We have all grown accustomed to the idea of the killer psychopath. The serial killer who hunts his prey with evil intent and bloodlust in their mind. It is an image that has made a lot of people in Hollywood a lot of money and it has served to establish the far reaches of what we consider aberrant human behavior. It is no secret that many researchers in psychology and psychiatry believe that a great deal of senior executives at Fortune 100 companies as well as many politicians are in fact psychopaths. This idea is based on what we as a society have established as the norms for defining and diagnosing psychopathy. For the Federal Bureau of Prisons the is represented by the Hare Scale. The scale was developed by Dr. Robert Hare with the idea that there should be an objective and established standard to be used when assessing a prisoner. The scale has been revised and is now used not only in the penal system, but by other government and private institutions as well. It is considered to be the gold standard for determining psychopathy. The scale is outlined below. It is divided into two principal factors:
Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for his or her own actions
Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle."
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release
Traits not correlated with either factor
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Many short-term (marital) relationships
Criminal versatility
Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e., a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive)
Upon inspection of the above points one might observe that a number of them appear to be highly subjective. That is the case by design and upon study of the development of the scale it is clear it is meant to address the invariably subjective nature of any analysis involving the human mind and psychology. The scale has served its purpose well, it has been put through as rigorous a review as such a device must and has been found to be the best basic standard for establishing psychopathic behavior. Advances in technology and scientific exploration of the mind and its processes, however, have served to bring a plausibel answer to a concern that several noted researchers have brought up over the years as it relates to the scale. Most of these scientists and criminalists have posited the concept that the scale seems to be in a state of almost constant flux. That is to say, whenever an individual seems to display what we would consider psychopathic or predatory behavior, but does NOT seem to fall within the guidelines set out in the Hare scale, the scale is somehow 'reverse engineered' in order to encompass the behavior. So, an individual who does not fit the guidelines, but still engages in what society considers to be psychopathic behavior is 'forcibly' fit into the definition of 'psychopath'. Upon broad analysis it is not too difficult to understand why this is the case, the thinking being 'What else could someone be?' And here is where the new science comes in.
Researchers in forensic psychiatry, forensic genomics and evolutionary biology have posited the idea that there is another species of human sharing the planet with us. After some research of my own I have found that it is an opinion shared by prosecutors, policemen and defense attorneys. (More on that later.) At least one other species, if not more. The etymology and science involved in establishing the existence of a new species are far too complex and indeed lengthy to make for a good post on a forum such as this one. So, I will attempt to encapsulate the basic idea as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you are looking to respond to this post with a thirty page diatribe of the exact science, please understand that while fascinating, I am sure, it is far too dry to try to encompass completely in a forum post. It is really a pretty straight forward concept once you get past the precept that if it looks human and it acts human it must be human. That seems to be the 'breaking point' when it comes to this science and it principal idea. We have been taught from the time we were toddlers and over generations to simply take as established fact that we are the highest species on the food chain. Any claim that this might not be the case is simply dismissed as science fiction. We are perfectly fine in the understanding that there are many races the share the planet, but a different species is simply not something we are taught or indeed allowed to consider. It is in fact science, but the fiction is gone.
Evolutionary biology researchers have established that we did not evolve from neanderthals, as previously believed. There was a member of the Homo sapiens species on earth 65,000 years before the neanderthal. Homo sapiens idaltu was a human species with very similar facial features, larger bone structure and musculature. The species was discovered in 2003 and anthropologists and archaeologists are still attempting to establish a baseline relative to their society. In any case, the point is that Homo sapiens sapiens, the definition of modern man, has clearly not been the only species of human on the planet. Why would we contrive to imagine that evolution has stopped with us, that unlike every other species on the planet we have not evolved at all in thirty thousand years?
The basic precept of Darwin's contributions are based on the simple idea that a species will, over time, adapt to better survive in its environment and to procreate and thus ensure the survival of the species. Survival of the fittest is alive and well, even when it comes to humans and the new species. And it is this premise on which the new science is most firmly founded. Is is the scientific definition of evolution we must rely upon, not the common idea of evolution as enlightenment. That is not to say that this new posited species in entirely without a higher intellect, it is simply that the context we most often associate predatory behavior is devolution or even savagery. It is important to establish that there is quite a difference between predatory behavior based on the context of Darwin's core idea and predatory behavior as defined in the context of the psychopath. It is a subtle, but clear difference for predatory psychopathic behavior is usually driven by a desire for an intimately personal satisfaction without regard for a long-term strategy or any sort of natural inclination for self-preservation, however that self-preservation might come.
