Family caregivers are special people who step in to help friends, relatives, neighbors or life partners with health problems or disabilities.  This help ranges from grocery shopping, help with personal grooming, and meal preparation to providing financial support and basic assistance with medical needs.

Important facts:

• About 25 percent of American families (nearly 66 million Americans) serve as unpaid caregivers to adult family members, special needs children, life partners and others in need. Most provide care to a family member, typically a parent who is over the age of 50.
• Fourteen percent of care recipients are between ages 18 and 49.
• If caregivers were paid on the open market for their services, society would have to spend about $375 billion.
• More than half of caregivers are women and nearly four in ten are men.
• Caregivers spend an average of 20 hours per week on caregiving—additional time is needed when the care recipient has more than one disability.
• Caring for a person with disabilities can be physically demanding. This is especially true for older caregivers.
• One-third of all caregivers describe their own health as fair to poor. Caregivers may have depression and are more likely to become physically ill.
• Caregivers often worry that they will not live longer than the person they care for.
• In 1900, average Americans could expect to live just 47 years. Today, life expectancy is 75 years, but chronic illness is common in the later years. As a result, older people now require about two years of care prior to death.

Sometimes, caregiving can seem overwhelming and even burdensome.  If you are a caregiver and you feel that way, please recognize it is a natural reaction and you are certainly not alone.  Caregiving, while very rewarding, is also hard work.  You must take care of yourself so that you do not become run down and sick.  There is help for the caregiver.  Remember, asking for help is a sign of strength not weakness.  Reach out.

For more information and helpful resources visit: http://www.emblemhealth.com/default.aspx?Page=702

Visit Care for the Family Caregiver on Face book: http://www.facebook.com/careforthefamilycaregiver?ref=ts

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq”and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers. 

Sources:
National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. Caregiving in the U.S. Funded by MetLife Foundation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. RAND White Paper,. Living Well at the End of Life.

Related articles

• Caregiver Burnout: Managing the Challenges of Caregiving (prweb.com)
• New ad campaign portrays caregivers’ call for help (babyboomersandmore.com)
• Looking to conduct interviews with family caregivers (aging2.com)
• Finally, A Break for Family CareGivers (prweb.com)
• Taking the Pulse of Caregiving (aarp.org)
• How family caregivers can relieve the stress of caregiving – part 2 | downtown-houston (rickmorey.wordpress.com)
• A Caregiver’s Point of View (conqueringcancer.me)

 

The following is a real life horror story and atrocity tale that defies comprehension.  Edmund Kemper III, a U.S. serial killer and necrophile, also known as “The Co-ed Killer,” was born December 18, 1948, in Burbank, CA.  He was arrested in April, 1973, at the age of 24, after murdering six female students, his own mother, and her mother’s best friend.

Despite his relative youth upon capture, Kemper had actually committed his first two murders nearly a decade earlier.  Kemper was an extremely intelligent child but he engaged in sociopathic behavior early on, including the torture and killing of animals, a common childhood practice among nearly half of all serial killers.  During childhood, Kemper was physically and emotionally abused by his alcoholic mother, Clarnell, who was divorced from his father.  Clarnell frequently locked her son in a dark basement alone at night.

Not too surprisingly, Edmund grew up to hate his mother and, at the age of 14, ran away from home in search of his father in Van Nuys, CA. After locating but being rejected by his father, young Edmund was sent to live with his paternal grandmother and grandfather in North Fork, CA.  Kemper claims that his grandmother, similar to his mother, was very abusive and he disliked her intensely.

In 1964, at the age of 15, Edmund shot his grandmother in the head allegedly just to see what it felt like, and then killed his grandfather, too, because he knew that his grandfather would be angry at him for killing his grandmother.  Kemper was committed to the Atascadero State Hospital for the criminally insane.  To his chagrin, he was released into his mother’s care in 1969, after less than five years of confinement and treatment.  His juvenile criminal record was expunged.

As a young adult, Kemper stood six-foot-nine and weighed 280 pounds.  He frequently thought about killing his mother but wasn’t yet ready to pursue that goal.  The prospect of killing his mother without first perfecting his murder skills on others was too overwhelming for Kemper.  So, between May, 1972, and February, 1973, Kemper embarked on a series of six shocking serial murders in which he picked up hitchhiking female students along the highway and then transported them to rural areas where he would kill them, decapitate, and have sex with their corpses.  He collected their dismembered heads in his apartment and would later have sex with them, too.

Like certain other notorious serial killers such as Dennis Rader, who called himself “Bind, Torture, Kill” based on his actual criminal motivations and modus operandi, Ed Kemper sought public recognition and acclaim for his murders.  This led him to befriend, socialize and drink in a bar called “The Jury Room” with the very law enforcement officers who were actually pursuing the man they called “Big Eddie.”

After finally realizing his ultimate fantasy of killing his mother (and her best friend) on Good Friday, 1973, and having sex with her decapitated head, Edmund Kemper confessed what he had done to authorities by telephone.  However, the police initially refused to believe him, thinking that “Big Eddie” was just pulling a prank on them.  After several calls and the disclosure of information that only the killer would know, Kemper finally convinced the police that he was “The Co-ed Killer.”  He was arrested and later charged with eight murders in the first degree.  Kemper was found guilty and given a life sentence because there was a stay on the death penalty in the U.S. at the time of his conviction.

Given his homicidal obsession with his mother, one might wonder if killing her finally exorcised the demons that tormented Edmund Kemper and gave him closure.  Perhaps you can decide for yourself based on his following actual words.  Sometime after his conviction, Kemper was asked allegedly by a Cosmopolitan magazine reporter during a prison interview how he felt when he saw a pretty girl.  He said, “One side of me says, I’d like to talk to her, date her.  The other side says, I wonder how her head would look on a stick.”

What are your reactions to this real life atrocity tale? I’d like to hear from you.

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University in Madison, NJ.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq”and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with psychopathic serial killers in reality and fiction. He is @DocBonn on Twitter.

Related articles

• Dr. Scott Bonn Appears in A&E Feature: The Long Island Serial Killer (imaginepublicity.com)
• Long Island Serial Killer Case (antihumantraffickingnews.blogspot.com)
• Crime Wire Discusses the Colorado Mass Murders with Dr. Scott Bonn (crimewire.blogspot.com)
• Crime Wire: Part II Dr. Scott Bonn Discusses the Long Island Serial Killer (crimewire.blogspot.com)
• The Roth Show: Dr. Scott Bonn Talks Criminology and Serial Killers (imaginepublicity.com)
• Crime Wire: BULLIES, What Makes Them Tick? (crimewire.blogspot.com)

Would you be surprised to know that white-collar crime is far more costly to U.S. society than so-called street crime?  In fact, it is 100 times more costly.  Yet so much attention is given to street crime by the media, law enforcement and politicians that many of us do not recognize the extent or terrible consequences of white-collar crime and elite deviance in the U.S.

Exactly what are white-collar crime and elite deviance?  White-collar crime involves lying, cheating, and stealing by business and government professionals within the context of their employment.  The term white-collar crime—reportedly coined in 1939—is now synonymous with the full range of frauds committed by business and government professionals.

