<p>garland - I agree . . . and, frankly, I’d rather not have a sex offender living next door to me. Or a serial killer. But those are repeat offenders who are likely to reoffend. And certain people are incarcerated for their entire lives because we, as a society, have decided we’re not willing to risk their release. But there’s no indication this guy has hurt a flea since he was 15 years old. So why do I need to know?</p>
<p>I’d say that the article is poorly-written, cliche-ridden, and reveals more about the prejudices and preconceptions of the “reporter” than it does about James St. James.</p>
<p>I think she is writing the article for her audience in Georgetown, Texas. I have the feeling if he committed the murders in Illinois and was now a professor of 20+ years at Southwestern her story would have had a different slant.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.</p>
<p>I would agree.</p>
<p>I am particularly contemptuous of the paragraph regarding religion.</p>
<p>Yes that jumped out at me.</p>
<p>“In 1974 the hospital administrator wrote a letter to the district attorney stating that James was no longer suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.” </p>
<p>“A jury declared him sane after 10 minutes of deliberation.”</p>
<p>“he was awarded the balance of his family’s estate.”</p>
<p>I don’t understand how he was no longer suffering from schizophrenia at 21, but he was at 15, especially since onset is typically in late teens, early twenties</p>
<p>I have a similar impression as garland, he sounds more like a sociopath. Nothing in the articles point to a young man who sounded psychotic based on his reasoning for killing and his reporting all that happened.</p>
<p>Tom, just a note, my reference to “what should he do” was not about St. James, but about the hypothetical date rapist you brought up earlier. Just to be clear. I did not ask and am not asking what St. j should do.</p>
<p>Very unsettling story.</p>
<p>I think he should watch his behavior with women but does not have to mention it at an interview.</p>
<p>“He,” who, Tom? St.J, or your hypothetical rapist?</p>
<p>The hypothetical rapist</p>
<p>From today’s Daily Beast - written by one of his former students: </p>
<p>[My</a> Professor the Killer: Why Dr. James St. James Should Stay - The Daily Beast](<a href=“My Professor the Killer: Why Dr. James St. James Should Stay”>My Professor the Killer: Why Dr. James St. James Should Stay)</p>
<p>While schizophrenia most often is trigger in late teens or early 20’s there are cases of early onset, and in those cases, the results can be far worse, perhaps because the younger teen is going through so many other changes at the same time. While unusual, it is clearly possible that he had early onset schizophrenia.</p>
<p>The idea that he was no longer suffering from it simply means it was under control, whether through drugs, or psychotherapy. If he is no longer a threat to society, is it necessary for him to remain under lock and key as in inpatient? Not according to our laws. He left his inpatient program, and started a new life. He has done nothing since then to indicate that he is a threat.</p>
<p>I wonder if, 20 years from now George Zimmerman somehow gets his life together, and applies to become a coach of his child’s sports team, whether someone will make a stink about him? He killed a teenager, but was not found legally responsible - his name is on the tip of our tongues right now, but will be remember it 20 years from now? What if he chooses to change his name, and start over? Do we have a right to be upset that he can hide his past?</p>
<p>If Dr. St. James did not in fact suffer fro schizophrenia, but was playing the system, then he got away with murder. There is always the chance that is true, but if that happened, is he a threat to society? His was not a random crime - he killed his family. If he is a threat, it is to the rest of his extended family, not to the rest of us, but after 46 years, there is nothing to suggest he is in fact a threat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is schizophrenia really treatable with therapy? I don’t know, but I thought it was more physiologic in nature.</p>
<p>Generally it is a combination of both medication and therapy. As with Bipolar, part of the therapy is geared toward understanding and accepting the need for the medication, and learning to live with the disorder, rather than expecting a cure.</p>