My interest in the subject came about as I spent most of my law school years working for both the district attorney and public defender in San Diego county. During that time I had the opportunity to engage in a number of murder cases, most of these were driven by typical human failings, greed, drug addiction, jealousy and the normal mental deficiencies, schizophrenia and psychopathy. There were a few cases, however, where the defendant appeared to have engaged in almost purely predatory behavior, not driven by drugs or greed or jealousy, but by a simple and clear desire to hunt humans. As it was explored further, this desire was driven by their idea that the stronger were meant to prey on the weak. It was when their defense attorneys explored the idea of psychopathy and when, after being examined by psychiatrists and found to not fit the standard definition utilizing the established norms, that the idea first came in. Not surprisingly, the defense attorneys found psychologists or psychiatrists who were more than able to stretch the scale and norms in order to 'fit' their clients into the definition and thus we see how the definition of the psychopath is ever expanding.
The DA likewise utilized psychiatrists to establish that the accused simply engaged in clear predatory behavior, not affected by any mental deficiency, but rather driven by 'evil'. Clearly this last concept of moral 'evil' was borne of a desire to secure a conviction rather than establishing any sort of legal definition. And it was the legal implications of such a scientific finding that finally captured my full curiosity about the possibility of a new species. How would the law receive such a declaration by the scientific community? If there is an individual who, from birth has the clear and undeniable desire, the instinct to hunt other humans, who possess distinct physiology, physiology observed in a significant number of individuals, whose mental cognitive processes are also markedly different from those of 'normal' human and who clearly do not fit the traditional definition of psychopathy, then should it not stand to reason that somewhere science would begin to establish another plausible answer? And is it not then clear that the way in which law encompasses human interaction would likewise need to establish new guidelines, particularly in criminal law?
Thinking about it from the traditional view of evolved behavior, one of my first questions for the experts I consulted was: Why should it be that if there is indeed a different and distinct species we would end up finding them at the very extreme of what we consider to be aberrant human behavior? If there is a new species why did we not first define it along a different set of behaviors? The answer I received was as simple and logical as it was satisfying. They encountered the new species at the most aberrant end of the spectrum of human behavior because it is that end which is engaged in the most continuous research into the human mind. That research is obviously based on the desire to understand the why of such behavior, but since it is limited by what has been established as the human behavior spectrum it must, by definition, be also limited to find all behavior to be human. These scientists and researchers have simply gone beyond the defined limitations of human behavior. Science and to an even greater extent technology have served to confirm what were once simply hypotheses and to uncover previously unknown physiological and biological processes within the brain. So, while previously speculation about a distinctly different human species was based simply on observed behavior, it is now buttressed by clearly established differences in physiology, cognition processes, genetics and evolutionary biology.
In order to consider the idea fully, I found that an inspection of the idea of 'evil' as it is assigned to human behavior must be explored. Evil as we commonly use it and consider it is clearly based on religious and moral traditions. Indeed it is the common nemesis across most established Christian religions and thus has been incorporated in to the very foundation of society. Evil is often used to explain the reasons that one engages is the wanton and often brutal behavior assigned to the psychopath when other plausible mental deficiencies are found wanting. Thus, if a psychopath engages in predatory behavior, but has not suffered childhood trauma, is not driven by drugs or greed, is able to feel true empathy and otherwise fails to fit into the established norms for psychopathy, we often turn to 'they are driven to it by evil' or 'they do it because they are evil'. I cannot speak to the influence that parapsychology, spiritual and religious beliefs and paranormal effects may have on what we might consider evil behavior, but clearly there is a place for such elements is the refinement of our understanding of human mental processes, even if a new species exists. We just need to make sure that we consider the moral and religious implications in their proper context. Evil, as an abstract concept, is as subjective and relative as love and hate. They all have their proper place in the well of human interactions.