Contrary to what many people believe, white-collar crime is not a victimless crime. A single scam can destroy a company, devastate families by wiping out their life savings, or cost investors billions of dollars (or even all three, as in the infamous Enron case). Today’s fraud schemes are more sophisticated than ever, and we are dedicated to using our skills to track down the culprits and stop scams before they start.

Listen to Doc Bonn’s analysis of white collar crime  on a recent episode of

Crime Wire: 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/insidelenz/2012/08/08/crime-wire

Unfortunately, the crimes of privileged individuals within the context of either legitimate corporations or government offices frequently go undetected and unprosecuted due to their power and influence in society.  As far back as 1956, the late sociologist C. Wright Mills observed that a small group of wealthy and powerful individuals control America’s dominant institutions (i.e., politics, economy and the military) and they are insulated from public scrutiny.  Mills called this group the power elite.  Interestingly, Mills was echoed in 1961 by President Eisenhower in his farewell address when he warned of the self-serving and criminal acts of the “military-industrial complex”—that is, his term for the power elite.

A central contradiction of the power elite is that they frequently violate the very laws they are sworn to uphold.  Mills argued that bound by mutual interests, the power elite periodically commit acts of elite wrongdoing (e.g., dumping toxic waste) and enact policies (e.g., declaration of an unprovoked war) that are designed to perpetuate their power and preserve their control over society.  Mills stated that elite acts that cause either physical or social harm represent the higher immorality of the power elite.

Mills argued that not only crime per se, but also governmental deeds that cause social harm, regardless of their criminality in a legal sense, be included in the conceptual definition.  Another U.S. sociologist named David Simon in 1995 expanded upon Mills’ concept of the higher immorality to include immoral or unethical acts in his concept of “elite deviance.”  According to Simon, elite deviance is the deviant behavior of societal elites (the people who head governmental or corporate institutions) that makes them negative role models who encourage distrust, cynicism, and alienation among non-elites.

Acts of elite deviance take place in part because of the way corporate, political, and military intelligence institutions are structured: they are bureaucracies.  Significantly, bureaucratic organizations are structured in ways that regularize crime and deviance.  More specifically, bureaucracies are goal-oriented, amoral entities which exist to maximize profits and/or expand their own power.  These goals encourage an ends over means mentality among the top commanders of bureaucracies.  For example, the top executives of a public, for-profit corporation are well aware that the board of directors and shareholders are much more interested in meeting quarterly profit goals than they are in the actual decisions and actions required to meet those goals.

The higher immorality of the power elite is also possible because the elites do not have to win the moral consent of those over whom they hold power.  Instead, a passive U.S. society simply trusts that the elites will act on behalf of the so-called public interest.  C. Wright Mills argued that this condition is accompanied by a “fear of knowledge” and anti-intellectualism in modern society.  Mills concluded that the higher immorality is a systematic feature of the American societal elite.  Its general acceptance by the public without critique is an essential feature of modern U.S. society.

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq.”  Doc Bonn is currently researching and writing a book on the public’s fascination with serial homicide and psychopathic serial killers in fact and fiction.  Follow him @DocBonn on Twitter and email him directly at docbonn1@gmail.com.

Related articles

• Dr. Scott Bonn Appears in A&E Feature: The Long Island Serial Killer (imaginepublicity.com)
• Crime Wire: Crime Wears a White Collar! (dennisngriffin.com)
• The Roth Show: Dr. Scott Bonn Talks Criminology and Serial Killers (imaginepublicity.com)
• Crime Wire: Part II Dr. Scott Bonn Discusses the Long Island Serial Killer (crimewire.blogspot.com)
• The Susan Murphy Milano Show with Dr. Scott Bonn, Criminologist, Author and Professor (imaginepublicity.com)

The Batman inspired movie theater massacre perpetrated by James Holmes is the latest incident of mass murder to rock U.S. society.  In some ways, Holmes is very typical of other mass murderers, and in some ways he definitely is not.  As a criminologist who studies the minds of killers, I offer my initial insights into the twisted “Joker” James Holmes.

Dr. Scott Bonn’s recent appearance on Crime Wire discussing the Colorado shooter, James Holmes: CLICK HERE

Holmes’ killing rampage on opening night of the film The Dark Knight Rises was a signature example of mass murder in terms of its design and execution.  Mass murder is a one-time event that involves the killing of multiple people at one location.  In a mass murder, the victims may be either randomly selected or targeted for a specific reason, such as retaliation, by the killer.  A mass murder normally occurs when the perpetrator, who is often deeply troubled, suffers a psychotic break from reality and strikes out at his/her perceived tormentors in a blitz-like attack.  James Holmes certainly fits that profile.

However, mass murderers are frequently, but not always, killed at the scene of the crime. This is where James Holmes is an aberration among mass murderers.  Typically, mass murderers are either shot by law enforcement officers called to the crime scene or they take their own lives in a final act of suicide.  From a psychological standpoint, mass murder is a premeditated act of vengeance against society by a desperate and fatalistic individual who typically has no intention of going away quietly.

The classic, tragic example of mass murder in recent years is the Virginia Tech massacre—a catastrophic school shooting—which took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg, Virginia.  In this terrible event, a very troubled student named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate blitz attacks which occurred approximately two hours apart on the Virginia Tech campus.  Cho ended his murderous rampage by turning his gun on himself and committing suicide.  In addition to the 17 wounded, another six people were injured while escaping from classroom windows during the attacks.  The Virginia Tech massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.

It is apparent that James Holmes is very different from the late Seung-Hui Cho. Holmes does not appear to be fatalistic and he clearly did not want to die at the scene of his carnage.  In fact, I suspect that he is actually enjoying his new-found infamy.  When he surrendered to law enforcement officials, Holmes reportedly said, “I am the Joker.”  If you recall, in the film The Dark Knight, the late Heath Ledger as the Joker said, “I am an agent of chaos.”

Although it is possible that Holmes is faking his bizarre jailhouse and courtroom behavior since being apprehended, it is unlikely.  He would have to be an incredible actor.  On the contrary, I believe that he did suffer a psychotic break from reality—albeit in the form of a slow unraveling—in the months leading up to his rampage.  We know that his performance in the neuroscience graduate program at the University of Colorado was in decline prior to dropping out completely in June.  Moreover, he was being treated by a psychiatrist.

I believe that just like the Joker in The Dark Knight, James Holmes fancies himself an agent of chaos.  In custody, he is reportedly defiant and unremorseful.  I believe that Holmes was motivated to kill by a grandiose belief that society does not appreciate his self perceived genius.  He most likely became enraged when the University of Colorado downgraded his performance.       Consumed by resentment, he became determined to exercise his vengeance on society.  His selection of the Joker as his public persona indicates both paranoia and profound narcissism on his part.  Holmes felt unappreciated by the world and was determined to leave an indelible impression on the public consciousness.

