I don’t have the time or energy to write this in a complete way. So I’ll just do a summary of my thoughts for this entry. I finished reading “A Need to Kill” by Mark Pettit. It’s a true crime account of the murders John Joubert committed.  (Possible spoilers here if unfamiliar with the crimes). Some call him a serial killer, but he “only” killed two people (teenagers). But he would have definitely killed more. There were close calls, and he was eventually caught. 

This book is interesting because it highlights a clear connection between poor home life and social isolation and ostracism, and the impacts this can have on others. Of course, it usually affects the person who is ostracized more. Maybe they get really depressed or harm themselves in other ways, but society can easily look away from that.  John Joubert might have beaten himself up (his introspective thoughts weren’t clear). However, he clearly turned outward. And the murders occurred.

But that’s the point. I often wonder if people who are more group loyalty motivated can help with the social ostracism they do. If they can help it, I think it’s worth not doing it and not contributing to more harm. Yes, I know this is obvious. So the only answer is that externally motivated people (AKA most people in the West) can’t help but do this…right?

Because STOP already.

But so much baggage; They need to control who gets the resources in the group. They need hierarchy, status, blah, blah, blah. It’s all about survival. Their survival. People who have the same values as them. People like them. If you are different, you are a threat and likely to interfere with their survival, so I’m going to attempt to scare you into acting right or at least STFU. 

I’m not an externally motivated kinda person, so…. Just trying to explain why this kind of thing occurs. People never leave tribal thinking. 

Anyway, ostracism works until it doesn’t, and “innocent” people are hurt. Guess they never think about the person reacting. Funny how they choose to ignore what they did and continue with groupthink and scapegoating “the other”. 

I thought what one of the parents of the victim said was poignant:

Why are we being so kind to a killer?…. Why do they feel they can interrupt such lives and instill such fear that a normal life isn’t possible?

They put him on death row, so “being so kind” is wrong to be blunt, but not the point. If people hadn’t mercilessly bullied him and were kind, maybe this wouldn’t have happened. If they hadn’t interfered with and interrupted his life FIRST (for several years), this wouldn’t have happened. He didn’t have a normal life. And wow, what a tragedy.

I would never, ever say this to the family of a murder victim. I don’t hate the person who said this, and I have enough empathy to understand every word she said. She was pro-death penalty, and I’m not, but I get it on a human level. So it’s not personal. In somewhat current language: I’m not “calling her out” in any way. She probably didn’t know his history and doesn’t care or need to care.

I don’t see all this group stuff and reputation as essential to my being (CLEARLY), so I won’t attempt to cover all of the ways they think and try to respond. But of course, the kids here were indeed innocent to Joubert. His victims did nothing to him. They in no way deserved to die. The people he was stuck with daily did things to him. And no death for them either. I’m anti-death as punishment. This is a societal problem/issue. But they can’t change, right?

Even if he attacked those who bullied him, the discourse would remain the same.

“We didn’t do anything.”
“That wasn’t bullying.”
  “He isolated himself.”
“He was strange.”
“He was gay.”

Them. Always after the reaction.

So predictable. Too predictable. Btw, I think the gay rumors in school bothered him the most. In this case, not because he was homophobic. It confused him because he didn’t even know what “gay” meant when they started calling him that. I don’t think he had thought about sex at all when the rumors began. How confusing!

 I’m a realist, so I think a part of accepting reality is saying that this will never change. However, I refuse to not acknowledge the facts. Let’s do a timeline of every micro-signal sent and everything that occurred. How long did the person do nothing and not react? It would be so kind if the person just kept not reacting or, better yet, just conform, dammit!!! 

And in case anyone is interested, he was diagnosed with OCD and having schizoid personality traits after the crimes. I would argue it’s mostly environment-related, unless someone says either OCD or schizoid traits run in his family (genetics), of course. Environment meaning –   life experiences, not the toxins in the air. The author would probably have mentioned family genetics IF it were true and he knew of it.

I saw a few reviews and had to stop when I saw the 1st review that said, “I read this book to find out what makes people like this tick. I guess we’ll never know...” No comment. I’ve said enough.

*I’m mostly talking about Western culture here. Every culture is different. Western culture praises autonomy in theory, but in group settings, differences are punished.

---

What I Did This Week

Music of the Week

Books of the Week

Since last week, I decided to finish a bunch of books before the library due date.

• The Secret: Compass Key Book 2 by Maggie Miller (fiction) – My rating: ★★★ (really 3.75 stars) I don’t usually read series, but I gave this one a chance. I’m giving up after book 2. It’s not a horrible series, but I only care about one of the four characters’ stories. So no need to continue.
• The Correspondent by Virginia Evans (fiction) – My rating: ★★★ (really 3.5) I’m willing to say that listening to the audiobook might have taken away most of the enjoyment. Rare for fiction books like this. I found the book hard to follow and hard to care about.
• The New Friends by Daniel Hurst (fiction) – My rating: ★★★★ From my notes: Wouldn’t call it a page turner, but still a quick read.
• A Need to Kill: The True-Crime Account of John Joubert, Nebraska’s Most Notorious Serial Child Killer (nonfiction) by Mark Pettit. – My rating: ★★★★ I think I’ve said enough about this book.
• It’s Not Her by Mary Kubica (fiction) – My rating: ★★★★ I didn’t like the only other book I read by this author. Glad I gave her another chance.

Quote of the Week

Being in a minority, even a minority
of one, did not make you mad.
There was truth and there was
untruth, and if you clung to the
truth even against the whole world,
you were not mad.

1984
George Orwell

(1984 is one of my favorite books, but I haven’t read it in over a decade. I feel like it may be too depressing. Not sure…)