what he did to the poor kid. It rather disturbing, so I wont post it on DAKKA. But same way, very cold. In fact it was like telling someone a recipe for cooking. If you go looking for it, prepare yourself, because it wont leave you anytime soon.

Awww now im gonna have to go look.

I blame you if i get sleepless nights KC...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh god why did i do that. Its weird that such harrowing information is just sitting pretty on wikipedia.

Yeah that was fethed up alright, but kinda fascinating.

See thats my point, this stuff is so disturbing, but like a car accident, you cant look away.

Yeah i agree, those states of mind are completely unfathomable to me, and yet i wanna find out why or how they could think like that. Obviously the gray mans psyche was affected by his uprbringing and his family predisposition to madness, but its interesting how far the human mind can go justifying things before it actually breaks.

It all goes down to motive. I think Gangland Murders and other murders are despicable. They are murdering for pure greed, that is pure evil. I also hate people who do it for the satisfaction. These types of people are the ones who should get the Death Penalty.

The main problem in Norway and many Scandinavia Countries that there was a huge ammount of Muslim crime in 2010, I am unsure if it continues to these days because I am not in one of those countries. I can see why Breivik done these actions. It is a bit extreme and he should be punished for his crimes but I can see the basis of it. The main problem is that Refugees aren't being tested properly to see whether they will fit to Western Society or not. Those rapists and Criminals should be deported immediately. It is a discrace that people fail to realise why multiculturism is failing in Norway and other Scandinavian Countries.

This comes to my next point, motive for the crime is important. A person who shoots randoms or kills random are scum bags and should be put down immediately. If they have a proper motive for e.g. I got sexually abused as a child, so I think that pedophiles should not be able to breath because they are evil sickly people or a person who has faced constant descrimination by a particular group. I don't believe in equal sentence for all. I believe in the most extreme of cases, the Prisoner should be able to pick between life in jail or death penalty. I don't think Breivik is insane, I just think he just acted a little violently.

Hmm, i quite like the idea of being able to choose execution. Although im sure people would complain that they're just getting out of it easily or something.

There's definitely something to be said for spending the rest of your life rotting in a cell, knowing that you'll never do anything else.

A Town Called Malus wrote: By planning and executing the plan to kill someone in cold blood you have already shown that you hold no value for human life. If you kill more people then you hurt more people but your opinion on the value of human life doesn't change as it was already worthless to you. I can't think of a more wretched and pitiful creature than someone who cannot find any value in the lives of their fellow humans.

What about those who kill so others won't be? By this logic, about half the people in the US are wretched and pitiful, as they do not oppose (Though not technically for, necessarily), the Death Penalty.

Ouze wrote:Well, to be a pedantic jerk, I don't think Breivik is technically a serial killer; I think he's more accurately a spree killer.

It's a fine distinction, but I don't think a guy who snaps and goes postal is as evil, per se, as a Ted Bundy type guy. Bother terrible, of course, but still.

Speaking of horrible, did you read this story? Man this bothers me in a way I can't articulate, the horror of what the kid told the cops.

I literally want to smash something after reading that story.

I think I might.

KingCracker wrote:A normal human being that murdered a gak load of people........right. But your post has next to NOTHING to do with the topic I presented. I asked what people's opinions are of how different types of murders/killings rank in their opinion. Not weather Brevik eats his pizza the same way as I do

Most people are capable of murder. If they weren't, we wouldn't be here, since our ancesters would have been murdered.
Seriously there's feth all that differentiates that blond [see forum posting rules] (can't even grow a beard lol) from everyone else.