It appears that the public will indeed be exposed to James Holmes for some time to come—fortunately in prison shackles.  Whether or not he will be deemed mentally competent to stand trial is yet to be determined.  One thing is certain, however.  His days of striking fear in society are over because this terribly disturbed and ruthless killer will never, ever walk freely again.

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University in Madison, NJ.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq”and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with psychopathic serial killers in reality and fiction. He is @DocBonn on Twitter.

Related articles

• “The Batman Massacre” at Dark Knight Rises Premiere (herewomentalk.com)
• Doc Bonn Explains: The Difference Between Serial Killers, Spree Killers and Mass Murderers (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Crime Wire Discusses the Colorado Mass Murders with Dr. Scott Bonn (crimewire.blogspot.com)
• The Dark Knight Massacre (neilschori.com)
• Parents Of ‘Dark Knight’ Shooting Suspect Puzzled, Distraught (losangeles.cbslocal.com)
• All I Need to Know About James Holmes (shepherdspiehole.typepad.com)

What causes bullying?

Bullying is a behavior that is often learned in response to stresses in the bully’s world. These stresses can include strained parental relationships or abuse, poor academic performance, unsupportive peer networks or anxiety regarding physical appearance. While bullies give off the appearance of confidence, it is often the case that their actions are driven by insecurities.

Harassing and overpowering others gives bullies a sense of superiority, making up for the lack of control in some other part of their lives. Surprisingly, many bullies are often motivated to abuse others because they have been victims of abusive behavior. The anger that they feel as a result of being hurt is directed toward other individuals.

What effect does bullying have on children? 

Every day children suffer the devastating consequences that result from bullying in our schools. Bullying affects not only the children involved, but also has a negative impact on the entire school environment. Bystanders who witness bullying may either fear that they will be the next victims or deduce that this abusive behavior is tolerable.

Bullying causes both short and long term damage related to:

• Mental Health: shame, fear, low self-esteem, depression, and suicide
• Physical Problems: obvious bruises or wounds from harassment, sleep disruptions, bed wetting, psychosomatic pains
• Social Difficulty: inappropriate social behavior, social isolation, inaccurate social perceptions
• School Setting: difficulty concentrating, poor academic performance, absenteeism, overall school climate and breakdown of school connectedness, escalating school violence
• Society: alcohol and drug abuse, gang involvement, violence and crime

Bullying is a serious problem that cannot be ignored. Statistics show that:

• When asked about the major issues affecting youth today, more 8-15 year olds picked bullying than those who picked drugs, alcohol, racism, AIDS or peer pressure to have sex.
• Victims of bullying are 5 times more likely to be depressed than their non-victimized peers.
• Bullied boys are 4 times more likely to be suicidal and bullied girls are 8 times more likely to be suicidal than those who have not been affected by bullying.
• The problem has become so serious that bullying has been increasingly considered as a public health issue plaguing our entire nation. Approximately 60% of the boys in grades 6-9 who are classified as bullies are later convicted of at least one crime by the time they are 24 years old and 40% have three or more convictions. It is imperative that we address bullying with school-age children in an effort to keep our schools and streets safer.

General advice for parents 

As a parent you have the power to help your children whether they are being bullied or victimizing others. When faced with bullying, children need the support from an adult they feel comfortable confiding in. Although you may be unable to directly monitor the situation in your child’s school, you are not powerless. You can be the support your child needs and the voice calling for change in your child’s school.

Specific advice for parents:

• Spend quality time with your child at home. Talk and listen to them.
• Be a positive role model and surround you child with other positive role models. Respect others and stand up for yourself when people don’t respect you.
• Teach your child at an early age not to be a bystander.  Encourage your child to tell a bully to stop, to de-escalate the situation (where appropriate) or to walk away and get help from an adult.  Teach your child that it is never appropriate to: 1) put down others, 2) escalate situations by responding “in-kind” to bullies, or 3) allow others to take videos/photos of personal moments or compromising situations.
• Help your child to feel good about himself or herself in a healthy way. Encourage your child to set and reach goals.
• Use positive discipline and teach non-violence.  Teach that using violence to solve problems or deal with anger only makes things worse.
• If you’re worried about your child or yourself, seek help from school counselors, school support groups, private therapists or your family health-care provider.
• To learn what you can do as parents or concerned citizens and for immediate help go to http://www.stopbullying.gov/

Dr. Scott Bonn’s recent appearance on Crime Wire discussing the behaviors of bullies:

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers.  He is deeply concerned about the dangers of bullying.

Related articles

• Doc Bonn Says: School Bullying Must Stop Now! (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Crime Wire: BULLIES, What Makes Them Tick? (imaginepublicity.com)
• Effects of Bullying.Limitless. (limitlessbouh.wordpress.com)
• Girl’s suicide sparks bully debate (edition.cnn.com)
• I Think My Child Is A Bully – What Should I Do? (education.com)

Sylvester Stallone’s son, Sage, is dead from a reported prescription drug overdose at the age of 36.  He was found dead in his Los Angeles home on July 13, 2012.  It is not yet known if his death was a suicide or an accidental overdose. Regardless of the coroner’s findings, Sage Stallone is another casualty of prescription drug abuse.

When someone with a high profile name like Stallone dies from a prescription drug overdose it brings renewed attention to this epidemic. Contrary to popular mythology, prescription drugs are more lethal than illegal or street drugs. In fact, prescription drug abuse and addiction kill far more people in the U.S. every year than all illegal drugs combined!  Unfortunately, the problem is getting worse and, frequently, medical doctors enable their drug addicted patients by frivolously filling prescriptions.

Late last year, the murder trial of Dr. Conrad Murray brought global attention to the connected problems of prescription drug abuse and medical negligence.  Dr. Murray was found guilty of negligent manslaughter in the wrongful death of pop music icon Michael Jackson. I believe that Conrad Murray, who was paid $150,000 per month by Michael Jackson to be his only patient, allowed greed to compromise his medical training and ethics.  Stated differently, Dr. Murray was a highly paid, live-in drug dealer for Jackson.

However, to what extent is a prescription drug addict who overdoes, even accidently, responsible for his own death?   Murray was a negligent and selfish doctor who should have known better than to prescribe lethal anesthesia as a sleep aid, but Michael Jackson was also a manipulative and desperate drug addict who begged him for the drug. Wasn’t Jackson ultimately responsible for what he put into his own body?  Similarly, despite the tragic outcome, wasn’t Sage Stallone responsible for what he put into his own body?

Sometimes, pathological and codependent relationships between doctors and their patients can have unintended and tragic results.  Prescription drug addiction and medical negligence in combination create a “perfect storm” of crime, personal disaster, and death in the U.S.  As a society, we must address these growing and interconnected social problems before more lives are destroyed.

Scott Bonn, PhD, is a professor of criminology at Drew University in Madison, NJ.  He is currently writing a book on the public’s fascination with serial killers and he is the author of the critically acclaimed book, “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq.”  He can be reached @DocBonn on Twitter.

