Aspies & Auties: Human Bombs Requiring Monitoring?

Post Reply New Topic

Hey guys,
I was reading the 'Good Weekend' magazine that came with the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 May 2012 when I came across the story 'The man who played with fire' by journalist Roger Franklin. It was about the convicted arsonist Brendan Sokaluk who was found guilty of lighting fires in heatwave conditions which contributed to the 'Black Saturday' disaster which claimed hundreds of innocent lives. The article is pretty hard hitting and asks the question 'why do we look the other way when there are people among us who we know are odd and show warning signs only to be ignored leading to disaster?' Think; 'What signs foretold the actions taken by Timothy McVeigh?' or 'Did Anders Breivik show warning signs that were ignored?' etc.
Autism aside, my problem with the article is the usual hand wringing that comes with 20/20 hindsight. We always feel like 'something could have been done to prevent this' when really, maybe that's not always the case. Anyway it was found that Sokaluk is on the autistic spectrum. While the author makes some efforts to make a clear distinction between autism and pyromania -"That's not to say autism confers a fascination with flames, only that it can - just as it may also inspire fascinations with spinning tops and, yes, a compulsion to imitate"- it still seems to take some of Sokaluk's 'odd' behaviour that may be derived from autism as warning signs of some kind. The imitation refers to his habit of going outside to wash his car or mow the lawn when neighbours were doing the same. He would also try to imitate neighbourly chat over the fence but his chatter was usually one sided and would even talk about how smart arsonists lit fires without getting caught.
As far as I'm concerned Sokaluk's autism sounds irrelevant compared to his more severe underlying pyro-maniacal and personality problems. People from his past described him as having been vindictive and cunning. When people crossed him, which wasn't very difficult to do, they would find their car scratched up or their partners or loved ones would receive horrible abusive prank calls. This would all be blank-face-denied by Sokaluk when confronted. All this anecdotal evidence piles up to reveal a pretty nasty character which, common sense would tell you, has nothing do with being on the autistic spectrum or off it. In fact the only reason I can think of how his ASD was relevant to the article was because, of course, his lawyers did the usual 'take pity on the handicapped man your honour!' and the judge apparently considered it in giving him a mere 17 year sentence despite so many lives being lost. I would agree that if an adult is found to be of sound mind then lighting a fire in heatwave conditions should render most neurological conditions pretty f*****g irrelevant! I don't see how the judge could not have given a life sentence for this horrific crime that destroyed whole communities killing men, women and children. I remember hearing one grown man seeing the aftermath. He saw the rubble of a house and in it there was a buth tub where someone had sought refuge. A clean white skeleton arm protruded from the tub. The man broke down in pathetic sobs. It was pretty gut wrenching testimony.
Some of these so called 'warning signs' he displayed though, when or if they were related to autism, concern me. When a known or suspected fire bug reveals these tendencies then yes, that is very relevant and maybe society should think long and hard about why these warning signs are missed. But naive imitation of neighbourly behaviour? Clumsy attempts at small talk? Poorly spelled, distasteful Myspace posts?
I'd have thought there were far more telling warning signs in his habits like being spotted near recent grass fires, trying (and failing) to join the Country Fire Authority because of police concerns, lighting backyard bonfires (to burn off salvaged scrap materials he couldn't sell), and talking openly about how smart arsonists plied their trade.
If anyone who exhibits 'odd' behaviour related to the autistic spectrum becomes a subject of public scrutiny as the next rampage shooter or mass killing arsonist then how would people like the famous American publisher Joseph Pulitzer be treated today under this kind of attitude? As the article points out Pulitzer would 'horrify his coachmen by hanging upside-down from his carriage to stare in rapture at the blur of its spinning wheels'.
We already see autistic people acting out of 'normal' character being targeted to some extent. Reginald 'Neli' Latson for example was arrested and jailed in 2010 for resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. What was his crime? Being spotted sitting outside his local library waiting for it to open. Oh, but young African American men don't behave like that! They're all gang bangers that can't read! His guilt was assumed instantly from the moment someone made a racially profiling 911 call because of 'unusual' behaviour and was only released recently.
The artice asks 'And one must wonder, why have these ticking human bombs been for so long not merely unheard, but actively ignored?'
As I've stated, yes there were many warning signs of an arsonist that went ignored much to the regret and probably even self loathing of many people. But I do not trust or place much faith in society's ability to separate the unusual but ultimately harmless behaviours or traits derived from neurodiversity and much more serious signs of impending disaster. This whole article is about our failure to do so! Why would we now suddenly get it right without even more people like Reginald Latson suffering for people's lack of understanding and knee jerk reactions? Until people are more tolerant and understanding I don't even see why people on the spectrum or who are otherwise non-NT should bother taking part in self-hating witch hunts.

