NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm guessing most people have already heard of this guy, but I'll post part of the story anyway:

The Russian man known as the "chessboard killer," Alexander Pichushkin, will be sentenced on Thursday after a jury in Moscow found him guilty of killing 48 people and attempting to murder three others.

During the six-week trial at Moscow City Court Mr Pichushkin confessed to murdering more than 60 people in a killing spree which lasted more than a decade.
[...]

Pichushkin started off mostly drowning his victims by throwing them into the sewer.

But by 2002 he was shooting them through the head with a home-made gun.

Alexander Pichushkin inside the Moscow courtroom
The murders became increasingly ferocious

By the end of that year he had moved on to his most gruesome method of killing - attacking his victims with a hammer.

Multiple blows to the head left 14 dead - just one survived.

He did not even bother hiding the bodies.

With some victims he inserted a vodka bottle or stick into their smashed skulls.

He always preyed on the weak, luring the elderly, alcoholics, drug-addicts and even a disabled man into a park in southern Moscow by offering them vodka.

He ensured they were drunk before attacking them knowing they would not be able to put up any resistance.
[...]

The chessboard reported to have been found in his apartment, on which he recorded all the murders, already had bottle-tops placed on 62 of the 64 squares.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7060989.stm)

Two things I found interesting about this story:

Russia, despite being Russia, and despite this guy having killed at least 48 people, does not wish to sentence him to death.
He exists, period. Later in the article it says his mother attributed his killing spree to a knock on the head he got from a swing when he was four. That's possible, I guess, but what do people here think? How can people like this man exist at all?

The chessboard reported to have been found in his apartment, on which he recorded all the murders, already had bottle-tops placed on 62 of the 64 squares.
Only two left....

Only two left....
Reminds me, gruesomely, of Twin Peaks.

Well, obviously, I’m glad he’s caught. More people won’t be harmed and he can get some well-needed help.

Only two left....

Only 48 people have been accounted for though; it's entirely possible he exaggerated.
Still, 48 is no small potatoes. It's unbelievable that he could kill that many people without getting caught.

Reminds me, gruesomely, of Twin Peaks.

Well, obviously, I’m glad he’s caught. More people won’t be harmed and he can get some well-needed help.

Do you honestly believe there is any flicker of hope of rehabilitating a person who murdered 60 people and often inserted a vodka bottle into their smashed skull?

I don't.

Andrei Chikatilo, 52.

Andrei Chikatilo, 52.

What about him?

Two things I found interesting about this story:

Russia, despite being Russia, and despite this guy having killed at least 48 people, does not wish to sentence him to death.
He exists, period. Later in the article it says his mother attributed his killing spree to a knock on the head he got from a swing when he was four. That's possible, I guess, but what do people here think? How can people like this man exist at all?

Why would a society want to kill a sick man? As for the "Russia, despite being Russia" thing, well.. Different cultures incorporate elements of violently self-righteous retribution against various types of social/political deviant behaviour. Such traditions always exists, it seems, but they aren't necessarily alike. You might as well have said: "America, being America, would kill this obviously insane individual". In other words, you're courting xenophobia.
How can such an individual exist? Well, we're not all that stable. Sure, our failure rate isn't worth mentioning, considering how incredibly complicated we are, and we're even reasonably self-correcting, but in terms of stability, Windows Vista makes a human being look terrible. Given there's in excess of 6.5 billion of us milling about, what should surprise you most is how rarely you read about such extreme nutters.

Do you honestly believe there is any flicker of hope of rehabilitating a person who murdered 60 people and often inserted a vodka bottle into their smashed skull?
No, most probably not rehabilitation, but help.

The man calmly murdered nearly 50 people, and is obviously not a sane person. Unless we want to ascribe blame to actors who don’t have all their mental faculties, then we have to help limit the damage these unfortunates can do to themselves and others.

As such, we should give them help; namely, secure, humane confinement where they are neither a danger to themselves or others, and decent medical and psychological care.

It would be ludicrous to prosecute the man as if he was a rationally-acting person.

What about him?


