Judgment Day for The Devil
Bono
Lakehead University
Judgment Day for the Devil
Mark Twitchell is presented to the readers of The Devil’s Cinema by Steve Lillebuem (2012)
as a character with undiagnosed/self-diagnosed sociopathology,
“What Twitchell was surprised to discover
during his research was that he actually shared some of these undesirable
personality traits with such monsters: An emotional detachment, a tendency to
lie. At times, he was selfish…Twitchell picked up the phone and called a
therapist. He aslo visited an on-staff psychiatrist at his nearby hospital.
Both mental experts, he claimed, said he was fine.” (pg. 115-116)
The mental illness sociopathology is a form of
Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). The Siegel and McCormick (2012) describe
APD as “a lack of normal responses to life situations, the inability to learn
from punishment and violent reactions to non-threatening events.” (pg.206) The
term sociopathy refers more to the early childhood environment and social
factors that affect one’s behaviors versus the term psychopathy which is
preferred by those who believe the behaviors result from genetics, biology and
psychological build-up of the individual. According to Siegel and McCormick
(2012) sociopathy is “a mental disorder characterized by lack of warmth and
affection, inappropriate responses, and an inability to learn from experience.”
(pg.206) So from both definitions of sociopathy, one can derive a similar
character build to that of Mark Twitchell in Lillebuen’s (2012) writing,
“began typing a long passage that began with an
admission that his continued lying to his wife was spiraling out of control: I
feel no remorse for this whatsoever, maybe because I feel like I’m entitle. I
often find myself justifying my actions based on overarching loose philosophy
like life is too short, or what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her. I’ve set up an
intricate and elaborate web of lies around my entire relationship that I would
claim is to protect her from stress, but all I seem to be doing is protecting
her from truly knowing who I am.”(pg. 115)
According to the Canadian justice system,
Personality disorders are a legal defense for a case like Twitchell’s if he
were truly diagnosed with sociopathology. According to Stephen Hucker’s (2011)
“personality
disorders are eligible for this defence. At the
present time this is uncommon, largely because appellate court decisions have
rendered it unlikely that an individual with a personality disorder would be
unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the act in the manner that the
courts have ruled” (forensicpsychiatry.ca)
Twitchell’s Lawyer did not attempt to use the “not criminally
responsible” due to mental illness defense because of Twitchell’s previous
actions and the fact that he would not admit guilt to the murder of the Johnny
Altinger. Twitchell’s big defense strategy was to plea self-defence in terms of
the way in which he murdered Altinger. There would have been a few obstacles
for Twitchell to plea mental disorder as well though. Stephen Hucker (2011) goes
into depth when describing what factors one must consider when deciding on
criminal responsibility,
“Evidence
of mental disorder currently, in the past and at time of offense
presence of delusions, mood disorder. Motive for offense; if no apparent motive
other than psychotic, suggests valid mental disorder; if rational motive also
present, such as profit, suspect malingering or coincidental mental disorder. Consider
planning and preparation for crime. Evidence of impaired functioning within a
few days of the crime. Detailed understanding of accused’s thinking and
behaviour before, during and after crime; evidence of bizarre behaviour; attempt
to escape or avoid detection. Consider criminal record and personality disorder.
Consider previous psychiatric history. Do previous hospital records describe
delusions or hallucinations that relate to current offense. If accused did not
know the act was wrong, was this due to mental disorder?” (foresnicpsychiatry.ca)
The fact that Twitchell disposed of the body, tried to clean up and
created such an elaborate series of lies to cover his trail is a clear reason
why the court would not have bought the defence of mental illness. Mental
disorders are sometimes characterized after the fact in which case it would
need to be proven that at the time the individual was acting knowledgably and
able to appreciate their actions in order for the mental disorder defence to
not work. Twitchell was in a stable mind frame though, he carefully planned and
plotted the murder of Johnny Altinger and actually attempted at the fortunate
Giles’ life. The fact that Twitchell
planned and plotted both the murder and the attempted murder, acts against the
mental illness defence because it proves Acteus reus and Mens rea were both
present at the time of the crime. We see the beginning of Twitchell’s plotting
in The Devil’s Cinema with the
creation of S.K. Confessions “He
turned to his computer again, fingers above the keyboard, and typed in high
spirits: This is a story of my progression into becoming a serial killer.”
(pg.130 Lillebuen 2012) So, from everything described here, one can conclude
that there is more than enough evidence to stop a possible plea of insanity
from Twitchell that would fall under the M’Naughten Rule. This is primarily
because he is knowledgeable of the difference between the right and wrong, the
consequence of his actions, able to coordinate his counsel and is fit to stand
trial.
Twitchell’s “obsession” with Dexter
merely gave him a structure to which he could manipulate as his own. With a
monster like Twitchell who seriously deviates from the glorified methodical
killer Dexter, it is impossible to say exactly why he did something or believe
the reasons he gives for his actions. As
Jeff Lindsay attested in Steve Lillebuen’s (2012)novel the Devil’s Cinema, Twitchell already had the capacity to kill.
