But what is alternative to titles and thumbnails?

Because it's rarely ever as simple as X causes Y, yet it will be taken out of context and concluded out of context that X in fact causes Y, thus we must round up everyone exhibiting X to prevent Y.

You may have misunderstood, I'm advocating caution on the basis that naive discussion of this kind of topic can attract attention from people who associate it with outcomes they don't like, and specifically you can end up being accused of having an ulterior motive

But maybe you underood that and think I'm arguing in bad faith. From your perspective, that may well appear to be the case, I don't think I can demonstrate otherwise.

Gacy is a good example of failure of the judicial system. He also came from a broken family and his father was violent and drunk. He was imprisoned but homosexual sex crimes weren’t taken seriously even against minors. This allowed him to leave prison with almost no time served. I wouldn’t blame the psychiatrists here.

We see that same pattern with Dahmer where the police literally released one of his victims into his custody and joked about the young teen being Dahmer’s “boyfriend”.

To reemphasize the parent's question, how is that relevant to the prosecution of a criminal trial? "The defendant is mentally ill / has a propensity to commit crimes" isn't admissible, in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence#Criminal_tr...

Someone having drunk while pregnant is not strong evidence that it had a meaningful impact. You have to drink heavily to even risk it, and to have an impact on a court case why not get medical evidence on whether or not meaningful damage has occurred.

I think that the parent is also including soldiers in times of war in Europe in the 20th century.

It's still utter WTFery, but not on the basis of comparing mass shootings by civilians.

I agree, except you don't understand my point. Europe has just a TON of sanctioned sadomasochistic sex-related murder crimes. Just a ton. Before Jews were stuffed into ovens many were forced to perform sex acts on their guards. So many that it was formally organized and done in the open. Exactly the sort of thing that a serial killer does. So if you're a serial killer in Germany, or Russia, or Eastern Europe, or Yugoslavia you just get a job with the secret police, and engage in your sadomasochistic rape and murder without worrying about the police finding out because you are the police. If you are a serial killer in Western Europe you might have to go to Algeria or Vietnam if you are French, or India or Africa if you are British, etc etc, plenty of places where serial killer behavior would just be ignored or encouraged. You can't even find statistics on how often this happened because nobody cared enough to keep records of it because human life was so cheap it's not worth the paper.

The conversation was about serial killers and individual level violence, not military actions or geopolitical power.

Europe's high self image is based on a shell game.

Step 1: Commit horrific atrocities. Step 2: Declare that you are now a new country (with the same people), so you stop counting the atrocities against yourself.

See how it works? Germany tried to genocide half the population of Earth, the US stops them and builds a bunch of bases in Germany so they don't try that again, and now that is evidence of US abuse and aggression. It's not THAT Germany anymore, the one that did the crimes and has to be occupied to make sure they don't try to stuff every brown child on earth into a brick oven, it's Germany, the great country that is totally innocent. It's not the GB that kept half of the world's population under it's thumb to brutally extract resources and become rich, it's GB the cute country with the Queen. All the crimes have to be ignored and don't count anymore because you have free healthcare (or something).

Anyway, you completely miss the point. When the Gestapo was stuffing people into ovens, they were also running Joy Divisions. Guess what kind of guys were signing up to run these bases? In a real civilization these are the kinds of guys who show up in police statistics as serial killers.

> Not everyone agrees that lead did cause a drop in violence. It’s one theory

Obviously. That's what we're discussing. I am simply presenting evidence to contradict the GP comment, which claims (falsely) that Europe did not see a drop in crime similar to the US's. The fact that Europe did see a drop a crime is not conclusive evidence of the lead-crime theory, but it leaves that possibility open.

If you have another theory, you are welcome to share it.