Most "Fascinating" Sociopaths of 2008 : Guest Blog by Michelle Simonsen

December 20, 2008

[Michelle Simonsen is a true crime blogger who writes for Michelle Says So and Boycott Aruba-Justice for Natalee Holloway. She is also a contributing writer for the citizen journalist website, NowPublic]

It's the end of the year, and just like Barbara Walters picks her "Most Fascinating People" of the year, I think we should point out the top (some alleged) sociopaths of 2008.

Some have evaded justice.  Some are being charged for their crimes. Some are finally paying their price. Some have been ignored.

Top Five Sociopaths (some alleged) of 2008 (In no particular order)

• Joran van der Sloot
• Drew Peterson
• O.J. Simpson
• Casey Anthony
• Gary Michael Hilton

Joran van der Sloot

Joran van der Sloot, a Dutch 21-year-old has evaded Aruban and Dutch authorities for alleged crimes involving sex trafficking in Thailand and secretly confessing to killing 18-year-old Alabama honor student, Natalee Holloway in May 2005, while Holloway was vacationing in Aruba with her high school graduation class.

For over three years, Joran van der Sloot has reportedly sent the family of Natalee and the media on a wild goose chase trying to obtain the truth as to what happened to Natalee. During his initial incarceration in Aruba, he allegedly gave some 20 different stories as to what happened. After being released for lack of evidence by the Aruban/Dutch Judges, Joran fled to the Netherlands to attend college.

However, Joran didn't do much studying.  He started hanging out with an undercover drug friend named Patrick van der Eem who was hired by Dutch crime reporter, Peter De Vries. Joran was secretly videotaped confessing as to how Natalee died and what he did with her body. He stated that he believed she was overdosing - foaming at the mouth - and even mimicked her shaking. He revealed to Van der Eem that he had a "friend" with a boat that took her approximately 2 miles out to sea and dumped her body in the ocean.

When Peter de Vries reported the case and showed the hidden videos, Joran claimed he lied in order to impress Van der Eem and said that he was high on pot.  He was then trailed by crime fighter Peter de Vries to Thailand, where he allegedly set up a sex trafficking operation in Bangkok. Most recently, he was caught on hidden video, allegedly setting up girls to move and work in the Netherlands, in the sex trade business. The most recent case is still pending and Joran remains on the loose.

Immediately after the sex trafficking scandal, Joran went on Fox TV and told Greta van Susteren that he didn't kill Natalee, but had arranged for the sale of Natalee, in the amount of $10,000, to a man he had met in the casino in Aruba several times. He also said that his father, Paulus van der Sloot, had paid the police $50,000 to keep their mouths shut after Natalee went missing.

Eight hours later, Joran emailed Greta and told her he made the entire story up.

Drew Peterson

Drew Peterson, a former Bolingbrook, Illinois, police officer seems to have a problem with relationships.  Not only does he appear to like them young, but he also seems to get bored easily. In fact, it was just released that Peterson has replaced his current missing wife, Stacy, with a 23-year-old woman named Kim Matuska. 

Matuska could be headed down a risky path by agreeing to marry Peterson, since he is still considered a "person of interest" in Stacy's disappearance.

Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, was found dead in an empty bathtub while Peterson was dating Stacy. At the time, it was concluded that she drowned. This year, her body was exhumed and world renowned forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, did a second autopsy, finding massive bruising and blunt force trauma concluding it was a homicide. Nevertheless, Peterson has not been charged or arrested in connection with Kathleen's death.

Yet, he seems to keep collecting wives. You'd think he'd lay low for awhile.

Related Link:
Crime Countdowns : Investigation Discovery

O.J. Simpson

Thirteen years to the day, O.J. Simpson was sentenced by a Nevada judge to 7-15 years for armed robbery and burglary in an attempt to retain some personal belongings that were supposed to go towards the unpaid judgment in the civil murder case of O.J. and Ron Goldman's family.

