If science could alter the mind of a killer, would you approve?

Would it be nice to be able to control, change, how some people tick…

Like THESE people:

[via Live Science] Speculation about who might be the alleged serial killer dumping human remains along beaches on Long Island may be unwarranted so early in the investigation, criminologists say. But despite having diverse motives, serial killers do tend to share certain personality traits, and experts are learning more about what makes these killers tick, including a desire to convince others that they’re “good people.”

Motives for murder

The problem with profiling the average serial killer is that there is no such thing, said Stanton Samenow, a criminal psychologist and author of the book “Inside the Criminal Mind” (Crown, 1984). [Read: Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours]

Serial killers — the term that generally refers to someone who kills three or more people with a “cooling off” period in between murders, though some experts argue that the definition should include killers with two victims — have many motivations, Samenow told LiveScience. Some kill for money, others for revenge and still others for the thrill of it.

In many ways, serial killers are similar to other chronic criminals, Samenow said.

“These are people for whom life is not acceptable unless they have the upper hand,” he said. “They have a view of themselves as being the hub of the wheel around which everything else should revolve.”

Charismatic killers

The development of a serial killer is not well-understood, Samenow said, including the role of childhood abuse.

“You can ask eight experts and get 10 opinions on that,” he said. His take, he said, is that serial killers come from all walks of life. They often show early personality traits such as a need to be in control and the refusal to take responsibility for wrongdoing, but the factors that create these traits aren’t known.

While convicted serial killers often report childhood abuse, Aamodt said, he warned that the refusal to take responsibility for their actions means that serial killers’ childhood reminiscences should be taken with a grain of salt.

“It’s probably not surprising that serial killers would lie,” Aamodt said.

Samenow, who has interviewed multiple serial killers, said the Ted Bundy-style stereotype of a personable — even charismatic — serial killer is often true.

“Sometimes it’s even hard to remember while you’re talking to them, that they’ve done the terrible things that they’ve done, because they can be very winsome and charming,” Samenow said.

One thing almost all of the serial killers he’s interviewed have in common is a desire to convince him that they’re good people at heart, touting their musical or artistic talents or all the good things they’ve done in life, Samenow said.

“I remember one guy who said, ‘Well, just because I killed somebody doesn’t make me a bad person,’” Samenow said. [Read More]

Sure.

Changing the way a serial killer ticks sounds like an excellent idea from the outset.

But the problem with this type of medical science, approved for some?

It probably wouldn’t stay being used on just a certain type of person and instead, eventually, it would/could be used on the masses to instigate a very ‘group think’ type of mentality to promote an idealized culture.

(NaturalNews) It may sound like something out of a science fiction plot, but Oxford researchers say that modern conventional medicine is gradually developing ways to change the moral states of humans through pharmaceutical drugs, and thus control the way people think and act in various life situations. These new drugs will literally have the ability to disrupt an individual’s personal morality, and instead reprogram that person to believe and do whatever the drug designer has created that drug to do.

“Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate,” said Dr. Guy Kahane from the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics in the UK. “There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression.”

While this may sound good in theory,mind control is already a very dangerous side effect of existing drugs. Take the antidepressant drug Prozac, for instance, which has been known to cause those taking it to lash out in violent rages. One young boy murdered his father by beating him and stabbing him in the head, and hit his mother with a crowbar and stabbed her in the face, shortly after starting to take Prozac.

But the kinds of drugs Kahane and his colleagues are referring to imply designer drugs specifically designed to not only alter one’s mental state, but also to change the way that person thinks about situations from a moral perspective. The end result is literally a type of drug-induced mind control where human subjects will be controlled by someone else, and unable to make conscious decisions for themselves.

Research on the subject, of course, tries to paint the idea of mind-control drugs in a positive light, suggesting that they could be used to help make the world a better place. Just imagine less violence, more trust, and more love, they say. This rhetoric, though, is really just a ploy to further numb the already mind-numbed masses into accepting the idea as a good thing. [Read More]

But if the “idealized” culture is not one that is chosen through free will and is in fact drug induced…

Just how idealized it?

Not very.

Instead?

It becomes something quite more terrifying than anything any type of immoral, sadistic behavior could ever produce.