Woops. I meant to quote the earlier comment:

"It's unbelievable that he could kill that many people without getting caught"

Chikatilo was the response. It's horrible to think that that's there probably guys out there who have racked up hundreds and will never be caught.

Do you honestly believe there is any flicker of hope of rehabilitating a person who murdered 60 people and often inserted a vodka bottle into their smashed skull?

I don't.

Depends on how you define rehabilitate.

Depends on how you define rehabilitate.

I would define rehabilitate as being able to function properly and safely in society.

I do not think this is a possibility with this individual.

I do not believe he should ever be outside of a mental hospital for the criminally insane or a prison.

Why would a society want to kill a sick man? As for the "Russia, despite being Russia" thing, well.. Different cultures incorporate elements of violently self-righteous retribution against various types of social/political deviant behaviour. Such traditions always exists, it seems, but they aren't necessarily alike. You might as well have said: "America, being America, would kill this obviously insane individual". In other words, you're courting xenophobia.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive. I am American, and what I found funny was that "America, being America, would kill this obviously insane individual," whereas the country run by Vladimir Putin wouldn't. It was a jab at my own homeland, and a jocular one at that. I apologize for any misunderstanding.


-
How can such an individual exist? Well, we're not all that stable. Sure, our failure rate isn't worth mentioning, considering how incredibly complicated we are, and we're even reasonably self-correcting, but in terms of stability, Windows Vista makes a human being look terrible. Given there's in excess of 6.5 billion of us milling about, what should surprise you most is how rarely you read about such extreme nutters.

That's true, actually. It's amazing how many of us don't go postal.

At first I thought this was going to be about some new chess master.. then I thought maybe someones trying to get rid of chess.. then when I saw it was about killings.. I thought the person might had went around killing people in formation of chess moves somehow. But no.. the sicko just killed and told on himself with a chessboard. Well better Chess than checkers.

Hollywood will do a movie of this soon. Does have the potential of a good thriller.. hope they do it justice.

and damn ... :(

But no.. the sicko just killed and told on himself with a chessboard. Well better Chess than checkers.

Hollywood will do a movie of this soon. Does have the potential of a good thriller.. hope they do it justice.

and damn ... :(

Well, he was using bottle caps, and a chessboard is exactly the same as a checkerboard, so....

And yes, I agree. I hope the movie is fantastic.

Well, he was using bottle caps, and a chessboard is exactly the same as a checkerboard, so....

And yes, I agree. I hope the movie is fantastic.

Yep, I'm aware of the same board count.. but Chess is better than Checkers .. plus it's Russia. hehe.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive. I am American, and what I found funny was that "America, being America, would kill this obviously insane individual," whereas the country run by Vladimir Putin wouldn't. It was a jab at my own homeland, and a jocular one at that. I apologize for any misunderstanding.Emphasis mine. Your intent was perfectly clear, the reason for the "whereas" wasn't. Obviously you're not courting xenophobia in any way when it was based in Putin, so apologies in return.

58 murders, plus three who didn't die. That's 61.
62 are noted on the chessboard.

What I find remarkable in that is that the killer can remember each one well enough to convincingly plead guilty to each. He forgot ONE ?

58 murders, plus three who didn't die. That's 61.
62 are noted on the chessboard.

What I find remarkable in that is that the killer can remember each one well enough to convincingly plead guilty to each. He forgot ONE ?

48 murders, not 58. I doubt he counted the three who lived, so that's 14 missing.

48 murders, not 58. I doubt he counted the three who lived, so that's 14 missing.

I feel better about that now, even if I look a bit silly for reading it wrong.

The guy must have been a pretty good actor. The serial killings were in the news, yet he kept persuading people to come have a drink in the same park, and they were still off-guard enough to get drunker than him.

The man calmly murdered nearly 50 people, and is obviously not a sane person.

Wait, what's so obvious about it?

I've noticed this once before re: death penalty - people tend to assume that if you commit violent crimes, you're insane. When did this assumption start to become the norm?

