DOCSLIB.ORG

Fiscal Note Package 31143

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fiscal Note Package 31143 Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary Bill Number: 6283 SB Title: Death penalty elimination Estimated Cash Receipts Agency Name 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 GF- State Total GF- State Total GF- State Total Office of Attorney General Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion." Total $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Expenditures Agency Name 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total Administrative Office Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. of the Courts Office of Public Fiscal note not available Defense Office of Attorney Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. General Caseload Forecast .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 Council Department of Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. Corrections Total 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 Local Gov. Courts * Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. Local Gov. Other ** Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. Local Gov. Total Estimated Capital Budget Impact NONE Prepared by: Adam Aaseby, OFM Phone: Date Published: 360-902-0539 Final 1/27/2012 * See Office of the Administrator for the Courts judicial fiscal note ** See local government fiscal note FNPID 31143 : FNS029 Multi Agency rollup Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Bill Number: 6283 SB Title: Death penalty elimination Agency: 055-Admin Office of the Courts Part I: Estimates No Fiscal Impact Estimated Cash Receipts to: Account FY 2012 FY 2013 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 Counties Cities Total $ Estimated Expenditures from: Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. The revenue and expenditure estimates on this page represent the most likely fiscal impact. Responsibility for expenditures may be subject to the provisions of RCW 43.135.060. Check applicable boxes and follow corresponding instructions: If fiscal impact is greater than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete entire fiscal note form X Parts I-V. If fiscal impact is less than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete this page only (Part I). Capital budget impact, complete Part IV. Contact Phone: Date: 01/23/2012 Agency Preparation: Gil Austin Phone: 360-705-5271 Date: 01/24/2012 Agency Approval: Dirk Marler Phone: 360-705-5211 Date: 01/24/2012 OFM Review: David Dula Phone: (360) 902-0543 Date: 01/25/2012 Request # -1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 1 Bill # 6283 SB FNS061 Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Part II: Narrative Explanation II. A - Brief Description Of What The Measure Does That Has Fiscal Impact on the Courts Section 1 Amends RCW 10.95.030 so that a person convicted of aggravated first degree murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole. Section 2 Repeals provisions of RCW 10.95 relating to court proceedings concerning a death sentence. II. B - Cash Receipts Impact II. C - Expenditures There is no data available to estimate the fiscal impact of this bill. Since these cases are before the supreme, appellate and superior courts over a period of years and before different justices and judges there is no way, without engaging in a longer term study, to determine costs for these cases. The cost data provided below is to help inform readers on the typical costs involved. However, it is assumed the fiscal impact would represent a cost savings for the Supreme Court from not reviewing death penalty cases and Superior Courts savings from not trying death penalty cases. It is possible that the Courts of Appeal could see a slight increase in appeals. Superior Courts would achieve savings from trying aggravated murder in the first degree cases where the death penalty was not the sentence upon a conviction. A number of procedures and activities in death penalty cases add to the cost of these cases and many of these procedures and costs are discussed in the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) “Final Report of the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense,” published in December 2006. In cases where the death penalty is a potential sentence, a Supreme Court rule requires the appointment of two attorneys, with at least one attorney qualified to try capital cases. These cases require a “mitigation investigation,” which is information about the defendant’s past a jury may consider in deciding whether the sentence should be death or life without the possibility of parole. The mitigation information is also reviewed by the prosecutor in determining whether to file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The cost of mitigation investigations can be considerable. A recent investigation from Spokane County Superior Court has the cost of a single investigation and report at $19,479. Compared to other felony cases in Superior Court, more time is spent in capital cases on complex pre-trial motions, legal challenges and jury selection. Jury selection is more complex with many more jurors summoned than in a typical jury trial. Also, the process of selecting a jury is much more involved, with jurors having to provide additional written material and the court and attorneys reviewing these juror questionnaires. The WSBA report states that jury selection can “take as long as 30 days in a capital case.” In other cases jury selection takes a day, or sometimes two days. Should a jury find a defendant guilty of aggravated murder in the first degree then the same jury would convene for a “penalty phase.” In the penalty phase the jury decides whether the sentence should be death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This