Now that he is in prison, it is poetic justice for what he allegedly did to Ronald Goldman and his ex-wife and mother of his children, Nicole Brown Simpson in 1994. It may not represent the appropriate punishment, but it is punishment. I won't complain about that. Not only is he one of the most well known alleged narcissistic sociopaths in our era, but he was seen playing 18 holes the day before he was thrown off to prison.

Gotta get in that final golf round, right?

Related Link:
O.J. Simpson : Crimes of the Century : Investigation Discovery

Casey Anthony

Right now, who doesn't know who Casey Anthony is? She's the infamous mother who has been alleged to have killed her two year old daughter, Caylee Anthony. Casey didn't report her daughter missing for a month and during that month she was allegedly seen and photographed at bars, drinking, dancing and having the time of her life.

Caylee was finally reported missing, not by her mother Casey, but by the grandmother, Cindy Anthony. Casey stated that she was told not to involve authorities and that a fictitious nanny had kidnapped Caylee. Almost every recorded moment of Casey Anthony has proven to be complete lies. In addition, alleged searches on Casey's computer consisted of "neck breaking" and "how to make chloroform".

Just days ago, within walking distance of the Anthony home, a skull and bones of a female child were found with duct tape wrapped around the skull with no clothes in a black plastic bag. Evidence found at the scene directed police to close off the Anthony home as a potential crime scene, where took several items, including pillows and pesticides.

Although Casey Anthony has not been convicted and is innocent until proven guilty, she may have already hung herself by talking to the cops before obtaining an attorney.

Related Link:
Full Coverage : Casey Anthony : Investigation Discovery

Gary Michael Hilton

Early on New Year's Day 2008, Meredith Emerson, 24, and her dog went for a hike on the trails of the Appalachians in Georgia.

According to police, Gary Michael Hilton casually followed her, and then attacked her, demanding her ATM card. He held her captive and she fiercely fought him for four days deep inside the trails of the mountain.

To keep her from running away, he usually kept a chain or nylon rope around her neck and she was often tethered to a tree or padlocked inside the van. When they slept, Emerson was tied to him so he would know if she tried to escape.

After four days, he sent several blows to her head - which proved lethal - and then proceeded to decapitate her. He let her dog free because he stated that "he couldn't kill a dog." When he was caught, he led police to Meredith's body, telling authorities he wanted to kill a woman because they were easy prey; however, he did state that she was really strong and put up a fight.

On February 29, Gary Michael Hilton was charged with the murder of Cheryl Dunlap in Florida. Hilton is also being investigated for the murder of John and Irene Bryant, who disappeared while hiking in North Carolina's Pisgah National Forest on October 21, 2007.

Related Link:
Bizarre Cases : Murder on Blood Mountain : Investigation Discovery

Photo Credits: Joran van der Sloot: Associated Press; Drew Peterson: Associated Press; O.J. Simpson: police mug shot; Casey Anthony: police mug shot; Gary Michael Hilton: Associated Press 

Please note that Investigation Discovery does not necessarily endorse any of the views expressed by guest bloggers and Investigation Discovery is not responsible for the information contained in guest posts.

Related Link:
Investigation Discovery: Top 10 Crime Stories of 2008

Comments

[cb]

It's interesting that when I look for a common thread in these types of personalities, one thing stands out: lying.

It's true that not all liars are murderers, but the sociopathic- type murderer is always a pathological liar. They are different than your average murderer who may have committed the act in the heat of the moment, or in the commission of another crime like robbery.

The sociopath seems to have more of an elaborate narrative of lying, over a long period of time. They have already made up a persona , or a life style, that is convincing to others , although it may have little basis in reality.

For the average killer, they may lie that they didn't commit the murder initially when caught, but seem to often relent and tell the truth when confronted with evidence. Watch the "first 48 hours" on A&E, with some of the most hardened criminals that come from very difficult/harsh back grounds, and you will see them cry and show remorse, after the fact.