And here we go back to the beginning. We established the idea that there may be a significant number of what we have heretofore known as psychopaths controlling significant areas of industry, politics, media, etc. We are to observe, however, that traditional considerations and notions of psychopathy have long established the idea that while psychopaths' lack of empathy, manipulative nature, complete lack of scruples and compunction may afford them a decided advantage relative to normal humans in an extremely competitive environment, their inability to form true deep relationships and their lack of consideration of the danger their activities may pose to themselves and others, all serve to keep them in check. As I see it, now there is an alternative idea of who it is that runs countless companies, develops new legislation and makes decisions about what we read, see and hear. It is an idea that makes more sense to me because it is based on sound scientific principles and research and has been further validated by the insights that new and groundbreaking technology has afforded us.
So what are the implications of this concept as it relates to us from a practical level? What truly sunk the hook of curiosity about this science for me were the legal implications if such a finding were to be made. And it is not only from a purely theoretical point of view that this can be considered. In 2011 a man in Tennessee was facing murder charges after having killed three people. He was almost certain to receive the death penalty given that there was little dispute as to whether he did what he was accused of doing. His lawyers, hoping to keep him from death row, engaged the services of scientists to establish that this individual's genetics predisposed him to violence, essentially dooming him to do precisely what he did. The idea was not that he was powerless to control his behavior, but rather that his genetic makeup, the way he was born, made it significantly harder for him to avoid doing what he did than it would be for 'normal' humans. His legal team simply hoped to keep him from being put to death, but what they achieved was far more. He was convicted of VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER rather than first degree murder and the science of forensic genomics gained a firm foothold in the courtroom. Experts anticipate that this science will have a more significan impact in courtrooms than even DNA identification. I do not know if that is in fact the case, but it sure seems as though it will be monumental in its implications. This case inspired me to write a novel utilizing a combination of the new science I was exploring and what happened in that courtroom.
The premise of the novel is this: What if a man with unique skills, say former military, found out about this science as a result of his daughter's murder and decided to kill the murdered? And what if he defended himself in court by claiming that what he shot and killed was simply not human, but a different and distinct species? And even more significantly, what if he found out that his daughter's killer was a drop in the bucket, just one individual engaged in his own project and that there were other members of the species in positions of power, all hunting and with access to incredible resources? The idea is to write a series that follows this man across the broad range of scenarios and circumstances where these beings are engaged in predatory behavior. Politics, business, science, etc. would all be places where these beings could inflict incredible damage as they prey on humans.
I wrote the novel and engaged in the traditional process for publishing a book: finding an agent, publisher, marketing the book, etc. Any author will tell you that this process is incredibly difficult. Getting an agent to pick you up or a publisher to publish your book is harder than becoming a working actor, in my opinion. Not to mention selling the book once it gets published. Having published two previous non-fiction books I was pretty well-versed on the process and knew that I had to have a thick skin to accept all of the rejections by agents and publishers. What ended up happening, however, completely re-calibrated my idea of the process and even more, it turned me from a complete and utter skeptic of alternative news and ideas or conspiracy theories, into a complete advocate and believer in NWO and other alternative concepts, including those within Cassiopaea. That may not seem like a big deal to you 20-somethings and 30-somethings, but for someone who is 46 years old and who felt his general view of reality and the world was pretty much set, it is absolutely monumental. I will chronicle what happened in a separate post within this site because it does not really belong within the psychology and cognitive science section of the site.
In summary, there is credible and groundbreaking science that posits the existence of another species of human besides Homo sapiens sapiens higher on the food chain. These individuals have heretofore been defined as psychopaths or as having some sort of 'personality disorder.' The boundaries and norms that have historically been used to diagnose psychopathy are in constant flux changing in order to be able to encompass the ever-expanding nature of our understanding of aberrant human behavior. Many scientists and other experts believe that individuals who are in high levels of politics, science, media and education are more likely members of this new species rather than psychopaths of sociopaths as has been believed. The science of forensic genomics, a science which provides another standard of justice for those who have a certain genetic makeup has set a precedent in criminal court.