phase can last from a few days to longer than a week. The WSBA report cites an Administrative Office of the Courts analysis that concludes that should a capital case last between 20 to 30 days longer than a typical felony case, “then the extra cost in terms of trial court operation would be $46,640 to $69,960.” It is important to note that not all Superior Courts incur the increase in costs for capital cases to the same extent. Larger counties tend to have separate departments of assigned counsel that are not part of the court operation, who would incur the costs of the additional attorney costs and perhaps the costs of the mitigation investigation. This may not be the case in smaller counties where the Superior Court budget includes the cost of defense attorneys, mitigation investigations and other expert costs. As with Superior Courts, the Supreme Court would achieve savings by not hearing appeals of capital cases. In the Supreme Court an appeal of a capital case is mandatory for a review of the sentence and an appeal of the judgment. These cases by RCW require the Supreme Court to review specific issues concerning whether sufficient evidence existed to justify the jury’s determination of insufficient mitigating circumstances; whether the sentence was a product of passion or prejudice; whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases considering both the crime and the defendant; and whether the defendant an intellectual disability. In the Supreme Court, additional procedures are required by Supreme Court rule. Two attorneys must be appointed to represent the defendant with one of these attorneys from the death penalty qualified list; every hearing must be transcribed and a proportionality Request # -1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 2 Bill # 6283 SB FNS061 Judicial Impact Fiscal Note analysis must be made; and the time for argument in capital cases is three times longer than in other cases. If there is a Supreme Court decision that is adverse to the defendant, then within one year from that decision a Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) may be filed by the defendant in the Supreme Court that can raise issues not previously considered at the appellate or trial proceedings. These PRP proceedings also require that two attorneys be appointed, with at least one being an attorney qualified from the death penalty qualified list, the briefing to the court is increased, experts and investigators may be appointed and the hearing must be transcribed. The amount of additional time that a Justice and staff assigned a capital case spends on such a case is considerably more than with other case assignments. It is estimated that currently the Supreme Court Clerk spends 10 to 15% of his time on capital cases while another member of the Clerk’s Office staff spends 20% of her time. The Courts of Appeal might experience an increase in the number of appeals of sentences in aggravated first degree murder cases as the only possible sentence under this bill would be life imprisonment without possibility of release or parole. It is not possible to quantify this increase now, but it would be a small number of appeals. According to information provided by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, in FY 10 there were 9 Aggravated Murder sentences, with 8 resulting in a Life Without Parole sentence and 1 resulting in a Death sentence, while in 2008 there were 8 convictions for aggravated murder in the first degree. This compares to 1,441 criminal appeals filed in all three divisions of the Courts of Appeal in 2009. Part III: Expenditure Detail Part IV: Capital Budget Impact Request # -1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 3 Bill # 6283 SB FNS061 Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Individual State Agency Fiscal Note Bill Number: 6283 SB Title: Death penalty elimination Agency: 100-Office of Attorney General Part I: Estimates No Fiscal Impact Estimated Cash Receipts to: Non-zero but indeterminate cost.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Suspected Or Convicted Serial Killers in Washington 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 John R
    Suspected or convicted serial killers in Washington 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 John R. Gasser Harvy L. Carignan James Dwight Canady What is a serial killer? Even the nation’s leading experts don’t agree. The most general Warren Forrest definition is based on numbers and patterns: Two or more unrelated victims in distinctly Gary G. Grant Ted Bundy separate incidents. The Northwest has a notorious history of these “prototype” The .22 Caliber Killer, killers – among them are Ted Bundy and the Green River Killer, who Identity unknown, James Elledge Brian Keith Lord are synonymous with the term “serial killer.” Spokane The same killer is believed James Edward Ruzicka Yet other, less infamous killers have claimed scores of lives across the state. to be responsible for three Gary A. Taylor Some have been convicted of only one or two murders, but are suspected slayings of women found William Batten of many more. Four remain only suspects, pending trial. dumped near the Spokane Robert Lee Yates Jr. River in 1990. All of the victims Kenneth Bianchi were known prostitutes shot with the s Following general definitions provided by the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, criminal Morris Frampton profilers and other experts, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer compiled this list of the state’s ame .22 caliber gun. Investigators once looked at the crimes in relation to a string of Stanley Bernson modern-day serial killers. prostitute killings in Spokane that Robert Lee Lewiston Valley Killer It’s impossible to know if the list is comprehensive.