So although many people may lie, it seems that pathological lying may have some connection with the sociopathic act of murder; either to keep the initial lie going, or to use it as a methodology to trap/prey on victims.

I wonder how much scientific research there is on the connection with known pathological liars vs simple liars and their propensity to murder, or at least commit crimes.

I hope that made sense. Opinion?

[BeckyM]

I agree - lying is one of the key patterns to these people's psychological profiles. Interestingly enough in this list you have people (IMO) believe in their own fantasies. Casey is someone who strikes me as someone still thinking that Caylee is at DisneyWorld and playing at the beach with Zani.

Whereas Peterson is probably more of the lying type who enjoys fooling people and enjoying himself as being "clever."

Womanizing seems to be a key with the male liars, such as Drew and Scott Peterson. I would also include Neil Entwhistle as a classic example of the double-life, lying, arrogant types.

What baffles me is the women who fall for these men.

[cb]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1162950

This is a fascinating read on lying. I believe that I may have been using the term "pathological liar" incorrectly.

...excerpt "While ordinary lies are goal-directed and are told to obtain external benefit or to avoid punishment, pathological lies often appear purposeless. In some cases, they might be self-incriminating or damaging, which makes the behavior even more incomprehensible. Despite its relative obscurity, PL has been recognized and written about in the psychiatric literature for more than a century. The German physician, Anton Delbruck,1 is credited with being the first to describe the concept of PL. He observed that some of his patients told lies that were so abnormal and out of proportion that they deserved a special category. He sub-sequently described the lies as "pseu- dologia phantastica."

Differential diagnosis

PL should be differentiated from other psychiatric conditions that have been associated with deception. This is complicated because lying behaviors that mimic PL have been described in certain personality disorders and in factitious disorder. The core symptoms of those personality disorders—antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic—are often apparent. For example, the falsifications that may occur in borderline personality disorder (BPD) are not usually of the elaborate, fantastic, or complicated nature seen with PL. Patients with BPD often lack a consistent self-identity, hold contradictory views of themselves that alternate frequently, often make false threats, and are prone to false accusations of maltreatment and/or abandonment. Conversely, pathological liars do not show the intense affective dysregulation or suicidal behaviors that characterize BPD. In antisocial personality disorder, the lies are often for external gain, and there is a history of conduct disorder in childhood, unlike in PL. Furthermore, the lying behavior in PL covers a wider context than in factitious disorder, in which lying is solely for the purpose of assuming a sick role.

Other conditions that could be confused with PL include malingering, Ganser syndrome, and confabulation. The elaborate and complicated fantasies seen in PL do not occur in Ganser syndrome, where the lies are limited to approximate answers, or in confabulation (which may be part of the descriptive symptoms of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome), where falsifications are used to cover memory gaps. Furthermore, there is no organically derived amnesia in PL as exists in confabulation. The feature that differentiates malingering from PL is the motivation for lying; obvious external incentives alone drive the lies in malingering, unlike in PL, where the motivation to lie is less clear.

Delusions should be considered in the differential diagnosis because of controversial propositions that the lies told in PL rise to delusional proportions. Unlike PL, however, delusions are not intentional lies told to deceive, but rather, they are fixed beliefs that happen to be false. The blurring of fact and fiction that occurs in PL is not the same as the absolute conviction that occurs in persons with delusions."..........

Forensic issues

It is perhaps in the forensic psychiatric arena that the need to clearly define PL is most urgent. The immediate question in these settings would revolve around the issue of competency of the pathological liar to stand trial. The criteria for being competent to stand trial include an ability to work collaboratively with one's attorney in order to confront one's accusers. A defendant who lies frequently and repeatedly to his attorney would ultimately confuse the attorney, making it difficult to formulate a sound strategy of defense.

Another problem is the risk of the pathological liar being accused of perjury when he gives false testimony under oath. In the case of Judge Couwenberg, the State of California Commission of Judicial Performance noted that he did not have a mental condition that excused or mitigated his behavior. The commission concluded that the mere presence of a symptom without any mental disorder is of little legal consequence.

