<p>I completely understand that mental illness is a real thing and that the brain can be unhealthy just like any other part of the body. However, most other physical illnesses don’t cause violence on a scale like this. </p>
<p>Again, MOST people with mental illnesses will never be violent. However, I don’t personally think we know enough about ANY mental illness that causes violence, especially on this scale, to call anyone “cured”.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>His family has the right to shun him from their company and homes as private individuals.</p>
<p>However, no one has the right to compel him to retire…especially the university itself considering the potential legal minefield due to the fact he was a sufferer of mental illness as shown in that case and if pushed to retire or otherwise pressed about his past, could sue on the grounds of employment discrimination/harassment. </p>
<p>And his employer is likely to have a hard time proving he can’t do his job considering he by many accounts, has done a great job during the length of his academic career until this news broke.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, where did you get the info that his IQ is 130+? </p>
<p>Also, what scale is that score using as from what I’ve heard, 130+ isn’t considered off the scale. </p>
<p>One needs to be 160+ to be considered a genius according to the scale I commonly heard about. 130+ just means you’re above average and thus, very bright…but far from “off the charts”.</p>
<p>Really, romani and others . . . you’re adamantly opposed to discrimination, unless it’s someone YOU don’t feel comfortable with?</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of comfort, it’s a matter of safety.
I think there are people that don’t react to violence the same way. </p>
<p>You have to remember, I deal with violence on a daily basis. I lost my tolerance for anyone violent. I think there are just some people that can kill without remorse and that terrifies me.</p>
<p>Being scared of someone who killed his family is FAR different from being scared of someone because they’re gay or something. One of these people can actually do real harm to someone.</p>
<p>I don’t understand this ‘safety’ argument at all. There are countless people in the world with the capacity to commit a violent crime. There are many sociopaths and psychopaths out there, only a minority kill or hurt people, in fact many of them end up on Wall Street. Just because someone has the capacity to commit a crime does not mean they ever will.</p>
<p>As for this professor, he was mentally ill and it led to tragic consequences, but he recovered enough (and yes you can recover, contrary to what other people in this thread have said) to go on to lead a perfectly ordinary and law abiding life. In my view it is immoral and quite unjust to attempt to limit that life and this man’s freedom by either locking him up or preventing him from working in a college just because he ‘could’ pose a threat.</p>
<p>In the end this comes down to the old prison is punishment mentality, some people are just upset that this man – in their eyes - has not been punished enough. I feel very sorry for the guy and I hope he can get past it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And some people, whether we agree with them or not, would say that gay people pose a risk to their children.</p>
<p>I understand that this is different, but it’s also the price we pay to live in a free society. With very limited exceptions, people aren’t locked up (or barred from employment) because of the risk they “could” pose.</p>
<p>dodgersmom, what?? I have no idea what you are trying to say but am afraid to even guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, HIPAA wasn’t around 40 years ago to protect him. I don’t know what the laws were back then with regard to disability rights etc. but it seems like in the “old days” people could and did ask all kinds of personal questions that just aren’t allowed now and use those answers in hiring decisions. </p>
<p>It was easier for people to omit information, things weren’t computerized, the hiring manager couldn’t google him.</p>
<p>Second Sally.</p>
<p>And frankly, who here argued for discrimination or locking him up? you’re arguing against assertions that haven’t been made. I argue for full disclosure. For honesty. For owning up to one’s actions, knowing that what you do in the past, for everyone, affects who you are in the future, and what path your life might take. </p>
<p>That’s not easy; it’s just right.</p>
<p>There was a similar story a few years ago, when it was discovered that a professor (at Penn State), Paul Krueger, had killed 3 people at age 17. He did not return to Penn State. Wonder where he is now [Professor</a> concealed a dark past Paul Krueger murdered 3 men in 1965. Penn State just got the news. Penn State learns professor killed 3 - Philly.com](<a href=“Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes”>Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes)</p>
<p><a href=“Can Good Works Outweigh Murderous Past? - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132386&page=2</a></p>
<p>This professor, however, pled guilty and served time. Was not adjudicated NGRI.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, what you’re arguing for is forcing him to wear a scarlet letter for the rest of his life. And, guess what? He doesn’t have to. He has the same right of privacy that you do.</p>
<p>And for those of you who really don’t understand my last post, please see my conversation with romanigypsyeyes in posts 83 and 84. And, to clarify, whether you’re arguing that he shouldn’t be allowed to teach (as some of you have) or that he should be forced to make disclosures that none of the rest of us is required to make (and that his prospective employer should be permitted to reject him on the basis of those disclosures), it’s a form of discrimination that most of you wouldn’t tolerate if it were directed at someone else, and based on race, gender, physical disability, etc.</p>
<p>And if you’re saying that ALL people should be required to disclose prior mental health treatment on a job application . . . well, good luck with that. You’ll have to lobby Congress to rescind the ADA in order to accomplish your goal.</p>
