Anne Maguire murder.

[merehazle]

Will Cornick the teenager was 15 years old when he stabbed teacher Ann Maguire,61, to death as she taught at a class at Corpus Christi Catholic Colledge, in leeds in April.

He excchanged messages with a friend early on Christmas day on Facebook. ''In those messages he spoke of 'brutally killing' Mrs Maguire and spending the rest of his life in jail so as not to have to worry about life or money.''                                            

He continues to show no remorse.  If ever someone was evil it must be him.  The only sentence for him surly is a whole life sentence.  

At the moment the judge say's 20 years in prison, and he may serve a whole life sentence. Why give him any hope? He did not give Ann, any. And who should have this monster living next door to them without knowing it?  The judges  perhaps?

Warning there is a picture of Will Cornick on my attachment.

[saasher2012]

😳😁 lol.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Hmmmmm, evil eh?

I've looked up a few "definitions" of an evil person and I think the following isn't far off the mark?:-

Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection.

This would suggest a mental problem

Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception.

The same definition basically as the first

Psychologically projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets, scapegoating those targets while treating everyone else normally.

Spiritual definition which to an atheist implies a mental problem

Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as the deception of others.

Same as first definition

Abuses political or emotional power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion").

An example of the influence of external influences - "power corrupts, absolute power . . . ." - or as David Brin said, ". . . it's more true that power attracts the corruptible.  The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."

Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so

Not sure how that is a definition of evil but the need to 'maintain a high level of respectability' suggests an individual influenced by external forces

Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil people are defined not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness.

Spiritual definition - what is a sin?

Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim.

Lack of empathy is a recognised mental problem.

Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissitic injury.

Again suggests a mental problem

---

I don't disagree with any of the above but they are all addressing 'evil' as an adjective not a noun.

As I said earlier I find the concept of 'evil' difficult to accept as an entity.  

Of course you can use the word as a description of a persons character or actions but doing so is simply saying they lack morality, empathy and/or are mentally ill.

[saasher2012]

We can all twist words to fit our definition of it, if it makes you happy then I accept your take on it, however I still maintain he's evil& none of your debating will sway me from that!. said without rancour & hopefully with humour! lol.😀

[upthecreekyetagain]

This is interesting from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

According to the DSM 4-TR,"The essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." (p. 701)

So here is a mental disorder that is, in fact, defined in terms of moral deviance. According to the DSM 4-TR, anyone fitting this diagnostic classification must satisfy the following diagnostic criteria:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, uses of aliases, or connong others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

B. The individual is at least 18 years old.

C. There is evidence of conduct disorder...with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or Manic Episode (p. 706).

[saasher2012]

Makes you wonder then how the Bulger case offenders were pronounced sound of mind?
Unless they can prove otherwise in this case?.

[cee-dee]

Time to condense all that waffle in to one word! He's NUTS.

[saasher2012]

lol. I did think that but daren't post it! lol.🐏🐏🐏🐏

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
I guess when they say they're of sound mind that means they knew exactly what they were doing, because if you take that at face value it's a farcical statement to make!
As to the Bulger case the sentence they received & the care & attention they had after being released didn't stop one of them from ending up in trouble again , maybe not murder but hardly the sort of person you'd want living near you even with an assumed name! These do gooders have a lot to answer for!.

---

But what is the alternative in a civilised society? 

I'd agree about difficulty with the term "evil".  There are evil acts, but that's as far as it goes, I think.  A person is not all "evil" just as they are not all "good".  Everyone is a mix and the balance of that mix is not necessarily within conscious control (brain development in the womb, brain chemisty at the time of the act, environment, genes inherited, and so forth, all play their part along with "free will"). 

So, society needs protecting, of course, but that has to be balanced against likely threat and the difficulties keeping someone locked up indefinitely, especially from early teens onwards.

[saasher2012]

If we had the answers then there would be no problem, as it is we don't & these whatever you wish to call them are allowed out into society, not all but some will commit other offences .i do feel that people should be allowed to know what type of criminal they are living next to. & yes I know that would make it difficult for them, but I'd rather that than any of the children should be put in danger because of lack of knowledge.
I'm sorry I disagree, many people have troubled minds but don't go around murdering people, & at 15 yrs old he should know right from wrong not only by stabbing & killing but a defenceless woman, I don't think anyone could find a valid excuse for this act of senseless murder!.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I'm not excusing it.  It was an evil thing to do.  But ... none of us can say that, if we had that person's exact developmental history, brain chemistry, inherited genes, etc, we would not have done it.  We can never know what it is like to be in another's skin.  So, as some factors are beyond personal control, a civilised society should treat criminals in a civilised way, whilst doing its best to protect other members of society.