It is easier to argue that PL is not a delusion than it is to say that pathological liars always have control over their lies. Koppen13 observed that the lie ultimately wins power over the pathological liar, so that mastery of his own lies is lost. In addition, PL has a compulsive or impulsive quality. Would it be feasible to say that in some cases the lying behavior was uncontrollable? Such a conclusion, when combined with recent evidence of possible CNS abnormalities in PL, would raise doubts about the degree of responsibility of pathological liars when their lies lead to criminal behavior."

[Suzan]

Hi Michelle! You go girl! So, proud of you! :)

[Suzan]

Pathological Liar: Casey is not a pathological liar.. A pathological liar …lies for no good reason. They lie because they can, not to get out of things, or to manipulate. A pathological liar is in a class all of it’s own.

When one lies to get out of trouble, to side step an issue or happening to remove themselves from correction. That is called a manipulator.

Casey is a grand Manipulator. And she is a Narcissist. imo

I.

A 1996 editorial by Robert Hare who is the most prominent researcher on psychopathy, even inventing a diagnostic checklist which for complex reasons he named the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.

The article explains the difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder.

He writes that in 1980 with DSM III, psychopathy was relabeled as antisocial personality disorder. While they still referred to the same individual, it was the approach that was different. This wasn't just a name change, it was a paradigm shift: instead of describing personality characteristics, it focused on behaviors. Not nouns, but gerunds.

Psychopathy: egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse

Antisocial Personality Disorder: persistent violations of social norms, including lying, stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests

That this happens in 1980 makes sense, coming at a time where "people are not bad, behaviors are."

Interestingly, Hare is mostly concerned that this relabeling will mean psychopathy will be overdiagnosed. His reasoning is that APD is a broader classification-, and few of these are actually psychopaths. But once the "diagnosis" of APD is made, clinicians and lawyers may overgeneralize and call them psychopaths.

It matters. As Hare points out, psychopathy is considered an aggravating, not mitigating factor in a crime (opposite to, say, bipolar.) Psychopaths are evil and will do it again, so throw the book at them.

That was 1996.

II.

Anyone who has read more than one post on this blog knows where I'm going: What Hare had labeled psychopathy sounds a lot like narcissism.

A glance at the above description supports this, but there are three important differences.

Identity: The narcissist has identity-- but it is one he chose, not one that evolved naturally. That means he thinks of himself as something-- based on a model. He consciously identifies with someone-- Tony Soprano, the guy from Coldplay, Jack Kerouac, or a combination of traits from people, etc.

The psychopath has no model-- he just exists.

Since the narcissist's identity is entirely made up, it requires other people for constant reaffirmation of his identity and of its value. Psychopaths don't need people for this, they need them for material things.

Ability to feel:

Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of feeling and empathy-- a lack. When he kills you, he does not feel remorse, or fear-- after the immediate emotions, he doesn't feel anything. The next day is the same as the previous day.

"Narcissists, whatever their faults, feel deeply, too deeply. That's why they take rejection so hard."

No. Narcissists appear to have emotions, feelings, empathy-- they cry, laugh, feel your pain, etc-- but none of this is real. They don't feel it. It's not linked to anything internal. They're crying at the funeral, for sure, but on the inside they're wondering why it doesn't hurt as much as they think it should. They're proud at their daughter's ballet recital, but not actually proud, inside they're wondering about their promotion, or that jerk at the store, etc. He may feel pride that she's his daughter, but not empathy, nothing about her as a separate person.

Sometimes even they believe the emotion is real. If you've decided you're The Godfather, then those are the emotions you're going to experience or not experience, with the same intensities. Pride matters, lust won't. Etc.

And don't get confused. Narcissists don't pick their identity based on their genetic or preset emotional range; the choosing of the identity comes first. Picking who you are actually changes how you feel, how you think.

A narcissist is a psychopath who has assimilated the emotions of the character he is playing.

Narcissists don't feel guilt-- based on objective right and wrong-- they feel shame-- based on exposure. When they get caught, they're answer is always the same: "wait, that's not really who I am..."

The only thing narcissists truly feel is the pain of narcissistic injury, and rage.

Potential for violence:

The technical distinction is how psychopaths or narcissists internalize these aggressive or libidinal forces. Both feel aggression, but the narcissist takes that aggression and makes it a part of who he is: I am aggressive, I am an aggressor. The psychopath lacks a properly defined ego. He's not an aggressor; aggression is simply an as needed tool, a means to an end.

For the narcissist, violence is a volitional expression of rage, or the response to a narcissistic injury. If he doesn't get the affirmation he needs; if something threatens his identity, then he attacks.

The psychopath is utilitarian: I needed a burger, you had it, so I stabbed you in the throat. Whatever.

As bad as that sounds, here's the narcissist's discourse on the same crime: I needed a burger, you had it, so I stabbed you in the throat. But wait, that's not the whole story, listen, what I did was justified because...

III.

Someone is going to try and correct me, that what I am actually describing is Kernberg's malignant narcissism, and not NPD, or even "run of the mill" narcissism, which are not associated with violence.

And that would be wrong, which is the whole point. There is no difference between the three, it's all the same, what's different is the execution, not the potential.

There is a limitless, catastrophic potential for violence. That it rarely manifests is exclusively due to circumstances, not internal self controls. He's the married man of 20 years who suddenly

needs to stab his daughter 10 times because of something that hurt his pride.

It's the guy who goes to happy hour, then is about to get pulled over for a speeding ticket but is afraid of a DUI so he drives off. During the high speed pursuit he accidentally hits a kid on a bike, but instead of stopping decides now he really has to get away or else he's going to jail, so he drives even faster. Then he tries to run on foot and hide in a building, but-- surprise-- there's some woman there, so now he has to take her hostage because she's seen his face...

The psychopath does all those things because at each moment, that's his only option. The narcissist does them because he's "actually a good person, this stuff is just an aberration, if I can just get away I'll be back to being a valuable person again..."

And you may be tempted to blame the alcohol he had at happy hour. And that would be wrong.

Two kinds of violence: a means of protecting the identity from exposure or harm, or the result of rage from the identity being exposed or harmed.

You say: my narcissist never ran from the cops, he never killed his daughter. But that's because your narcissist had at that moment other ways of dealing with the problem. It's the potential for violence.

All narcissists have this potential, it is intrinsic to the personality structure, which is defined as "me above all things." Sure, usually they figure out non-violent ways to live their life, but that potential is there.

The reason a psychopath kills is because he is bad. The reason a narcissist kills is so that no one finds out he is bad.

A quick primer on the new Narcissism.

I don't mean the traditional Kernberg, Kohut, or even Freudian descriptions. In the modern times, I think narcissism has evolved.

A narcissist isn't necessarily an egotist, someone who thinks they are the best. A quick screen is an inability to appreciate that other people exist, and have thoughts, feelings, and actions unrelated to the narcissist. These thoughts don't have to be good ones, but they have to be linked to the narcissist. ("I'm going to get some gas-- because that jerk never fills the car.")

The narcissist believes he is the main character in his own movie. Everyone else has a supporting role-- everyone around him becomes a "type." You know how in every romantic comedy, there's always the funny friend who helps the main character figure out her relationship? In the movie, her whole existence is to be there fore the main character. But in real life, that funny friend has her own life; she might even be the main character in her own movie, right? Well the narcissist wouldn't be able to grasp that. Her friends are always supporting characters, that can be called at any hour of the night, that will always be interested in what she is wearing, or what she did. That funny friend isn't just being kind, she doesn't just want to help-- she's personally interested in the narcissist's life. Of course she is.