<p>continuing with the straw man argument. This case has nothing to do with a form of identity–which are what discrimination laws are about. It’s about actions.</p>
<p>using the Scarlet letter meme equates adultery and killing. False equivalency argument.</p>
<p>Does the fact that he has been behaving properly for 40+ years count at all?</p>
<p>Not guily by reason of insanity is not the same as a pure “not guilty.” Nor is any verdict where it seems clear someone committed a crime, but the system wasn’t able to meet all the technical requirements of proof.</p>
<p>I’m just going to say our society seems to have variable standards of what horrifies. We can show great understanding to some acts and draw fierce lines for others. We blithely assume that kid “won’t ever make that mistake again” and, in other cases, assume he will.</p>
<p>In the end, we don’t know. You have to study recidivism and how it applies to various acts. And the contributing factors. I don’t have current info, but thought murder was actually one of the statistically least repeated crimes.</p>
<p>I am not trying to argue about this guy. Only point out how quickly some draw conclusions.</p>
<p>I agree with what you posted but this guy now has a 40+ year history either we believe in rehabilitation and redemption or some combination of the two or we do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Romani, I have to agree with others who have pointed out that you are normally very tolerant and supportive of civil liberties… yet somehow you have tone a 180 on this issue because… what? You can imagine the horror of the crime from 40 years ago? Think hard – are you have a knee jerk reaction not just to the crime, but to the fact that this person was judged to have a mental health issue? This person has been judged through our court system and treated for his mental illness. The treating institution could easily have kept him for the rest of his life if they felt he was still a danger to society, but they made a decision not to. Is it up to all of us to second guess them and make sure this man can’t work and interact with other people? Should people who commit crimes due to mental health issues just be locked up for the rest of their lives because other people are uncomfortable or don’t know the details of their treatment? Should privacy laws like HIPPA be waived for a person who committed a crime so people on the street can see and judge his treatment regime – including the 99.9999% of us who will never meet the guy? As someone else said, would you be more comfortable if this guy were the janitor vs. the professor at a college? If so, why? He would have equal opportunity to commit a violent crime, one would assume.</p>
<p>I don’t think you have expertise in the field of “what causes mental illness”. A lot of progress has been made in this field, and we certainly have a better idea and better treatments than they had 50 years ago. I think I expressed in an early post that I wonder what treatment was tried/used for him back right after the crime. Just because he was released does not mean he does not continue in some kind of treatment, including new developments that may be more effective than what was available when this happened. </p>
<p>I think you are having a knee jerk reaction to the thought of the crime in the context of your current work. But EVERYONE has civil liberties, including this guy. You are trying to take them away based on your personal level of discomfort. You didn’t know the family, you have never met this man, you know no specific details of his illness and treatment, and you don’t know any of his students. Yet you are judging that he is not fit to teach in a college classroom (when it appears that he has done so successfully with no known issues for many years). I think that is wrong.</p>
<p>Okay… on a lighter note – I wonder what his ratemyprofessor rankings look like. Don’t have time to look now, has anyone else?</p>
<p>I believe in redemption. I guess I’d argue that I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, whether it has taken place.</p>
<p>Is this a man striving to make up for what he did in the past, and living a just life in response to it, or is this a man who is motivated by a desire to deny and hide the past for personal gain?</p>
<p>I have no way to know. I’m not making a legal argument, as seems to be what you want.</p>
<p>I’m talking about the nature of redemption and responsibility. </p>
<p>I think we live in a society where how to maximize one’s own success is prioritized and prized, above human responsibility for what we do to others. And that’s what I’m wondering, and can’t know and can’t legislate for. But I think it matters.</p>
<p>He should have remorse for what he did. We may never know but he may have severe anguish that his “mental breakdown” killed his family. He may live with emotional pain that none of us understand. </p>
<p>He has a 40+ year history now and that counts for something. It seems many want to punish him by making him give up a job because 40 years ago he was not punished enough.</p>
<p>I don’t think he wasn’t punished enough. In fact, I don’t think that’s what most (any) one here is saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What actions - the killings? These actions were deemed not criminal. So you would like certain non-criminal acts to be subject to disclosure? Okay, which ones? All killings? </p>
<p>Oops, that won’t work . . . what about former members of the military? Okay, then, all killings except those committed in the service of ones country. But what if one was a member of the military in a government that was corrupt? And if there is disagreement as to whether or not the government was corrupt - who gets to decide?</p>
<p>In the end, what you want is for people to be forced to disclose actions that you, personally, find morally reprehensible. You do realize that’s an untenable standard, don’t you?</p>
<p>And, by the way, even if you claim to be focusing only on his actions, many of the rest of those posting have expressed concern about his arguably uncured mental illness - and mental illness is a disability for which one is subject to protection under the ADA.</p>