Related articles

• Prescription drugs (ffeirio.wordpress.com)
• Scientist: Pushing OxyContin addicts to heroin reveals ‘utter failure’ of drug war (rawstory.com)
• Sage Stallone: Latest Victim of Prescription Drugs or Irresponsible Patient? (celebs.gather.com)
• Beware! Disgusting Lies of the Pharma Industry! (herewomentalk.com)
• What every parent should know about drugs (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Dr. Scott Bonn Appears in A&E Feature: The Long Island Serial Killer (imaginepublicity.com)
• What to Do If You Suffer From a Medical Negligence (herewomentalk.com)

Boxing great Muhammad Ali, known for his unabashed self-confidence, as well as his outspokenness on social and humanitarian causes, is the recipient of the 2012 Liberty Medal.

I grew up watching Muhammad Ali and I was greatly inspired by his courage, integrity and fighting spirit inside and outside the ring.  He is truly one of a kind.

Ali, 70, will receive the medal in a ceremony on Sept. 13 in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center on Independence Mall. The three-time world heavyweight champion was not in attendance for Thursday’s announcement.

“Ali embodies the spirit of the Liberty Medal by embracing the ideals of the Constitution — freedom, self-governance, equality and empowerment — and helping to spread them across the globe,” said former President Bill Clinton, chairman of the National Constitution Center.

Liberty Medal sponsors and partners said Ali’s lifelong courage and conviction exemplify the qualities that the award was established to honor, from his outspoken advocacy for civil and religious freedom to his philanthropy, social activism and humanitarian efforts.

“Muhammad Ali symbolizes all that makes America great, while pushing us as a people and as a nation to be better,” said National Constitution Center president and chief executive officer David Eisner. “Each big fight of his life has inspired a new chapter of civic action.”

The fast-talking, boisterous fighter who referred to himself as “the greatest” was born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. on Jan. 17, 1942. He took up boxing at age 12 and flourished in the ring, becoming a top amateur and Olympic gold medalist.

Ali won the heavyweight title in 1964, defeating the heavily favored Sonny Liston. Soon after, Ali — who was raised in a Baptist family — announced his conversion to Islam and changed his name.

While in his prime, Ali was stripped of his heavyweight crown in 1967 for refusing to be inducted into the military during the Vietnam War because of his religious beliefs. The decision resulted in a draft-evasion conviction and spurred a long legal fight that ended in 1971, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

Three years after his retirement from boxing in 1981, Ali announced he had Parkinson’s disease, a degenerative brain condition that some researchers believe may be brought on by repeated blows to the head. Despite the diagnosis, he devoted himself to traveling the world on humanitarian missions bringing food and medical supplies to developing nations throughout the Middle East, Africa, South America and Asia. He also continues to work at home in the U.S. to raise funds for organizations including the Special Olympics and the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Research Center in Phoenix.

In 2005, Ali was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Previous recipients of the Liberty Medal, which was established in 1988 to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution, include rock singer and human rights activist Bono, former South African President Nelson Mandela and former President Jimmy Carter. Six winners have subsequently received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The National Constitution Center, which opened in 2003 near Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, is dedicated to increasing public understanding of the Constitution and the ideas and values it represents.

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers.  He is also a big fan of boxing and Muhammad Ali. 

Related articles

• Muhammad Ali named 2012 Liberty Medal recipient (herald-review.com)
• PHILADELPHIA – Boxing great Muhammad Ali is the recipient of the 2012 Liberty … – Fox News (foxnews.com)
• Muhammad Ali named 2012 Liberty Medal recipient (thegrio.com)
• Muhammad Ali a good choice for the Liberty Medal (newsobserver.com)

It can be hard to know sometimes if you’re being abused.  Abuse takes so many forms—emotional and physical.  For example, you may think that your intimate partner is allowed to force you to have sex. That’s not true. Forced sex is rape, no matter who does it! Also, you may think that cruel or threatening words do not constitute abuse. They do.  And such emotional or psychological abuse can be an early warning signal that your partner will become physically violent in the future.  Know the signs of abuse.

Below is a list of possible signs of abuse. Some of these behaviors are illegal and can be prosecuted. All of them are wrong. You may be abused if your partner:

• Monitors what you’re doing all the time
• Unfairly accuses you of being unfaithful all the time
• Prevents or discourages you from seeing friends or family
• Prevents or discourages you from going to work or school
• Gets very angry during and after drinking alcohol or using drugs
• Controls how you spend your money
• Controls your use of needed medicines
• Decides things for you that you should be allowed to decide (like what to wear or eat)
• Humiliates you in front of others
• Destroys your property or things that you care about
• Threatens to hurt you, the children, or pets
• Hurts you (by hitting, beating, pushing, shoving, punching, slapping, kicking, or biting)
• Uses (or threatens to use) a weapon against you
• Forces you to have sex against your will
• Controls your birth control or insists that you get pregnant
• Blames you for his or her violent outbursts
• Threatens to harm himself or herself when upset with you
• Says things like, “If I can’t have you then no one can.”

If you think someone is abusing you, please get help.  There are useful links below.  Abuse can have serious and even life threatening physical or emotional effects. No one has the right to hurt you.

Are you in an unhealthy relationship?

Sometimes a relationship might not be abusive, but it can still be unhealthy for you. If you think you might be in an unhealthy relationship, you should be able to talk to your partner about your concerns. If you feel like you can’t talk to your partner, try talking to a trusted friend, family member, or a professional counselor. Consider calling a confidential hotline to get the support you need and to explore next steps. If you’re afraid to end the relationship, call a hotline for help now!

Signs of an unhealthy relationship include:

• Focusing all your energy on your partner
• Dropping friends and family or activities you enjoy
• Feeling pressured or controlled a lot
• Having more bad times in the relationship than good
• Feeling sad or scared when with your partner

Signs of a healthy relationship include:

• Having more good times in the relationship than bad
• Having a life outside the relationship, with your own friends and activities
• Making decisions together, with each partner compromising at times
• Dealing with conflicts by talking honestly
• Feeling comfortable and able to be yourself
• Feeling able to take care of yourself
• Feeling like your partner supports you

If you feel confused about your relationship, a professional counselor can help. Remember, you deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.  For immediate help or more information go to:

National Domestic Violence Hotline http://www.thehotline.org/

Womenshealth.Gov http://www.womenshealth.gov/violence-against-women/mental-health-effects-of-violence/index.cfm

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers. 

Related articles

• “Holding My Hand Through Hell” and Intimate Partner Violence (murphymilanojournal.blogspot.com)
• Doc Bonn explains Moral Panic and Why it is Dangerous (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Dangerous Love: Are you Prepared? (murphymilanojournal.blogspot.com)
• Thousands of kids suffering family abuse (thesun.co.uk)
• HOW TO PREVENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Domestic Violence Kills (womensphilanthropy.typepad.com)
• No, You’re Not Crazy! By Barbara (divorcingapsychopath.wordpress.com)
• Kim Conover: A Promise Turned Deadly (murphymilanojournal.blogspot.com)

I contend that in his own way David Berkowitz is a contributing member of society behind bars where he will remain for the rest of his natural life.  I have been corresponding regularly with David Berkowitz in prison for some time.  David is a born again Christian who spends most of his time working one-on-one with emotionally disturbed prisoners and also reaching out from his prison cell to comfort physically and emotionally ill people around the world.  He has quite a following.  This is his story.