I would greatly appreciate feedback on this piece or any other contributions that the reader might want to afford it. Please keep your replies or comments relevant to the topic and please refrain from going into a diatribe about the moral and religious implications. They are valuable, to be sure, but it is quite difficult to engage in healthy and fruitful discussions when 'because that's what the Bible says' is the main support for an argument. You can agree or disagree with some, most or all of this post, the impetus for writing it was engendering discussion and new ideas.
Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for his or her own actions
Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle."
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release
Traits not correlated with either factor
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Many short-term (marital) relationships
Criminal versatility
Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e., a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive)
Upon inspection of the above points one might observe that a number of them appear to be highly subjective. That is the case by design and upon study of the development of the scale it is clear it is meant to address the invariably subjective nature of any analysis involving the human mind and psychology. The scale has served its purpose well, it has been put through as rigorous a review as such a device must and has been found to be the best basic standard for establishing psychopathic behavior. Advances in technology and scientific exploration of the mind and its processes, however, have served to bring a plausibel answer to a concern that several noted researchers have brought up over the years as it relates to the scale. Most of these scientists and criminalists have posited the concept that the scale seems to be in a state of almost constant flux. That is to say, whenever an individual seems to display what we would consider psychopathic or predatory behavior, but does NOT seem to fall within the guidelines set out in the Hare scale, the scale is somehow 'reverse engineered' in order to encompass the behavior. So, an individual who does not fit the guidelines, but still engages in what society considers to be psychopathic behavior is 'forcibly' fit into the definition of 'psychopath'. Upon broad analysis it is not too difficult to understand why this is the case, the thinking being 'What else could someone be?' And here is where the new science comes in.
Researchers in forensic psychiatry, forensic genomics and evolutionary biology have posited the idea that there is another species of human sharing the planet with us. After some research of my own I have found that it is an opinion shared by prosecutors, policemen and defense attorneys. (More on that later.) At least one other species, if not more. The etymology and science involved in establishing the existence of a new species are far too complex and indeed lengthy to make for a good post on a forum such as this one. So, I will attempt to encapsulate the basic idea as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you are looking to respond to this post with a thirty page diatribe of the exact science, please understand that while fascinating, I am sure, it is far too dry to try to encompass completely in a forum post. It is really a pretty straight forward concept once you get past the precept that if it looks human and it acts human it must be human. That seems to be the 'breaking point' when it comes to this science and it principal idea. We have been taught from the time we were toddlers and over generations to simply take as established fact that we are the highest species on the food chain. Any claim that this might not be the case is simply dismissed as science fiction. We are perfectly fine in the understanding that there are many races the share the planet, but a different species is simply not something we are taught or indeed allowed to consider. It is in fact science, but the fiction is gone.
Evolutionary biology researchers have established that we did not evolve from neanderthals, as previously believed. There was a member of the Homo sapiens species on earth 65,000 years before the neanderthal. Homo sapiens idaltu was a human species with very similar facial features, larger bone structure and musculature. The species was discovered in 2003 and anthropologists and archaeologists are still attempting to establish a baseline relative to their society. In any case, the point is that Homo sapiens sapiens, the definition of modern man, has clearly not been the only species of human on the planet. Why would we contrive to imagine that evolution has stopped with us, that unlike every other species on the planet we have not evolved at all in thirty thousand years?
The basic precept of Darwin's contributions are based on the simple idea that a species will, over time, adapt to better survive in its environment and to procreate and thus ensure the survival of the species. Survival of the fittest is alive and well, even when it comes to humans and the new species. And it is this premise on which the new science is most firmly founded. Is is the scientific definition of evolution we must rely upon, not the common idea of evolution as enlightenment. That is not to say that this new posited species in entirely without a higher intellect, it is simply that the context we most often associate predatory behavior is devolution or even savagery. It is important to establish that there is quite a difference between predatory behavior based on the context of Darwin's core idea and predatory behavior as defined in the context of the psychopath. It is a subtle, but clear difference for predatory psychopathic behavior is usually driven by a desire for an intimately personal satisfaction without regard for a long-term strategy or any sort of natural inclination for self-preservation, however that self-preservation might come.