    [Show full text]
  • A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Decoding the Language of a Psychopath BY
    A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Decoding the Language of a Psychopath BY KERRI ANDERSON A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology California Baptist University School of Behavioral Sciences 2017 ii SCHOOL OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES The thesis of Kerri Anderson, approved by her Committee, has been accepted and approved by the Faculty of the School of Behavioral Sciences, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology. Thesis Committee: _____________________________ [Name, Title] _____________________________ [Name, Title] _____________________________ [Name, Title] Committee Chairperson [Date] iii DEDICATION It is so common to be traditional and dedicate a work of science to one’s parents, spouses, children, friends, and mentors. As if one felt the need to give back for what has been taken. But a contribution to science, and I have desperately tried here to make a contribution to science, always includes a vast amount of taking from previous researchers, professors, and scholars. Then adding a little bit according to one’s ability and then giving back not to one’s scholars and colleagues but to the whole community and to other people as well, who might find the work interesting and resourceful, and bring it on. It is for those individuals that this work has been written and to them that it is dedicated so, here is my Forensic Psychology Master’s Thesis to whoever finds it interesting and a viable contribution to uncovering the root causes of psychopathy. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounding the Last Mile: Music and Capital Punishment in the United States Since 1976
    SOUNDING THE LAST MILE: MUSIC AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1976 BY MICHAEL SILETTI DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Musicology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Jeffrey Magee, Chair and Director of Research Professor Gayle Magee Professor Donna A. Buchanan Associate Professor Christina Bashford ABSTRACT Since the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the legality of the death penalty in 1976, capital punishment has drastically waxed and waned in both implementation and popularity throughout much of the country. While studying opinion polls, quantitative data, and legislation can help make sense of this phenomenon, careful attention to the death penalty’s embeddedness in cultural, creative, and expressive discourses is needed to more fully understand its unique position in American history and social life. The first known scholarly study to do so, this dissertation examines how music and sound have responded to and helped shape shifting public attitudes toward capital punishment during this time. From a public square in Chicago to a prison in Georgia, many people have used their ears to understand, administer, and debate both actual and fictitious scenarios pertaining to the use of capital punishment in the United States. Across historical case studies, detailed analyses of depictions of the death penalty in popular music and in film, and acoustemological research centered on recordings of actual executions, this dissertation has two principal objectives. First, it aims to uncover what music and sound can teach us about the past, present, and future of the death penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦
    Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Cornell Law School Raj K. Bhala The George Washington University Law School John C. Coffee, Jr. Columbia University School of Law Randall Coyne University of Oklahoma Law Center John S. Dzienkowski University of Texas School of Law Paul Finkelman University of Tulsa College of Law Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Thomas G. Krattenmaker Director of Research Federal Communications Commission Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Michael P. Scharf New England School of Law Peter M. Shane Dean, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Emily L. Sherwin University of San Diego School of Law John F. Sutton, Jr. University of Texas School of Law David B. Wexler University of Arizona College of Law Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process Second Edition Randall Coyne Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Lyn Entzeroth Law Clerk to Federal Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina Copyright © 2001 by Randall Coyne and Lyn Entzeroth All Rights Reserved. ISBN: 0-89089-726-3 LCCN: 2001092360 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America Summary Table of Contents Table of Contents ix Table of Cases xxiii Table of Prisoners xxix List of Web Addresses xxxiii Preface to the Second Edition xxxv Preface to First Edition xxxvii Acknowledgments xxxix Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Note Package 34902
    Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary Bill Number: 1504 HB Title: Eliminating death penalty Estimated Cash Receipts Agency Name 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 GF- State Total GF- State Total GF- State Total Office of Attorney General Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion." Total $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Estimated Expenditures Agency Name 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total Administrative Office Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. of the Courts Office of Public Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. Defense Office of Attorney Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. General Caseload Forecast .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 Council Department of Non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings. Please see discussion. Corrections Total 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 Local Gov. Courts * Non-zero but indeterminate cost. Please see discussion. Local Gov. Other ** (3,900,000) (3,900,000) (3,900,000) Local Gov. Total (3,900,000) (3,900,000) (3,900,000) Estimated Capital Budget Impact NONE Prepared by: Kate Davis, OFM Phone: Date Published: (360) 902-0570 Final 3/ 5/2013 * See Office of the Administrator for the Courts judicial fiscal note ** See local government fiscal note FNPID 34902 : FNS029 Multi Agency rollup Judicial Impact Fiscal Note Bill Number: 1504 HB Title: Eliminating death penalty Agency: 055-Admin Office of the Courts Part I: Estimates No Fiscal Impact Estimated Cash Receipts to: Account FY 2014 FY 2015 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 Counties Cities Total $ Estimated Expenditures from: Non-zero but indeterminate cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Tacoma Community College 2006-07 Una Voce Student Essay Collection