Better known to the public as Son of Sam, David Berkowitz is an infamous 1970s New York City serial killer who killed six people and wounded several others. He became legendary because of the bizarre letters that he wrote to the police and news media throughout his killings, and due to his explanation for committing the attacks.  He claimed to be driven to kill by messages sent from demons in the form of howling dogs.

David Berkowitz, born June 1, 1953, was the adopted son of Nathan and Pearl Berkowitz. The family lived in a middle-class home in the Bronx. The couple loved their son yet David grew up feeling rejected and scorned because of being adopted.  He was told that his natural mother died while giving birth to him.  This became the source of intense guilt and anger in the young Berkowitz.  Around the neighborhood he developed a reputation for being hyperactive and a bully.

Pearl Berkowitz died in 1967 of breast cancer. David was devastated and became severely depressed.  He viewed his mother’s death as a grand conspiracy that was designed to destroy him.  He began to fail in school and spent most of his time alone. When his father remarried in 1971, his new wife did not get along with the young Berkowitz.  The newly married couple moved to Florida, leaving 18-year-old David behind.

Berkowitz joined the army but after a disastrous three years he left the service. During that time he had his one and only sexual experience with a prostitute and caught a venereal disease. When he returned home from the army, he found out that his natural mother was still alive and that he had a sister. There was a brief reunion but, eventually, David Berkowitz stopped visiting them. His isolation, fantasies, and paranoid delusions progressed into full force and he lost touch with reality.

On Christmas Eve, 1975, Berkowitz’s self-reported demons drove him into the streets with a hunting knife to find a victim to kill. Later he confessed to plunging a knife into two female victims that first night, one of which could not be confirmed.  The second victim, 15-year-old Michelle Forman, survived the attack and was treated for six knife wounds. Soon after the attacks, Berkowitz moved out of the Bronx to Yonkers. It was in his new home that the Son of Sam was born.

Howling dogs in the neighborhood kept Berkowitz from sleeping.  In his troubled mind the howls were messages from demons ordering him to kill women. Berkowitz later said that in an attempt to quiet the demons, he began to do what they ordered.  His neighbor, Sam Carr, had a black Labrador named Harvey that Berkowitz also believed was possessed. He eventually shot Harvey but that did not stop the torment because David believed that Sam Carr was actually Satan.

Throughout his murderous rampage in the summer of 1977, Berkowitz wrote letters to the police and news media, including legendary reporter Jimmy Breslin.  In those letters Berkowitz introduced himself as the Son of Sam and claimed responsibility for his murders.  Berkowitz was caught in August, 1977, due to a chain of events stemming from a parking ticket he received at the time and place of one of his murders.  After being evaluated, it was determined that he was competent to stand trial. He pled not guilty and ultimately received a 365-year prison sentence.

In 1979, Berkowitz was interviewed by legendary FBI profiler, Robert Ressler. Berkowitz told Ressler that he invented the Son of Sam stories so that if ever caught he could persuade the court that he was insane.  He said the real reason he killed was because he felt resentment toward his mother and his failures with women. He found killing the women to be sexually arousing.

Berkowitz is currently housed in Sullivan Correctional Facility in Fallsburg, New York.  In 1979, there was an attempt on his life.  David refused to identify the person(s) who had attacked him with a knife, but he suggested that the act was in retaliation by a cult he once belonged to.  David bears a permanent scar from the wound that took 52 stitches to close.

In 1987, David became a born again Christian in prison. According to his personal testimony, his moment of conversion occurred after reading Psalm 34:6 from a Gideon’s Pocket Testament Bible given to him by a fellow inmate.  He is now deeply remorseful for his murderous past.  David believes that God has forgiven him for his terrible crimes and he now calls himself the “Son of Hope.”

David has written a memoir titled, Son of Hope: The Prison Journals of David Berkowitz, published by Morning Star Communications.  He receives no money from the publication, and a portion of the proceeds go to the New York State crime victims board for distribution to the victims of his crimes.

David Berkowitz believes that he belongs in prison and has no interest in parole, although he is periodically eligible for review; most recently, earlier this year.  However, David will never be released from prison and he knows it.  He claims that his only desire is to serve God from prison and to ease the suffering of others in any way he can. He knows that he can never undue the harm he has done in this lifetime.

David gets no compensation or incentives for his work with troubled inmates.  He claims that his work with others is the joy of his life.  I believe that David is sincere in his convictions and I can see that he is helping people.  I believe that no one, not even the former Son of Sam, is beyond redemption.  Who is to say that even the worst among us do not have the capacity to do some good?  The Son of Hope is an inspirational story of change and spiritual rebirth.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.  Please send me your comments below or email me directly at docbonn1@gmail.com.  Follow me @DocBonn on Twitter.

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers. 

You can protect your child by informing yourself about the dangers of drugs. Just as you inoculate your kids against illnesses like measles, you can help immunize them against drug use by giving them the facts before they’re in a risky situation.

When kids don’t feel comfortable talking to parents, they’re likely to seek answers elsewhere, even if their sources are ill-informed and unreliable. Kids who aren’t properly informed are at greater risk of engaging in risky behaviors and experimenting with drugs. Parents who are educated about the effects of drug use and learn the facts can help correct any misconceptions children may have.

Make talking about drugs a part of your general health and safety conversations with your child. Parents are primary role models for their children so your views on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs can strongly influence the beliefs of your child.

Establish Good Groundwork

No parent, child, or family is immune to the effects of drugs. Some of the best kids can end up in trouble, even when they have made an effort to avoid it and even when they have been given the proper guidance from their parents.

However, certain groups of kids may be more likely to use drugs than others. Kids who have friends who use drugs are significantly more likely to try drugs themselves. Those feeling socially isolated for whatever reasons may also turn to drugs.

It’s important to know your child’s friends and their parents. Be involved in your child’s life. If your child’s school runs an anti-drug program, get involved. You might learn something! Pay attention to how your kids are feeling and let them know that you’re available and willing to listen in a nonjudgmental way. Recognize when your kids are going through difficult times so that you can provide the support they need and, if necessary, seek professional care.

A warm, open family environment where kids are encouraged to talk about their feelings, where their achievements are praised, and where their self-esteem is bolstered, encourages them to come forward with their questions and concerns. When censored in their own homes, kids go elsewhere to find support and answers to their most important questions, and that can result in serious problems.

Start talking to your children about drugs while they are young and before temptations arise.

Preschoolers: Start early

Don’t get nervous about talking to young kids about drugs.  You’ve probably already laid the groundwork for a discussion. For instance, whenever you give a fever medication or an antibiotic to your child, you have the opportunity to discuss the benefits and the appropriate and responsible use of those drugs. This is also a time when your child is likely to be very attentive to your behavior and guidance.