'I never seek to protect a society which does not protect me, and which I will even say, generally occupies itself about me only to injure me; and thus by giving them a low place in my esteem, and preserving a neutrality towards them, it is society and my neighbour who are indebted to me' - The Count of Monte Cristo

Years ago I liked this quote but didn't agree with it in principle. That's changed now.

i also have mental illness. here's a group that gets a bad rap. it's easier for a convicted felon to get a job than a person with mental illness.

People like Theodore Bundy, Jeffery Dahlmer, Gary Ridgeway, or many other serial killers are able to charm their victims into a position where they can be taken. These people are able to hunt without being detected. In most cases, these people come off as normal, everyday people. No law has prevented them from killing. No law will prevent them from killing. If a "Minority Report" system is set up where people are confined based upon brain scans, etc, we would also have a lot of corporate C.E.O.'s in confinement along with possible serial killers. There have been functional brain scans that show people in such leadership positions frequently have the same brain scan patterns as serial killers, etc.

Laws that are enacted to prevent wrongdoing or accidents are almost always unjust. Laws should deal with ACTUAL accidents or wrongdoing such as injury to people or damage to property. Otherwise, they contribute to the slippery slope of totalitarianism. Even when someone is convicted of a crime or found responsible for an accident, the penalty should be what is necessary to compensate for injuries and damages. If a person is found guilty of breaking into a tool shed, that person needs to be to pay for what is stolen, the cost of repairing or replacing the shed, the costs of the investigation, and any other cost caused by the burglar. If the burglar is to be punished, he or she should should enjoy the same rights as everyone else once the debt to the victim and society is paid.

Society needs to take equal protection of law seriously. When people are pushed or feel pushed to their limits, and they feel that they have nothing to lose, they are more likely to take desperate action. This includes those who are constantly bullied, disenfranchised, or otherwise permanently relegated to second class status. People in this position tend to lose respect for society. In so many cases of mass shootings, it is found that the person who did the shooting was mistreated by so many people.

Governments can continue to pass laws that strip the rights of people, but this will not provide any more protection to society. Anyone who gets to the point of this kind of desperation will find a way to strike. Almost anything can be converted to a weapon or be used for evil. In Australia where most guns are banned, Brendan Sokaluk instead used a match, lighter, or cigarette to wreak havoc.

This guy, Brendan Sokaluk, killed a lot of people. If he committed this act purposely, his punishment should be according to his crime. If someone is proven (beyond a doubt) to have committed such atrocity, he should be put to death, or at least be locked away for life.

At times when diverse people were accepted by others, there is peace. When people and nations choose to bully, disenfranchise, isolate, and make war with those who are different, violence is what they get. Even in such peaceful societies and times, there will still be evil people who do bad things to others without provocation or just cause. Laws should deal with these peoples' wrongdoings while leaving the rest of the people alone.

In the Police States of America, many schools concentrate so much on control and lording over students and call police against students for even minor infractions that students develop rule fatigue. Also, businesses have to deal with so many rules and regulations that many are unable to expand, hire, or otherwise provide economic opportunity. This results in more lost opportunity and hopeless, and idle minds. When there is liberty, people will thrive. People need to get out of the mindset of depending upon rules, regulation, and governments to solve these problems. Excessive government does not solve problems. It CAUSES them!

