What do You think about The Anatomy Of Motive: The FBI's Legendary Mindhunter Explores The Key To Understanding And Catching Violent Criminals (2000)?
John Douglas is one of the FBI’s premier behavioural science analysts who has profiled some of the modern era’s most infamous serial and spree killers. In The Anatomy of Motive, Douglas reveals the emotional motivation behind some of the world’s most heinous crimes, revealing insightful information on real-life case studies of major league whack-jobs such as Lee Harvey Oswald, Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy, as well as numerous arsonsists, hijackers, bombers, poisoners, assassins, serial killers, and mass murderers. Douglas identifies the anti-social personality and progressive escalation of such sociopathic behaviours. A fascinating and informative read.
—Suzan
I think Douglas and Olshaker wrote this for people getting into law enforcement, but this is a great book for anyone--particularly writers--struggling to understand the mindset of a psychopath. Though Douglas never uses the word, most of the cases he worked on--including the Unabomber--involve psychopaths. (This doesn't mean that all psychopaths are murderers, or even criminals. Psychopathy is a mindset of control, and I think we've all known psychopaths who, by legal markers, would be considered fine, upstanding citizens.) But many of these psychopaths seek to control others, and they sometimes find the craziest ways to achieve that. OR they're just loser nutsos looking to make a name for themselves or forever link themselves with someone famous (such as John Hinkley wanting to be linked to Jodie Foster). By profiling UNSUBs (unidentified subjects) before ever laying eyes on them, Douglas was able to find most of the criminals he sought. One notorious one who was never caught was the UNSUB who tampered with Tylenol bottles. Douglas not only goes through some of the high-profile cases he worked on (and some he didn't, I think), he includes an amusing little exercise where you try to profile an UNSUB based on the facts you know about the case. I really enjoyed the read, learned a lot, and will definitely be reading more of his work. This book reminds me of those true crime shows I grew up with, but done better.
—Stacy
To look at my reading list, you might think I have an unhealthy fascination with the morbid. But the truth is my fascination, or rather intense interest, is the biological basis for belief and ultimately behavior. In short, why do we believe the things we believe (particularly the silly things) and why do we do the things that we do (particularly the bad ones).The book was written (with some help from Mark Olshaker) by John Douglas, a famous former FBI profiler who helped to shape profiling into what it is today.This was interesting as it went beyond serial killing, discussing the usefulness of the criminal profile as it relates to serial bombing, assassinations, product tampering, etc.But what I enjoyed most about this book was a subtext (which is something I often do.) While Douglas acknowledges that criminals are influenced by their past experiences and their genetics, he also writes Everyone's got something you can point to, but when you go searching for evil, it's pretty tough to pinpoint it on a map. It all leads me to once again pose the question I keep asking over and over again: isn't anyone responsible for anything anymore?Essentially, here and in other places in the book, he seems to be saying (almost as an aside) that while these factors may help explain an offender's behavior, they don't excuse it. The individual is still wholly responsible for his/her actions. In short, Douglass seems to be grappling with and leaning toward this concept of free will.This is a topic that I've put a lot of thought into, and while I agree that dangerous criminals need to be removed from society or otherwise dealt with to minimize risk, I'm not sure any of us has the "free will" we think we (or others) possess. Asserting that a criminal can choose not to be a criminal simply because he shows some restraint is almost as naïve as saying that I can choose to become a criminal. Such choices suggest that "we" are something beyond our biology, that our thoughts, feelings, impulses, and desires (or, at a minimum, some form of checks and balances) originate somewhere outside of the neural network that we call our brains and are wholly or partially under the control of this other thing. Douglas doesn't seem to consider that the criminal who does not kill a victim or commit a crime hasn't exerted free will. Perhaps instead, the complex firing of neurons in his brain has simply not resulted in him killing the victim or committing the crime this time under these circumstances. As much as it may feel like it, there is no driver in the driver's seat. We are not separate from our brains, and those brains are nothing more than a lifetime of nature and nurture. So while these criminals are guilty and responsible under the law and while their brains may be "damaged" and/or modified to a point where they are unlikely to respect social norms, I'm not sure we can blame the individual. I mean, how can you blame a system that is nothing but a set of inputs and outputs. This sense of ourselves is an illusion and nothing more than a construction of our brains, a brain that is influenced in many ways...including itself.Anyway, interesting and thought-provoking book especially given my interests and past readings.
—Shaun