Start taking advantage of “teachable moments” early in your child’s life. If you see a character on a billboard or on TV with a cigarette, talk about smoking, nicotine addiction, and what smoking does to a person’s body. This can lead into a discussion about other drugs and how they can potentially cause harm.

Keep the tone of these discussions calm and use terms that your child can understand. Be specific about the effects of the drugs—that is, how they make a person feel, the risk of overdose, and the other long-term damage they can cause. To give your kids these facts, you might have to do a little research.  See the link at the end of this article for more information.

Teens: Make them accountable

Kids this age are likely to know other kids who use alcohol or drugs, and to have friends who are driving. Many kids are still willing to express their thoughts or concerns with parents about these topics, especially if open communication was established early in their lives.

Use these conversations not only to understand your child’s thoughts and feelings, but also to talk about the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Talk about the possible legal consequences of driving under the influence, including jail time and fines, as well as the possibility that they or someone else might be seriously injured or even killed.

Consider establishing a written or verbal contract on the rules about going out or using the car. The contract can cover a range of situations. For example, if you find out that someone drank or used drugs in your car while your son or daughter was behind the wheel, you may want to suspend driving privileges for 6 months. By discussing all of this with your kids from the start, and establishing a contract, you eliminate surprises and make your expectations clear.  This, in turn, makes your child accountable for his/her behavior.

Good luck!  If you are looking for more resources for yourself or your child you can always talk to your family doctor.  For more information now on how to talk to children about drugs visit: http://www.teenchallenge.org/site/c.inKLKROuHqE/b.5610627/k.1AB5/Teaching__Children_About_Drugs.htm

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq.”  Follow him @DocBonn on Twitter or email him directly at docbonn1@gmail.com.

Related articles

• Doc Bonn Says: School Bullying Must Stop Now! (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Tips for Parents on Keeping Children Drug Free (education.com)
• Drug abuse prevention starts with parents (cowichannewsleader.com)
• Do Family Dinners Cut Teen Drug Use? (bigthink.com)

                                   

In 1956, the late, legendary U.S. sociologist C. Wright Mills observed that a small group of wealthy and powerful individuals controlled America’s dominant institutions (i.e., political, economic and military).  More specifically, the governing elite in the U.S. are comprised of:

1) the highest political leaders, including the president and a few key cabinet members and advisors,

2) major corporate owners and directors, and

3) the highest ranking military officers.

Mills called this group the power elite.  Interestingly, Mills was echoed in 1961 by President Eisenhower in his farewell address when he warned of the self-serving acts of the “military-industrial complex”—that is, his term for the power elite.

A central contradiction of the power elite is that they frequently violate the very laws they are sworn to uphold.  Why would individuals who are entrusted to occupy the top command posts of society break the laws they help to create?  Mills argued that bound by mutual interests, the power elite periodically commit acts of elite wrongdoing (e.g., dumping toxic waste) and enact policies (e.g., declaration of an unprovoked war) that are designed to perpetuate their power and preserve their control over society.  Mills stated that elite acts that cause either physical or social harm represent the higher immorality of the power elite.  Mills argued that not only crime per se, but also governmental deeds that cause social harm, regardless of their criminality in a legal sense, be included in the conceptual definition.  Another U.S. sociologist named David Simon in 1995 expanded upon Mills’ concept of the higher immorality to include immoral or unethical acts in his concept of “elite deviance.”  According to Simon, elite deviance is the deviant behavior of societal elites (the people who head governmental or corporate institutions) that makes them negative role models who encourage distrust, cynicism, and alienation among non-elites.

Acts of elite deviance take place in part because of the way corporate, political, and military intelligence institutions are structured: they are bureaucracies.  Significantly, bureaucratic organizations are structured in ways that regularize crime and deviance.  More specifically, bureaucracies are goal-oriented, amoral entities which exist to maximize profits and/or expand their own power.  These goals encourage an ends over means mentality among the top commanders of bureaucracies.  For example, the top executives of a public, for-profit corporation are well aware that the board of directors and shareholders are much more interested in meeting quarterly profit goals than they are in the actual decisions and actions required to meet those goals.

The higher immorality of the power elite is also possible because the elites do not have to win the moral consent of those over whom they hold power.  Instead, a passive U.S. society simply trusts that the elites will act on behalf of the so-called public interest.  C. Wright Mills argued that this condition is accompanied by a “fear of knowledge” and anti-intellectualism in modern society.  As noted by critical social theorists, an over reliance or dependency on television news “sound bites” and media disseminated elite rhetoric results in alienation among the masses, which can be exploited by the elites.  In fact, Mills foreshadowed the great Dr. Noam Chomsky when he stated that the manipulation of public opinion and uncontested decisions of power have replaced democratic authority in contemporary society.  Mills concluded that the higher immorality is a systematic feature of the American societal elite.  Its general acceptance by the public without critique is an essential feature of modern U.S. society.

Do you agree with this conclusion?  Doc Bonn wants to know.

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq.”  Doc Bonn is currently researching and writing a book on the public’s fascination with serial homicide and psychopathic serial killers.  Follow him @DocBonn on Twitter and email him directly at docbonn1@gmail.com.

Related articles

• Doc Bonn Explains the Power Elite in the US and how they Influence Your Life. (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Doc Bonn explains Moral Panic and Why it is Dangerous (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• How the Managers of the State and News Media Influence the Public Agenda. (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Doc Bonn Confidential: I Dislike My White-man Privileges (docbonn.wordpress.com)

 The world community has been concerned about genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes throughout the centuries.  Finally, in 2002, a treaty-based court, called the International Criminal Court (ICC), was established in The Hague, The Netherlands, for the prosecution of international war crimes committed on or after that date.

 The ICC is the first ever permanent international institution, with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.  The ICC was established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, so named because it was adopted in Rome, Italy on July 17, 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.  The Rome Statute is an international treaty, binding only on those states which formally express their consent to be bound by its provisions.  Upon ratifying it, these states become formal “Parties” to the Rome Statute.  The Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002 after ratification by 60 countries.  To date, 121 countries, with the notable exceptions of the U.S. and China, have become Parties to the Statute.

The ICC is an independent international organization, and is not part of the United Nations system.  However, the jurisdiction and functioning of the ICC are governed by the Rome Statute, which is a treaty that was initiated by the United Nations.  The ICC has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  Each of these crimes is clearly defined in the Rome Statute and other relevant texts such as the Geneva Conventions.   The Rome Statute clearly stipulates that acting in an official capacity as a head of state, member of government or parliament or as an elected representative or public official in no way exempts a person from prosecution or criminal responsibility.  Superiors or military commanders may be held responsible for criminal offenses committed by persons under their effective command and control or effective authority and control.

According to the Rome Statute, the specific crimes of war that may be prosecuted by the ICC include:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

1) Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health 2)Torture or inhumane treatment

3) Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property

4) Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power

5) Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

6) Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

7) Taking hostages

1. The following acts as part of an international conflict:

1) Directing attacks against civilians

2) Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or U.N. peacekeepers

3) Killing a surrendered combatant

4) Misusing a flag of truce

5) Settlement of occupied territory

6) Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory

7) Using poison weapons

8) Using civilians as shields

9) Using child soldiers

1. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

1) Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture

2) Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or U.N. peacekeepers

3) Taking hostages

4) Summary execution

5) Pillage

6) Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However, the ICC only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.  Additionally, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes, and due to resource limitations (as it is primarily funded by state parties) it is not in a position to bring to justice every person who has committed crimes of concern to the international community.