I suspect in this case you have a child who fantasised about having more power over an authority figure he resented (for whatever reason).  As the yrs passed, this fantasy grew and he reached an age where he could act on it.  Yrs and yrs of imagining doing something makes it easier to actually do, and harder to step back from.  That he felt life in prison would "protect" him somehow from coping with the real world suggests an immature way of thinking.  Maybe teens should visit prisons to see the reality first hand.

When this person is 35, he will not be the same as he is today.  His tendenacies may be more exaggerated, after 20 yrs incarceration where he will doubtless have encountered violence on a daily basis, or he may have matured in terms of his sense of social responsibility.  At this stage, we cannot know which.  That's why there should be hope for him, despite the horror of his actions and the grief caused.

Say there are 10 people in prison.  On release, 2 offend again.  Does that mean the other 8 should not have had the chance?

[evoman3957]

That's why there should be hope for him, despite the horror of his actions and the grief caused.

But there's no hope for Anne Maguire........is there !!. I cannot countenance the sort of mindset people have, that always seems to grant the offenders / perpetrators the concern they never showed their victims.

[saasher2012]

By your own words you are defending him, perhaps the same should be applied to his victim & the kids he did it in front of.
I've no doubt we all fantasise but we don't carry it through there is a line you don't cross this is one of them& I would have to wonder at his mind that thought it was right to attack not only a woman but to kill her, we pander to these antisocial people time we stopped!.

[cee-dee]

How right you are.

A lot of things in the World have been corrupted by "do-gooders" who always seem to find for perptrators instead of ensuring they'll never have more victims.

We see repeat wrong-doers on all steps of the ladder of crime (murder being the top step) and it's high time it was stopped.

[bankhaunter]

I cannot countenance the sort of mindset people have, that always seems to grant the offenders / perpetrators the concern they never showed their victims.

Because if that is not done we are no better than the offenders.

I don't think I believe in the concept of evil, as suggested earlier to some extent it implies an outside cause.

However there are those who lack the inherent morals that any social group requires in order to flourish as well as those who lack or have a lower level of empathy towards others.

[cee-dee]

"Because if that is not done we are no better than the offenders."

I can't go along with that because that's at the root of the continued problem. That line has been trotted out umpteen times  "in refusal" after "proper" punishment has been demanded for all sorts of crimes.

[evoman3957]

"Because if that is not done we are no better than the offenders".

Not true in my opinion, because the punishment handed out by the "WE" you allude to is called justice. If a Civilized society can't adhere to a fair system of justice, then it adheres to no system of justice at all..........and FAIR should mean fair for the "Victims" first and foremost.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

That's why there should be hope for him, despite the horror of his actions and the grief caused.

But there's no hope for Anne Maguire........is there !!. I cannot countenance the sort of mindset people have, that always seems to grant the offenders / perpetrators the concern they never showed their victims.

---

Of course things can never be made "right" for the victim.  That's a given.

Are you saying we should all think in the same way as the perpetrator?  That because they had no concern for their victims, we should not have compassion for others?  I've never understood people who stand around braying at departing police vehicles holding offenders?  What is going through their minds?  Do they think they are helping anything in any way at all?  

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
By your own words you are defending him, perhaps the same should be applied to his victim & the kids he did it in front of.
I've no doubt we all fantasise but we don't carry it through there is a line you don't cross this is one of them& I would have to wonder at his mind that thought it was right to attack not only a woman but to kill her, we pander to these antisocial people time we stopped!.

---

I'm not defending what he did. 

You and I have never crossed that line, but maybe we've been lucky.  You may believe you've been an upstanding citizen through your own personal effort and work.  I believe I'm not in prison because I happen to have very low impulsivity and am very risk-adverse.  Those traits came with me, and my environment rewarded developing them further.  In other circumstances, either genetic or environmental, the "I" that is me would be different ... and I would have had very little control over that.

People want to believe we all have total free will.  We don't.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

How right you are.

A lot of things in the World have been corrupted by "do-gooders" who always seem to find for perptrators instead of ensuring they'll never have more victims.

We see repeat wrong-doers on all steps of the ladder of crime (murder being the top step) and it's high time it was stopped.

---

So, what do you suggest?  And would it apply to all, regardless of mental age, psychological health, genetic disability, etc?  And, if not, where would you draw the lines?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

"Because if that is not done we are no better than the offenders".

Not true in my opinion, because the punishment handed out by the "WE" you allude to is called justice. If a Civilized society can't adhere to a fair system of justice, then it adheres to no system of justice at all..........and FAIR should mean fair for the "Victims" first and foremost.

---

What is "fair" for someone that has lost their life?  Is it different if that person was religious?  Is it worse to kill an atheist?  What if the person themselves would have wanted forgiveness for the perpetrator?

Justice should be consistent and it should be a deterrent.  It can never be "compensation" realistically.