My interest in the subject came about as I spent most of my law school years working for both the district attorney and public defender in San Diego county. During that time I had the opportunity to engage in a number of murder cases, most of these were driven by typical human failings, greed, drug addiction, jealousy and the normal mental deficiencies, schizophrenia and psychopathy. There were a few cases, however, where the defendant appeared to have engaged in almost purely predatory behavior, not driven by drugs or greed or jealousy, but by a simple and clear desire to hunt humans. As it was explored further, this desire was driven by their idea that the stronger were meant to prey on the weak. It was when their defense attorneys explored the idea of psychopathy and when, after being examined by psychiatrists and found to not fit the standard definition utilizing the established norms, that the idea first came in. Not surprisingly, the defense attorneys found psychologists or psychiatrists who were more than able to stretch the scale and norms in order to 'fit' their clients into the definition and thus we see how the definition of the psychopath is ever expanding.
The DA likewise utilized psychiatrists to establish that the accused simply engaged in clear predatory behavior, not affected by any mental deficiency, but rather driven by 'evil'. Clearly this last concept of moral 'evil' was borne of a desire to secure a conviction rather than establishing any sort of legal definition. And it was the legal implications of such a scientific finding that finally captured my full curiosity about the possibility of a new species. How would the law receive such a declaration by the scientific community? If there is an individual who, from birth has the clear and undeniable desire, the instinct to hunt other humans, who possess distinct physiology, physiology observed in a significant number of individuals, whose mental cognitive processes are also markedly different from those of 'normal' human and who clearly do not fit the traditional definition of psychopathy, then should it not stand to reason that somewhere science would begin to establish another plausible answer? And is it not then clear that the way in which law encompasses human interaction would likewise need to establish new guidelines, particularly in criminal law?
Thinking about it from the traditional view of evolved behavior, one of my first questions for the experts I consulted was: Why should it be that if there is indeed a different and distinct species we would end up finding them at the very extreme of what we consider to be aberrant human behavior? If there is a new species why did we not first define it along a different set of behaviors? The answer I received was as simple and logical as it was satisfying. They encountered the new species at the most aberrant end of the spectrum of human behavior because it is that end which is engaged in the most continuous research into the human mind. That research is obviously based on the desire to understand the why of such behavior, but since it is limited by what has been established as the human behavior spectrum it must, by definition, be also limited to find all behavior to be human. These scientists and researchers have simply gone beyond the defined limitations of human behavior. Science and to an even greater extent technology have served to confirm what were once simply hypotheses and to uncover previously unknown physiological and biological processes within the brain. So, while previously speculation about a distinctly different human species was based simply on observed behavior, it is now buttressed by clearly established differences in physiology, cognition processes, genetics and evolutionary biology.
In order to consider the idea fully, I found that an inspection of the idea of 'evil' as it is assigned to human behavior must be explored. Evil as we commonly use it and consider it is clearly based on religious and moral traditions. Indeed it is the common nemesis across most established Christian religions and thus has been incorporated in to the very foundation of society. Evil is often used to explain the reasons that one engages is the wanton and often brutal behavior assigned to the psychopath when other plausible mental deficiencies are found wanting. Thus, if a psychopath engages in predatory behavior, but has not suffered childhood trauma, is not driven by drugs or greed, is able to feel true empathy and otherwise fails to fit into the established norms for psychopathy, we often turn to 'they are driven to it by evil' or 'they do it because they are evil'. I cannot speak to the influence that parapsychology, spiritual and religious beliefs and paranormal effects may have on what we might consider evil behavior, but clearly there is a place for such elements is the refinement of our understanding of human mental processes, even if a new species exists. We just need to make sure that we consider the moral and religious implications in their proper context. Evil, as an abstract concept, is as subjective and relative as love and hate. They all have their proper place in the well of human interactions.