Wait, what's so obvious about it?The fact that he tried and mostly succeeded in killing and defiling 62 fellow human beings.I've noticed this once before re: death penalty - people tend to assume that if you commit violent crimes, you're insane. When did this assumption start to become the norm?I don't know, but it certainly looks like a strawman. There is, in case you're insane and can't tell, a difference between hunting down and murdering strangers, and committing an act of violence.

A sane person can tell right from wrong. Right, in this case, is recognising fellow human beings of equal worth as being just that. Thus a sane person, in this case, would only commit such acts out of self preservation.

Wait, what's so obvious about it?

I've noticed this once before re: death penalty - people tend to assume that if you commit violent crimes, you're insane. When did this assumption start to become the norm?

It's all about the math.

If you kill:

1-3 people, you're a murderer.

4-9 people, you're a mad dog killer.

10-25 people, you're a psycho serial killer.

26-99 people, you're an insane monster.

100-999 people, you're a terrorist.

1,000-5,000 people, you're a soldier of god.

5,000-100,000 you're a compassionate conservative.

100,000-1,000,000 you're an ethnic cleanser.

Over 1,000,000 and you get your own show on the history channel.

It's all about the math.

If you kill:

1-3 people, you're a murderer.

4-9 people, you're a mad dog killer.

10-25 people, you're a psycho serial killer.

26-99 people, you're an insane monster.

100-999 people, you're a terrorist.

1,000-5,000 people, you're a soldier of god.

5,000-100,000 you're a compassionate conservative.

100,000-1,000,000 you're an ethnic cleanser.

Over 1,000,000 and you get your own show on the history channel.

Fantastic stuff :)

It's all about the math.Not really. It used to be about popular opinion. The majority was sane, everyone else varying degrees of insane.

These days psychologists and all such nonsense science has started getting opinions on sanity, so although our language still reflects the oldschool, mobocratic approach, legislation is starting - ever so slowly - to reflect actual knowledge.

Wait, what's so obvious about it?

I've noticed this once before re: death penalty - people tend to assume that if you commit violent crimes, you're insane. When did this assumption start to become the norm?

Presumably about the time when people realized denial was trendy. By distancing the criminal from themselves, i.e. he's insane, they can put him as less likely to be fully human, thereby ensuring themselves that only nutty people would commit the crimes and that a fully rational, utterly sane person could not be any flavor of killer.

It's a self defense mechanism.

Russia, despite being Russia, and despite this guy having killed at least 48 people, does not wish to sentence him to death.

This is called being a civilized State, at least about the death sentence issue - despite being an authoritarian State. *runs from the lynch mob*


He exists, period. Later in the article it says his mother attributed his killing spree to a knock on the head he got from a swing when he was four. That's possible, I guess, but what do people here think? How can people like this man exist at all?

Many men have killed even more people (and I'm not talking just soldiers doing their job - I'm thinking of SS Totenkopf leaders, or mafia killers etc etc).
Yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is quite an aggressive species. That's why we are on top of the food chain. Aggressivity and homicidal istincts are inborn. It's education that keeps it to a minimum acceptable for human societies to exist, at least in most of human individuals.

Still, if you could be arrested for looking like a potential serial killer, he would have been off the streets years ago.

Do you honestly believe there is any flicker of hope of rehabilitating a person who murdered 60 people and often inserted a vodka bottle into their smashed skull?
I don't.

I don't, either. Anyway, locking him in a safe jail in Siberia is enough to prevent him from killing anyone else.
If you can avoid killing someone who doesn't pose a direct and immediate threat, and fail to do so, that's murder. Including death sentence, aka murder on behalf of the State. An inmate of a Siberian jail isn't a threat anymore.
Fighting murder with murder, however, is just as stupid as fighting attacks on civilians with other attacks on civilians. If you do, you fail to get the moral higher ground, and also don't accomplish anything (as the criminal history of all states who use the death penalty show, as the history of wars show).

Still, if you could be arrested for looking like a potential serial killer, he would have been off the streets years ago.

If you could be arrested for looking like a potential serial killer, my guess is that 99% of the humankind would be off the streets. The other 1% would be the potential serial killers who have managed to get a job as politician, policeman, or judge.