    Welcome to the seventh edition of Una Voce! Inside are essays which represent some of the best writing by Tacoma Community College students during the 2006/2007 academic year. Over forty well-written essays were submitted to the editors of this publication. We, the editorial staff of Una Voce, had the difficult task of narrowing the selection to the final essays published here. The talented students of Tacoma Community College should be extremely proud of their writing ability, as this publication is only a narrow sample of their talent. We would like to thank the students who submitted their work for publication, and also the gifted instructors who mentored and encouraged them. This year’s publication is the most political issue of Una Voce ever compiled. TCC’s students are very aware of the controversies swirling around them, and they have smart things to say about it all. From local debates, such as “The Necessity of Wal-Mart” and “Relocating the RAP and Lincoln Work Release Houses,” to global issues, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Belting), homelessness (Entus), the USA Patriot Act (Miller), oil drilling in the Arctic (Govan), and high-stakes testing in education (Tetrault), this year’s writers are particularly good at analyzing and writing about hot issues. We believe this high level of critical thinking says a great deal about TCC students’ intellect and their concern for serious issues. However, humorous essays are included, as well; a good laugh is always welcome, and you will find a few inside. Una Voce has always been a showcase for across-the-academic-curriculum essays, and this year’s edition continues that tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert F. Utter Final PDF.Indd
    Robert F. Utter Research by John Hughes and Lori Larson Transcripti on by Lori Larson Interviews by John Hughes March 4, 2009 Hughes: Today The Legacy Project is with former Washington Supreme Court Justi ce Robert F. Utt er at his home on Cooper Point in Olympia. Justi ce Utt er served on the high court from Dec. 20, 1971, unti l his resignati on on April 24, 1995, to protest the death penalty. Besides his half-century career in the law and his internati onal acti vism for peace and justi ce, Justi ce Utt er has writt en widely about Justi ce Utt er on the Washington Supreme Court bench, 1972 his spiritual journey. Judge, I understand that Willi Unsoeld, the legendary mountain climber, was one of your heroes. Utt er: Willi was a neighbor. He always told me he had more sacred encounters in the mountains than in any church. And he said there were “only two illicit questi ons in philosophy – ‘What if?’ and ‘Why?’ He said they’re illicit because there’s no answer, and to dwell on them only leads to madness!” There have been two gurus in my life – Willi was one, and Jim Houston was the other. Houston is a remarkable man. He taught with C.S. Lewis at Oxford. Hughes: Speaking of heroes: C.S. Lewis. What a writer! Utt er: There is a beauti ful piece that Dr. Houston wrote — “Living in a Suff ering World.” It’s in the book called I Believe in the Creator. Hughes: It’s pronounced “whose-ton”? Utt er: Yes.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process 00 Coyne 4E Final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page Ii
    00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page i Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page ii Carolina Academic Press Law Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Dean, Mercer University School of Law Raj Bhala University of Kansas School of Law Davison M. Douglas Dean, William and Mary Law School Paul Finkelman Albany Law School Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Kenneth L. Port William Mitchell College of Law H. Jefferson Powell The George Washington University Law School Michael P. Scharf Case Western Reserve University School of Law Peter M. Shane Michael E. Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page iii Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process fourth edition Randall Coyne Frank Elkouri and Edna Asper Elkouri Professor of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Lyn Entzeroth Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs University of Tulsa College of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page iv Copyright © 2012 Randall Coyne, Lyn Entzeroth All Rights Reserved ISBN: 978-1-59460-895-7 LCCN: 2012937426 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page v Summary of Contents Table of Cases xxiii Table of Prisoners xxix List of Web Addresses xxxv Preface to the Fourth Edition xxxvii Preface to the Third Edition xxxix Preface to the Second Edition xli Preface to the First Edition xliii Acknowledgments xlv Chapter 1 • The Great Debate Over Capital Punishment 3 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Metaphysics of the Hangman
