When I was approached to write about cyber bullying in true crime, I immediately explained I had not experienced any and that was the end of it. But then I sat and thought about it and realised that is not strictly true. I have not been targeted by trolls but that is because I very carefully pick my interactions online. In groups I watch from the fringes as I see how controversial some opinions are. I see it every day in the groups I use for research and have developed my own way of dealing with it by avoiding certain topics in a public forum. That is a problem in of itself. Critical thinking is something that is achieved by listening to differing opinions but in true crime the offenders' voices are always missing. I have also noticed that the documentaries that garner the most attentions are the confession tapes and interviews with the actual perpetrator. Because let us be honest that is who we want the why from, the actual person that perpetrated these crimes. They are not always comfortable conversations mostly because we expect remorse, but what if there is no remorse? I do not think that completely discredits the conversation. By exploring those challenging questions, we can get glimpses of how these minds work. People convicted are usually issued a plethora of diagnoses but the mitigation these diagnoses offer is always ridiculed and not listened too. These same people talk about narcissists and psychopaths with no comprehension of what those terms mean. So let us explore that a little. The way in which these conditions are diagnosed is a highly kept secret, only the people who diagnose ASPD and Psychopathy know the intimate details of the process. We know some of the elements for example Hares checklist but the actual way these conditions is diagnosed is a closely kept secret. There is nothing positive to getting one of these diagnoses either and many therapists simply will not treat them if they do reach out for help. Our understanding of neurobiology is also indicating that these conditions cause the brain to not work in the same way as someone considered neuro typical. There are disruptions to some of the key pathways that deal with empathy, compassion, and guilt. That is a massive oversimplification of what is going on but for my purposes I am simply trying to indicate that the research being done now is showing that these diagnoses are not simply personality disorders, the brain in people with these conditions works differently. Even that does not signify that they will become a violent offender. There are many examples of people with psychopathy and ASPD that have never harmed anyone. If managed, loved, and accepted people with those conditions can easily assimilate into society and never harm a soul. The problem starts when there is a lack of love and support, self-soothing leads to an isolation from empathy and being on the outside starts off a chain reaction that quite often ends in violence. For me personally that calls into question many things about the violent acts they perpetrate. Evolutionary psychology is also exploring the fact that we are also predators. Hunting and eliminating threats are a huge part of our core needs, as is providing, procreating and homemaking. It is like psychopathy is an evolutionary adjustment to the world we now live in, lack of fear, lack of empathy these provide incredibly useful in the world we find ourselves living in.
The problem with discussing these topics is people assume you are forgiving the act of the offender and showing them compassion they do not deserve. We are not included in most of the discoveries in these fields as we are mere laypeople, unless you seek out this knowledge it is not in the mainstream, yet people discuss true crime like they are experts.
Do not get me wrong there are some amazing academics in true crime who author insightful books and create interesting and thought-provoking documentaries about offenders. There are well established academics Like Dr Katherine Ramsland, Dr Dorothy Otnow Lewis and Park Dietz to name a few who have worked in the field for years. Peter Vronsky also has an incredible wealth of actual experience with violent offenders, in fact there are too many to name. They write and make programs that offer us explanations and sometimes access to the offenders they work with. However, there are also many people in true crime parading themselves as experts when they are simply not. If anyone questions these charlatans and their actions, they have leagues of trolls ready to jump to their defence.
For me that is a big issue. I write to a few inmates, and they have lots of stories to tell about the people who try to exploit them for their own benefit. The problem is no one cares, but I do because these unscrupulous people are not in jail, they are out in the world causing all sorts of damage. It undermines the work people with integrity are trying to do. There are some amazing podcasts like Unforbidden truth who allow us to listen to insightful questions and answers from a vast array of offenders, then there are others that just want to go over the most sensational aspects of the crimes for profit.
The problem is true crime is always going to be a controversial subject due to the nature of the topics included but if we are just having a one-sided conversation what is there to learn? Otherwise, we are simply just spectating like in the coliseum, watching people kill each other and cheering along. Surely if we spoke about why offenders did what they did we could learn so much more. To me by the time a serial killer is caught it is too late there are already victims. If we go right back to the start, look at the problems that lead to the violence, we could have interventions that protected not only the victims before they ever get hurt but also the perpetrator. You are not ever allowed to suggest an offender is also a victim of sorts, I have seen people viciously attacked online for a statement like that. Yet I cannot help but think that is true in a lot of cases. Violent offenders are all different with different motivations, but I cannot help but think we could learn so much from having candid conversations with them about everything, not just their crimes.
I have never lost anyone I love through a violent act so although I can empathise it is different from knowing. I cannot for a second imagine what that must be like to navigate. I do not judge the need for revenge, or for the perpetrator to be dealt an equal punishment to the crime. I can understand why you might feel like that completely, but those feelings just bring more pain, and I also do not believe the death of the perpetrator brings any long-lasting healing. I think it would be much more beneficial to learn as much as we can, not in a forced way but in way in which the perpetrator feels comfortable to discuss any and everything. Although we may not agree with their explanations, a lot can be learned about their thought patterns and justifications. All this knowledge can then be used by academics and researchers to formulate better ways of dealing with these disorders that provide solutions.
It is a fine line to tread when dealing with true crime, not causing any more pain or discomfort to victims loved ones but equally exploring the perpetrators explanations. That is why people posing as experts who lie and use perpetrators for their own gains are muddying already murky water. I have heard numerous accounts some first hand from inmates about the way in which certain individuals conduct themselves with offenders and due to the nature of the situation no one believes the inmate. I have written before about why I believe offenders should be given a platform. Excluding their voices from the discussion is stopping us from answering those all-important whys. I am a trauma survivor myself, the only person that can answer my questions is my perpetrator. Trauma presents differently in different people but for me victims did not have the answers I wanted. After all victims do not choose their trauma, it is inflicted upon them with no consent. For me personally exploring those things with perpetrators has provided some healing and understanding. I understand my journey is not for everyone but for me personally I have learned so much and its leading to a career I love. I am not advocating those offenders should be able to profit from their crimes, although I do find it ironic that I or anyone else could. I just think that more work should be done by specifically trained people.
So, what has all this to do with cyber bullying? This community is incredibly diverse when it comes to people's motivations and reasons for being there. Of course, this means there is a melting pot of different ideas and theories. I have a friend who is an academic and often calls people out on misinformation and points people to useful articles. She has been trolled on numerous occasions by people with no qualifications in her expert field. For me that is a huge problem. If you are an armchair psychologist whose watched a few you tube videos you should really be quiet and take note you might learn something. I see it repeatedly; experts being told their wrong by people who have no idea what they are talking about. It is a toxic environment where misinformation is constantly circulated, and no discussion can be had about whys. It does not matter how many documentaries you watched. Unless you have researched and looked at actual court documents and verified sources it is all smoke and mirrors. True crime is full of speculation and conspiracy which is fine but when theorising it is just that theoretical ideas, so no one is wrong, and no one is right. If we could accept differing ideas, we would all benefit mostly by developing critical thinking skills of our own. We could discuss cases and ideas and theories in healthy ways where everyone would feel like they have learned something more. There is a wealth of knowledge in this community, there are numerous experts, authors, and academics as well as people who have had first-hand experiences. It is a hive of ideas and minds that could be a wonderful place if we could only be more tolerant of differing ideas. This subject matter is dark enough, we should be the light.
Comments