 The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal justice systems.  In this regard, the ICC is a court of last resort.  Proceedings before the ICC may be initiated by a state party, the prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council.  It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine; for example, if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility.  Also, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over international crimes only if they were committed on the territory of a state party or by one of its nationals.  These conditions, however, do not apply if a situation is referred to the prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council, whose resolutions are binding on all U.N. member states, or if a state makes a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC.

 Although the U.S. originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on December 31, 2000, and signed the treaty but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.  On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration announced that it was nullifying the U.S. signature of the treaty.  The main objections to the ICC offered by the Bush administration were interference with national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions.  President Barack Obama has taken no action to change the U.S. position on the ICC he inherited from G.W. Bush.

The refusal of the U.S. to recognize the authority of the ICC over its citizens places it at odds with almost all of its staunchest international allies. Ironically, however, it puts the U.S. in alignment with China, a nation that the U.S. has frequently accused of human rights violations.  Similarly, Iran, Iraq and North Korea do not recognize the court’s authority.  The refusal to recognize the ICC thus aligns the U.S. with the G.W. Bush administration’s so-called axis of evil in rejecting international consensus on war crimes.

How does the refusal of the U.S. to recognize the authority of the ICC make you feel?  I’d like to hear your thoughts on this topic.  Please submit your comments below or email me directly at docbonn1@gmail.com.  Follow me @DocBonn on Twitter.

    Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers.

Moral panic has been defined as a condition or situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular group who are claimed to be responsible for the condition.  The moral panic concept is popular among scholars studying social problems, crime, media and collective behavior.  Introduced by Dr. Jock Young in 1971, the moral panic concept was developed and popularized by South African criminologist Dr. Stanley Cohen when he described the public reaction to disturbances by youths called “mods and rockers” at seaside resorts in Brighton, England, during the 1960s.  Cohen’s work illustrated how those reactions influenced the enforcement and formation of social policy, law, and societal perceptions of threat posed by the youth groups.  Since Cohen’s ground breaking analysis, the moral panic concept has been applied to a wide range of social problems by researchers including but not limited to youth gangs, school violence, child abuse, Satanism, wilding, flag burning, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, and the war on terror.

It has been argued that moral panics arise when distorted mass media campaigns are used to create fear, reinforce stereotypes and exacerbate pre-existing divisions in the world, often based on race, ethnicity and class. Moral panics have three distinguishing characteristics.  First, there is a focused attention on the behavior (either real or imagined) of certain groups, who are in turn transformed into “folk devils” by the mass media and stripped of all positive characteristics and imparted with exclusively negative ones.  Second, there is a gap between the concern over a condition and the objective threat it poses.  Typically, the objective threat is far less than popularly perceived and as presented by authorities.  Third, there is a great deal of fluctuation over time in the level of concern over a condition.  The typical pattern begins with the discovery of the threat, followed by a rapid rise and then peak in public concern, and subsequently (and often abruptly) concern subsides.  Perhaps most importantly, public hysteria over a perceived problem often results in the passing of legislation that is highly punitive, unnecessary, and serves to justify the agendas of those in positions of power and authority.

As originally explained by Stanley Cohen, at least five sets of social actors are involved in a moral panic.  These include: 1) folk devils, 2) rule or law enforcers, 3) the media, 4) politicians, and 5) the public.  First, in the lexicon of moral panic scholars, folk devils are those individuals who are socially defined (alleged) to be responsible for creating a threat to society.  Unlike some deviants or criminals, the folk devils are unambiguously unfavorable symbols.  They are the embodiment of evil and the antagonists in a moral panic drama.  Second, law enforcers such as the police, prosecutors or the military are vital to a moral panic as they are charged with upholding and enforcing the codes of conduct and official laws of the state.  These agents of the state are expected to detect, apprehend and punish the folk devils.  In addition, law enforcers present themselves as the protectors of society, without whom, chaos might well ensue.    Law enforcers must work to establish their legitimacy and justify their existence in society.  Third, the media are perhaps the most influential actor in the creation of a moral panic.  Typically, news media coverage of certain events involving the folk devils is distorted or exaggerated.  Such exaggerations make the folk devils appear to be much more threatening to society than they really are.  As a result, public concern and anxiety is heightened through journalistic hyperbole.  Fourth, politicians are also vital actors in a moral panic drama.  As elected officials, who must operate in the court of public opinion, politicians must present themselves as the protectors of the moral high ground.  They often fuel a moral panic by aligning themselves with the news media and law enforcers in a moral crusade against the evils introduced by the folk devils.  The fifth set of actors, the public, is perhaps the most important in a moral panic.  Public agitation or concern over the folk devils is the central element of a moral panic.  In fact, the success of politicians, law enforcers and the media in precipitating and sustaining a moral panic is ultimately contingent upon how successfully these sets of actors fuel public concern and outrage toward the folk devils.               

Significantly, there are actually two models of moral panic: 1) elite engineered, and 2) grass-roots. First, the elite engineered model of moral panic argues that an elite group deliberately and consciously undertakes a campaign to generate and sustain concern, fear, and panic on the part of the public over an issue that they recognize not to be terribly harmful to the society as a whole.  Often times, such a campaign is intended to divert public attention away from other objective or real problems in society, whose solution might jeopardize or undermine the interests of the elite group.  It has been argued, for example, that the U.S. war on drugs in the 1980s which had widespread public support resulted from a moral panic engineered by the administration of President Reagan.  However, this does not mean that the drug issue did not exist objectively or that illegal drugs did not represent a serious problem in certain isolated neighborhoods in the U.S.  Rather, it has been argued that the punitive position adopted by President Reagan toward illegal drug users exaggerated the threat of drugs to the general population, and that the news media reinforced the punitive and exaggerated rhetoric of the president.

The second approach—that is, the grass-roots model of moral panic—states that panics originate with the general public; the concern about a particular threat is a widespread, genuinely felt—if mistaken—concern.  Unlike the elite-engineered model of moral panic (i.e., a top-down approach in which elites orchestrate the panic from above), the grass-roots model stipulates that the expression of concern in other spheres, including the media and polity, are really expressions of more widespread concern from the masses.  The grass-roots model of moral panic argues that political elites and the news media cannot fabricate public concern where none existed initially.  Thus, the grass-roots model of moral panic is a “bottom-up” approach.  The Salem witchcraft trials of the 1600s in Massachusetts have been cited as an example of a grass-roots moral panic.

In summary, moral panics, whether elite engineered or grass-roots, pose a considerable threat to society, although the folk devils targeted in such panics are not the real sources of the problem.  Generally, the objective threat posed by the folk devils is either exaggerated or even nonexistent.  The real danger lies in the irrational mass fear caused by the moral panic, and in the punitive formal action taken against the alleged folk devils who pose no serious threat to society.