Woops. I meant to quote the earlier comment:

"It's unbelievable that he could kill that many people without getting caught"

Chikatilo was the response. It's horrible to think that that's there probably guys out there who have racked up hundreds and will never be caught.

And lets not forget Harold Shipman

"A report into Shipman's activities submitted in July 2002 concluded that he had killed at least 215 of his patients between 1975 and 1998"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

Check and mate.

The fact that he tried and mostly succeeded in killing and defiling 62 fellow human beings.

Interesting. So is it murder that means you're insane? Or is it the defiling? Or is it only if you murder a certain amount of people? Maybe everyone who commits a crime is just insane. Open the prisons!

I don't know, but it certainly looks like a strawman. There is, in case you're insane and can't tell, a difference between hunting down and murdering strangers, and committing an act of violence.

Hunting down and murdering strangers is certain an act of violence, though of course I never maintained that all acts of violence are hunting down and murdering strangers - claiming or implying I did would in fact, be a strawman.

A sane person can tell right from wrong. Right, in this case, is recognising fellow human beings of equal worth as being just that. Thus a sane person, in this case, would only commit such acts out of self preservation.

Heh so you think he's insane simply because he's unethical. How quaint, but not terribly pertinent to either law or psychology.

come on what point is there in spending time and effort keeping this man alive, you wouldnt do the same to a dangerous dog, I really do hate all this ethical crap, it doesnt matter whether he is insane or not, he is obviously not going to be helped, I pretty much disagree with the detah penalty, but in cases like this come on....

come on what point is there in spending time and effort keeping this man alive, you wouldnt do the same to a dangerous dog, I really do hate all this ethical crap, it doesnt matter whether he is insane or not, he is obviously not going to be helped, I pretty much disagree with the detah penalty, but in cases like this come on....

I really do hate all of this ethical crap....? I am astounded.

Isn't that just the sort of thing a socialpath would say.

Remember, Putin does not kill murderers, he makes them his chief advisors and aides while putting dissidents in the mental instititions where the former should belong.

I don't, either. Anyway, locking him in a safe jail in Siberia is enough to prevent him from killing anyone else.

Even in the best jails, inmates can kill each other. And I doubt Russian jails are terribly well supervised.

That could be why the prosecution asked for him to be held in solitary confinement.

And lets not forget Harold Shipman

"A report into Shipman's activities submitted in July 2002 concluded that he had killed at least 215 of his patients between 1975 and 1998"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

I never heard about this guy until now. It's horrible, especially when he was trusted by his victims.

Why a chessboard? Was he just convinced that he had to kill 64 people as best he could, and then he would be finished? Maybe he had a voice in his head.

Reminds me, gruesomely, of Twin Peaks.

Well, obviously, I’m glad he’s caught. More people won’t be harmed and he can get some well-needed help.

He doesn't need to be helped.

He needs to be tortured and executed.

I guess I'm the first one but...I call conspiracy.

There is no way a guy could get away for an entire decade using the same park. Therefore someone must be behind the scenes.

He doesn't need to be helped.

He needs to be tortured and executed.

If you're going to kill him anyway, why bother with torture?

If you're going to kill him anyway, why bother with torture?

To punish it more.

Interesting. So is it murder that means you're insane? Or is it the defiling? Or is it only if you murder a certain amount of people? Maybe everyone who commits a crime is just insane. Open the prisons!



Hunting down and murdering strangers is certain an act of violence, though of course I never maintained that all acts of violence are hunting down and murdering strangers - claiming or implying I did would in fact, be a strawman.



Heh so you think he's insane simply because he's unethical. How quaint, but not terribly pertinent to either law or psychology.

I honestly am not seeing how it is possible to be sane, but murder even one stranger. How could there ever be a rational reason to murder a stranger? If killing up to 62 strangers for no apparent reason other then to get kicks is not insane, then what the fuck is?

He exists, period. Later in the article it says his mother attributed his killing spree to a knock on the head he got from a swing when he was four. That's possible, I guess, but what do people here think? How can people like this man exist at all?
[/LIST]


What? Last I checked getting hit in the head doesn't make you a serial killer. If it does, then I'm in trouble.