“Reading
Dexter will not make you a killer, he wrote in his opinion piece. If you are
not already capable of killing another human being in a cold, cruel, deliberate
way, no book ever written will make you capable of doing so. There are no magic
words that will turn you into a psychopath.” (pg.315)
The love he had for the show just made it more appealing for him,
there are millions of fans who have not acted on any fantasies they may have
encountered while watching the show. The only thing Twitchell did in his
killing to pay homage to the fictional killer was creating a kill room of his
own, use a series of knives to cut up the body and target a group of individuals
who he felt deserved to die. The kill
room Twitchell used however was nothing of the same nature to which Dexter from
the show uses. Dexter kills his victims in a place which reflects the crimes to
which they were committed or pay homage to in a significant way. The knife
collection which Dexter has and uses to cut up the bodies is merely to avoid
detection and strictly for mobility purposes and then he disposes them in the
ocean whereas Twitchell carved up the bodies for what he thought was that reason
but probably just for the self-satisfaction of saying “Dexter did that”.
Finally the target group to which Dexter chooses is a group that he sees fit to
bettering society and saving innocent lives. Twitchell is poorly targeting a
group who he is morally against and oddly enough, criminal of himself. His
targets come from a (singular) dating site that which he uses to attract
married men that want to have an affair with a woman other than their wife,
through this site as described in The
Devil’s Cinema,
“At first I considered
married men looking to cheat on their wives. In one way I’d be taking out the
trash, doling out justice to those who on the same level, deserved what they
got. But the logic of the situation denies this possibility. After all, people
who are expected home at a certain hour tend to get reported as missing and
there’s other factors that would lead to an investigation I didn’t want. No, I
had to choose people whose entire lives I could infiltrate and eliminate
evidence of my existence from on all levels.”(pg.131, Lillebuen 2012)
As similar as Twitchell’s
theme or structure in deciding on victims is; Twitchell’s theme/structure is
not quite on the same impact level as Dexter’s which ironically would make him
a valued target of Dexter. However, as the story progresses, Twitchell decides
that men with a family would mean it would be easier for him to get caught and
that the men would be noticed after disappearing for so long so he decided to
kill random men off the dating site for no moral reasoning. This role model
figuring that Twitchell did with Dexter Morgan is not the missing aspect in the
quote from Siegel and McCormick. In the quote they are saying that maybe there
is a casual link between violence and media, but what is over looked in the
assumption of this incident being an extension to what they are saying is that
Twitchell murdered in cold blood. Originally Twitchell planned on paying homage
to Dexter through murdering “with purpose.” After realizing the wrongness of
his actions and evaluating the danger of getting caught, he turned this journey
into a self-satisfying urge to take someone’s life, not “take out the trash” as
Dexter Morgan did.
The abuse of online social networking sites was a huge tool in the
crime committed by Twitchell, but it does not warrant the title of cybercrime
nor can it be understood as cybercrime. The internet was incidental to the
crime or could be seen and understood as an accessory to murder. Twitchell’s
messages, status updates, and fake online accounts are purely fraudulent
operating and freedom of speech. None of what Twitchell says to Altinger online
states any life threatening details, just merely him luring Altinger to a
meeting point using a fraudulent account. There is a lack of motive in the
messages between Altinger and Twitchell which leaves it as merely evidence that
Twitchell planned and plotted these attacks. The closest thing to cybercrime
that Twitchell committed was the exaggerated details and information he gave to
investors in order to get money from them. According to McCromick and Siegel (2012)“Cybertheft
schemes ranges from illegal copying of copyrighted material to using technology
to commit traditional theft-based offences such as larency and theft.” (pg.
496-497) But that alone does not even qualify as cybercrime because Twitchell
was scamming them with truthful intent in his mind, as well as the fact that it
was a willing transaction with no contract agreement. One could try to argue that
Twitchell lured Altinger into a place with the intention of murdering. McCormick and Siegel touch lightly on
something similar to what Twitchell was doing,
“Cyberstalking
refers to the use of the internet, email, or other electronic communication
devices to stalk another person. Some stalkers pursue minors through online
chat rooms, establish relationships with them, and later make contact for the
purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activities.” (pg.55-56)
Twitchell was technically stalking Altinger but
not in an uncomfortable and noticeable way for Altinger. Therefore the reason
Twitchell’s crime was not of the cyber nature is because he did not stalk
Altinger, or rob anyone, he was pretending to be someone he was not to someone
who he murdered and cybercrime tends to be outweighed by a murder charge, not
to mention it was hard for them to tangibly trace the conversations between
Twitchell and Altinger as well as find out if Twitchell really did access
Altinger’s accounts. Twitchell seemed to have lured Altinger into a vulnerable
position but took part in something worse than cyberstalking and fraud, however
there lacks connection of between the internet and the act itself, to say what
Twitchell did is a cybercrime is like saying if it was all done over the phone
using a voice changer device, than it would be a telephone crime; there is no
such thing because it was merely a tool, a means of conspiring.
References
Hucker S. (2011). Criminal Responsibility. Retrieved from: www.forenscipsychiatry.ca
Lillebuen S. (2012). The Devil’s
Cinema. Toronto, ON: MeClelland & Stewart Ltd.
McCormick , C. & Siegel L. (2012) Criminology in Canada, 5th
ed. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment