<p>I wonder what prompted the reporter to research this story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d doubt it because:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>He wasn’t convicted of the crime as he was found innocent by reason of insanity by the authorities. He thus, wasn’t convicted and thus, can honestly answer that he was never convicted of this crime. He would also be legally correct from my basic layman’s readings of the law. </p></li>
<li><p>He also has the right to not disclose his past issues with mental illness such as this incident like other Americans. In fact, any employer who asks/probes for such information is theoretically in violation of employment policies/laws against discrimination against those who suffer or were suffering from mental illness. If an employer has a compelling exception because a sufferer of mental illness can’t perform a given job duty, the employer has the burden of proving that a given mental illness will severely impair performance of the job according to a few friends who are labor lawyers.</p></li>
<li><p>He was a minor at the the crime happened.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Treatment for mental illness today isn’t usually just “therapy”, it often includes pharmaceutical treatment as well. Which can be very effective in some cases depending on the situation. We are starting to get a better handle on the ways a person’s brain can get sick just like your heart or liver or kidneys can. Which actually may make it more complex to decide if/whether to release someone who committed a terrible crime while they were mentally ill. I was thinking today about this guy and wondering what kind of treatment he received… certainly we know more about treatment and psychiatrists have more tools at their disposal than they had 40 years ago.</p>
<p>And also, I find the phrase “nut job” to be offensive. Even someone who commits a crime is someone’s son or brother… and if they are suffering from mental illness, know that it could be you or your family very easily in their shoes. No one wants or asks for mental illness.</p>
<p>Well…according to Wikipedia, some schizophrenics do recover completely. Maybe he is one of them. According to the same source, use of drugs can trigger an episode. In this case, the symptoms could have been triggered by glue sniffing.</p>
<p>I think it highly unlikely that he could have earned a PhD and would be able to fulfill his duties as a professor if he had schizophrenia currently.So, there are two options. One is that he had it and is now cured or at least won’t have any more episodes if he doesn’t sniff glue or use anything similar. The second is that he faked the symptoms and escaped punishment. I find the latter more problematic. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s likely that he will do anything violent again. </p>
<p>I’m sure many of you are familiar with the story of novelist Anne Perry. She was “unmasked” as the former Juliet Hulme, who was convicted of helping her best friend murder her friend’s mother when she was 15. I just cite her as another person who committed murder as a teenager and went on to live a responsible adult life. </p>
<p>As for his choice of field…half the psychologists and shrinks I know became interested in the field because of personal issues. Moreover, none of the news reports say he is acting as a therapist. </p>
<p>There is no evidence here that the professor committed fraud. Lots of people change their names. Not all employment applications ask whether you have ever been known by a different name. It’s unlikely the issue ever came up because he earned all of his degrees while using his current name. If he was asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime, he could truthfully say no. So, where is the fraud?</p>
<p>I think we should applaud the professor for having successfully dealt with his demons and built a successful adult life.</p>
<p>He told investigators that he “hated” his family and believed that they were trying to destroy him. He blamed his mother for chewing her food too loudly and his sister’s bad accent as part of a plan to drive him mad. he was angry at his father for not allowing him to grow his hair or march in a peace rally. He said his father wouldn’t let him wear anti-Vietnam war buttons.</p>
<p>Read more: [Esteemed</a> Illinois professor revealed as teen killer who<em>murdered his family ? and served just six years after insanity bid</em> - NY Daily News](<a href=“Esteemed Illinois professor revealed as teen killer who murdered his family — and served just six years after insanity bid ”>Esteemed Illinois professor revealed as teen killer who murdered his family — and served just six years after insanity bid )</p>
<p>Given his apparent ability to make a new life my own observation is that maybe he wasn’t paranoid schizophrenic to begin with. I realize we don’t have enough information but his above statements don’t sound that different than many teenagers. I’ve worked with paranoid schizophrenics and more typical statements are that aliens/government/family are watching their every move, they can’t eat because the food supply is poisoned, they believe they are God etc. He apparently claimed he knew he was mentally ill,which was a pretty unusual claim back then, and not a claim most paranoid schizophrenics make.</p>
<p>As to his employment, it is strange that the university seems to only have empathy for the guy. However they may have consulted with their attorneys who may have directed their choice.<br>
I personally would have concerns about whether he’s had any other violent episodes since, ie. domestic violence etc. Just because he’s been successful in his professional life does not mean he’s had no other issues. I would hope the university is at minimum interviewing him about this and perhaps conducting a background check to see if there might be other episodes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The university needs to proceed very carefully as this investigation alone could be construed as a discriminatory/harassment action against someone who is suffering/suffered mental illness…especially if it has had no impact on his job at the university.</p>
<p>I think he should retire. He’s put the university in a terrible position. It seems the honorable thing to do would be to step down. It also seems a very small price to pay for having murdered three people.</p>
<p>The stat that I have read about schizophrenia (and schizoaffective disorder, which my son has) is that one third of people recover. One third do well on meds. The remaining third does poorly, even on meds. Not sure where my son will fall.</p>
<p>Elyn Saks is another person who lives with schizophrenia but has done really well. She’s a well-respected professor of law, psychiatry, and psychology at USC. I don’t think it’s surprising that this guy went into psychology. Ill people often want to learn more about what’s going on with themselves.</p>
<p>I agree that this man should retire.</p>
<p>Why should he retire? He’s 61. He’s not old enough to get social security. It’s doubtful that he would receive a pension. I doubt he’s independently wealthy.</p>
<p>What if he had been “outed” at age 40. Should he have quit the job and remained unemployed the rest of his life?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, let’s try this once more: He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. So, no, he did NOT murder three people. Yes, he killed them, but he did not murder them, and that’s a critical distinction.</p>
<p>And who the heck are you to decide what “price” he should have to pay? He was tried. He was found not guilty. End of story. I’m sorry it makes you (or others) uncomfortable that he’s out and living what appears to be a normal life, but that’s not a decision you get to make.</p>
<p>And, for what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that he put the college in a terrible position. Seems like that credit should go to the reporter who made it her life’s work to hunt him down.</p>
<p>Actions have consequences. </p>
<p>I believe that a reasonable consequence of murdering three people is that you would be viewed as an inappropriate choice to be the chair/professor of a psychology department. </p>
<p>If I were a parent with a child at this school, I’d be asking that the professor resign. He’s bringing nothing but bad attention to the university and it’s become a national story. He’s a distraction and the honorable thing to do would be to retire/leave.</p>
<p>pugmadkate - Perhaps you missed my post just above yours? He was found not guilty.</p>
<p>He put the college in a terrible position by choosing to be dishonest about who he was. He should have used his real name and given the college the chance to make an informed decision. He robbed them of that chance, he should acknowledge that and make it right. </p>
<p>I’m sorry that the word “murdered” is so upsetting to you in the case. He pre-planned shooting three human beings at close range with no change to escape or defend themselves and then he carried that plan out. Better?</p>
<p>I realize he was found “not guilty.” All the more reason to not lie to future employers.</p>
<p>The publicity about this event might well make his professional life very uncomfortable. If I were this man, I would not just resign, but I might agree to take a generous early retirement offer.</p>
<p>He may prefer to work, however, and I can’t see how he could legally be forced out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite an assumption. Who says he was dishonest? He likely answered all questions honestly that were asked of him when he applied. The school probably didn’t ask if he’d ever been acquitted of a crime, or if he’d ever been arrested as a minor.</p>
<p>As for the name change, he has the right to change his name, as do you or I. And even if he hadn’t, what’s the chance a college dean in Illinois would have recognized his name as being associated with an incident that occurred in Texas decades before?</p>
<p>And, no, the word “murdered” isn’t upsetting. It’s inaccurate and inflammatory.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt they can force him out. It would just be nice to see someone take responsibility for their actions and do the honorable thing. Of course, expecting that from someone like him is probably absurd.</p>
<p>The word “murdered” is inflammatory? Okay, then let’s just call it what it was…he shot his father twice in the chest, shot his sister in her face and shot his mother in her head. There, that sounds better.</p>
<p>For all of you that say he should not work at the university what job would be acceptable for him?</p>
<p>Should he ever been allowed to work again?</p>
<p>He was not convicted, and thus, he doesn’t have to answer yes to any convictions question. (And, given how incredibly hard it is to succeed with a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, there was probably a lot of evidence that the jury found persuasive.)</p>
<p>Generally employers are not allowed to ask about arrests. (In some states, they aren’t allowed to ask about many kinds of convictions.)</p>
<p>Absent evidence that he is going off kilter again, I think it is time to simply let him be.</p>
<p>i’m in agreement with PMK here. and for one, I think not being forthcoming about something this major is lying by omission. That’s, to me, a big character flaw.</p>
<p>as to where he should work, anyone who will hire him who’s fairly informed of the facts. Since he’s “not guilty” this shouldn’t be a problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, as predicted…these discussions tend to devolve a bit into shades of “Salem Witch Trials” and “A Scarlett Letter” regarding issues of guilt or innocence, trial by public opinion inflamed by fears and prejudices, issues of second chances/redemption, and more.</p>