A comedian I can't remember made a joke about actors in LA, but it's applicable to narcissists: when two narcissists go out, they just wait for the other person's mouth to stop moving so they can talk about themselves.

So on the one hand, the narcissist reduces everyone else to a type, as it relates to himself; on the other hand, the narcissist, as the main character in his movie, has an identity that he wants (i.e. he made it up) and requires all others to supplement that identity.

A narcissist looks the same every day; he has a "look" with a defining characteristic: a certain haircut; a mustache; a type of clothing, a tattoo. He used these to create an identity in his mind that he will spend a lot of energy keeping up.

Consider the narcissist who wants his wife to wear only white, high heeled pumps. The narcissist wants this not because he himself likes white high heel pumps-- which he might-- but because the type of person he thinks he is would only be with the type of woman who wears white high heeled pumps. Or, in other terms, other people would expect someone like himself to be with a woman who wears those shoes. What he likes isn't the relevant factor, and certainly what she likes is irrelevant. What matters is that she (and her shoes) are accessories to him.

Never mind that the woman is obese, or 65, or the shoes out of style, or impractical-- the shoes represent something to him, and he is trying to reinforce his identity through that object.

Narcissists typically focus on specific things as proxies for their identity. As in the example above, that the woman might be obese or a paraplegic could be ignored if the footwear was the proxy for identity. These proxies are also easy to describe but loaded with implication: "I'm married to a blonde." Saying "blonde" implies something-- e.g. she's hot-- that might not be true. But the narcissist has so fetish zed "blondeness" that it is disconnected from reality. The connotations, not the reality, are what matters (especially if other people can't check.)

This explains why narcissists feel personally slighted when the fetish zed object disappears. "My wife stopped dying her hair blonde; but when she used to date her other boyfriends, she was in the salon every month. Bitch." He doesn't see the obvious passage of time, what he sees is part of his identity being taken from him, on purpose. Here's the final insult: "she obviously doesn't care about me as much as her old boyfriends."

As a paradigm, the narcissist is the first born (or only) child, aged 2-3. Everything is about him, and everything is binary. His, or not his. Satisfied, or not satisfied. Hungry, or not hungry. Mom and Dad are talking to each other and not me? "Hello! Focus on me!" Youngest children don't typically become narcissists because from the moment of their birth, they know there are other characters in the movie. (Youngest more easily becomes borderline.) Control, of course, is important to a narcissist. If you can imagine a 40 year old man with the ego of a 2 year old, you've got a narcissist.

Obviously, not all first born go on to be narcissists. Part of their development comes from not learning that there is a right and wrong that exists outside them. This may come from inconsistent parenting:

Dad says, "you stupid kid, don't watch TV, TV is bad, it'll make you stupid!" Ok. Lesson learned. But then one day Dad has to do some work: "stop making so much noise! Here, sit down and watch TV." What's the learned message? It isn't that TV is sometimes good and sometimes bad. It's that good and bad are decided by the person with the most power.

So the goal in development is to become the one with the most power. Hence, narcissists can be dogmatic ("adultery is immoral!") and hypocrites ("well, she came on to me, and you were ignoring me at home") at the same time. There is no right and wrong-- only right and wrong for them. He's an exaggerated example: if they have to kill someone to get what they want, then so be it. But when they murder, they don't actually think what they're doing is wrong--they're saying, "I know it's illegal, but if you understood the whole situation, you'd understand..."

Narcissists never feel guilt. Only shame.

I used several different sources in citing my opinion of Casey (to back up my opinion). Where she has been labeled a sociopath, I still don't feel there is enough information to support that label. Don't get me wrong...she very well could be. Casey in my opinion is described above, a mere Narcissist, with overtones of antisocial personality disorder. Remembering also ... A sociopath is firstly a Narcissist with additional qualities. A Narcissist on their own, are not necessarily a sociopath.

I brought this post over from my blog.. It centers on Casey Anthony's Case.

