book I'm reading

is on mass murders and what "makes them" kill. Some of it is quite intersting, some passe, some disturbing. I find it hard to stomach that the psychological profession would busy itself trying to defned a homicidal person who has (blanket category) schizophrenia, which generally now is testable. Some psyc's claim that that person cannot reenter society. Okay. So why am I the lucky one to pay for his/her existence? I should be able to opt on on serial criminals on my tax forms.
line 296 a. Would you like some of your tax dollars to pay for the inceration of serial criminals, including cable TV, food, housing and equipment use, job -- denied to those who are on the streets? yes/no
296 a.2. you have opted no. Your tax dollars will not pay for their medical, or food. [excellent choice by the way]

A few psych's needing their own heads examined, would dissallow culpability on the part of the perpetrator, claiming diminshed capacity (or i.e. super angry that day), or permanently disabled. So why keep them alive? Take for example some captured mass killers who have -- surprise, surprise, asocial behaviors and lack of empathy, agression towards others. Would you then, place them in a workplace somewhere, next to others upon release?

Moreover, the "death penalty" revocation allowed some death row inmates eligible for paron. How do you figure? If the supreme court ever again puts a moratorium on executions, will the death row inmates be able to get out? How is that justice? So a person sentence life no parole is stuck while a death row prisioner may be released. That's bad law!

I think that the author, who references a great number of non-fiction crime books should impart in each chapter the theme of identifying early those who might kill. There are typical experiences that tend to trigger weak-personalities. I suggest a more clinical approach and find out who appears to have those circumstances (criteria as it were) and change their experiences. If they have a bad home -- get them out -- NOW! Don't let a serial criminal at 12 do a 4 year stint in a juvenile facility only to reap greater damage at 16. I'd rather clinically institute a larcenous 5 year-old than incarcerate a burgoning criminal of 10-12.

I'm not through with the book, but glad that I didn't follow through with psychology as a vocation as it spends too much of even academics in defending itself as a discipline, then finding errors in the law that punish the weak in social maturity, despite the person comitting violent crimes (like no injury arson).