And here we go back to the beginning. We established the idea that there may be a significant number of what we have heretofore known as psychopaths controlling significant areas of industry, politics, media, etc. We are to observe, however, that traditional considerations and notions of psychopathy have long established the idea that while psychopaths' lack of empathy, manipulative nature, complete lack of scruples and compunction may afford them a decided advantage relative to normal humans in an extremely competitive environment, their inability to form true deep relationships and their lack of consideration of the danger their activities may pose to themselves and others, all serve to keep them in check. As I see it, now there is an alternative idea of who it is that runs countless companies, develops new legislation and makes decisions about what we read, see and hear. It is an idea that makes more sense to me because it is based on sound scientific principles and research and has been further validated by the insights that new and groundbreaking technology has afforded us.
So what are the implications of this concept as it relates to us from a practical level? What truly sunk the hook of curiosity about this science for me were the legal implications if such a finding were to be made. And it is not only from a purely theoretical point of view that this can be considered. In 2011 a man in Tennessee was facing murder charges after having killed three people. He was almost certain to receive the death penalty given that there was little dispute as to whether he did what he was accused of doing. His lawyers, hoping to keep him from death row, engaged the services of scientists to establish that this individual's genetics predisposed him to violence, essentially dooming him to do precisely what he did. The idea was not that he was powerless to control his behavior, but rather that his genetic makeup, the way he was born, made it significantly harder for him to avoid doing what he did than it would be for 'normal' humans. His legal team simply hoped to keep him from being put to death, but what they achieved was far more. He was convicted of VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER rather than first degree murder and the science of forensic genomics gained a firm foothold in the courtroom. Experts anticipate that this science will have a more significan impact in courtrooms than even DNA identification. I do not know if that is in fact the case, but it sure seems as though it will be monumental in its implications. This case inspired me to write a novel utilizing a combination of the new science I was exploring and what happened in that courtroom.
The premise of the novel is this: What if a man with unique skills, say former military, found out about this science as a result of his daughter's murder and decided to kill the murdered? And what if he defended himself in court by claiming that what he shot and killed was simply not human, but a different and distinct species? And even more significantly, what if he found out that his daughter's killer was a drop in the bucket, just one individual engaged in his own project and that there were other members of the species in positions of power, all hunting and with access to incredible resources? The idea is to write a series that follows this man across the broad range of scenarios and circumstances where these beings are engaged in predatory behavior. Politics, business, science, etc. would all be places where these beings could inflict incredible damage as they prey on humans.
I wrote the novel and engaged in the traditional process for publishing a book: finding an agent, publisher, marketing the book, etc. Any author will tell you that this process is incredibly difficult. Getting an agent to pick you up or a publisher to publish your book is harder than becoming a working actor, in my opinion. Not to mention selling the book once it gets published. Having published two previous non-fiction books I was pretty well-versed on the process and knew that I had to have a thick skin to accept all of the rejections by agents and publishers. What ended up happening, however, completely re-calibrated my idea of the process and even more, it turned me from a complete and utter skeptic of alternative news and ideas or conspiracy theories, into a complete advocate and believer in NWO and other alternative concepts, including those within Cassiopaea. That may not seem like a big deal to you 20-somethings and 30-somethings, but for someone who is 46 years old and who felt his general view of reality and the world was pretty much set, it is absolutely monumental. I will chronicle what happened in a separate post within this site because it does not really belong within the psychology and cognitive science section of the site.
In summary, there is credible and groundbreaking science that posits the existence of another species of human besides Homo sapiens sapiens higher on the food chain. These individuals have heretofore been defined as psychopaths or as having some sort of 'personality disorder.' The boundaries and norms that have historically been used to diagnose psychopathy are in constant flux changing in order to be able to encompass the ever-expanding nature of our understanding of aberrant human behavior. Many scientists and other experts believe that individuals who are in high levels of politics, science, media and education are more likely members of this new species rather than psychopaths of sociopaths as has been believed. The science of forensic genomics, a science which provides another standard of justice for those who have a certain genetic makeup has set a precedent in criminal court.
I would greatly appreciate feedback on this piece or any other contributions that the reader might want to afford it. Please keep your replies or comments relevant to the topic and please refrain from going into a diatribe about the moral and religious implications. They are valuable, to be sure, but it is quite difficult to engage in healthy and fruitful discussions when 'because that's what the Bible says' is the main support for an argument. You can agree or disagree with some, most or all of this post, the impetus for writing it was engendering discussion and new ideas.