Click Stand;13164740']I guess I'm the first one but...I call conspiracy.

There is no way a guy could get away for an entire decade using the same park. Therefore someone must be behind the scenes.

You're weird. There is no need to blame anything but the special relationship between Russians and Vodka.

He doesn’t need to be helped.

He needs to be tortured and executed.
What possible good could this serve?

Even more basically, what’s the reasoning behind torturing and killing an individual who is clearly not sane, and thus not in rational control of their actions?

I honestly am not seeing how it is possible to be sane, but murder even one stranger. How could there ever be a rational reason to murder a stranger? If killing up to 62 strangers for no apparent reason other then to get kicks is not insane, then what the fuck is?

I'm not presuming to speak for Greater Trostia, but I'd say sanity is very much decided case-by-case. Killing one stranger or killing fifty is no benchmark where I'd be prepared to say "beyond that point a person is insane in all cases."

I'd personally only call someone 'insane' if I knew them very very well. I guess if they had urges they could not control, strange beliefs which they themselves could renounce (in saner moments) but which only grew stronger when presented with contrary evidence, and if their condition caused them chronic distress ... I guess I'd call them insane.

Even then, I'd be describing a condition not a person. And I would have no psychiatric authority to make what is, strictly speaking, an outmoded medical diagnosis. No-one uses the word with any degree of rigor now, if they ever did.

The guy admits to killing for the enjoyment of it. That's rational, just as masturbating for the enjoyment of it is rational. I certainly revile such an act, it boggles the mind that the gratification would outweigh any sense of killing people being wrong ... I feel hate in fact, for this killer I know almost nothing about ... but still I won't resort to the dumb don't-look-kiddies response of calling the man insane.

You're weird. There is no need to blame anything but the special relationship between Russians and Vodka.

Then my next question will be, who controls the production of vodka:confused:

This would be so much more interesting if the man actually went around parks stabbing the chessboards of old men in the middle of a game.

As it is, this is just sad.

The guy admits to killing for the enjoyment of it. That’s rational, just as masturbating for the enjoyment of it is rational. I certainly revile such an act, it boggles the mind that the gratification would outweigh any sense of killing people being wrong ... I feel hate in fact, for this killer I know almost nothing about ... but still I won’t resort to the dumb don’t-look-kiddies response of calling the man insane.
Rational behaviour doesn’t equate to sanity. One could be mentally disturbed and yet act, or think, quite rationally, as, I believe, some schizophrenics and psychopaths exhibit.

Furthermore, the fact that this man’s gratification with killing seems to outweigh any conscience or moral compass he possesses would indicate he isn’t totally sane.

He may not be a completely mentally disturbed, and may well be rational and competent in most of his everyday life (as you rightly point out, we don’t know the particulars of this case), but from what we do know I would wager that the man isn’t completely in control of his faculties.

If this is so, then he shouldn’t be tried as if he was totally sane.

Wait, what's so obvious about it?

The gimmick.

Rational behaviour doesn’t equate to sanity. One could be mentally disturbed and yet act, or think, quite rationally, as, I believe, some schizophrenics and psychopaths exhibit.

Hmm. I must look into this definition. It seems counter-intuitive.

Furthermore, the fact that this man’s gratification with killing seems to outweigh any conscience or moral compass he possesses would indicate he isn’t totally sane.

He may not be a completely mentally disturbed, and may well be rational and competent in most of his everyday life (as you rightly point out, we don’t know the particulars of this case), but from what we do know I would wager that the man isn’t completely in control of his faculties.

If this is so, then he shouldn’t be tried as if he was totally sane.

There are degrees of that? Surely the degrees of sanity have to be reduced to a yes or no on legal responsibility by the time of sentencing?

Actually, I've rather confused myself. It seemed so simple to speak of "insane behaviour" and relative sanity, but really what matters here is legal responsibility, which at least in a Western court would depend on a medical diagnosis. Neither of those am I competent to speak about.

Feel free to reply or not, I'll be wool-gathering and reading some definitions.

Click Stand;13164845']Then my next question will be, who controls the production of vodka:confused:

The Mafiya.