Xort Xort:
Well I don't agree. To say that because they conduct mass killings they much be crazy, is poor logic. Some of them are insane. Some of them even have mental illnesses that would place them into the category of not being criminal responsible for their actions. But overall most of the mass killers that are captured rather than killed are not crazy. They are not serial killers that just decided to get all their killing done in one day. They are not delusional, they are not unable to control their emotions.
So yeah, JJ is wrong their are people that have coldly weighted the pros and cons and decide to try and hurt and kill as many people as possible. I would like to live in a world in which only mentally ill people hurt others, but that's just not matching with the facts of the world we do live in. JJ is in denial.
To be clear, JJ disagreed with this statement too. I'm not sure where I stand on it, though it is provocative. I'm not talking about legal insanity (i.e. diminished responsibility, diminished capacity) which addresses whether or not the perpetrator could be capable of making a detmermination of right and wrong. I'm talking about mental illness--whether a person committing an act such as this could be construed as not having any mental illness.
I'm not sure--one would like to think that people aren't naturally homicidal, but then there's Milgram's famous psychology test where he had complete strangers torturing and killing people (actors actually) based on instructions from an unknown but vaguely authoritative figure.
$1:
I can't see any reasonable argument that can be made that knowing less about why someone committed this type of crime is a bad thing.
I've never found the motives of killers to be particularly edifying. Then ones that killed for Hitler would have killed for Stalin, in my opinion. The ones that stood up to Pinochet are the same type that stood up to Mao.