    Chapter 4 The Metaphysics of the Hangman Prior to introduction of the electric chair in 1890, hanging was the prin- cipal and, more often than not, the exclusive method of state-sponsored killing in all of the United States (Drimmer 1990). Indeed, of the nearly twenty thousand documented executions conducted since the found- ing of the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown, close to two-thirds have been accomplished by this means (Macdonald 1993). Today, however, this practice stands poised at the brink of extinction. Eliminated by Congress for civilians convicted of federal crimes in 1937 and by the army in 1986, hanging is still prescribed in only four states.1 The members of this quartet have performed a total of three hangings since its revival, following a twenty-eight year hiatus, in 1993. Yet even these states now prescribe lethal injection as their default method of execution; and, in all likelihood, they will retain hanging as an option only so long as it is necessary to foreclose legal challenges by persons sentenced under earlier statutes. In short, the noose is quickly passing into obsolescence and so, like the rack and the gibbet, is destined to van- ish—except perhaps as a curiosity of historical inquiry and museum exhibition. What are we to make of the virtual demise of state-sponsored hangings? To offer a partial response to this question, in this chapter, I explore a neglected dimension of what is arguably the most sustained judicial inquiry into hanging ever conducted in the United States. In February 1994, a bitterly divided eleven-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Charles Campbell’s challenge to hanging’s constitutionality (Campbell v.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology Review and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 51 Number 2 Article 7 1-1-1997 Five Under the Eighth: Methodology Review and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause Kristina E. Beard Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Kristina E. Beard, Five Under the Eighth: Methodology Review and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, 51 U. Miami L. Rev. 445 (1997) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol51/iss2/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS Five Under the Eighth: Methodology Review and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause I. INTRODUCTION ... ...................................................... 445 II. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSE AND THE DEATH PENALTY ..................................................... 449 III. USING THE CASES TO ARRIVE AT THE STANDARD ......................... 450 A. H istorical Inquiry ................................................ 450 B. Evolving Standards............................................... 452 C . D ignity ......................................................... 457 D . Sum m ary ....................................................... 459 IV. CURRENT METHODS UNDER THE STANDARD .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Sex Crime ❖ 193
    06-Helfgott-45520.qxd 2/12/2008 6:23 PM Page 191 6 ❖ Sex Crime Surely if humans, far and wide, wound the genitals, we hate them; we hate where they take us, what we do with them. —Andrea Dworkin (1987, p. 194) In March 2001, Armin Meiwes, a 42-year-old computer expert, murdered 43-year-old Bernd Juergen Brandes, a microchip engineer, in his home in Rotenburg, Germany. The two met after Brandes answered an Internet advertisement placed by Meiwes for a young man interested in “slaughter and consumption.” Meiwes testified in court that the killing began after the two engaged in sadomasochistic sex acts when, at Brandes’s request, he tried unsuccessfully to bite off Brandes’s penis, and then cut it off with a knife. The two then tried to eat the penis raw, then fried it in a pan trying unsuccessfully to eat it. Brandes eventually went unconscious from loss of blood after lying for hours in the bath- tub while Meiwes read magazines and drank wine. Meiwes then hung Brandes from a butcher’s hook and slaughtered him. The slaughter included severing his head, disem- bowelment, laying him out on a butcher block, and chopping his body into pieces. After the killing, Meiwes froze portions of the body, kept the skull in the freezer, buried other body parts in the garden, and ate 44 pounds of the body over the months to follow. Meiwes videotaped the entire event, watched it later to become sexually aroused, and spoke in court about how watching horror films as a child fueled his fantasies and long- time desires to commit such acts (“German Cannibal Tells of Fantasy,” December 3, 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Neurodevelopmental and Psychosocial Risk Factors in Serial Killers and Mass Murderers
    Allely, Clare S., Minnis, Helen, Thompson, Lucy, Wilson, Philip, and Gillberg, Christopher (2014) Neurodevelopmental and psychosocial risk factors in serial killers and mass murderers. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19 (3). pp. 288-301. ISSN 1359-1789 Copyright © 2014 The Authors http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/93426/ Deposited on: 23 June 2014 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Aggression and Violent Behavior 19 (2014) 288–301 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aggression and Violent Behavior Neurodevelopmental and psychosocial risk factors in serial killers and mass murderers Clare S. Allely a, Helen Minnis a,⁎,LucyThompsona, Philip Wilson b, Christopher Gillberg c a Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, RHSC Yorkhill, Glasgow G3 8SJ, Scotland, United Kingdom b Centre for Rural Health, University of Aberdeen, The Centre for Health Science, Old Perth Road, Inverness IV2 3JH, Scotland, United Kingdom c Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden article info abstract Article history: Multiple and serial murders are rare events that have a very profound societal impact. We have conducted a Received 11 July 2013 systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, of both the peer reviewed literature and of journalistic and Received in revised form 20 February 2014 legal sources regarding mass and serial killings. Our findings tentatively indicate that these extreme forms of vi- Accepted 8 April 2014 olence may be a result of a highly complex interaction of biological, psychological and sociological factors and Available online 18 April 2014 that, potentially, a significant proportion of mass or serial killers may have had neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or head injury.
    [Show full text]