My question is: How does society’s susceptibility to the seduction and manipulation of moral panics make you feel?  I’d like to hear your thoughts on this topic.  Please submit your comments below or email me directly at docbonn1@gmail.com.  Follow me @DocBonn on Twitter.

  Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about the public’s fascination with serial killers.

Related articles

• Wolf Hysteria And Moral Panic (howlingforjustice.wordpress.com)
• How the Managers of the State and News Media Influence the Public Agenda. (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• is pink slime a moral panic? (scatter.wordpress.com)
• True Crime Uncensored: Burl Barer and Dr. Scott Bonn Discuss MASS DECEPTION (imaginepublicity.com)
• Does evil exist? Yes, but only in the eye of the beholder. (docbonn.wordpress.com)

Listen to my discussion with Burl Barer and Howard Lapides on True Crime Uncensored:

If he truly believes in justice for all, President Obama must align the U.S. with the world community in recognizing the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC was established under United Nations authority in 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands, for the prosecution of the most serious war crimes (i.e., crimes against humanity) in the world.

Despite the fact that 108 nations, including most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan recognize the ICC, the United States has criticized the court and has refused to permit the ICC to have jurisdiction over its citizens.  This places the U.S. at odds with almost all of its staunchest international allies. Ironically, however, it puts the U.S. in alignment with China, a nation that the U.S. has frequently accused of human rights violations.  Similarly, Iran, Iraq and North Korea do not recognize the court’s authority.  The refusal to recognize the ICC thus aligns the U.S. with George W. Bush’s so-called axis of evil in rejecting international consensus on war crimes.

The G.W. Bush administration justified its refusal to recognize the ICC by claiming that the court could be used to pursue politically motivated prosecutions.  In fact, the Bush administration refused to recognize the ICC precisely because the court would make it accountable for illegally invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.  The Bush administration’s rejection of the ICC in 2002 foreshadowed the actions of individuals who would seek to avoid prosecution for war crimes.  As argued by Michel Foucault, nothing is inherently political.  On the contrary, everything can be politicized.

The Bush administration violated both the Nuremberg Charter and the U.N. Charter and committed war crimes when it launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.  Throughout its two terms, the Bush administration steadfastly maintained that the invasion was justified on the basis of the Bush doctrine of preemptive self-defense.  However, the Bush doctrine went far beyond any reasonable interpretation of preemptive self-defense which would require that an actual attack was certain.  The Bush doctrine was based on a much broader position that the U.S. was entitled to use force to eliminate any possible future threat to its national security, whether or not a threat was objective or imminent.

The Bush administration sought to preserve self-defense protection for invading Iraq under the U.N. Charter by falsely claiming that Iraq possessed WMD and that it was linked to al Qaeda and involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  Even if Iraq had possessed WMD as claimed, without an actual attack or an immediate threat to use them against the U.S., there would still have been no justification for invading Iraq under the U.N. Charter.

Also, the killing, torture and inhumane treatment of Iraqi citizens and prisoners, particularly at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, and the wanton destruction of property resulting from the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq constitute war crimes as defined by the Geneva Conventions.  As a measure of the carnage, the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies places the Iraqi death toll in excess of one million, including several hundred thousand civilians, while countless other have been maimed or injured.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely for several reasons that the Bush administration will ever be charged by the international community for its war crimes.  First, no state has ever voluntarily agreed to subject itself to international prosecution, and President Obama notoriously decided not to investigate the Bush administration for war crimes. Moreover, Obama has perpetuated the war crimes of the Bush administration and initiated his own (e.g., drone launched missile attacks in Pakistan).  Second, unless a referral is made by the U.N. Security Council, the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over international crimes only if they were committed on the territory of a state party or if they were committed by a state party.  As mentioned above, neither the U.S. nor Iraq recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC.  Third, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. has the ability to veto any move by the Council to punish its illegal behavior.  Thus, it is unlikely that the Bush administration will ever be charged with war crimes by the ICC in The Hague because it enjoys both political and bureaucratic exemptions from prosecution under international law.

President Obama promised a new, more inclusive U.S. foreign policy—one freed from President Bush’s aggressive and simplistic us-versus-them ideology.  By recognizing the ICC, President Obama can send a powerful signal to the world that the U.S. is not above international law.  Can the U.S. move beyond the hegemonic policies and actions of the Bush administration and make itself, including its leaders, accountable for war crimes?  Yes, and for the sake of humanity it must!

Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq.”  Order from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081354789X

Related articles

• | “The Bush Administration Was an Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy Under International Law and US Domestic Law!” ~ Prof Francis A. Boyle. (truthaholics.wordpress.com)
• War Crimes Tribunal finds Bush and Blair are war criminals (rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com)
• Prescription Drug Addiction and Medical Negligence are a Deadly Combination (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• FDL Movie Night: Prosecutor (firedoglake.com)
• Libya vows it, not ICC, will try Saif, Senussi – Reuters (reuters.com)

Those of us who have been properly socialized to respect life and possess the normal range of emotions, including kindness, empathy, pity and remorse, cannot comprehend the workings of a mind that would compel one to abduct, torture, rape, kill, and sometimes mutilate or even eat another human being.  Serial killers elicit a morbid fascination from us that we also have for terrible calamities such as train wrecks and natural disasters.  Simply put, we are compelled to understand why serial killers do such horrible things to (generally) complete strangers.

Many of us can’t help watching the spectacle of serial killers, and we receive a rush of adrenaline from their deeds, although it is often difficult for us to admit, and we may feel a bit guilty about the inappropriate thrill that their horrible acts offer us.  Serial killers seem to appeal to our most basic and powerful instinct—that is, survival.  Serial killers have a visceral appeal that is fueled by our adrenaline, a hormone that has a powerful, euphoric and even addictive affect on our brains.  Just ask any child who will ride a roller coaster until he or she becomes physically ill.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that serial killers have become fixtures in our popular culture.  Our fascination with them is fueled by the massive news media attention they receive.  One may recall the “Son of Sam” murders during the summer of 1977 in New York City and the relentless media coverage of those events throughout the so-called summer of Sam.  Similarly, fictional serial killers are glorified and even romanticized in the accounts of characters such as Hannibal “the Cannibal” Lecter in the wildly popular movie “Silence of the Lambs” and Dexter Morgan in the hit TV series “Dexter.”

Regardless of whether they are real or fictional, many of us just can’t seem to get enough of serial killers.  We are their captive audience despite or perhaps precisely because of the chills they send down our spines.

Listen to my discussion about the public appeal of serial killers on Strange Frequencies:

Related articles

• Dexter: The Avenging Angel Serial Killer (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• Profile of the Long Island Serial Killer: One Killer, Maybe a Seasonal Visitor (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• What Do Purple Elephants and Serial Killers Have in Common? Doc Bonn and Strange Frequencies! (imaginepublicity.com)
• Do You Know a Serial Killer? (psychologytoday.com)