Thanks for the replies cathylynn and cyberscan.
It sounds like you're interested in social harm theory or zemiology cyberscan. Me too but I think with a refocusing of criminalisation from the lower and middle class to government corruption, white collar and environmental crime we wouldn't need to shrink government all that much, just trim it and make it more efficient. I think Max Weber made some pretty accurate predictions about how bureaucracy is the most efficient form of human organisation but once it becomes too big it becomes inefficient and almost impossible to escape from.
In my personal opinion one way we can start to do that is separate business and state in the same way as religion. Lobbying should be an imprison-able offence for both the lobbyist and the politicians with permanent bans from ever running companies or running for office again.
But that's a bit off topic

People who burn down buildings have more problems than just autism. I don't have the statistics, but I don't hear about many autistics becoming arsonists.

I'll admit I liked playing with fire/hot objects, but I never burned anything down.

While I agree with you, I wonder if it is relevant to publicly name these additional problems? I mean, thing mental health conditions, such as pyromania, pedophilia, etc., obviously cause the patients to be a threat ot others, but most mental health conditions do not have this intrinsic harm aspect. I know that statistically speaking autistics are not less likely to be violent than the general population, but people with certain mental health conditions (eg. s chizophrenia) are. Is it then appropriate to say people whi schizophrenia are all potential killers/arsonists/whatever? I don't think so.

Here's one autistic you will never find playing with fire.
It hate fire. It scares me.

Water. That's it. I love it. Maybe I will flood a city! (not really)




I mean, come on, how stupid can you get? The whole issue is that people need a convenient reason to label someone, or to know why, or to have things clear. There aren't always convenient, one or two word reasons. Situations are multi-faceted.
A quick, pithy reason usually misses the point of the entire problem.

Mental health conditions are targeted for this especially because they are so misunderstood/misrepresented.
I know that when I have a hard time simply describing my condition because people can't put up with detail and really only want a quick answer, that when it comes to the tough stuff, people just can't handle complexity.

I disagree with were the article goes.......but I think it actually is important to look into how they guys mental conditions could have contributed, and if he doesn't come up as 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' then I will be more likely to assume he was intentionally committing a crime. But yeah that is not the point of this thread........so anyways I think it would be terrible to single out people who come off as odd or whatever as terrible people with criminal intentions waiting to snap and then treating them as such. So I certainly don't like the article making that indication.

Also though why is it always assumed when lots of people die every single one of them was an innocent good person, not saying its good to cause disasters that kill people. But what are the chances it was only totally innocent good people that were hurt/killed...I guess I just don't like that sort of emotional language in articles because I want the fact.......not someone telling me how I should feel and what I should think about it.

And since I don't have much information on this exact incident this may be rather vauge but.......instead of identifying anyone as a ticking time bomb or whatever why don't they try to help that person with their issues before it gets to that point? I mean further alienating people that show 'warning' signs is just going to cause even more resentment and problems and violence.

Yeah playing with fire is probably more of a general boy thing than an autism thing and if we had some statistics I doubt that, even with the supposedly 'ultimate male brain', Aspies and Auties would make up a large number of arsonists.



That's an excellent point. Schizophrenics are far more dangerous to themselves than anyone else! Try telling that to those cops who beat that homeless man to death recently.

I think that prevention is more important than punishment. Punishment itself has no sense, it's the failure of society. The evil has been done and can't be undone.

There is a s-f film the name I've forgot (as very often, I can't remember names) where the police is killing the people that are expected to commit crime. This is, IMHO, a nonsense. In higher organized society the crimes would be predicted and prevented with no form of punishment etc, but with treatment, which would be a kind of psychological, social (etc.) help. And in that film, the problem was, that crimes were prevented by seers, so the kind of magic, which the society was not prepared to deal with.

When someone has psychic problems, which drives him into desire of commiting mord etc. he DO NEED a psychiatric help, it's not against his freedom, because he already has lost his freedom. Nowadays psychic problems are stigmatising, which should change with the farther development of humanity.

Minority Report maybe? Right now there are some places where anti-terrorism laws are already being used against people suspected of activities which will lead to 'future crime' like stockpiling fertilizer or gathering with people or using mobile phones strangely. I think they just extended conspiracy laws or something like that.
But yes I agree, before someone has done anything wrong you can only help them at most. But if people are going to start watching people to pick out strange behaviour that pretty much targets the whole neurodiversity community.