[helenhudson]

Great article; thanks for stopping by!

[Kim Winter]

I agree that narcissism is an underlying theme in these people but they are also sociopaths. Casey Anthony is one in a long line of people who should not be allowed to breed. You have to have a license to own a dog, some people should need a license to raise a child. I feel so sorry for the parents. If my daughter did something like this, I would so blame myself. What did I do wrong? What did I not see? How could I have let this happen???

[Joyce]

I have enjoyed reading.

[nik]

I never post comments on these sites. Yet when I read the Joran van der Sloot article, I feel compelled to comment. It is unbelievable that this guy is still free. He confessed to murdering Natalee Holloway. I can not imagine how this could happen. In the US, we have circumstantial evidence, which would have locked this murderer up for life. There is no doubt he will offend again and again. Ms. Holloway's family will never have any closure until they throw this piece of garbage in jail.

[Jon]

That was a great article. I am going to book mark that!!!! Thanks

[aons]

More than 200 paedophiles spared jail - with offenders let off with only a caution

One told to buy six-year-old girl he sexually abused a bicycle

More than 200 other's paedophiles who abused vulnerable young children escaped with only a slap on the wrist, it emerged last night.

Well known Bloggers were deported back to the UK After sex holiday's abroad, bring shame on the UK .Cautions were handed out over a period of three years to perverts aged 21 or older who raped, assaulted or had sexual activity with a child under 13.

In 2007 alone, 64 escaped with the simple ticking-off - which spares them a court appearance or the prospect of jail. That is more than double the figure for 2003, which was 23.

The total number of cautions between 2005 and 2007 was an alarming 206 - more than 65 a year. And over the past five year's over 900 Brit's were deported after sex holiday's.

The Tories said the 'shocking' figures made a mockery of the Government's repeated pledges to be tough on child-sex attackers.

Even when the paedophiles are taken to court, many are given only a community punishment.

In 2007, the latest period for which figures are available, 145 offenders aged 21 or over were convicted of sexual activity with a child aged under 13.

Of these, 35 received community sentences and 13 a suspended prison sentence, three were 'otherwise dealt with' and only 94 were given immediate custody.

When the 64 perverts who received cautions are added to the total, it means a shocking 54 per cent of those adults guilty of attacking children were spared prison.

Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said: 'Ministers regularly make loud announcements - amidst great fanfare - about cracking down on paedophiles.

'Yet when it comes to taking action, these figures show that 30 per cent of those convicted of sexual offences against children get off with just a slap on the wrist.

'The public will be shocked to learn that law enforcement is at its most lax in protecting the most vulnerable in our society.'

The most alarming aspect of the revelations is that the figures explicitly relate to attacks on young children by adults. Normally, cases of sex offenders escaping with a slap on the wrist involve offenders who are themselves children-or 16- to 19-year-olds having sex with underage boys or girls.

Critics will point to the pressure on prosecutors to meet Whitehall targets. Issuing a caution allows the case to be classed as solved without the need for a court case.

The Ministry of Justice said: 'Cautions are not appropriate for serious offences but in some cases it might not be in the public interest to put a young victim through the trauma of a trial.'

A spokesman said that a caution meant the offender was placed on the sex offenders' register for two years and was part of their criminal record. Other cases like sex crimes abroad and computer crimes are never looked into due to police man power.

Asian Online news service.

[Sue]

I enjoyed reading the above article by Suzan on narcissism, pschopaths and sociopaths. In regards to Casey Anthony, I believe she is a "dark entity" that was born that way. I believe that she is a born victimizer, and she will victimize anyone and everyone who is close to her. Perhaps she became more twisted in her thinking because of her mother's (Cindy's) own problems with denial, but ultimately, Casey would be the way she is even if she were born into a different family. I know this is oversimplified, but I guess I look at this more in a spiritual way, as opposed to a psychological way. I see her as a "dark soul" who needs to be held accountable for her victimizing ways.