Fire. He's either a murderer or insane (and the level of insanity that makes one kill one's entire family isn't curable). And can I just say I LOVE that the little town 8 minutes from me broke this.

I would never take his class. I'm not a fan of the whole "it was a long time ago, what does it matter now" train of thought.

Nor do I hold with the "he's paid his debt to society" line. I'll decide when someone has done enough, thank you, not the government.

If he has gone 46 years with no one noticing him that means he is probably close to the norm.

I know a C-store clerk that is a recovered/ing drug user. He's very liberal and an admitted hoplophobe, but he's been straight for over five years. Should he not have a job?

Then there are several CEO's that experimented with drugs. Do they not deserver their jobs?

I won't say yes or no without the details, but everything I've heard, what further punishment does he need?

If you don't allow past criminals to re-build their lives, just what are we supposed to do with them? Don't we already have enough people in jail?

It's past. He was a drug (glue-sniffing) addict and apparently had other problems. After several years of psychological treatment, he was declared recovered. He has since rebuilt his life. Isn't this exactly what we hope for criminals, that they can rejoin society and live productive lives? Where's the problem?

Oh, and I just wanted to say: "Gristly" murders? Did the journalist eat the victims? Both journalist and editor need to go back to school...

I'd probably fire him. Then again, his field is behavior sciences? I suppose that's a good fit.

In theory I can see letting him have the life he's earned for the past 40 years. In practice I don't know if I could get past what he did.

I love mystery novels, and used to really enjoy the William Monk novels by Anne Perry. Then I found out her real name was Juliet Hulme, of the Parker-Hulme murder in New Zealand in the '50s. I tried to keep reading her books, but murder mysteries by a murderer? I just couldn't read them anymore.

The professor's not just a recovered drug user, which would be easy enough to get past. He was a diagnosed schizophrenic,(which as far as I know isn't something that goes away) who killed his family.

Keep.

He was suffering from mental illness and has apparently recovered. It is possible.

We wouldn't have known about him if he hadn't been outed. Why wouldn't you take a class from him? Is it because you are afraid he'd suddenly snap? It seems unlikely at his age and anyways keep in mind that people with no prior history snap randomly as well. Is it because you find him unethical? He was found insane.

There is a stigma against the schizophrenics. As for those unfamiliar with it, the most dangerous times is from puberty to late 20s.

If he is in his 60s he has "made it" and no longer poses a threat based solely on his illness. That is how schizophrenia works. Now if he was younger a different argument could be made.

I think this is about the continuement of punishment. When does it end? If someone can never "pay back" society how can you ever expect them to be productive members? Why would they want to? Rehabilitation and forgiveness are important.

Do we want a scenario where they are punished to infity? Or where they become college educated professors studying the causes of their ways?

"Nor do I hold with the "he's paid his debt to society" line. I'll decide when someone has done enough, thank you, not the government."

The people who know him have rallied their support. The university, students, and friends.

Again when does the punishment stop? Punishment is great but rehabilitation is better.

"He was a diagnosed schizophrenic,(which as far as I know isn't something that goes away"

He could be in "remission". This is a difficult concept for people to understand but mental illness is not black and white.

Some people actually don't suffer symptoms for years. Some "recover". Some go into a catatonic state. Some take meds and are incredibly successful, some don't take meds and are just as successful. (I've read studies of schizophrenics who don't take any medication and do BETTER than those on meds.)

When it comes to mental illness nobody knows what the fuck is going on. Even the meds people take-nobody knows how they really work, or why they work on some and not others. Doses are not precise. Diagnosis of illness varies from doctor to doctor.

Totally retain him until he commits another murder. Amy Bishop was allowed to continue after she murdered her brother till she killed the head of her department and a couple of others. Brooke magnanti was allowed to continue in her job despite having a side income as a hooker which she gave up quite recently. So many examples of ppl who should have been kicked out but were not. And in this case, it looks like he has been okay for a very long time(46+ years), so he is probably not a danger to anyone. He has probably reformed and since we have to follow the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, we just let him have the life which he rebuilt for himself until he does something to destroy it.

Tough one. I'd probably keep him unless he flat out lied in his application. But usually minors records are expunged unless you specifically ask.

I don't think I'd be rallying for his removal (or his retention). It would kinda feel like I was tAking a class from Hannibal Lecter.

Its kinda like people with cleft pallets become oral surgeons or people with a history of injustice go into law. If he is truly righting a wrong and has never been a problem since then - I say ok. If he was a practicing psychologist I'd probably feel otherwise.

As unfortunate as his circumstances are, he's probably got inside knowledge about things that can be very helpful for students going into this field (I can't believe I am saying this) but I would imagine this is probably the best case of scenario for someone like him.

A chance for some type of atonement and hopefully prevention. Jails are for those who are unable (or unwilling) to be rehabilitated.

Is this a trick question? Retain, obviously.

He paid his debts to society, has been given a clean bill of mental health, therefore he has the right to do whatever he likes if the law allows it.

You don't like it? Don't send your kids there.

Decatur is only 30 miles from me, so there is a lot of buzz around here.

46 years is a long time. Strong evidence over (several decades of behavior where no one knew) that he was rehabilitated.

If Millikin wants to keep him, I'm fine with it. If his presence hurts their university and enrollment, that is the market's right, and I would have no problem with them cutting him either.

Probably would have been better had he never.been outed.

I would keep him! Clearly 46 years later no one knew anything so he clearly isn't re offending and clearly doesn't pose a danger. So why should he be fired? He killed some people... The sad truth is there are lots of people walking about that have killed people.

He's gone. Why reward someone who had the good luck to not be in prison--that should be reward enough. Amy Bishop got away with killing her brother and look what happened. Brain defects don't heal.

You would have to prove his brain was defective, and you obviously haven't. And the one negative example does not make your case.

"Brain defects don't heal."

Sometimes they do.........

And anyways for all the examples of killers who killed again, what about those that stopped?

I take a different view of this. That this is how far psychology has deviated from the common people. When a multiple murderer is considered the expert judge in what is normal.

"Amy Bishop was allowed to continue after she murdered her brother till she killed the head of her department and a couple of others. "

Amy Bishop was regarded, by almost everyone who came into contact with her at Alabama-Huntsville, as an unstable wacko bitch. She had been denied tenure, in part due to her unpredictable hostile behavior. I know people who said they were afraid to be alone in a room with her.

Interesting that this guy chose "St. James" as his surname...

The only issue I have here is a legal one. If he disappeared from custody 46 years ago, technically he is an escaped prisoner.

There ought to be some consequnces for that.

If he was released, and then built a new life, that is different. He should be left alone, as long as he did not violate any employment policies that were in existence at the time he was hired.

Cousin Dave, do you work at Redstone perhaps?

Keep.

And why am I not surprised that momof4 is ready to lead the torchlit mob after the guy?

He was treated and held down a normal job for over four decades. I mean can you even imagine? Doing something that horrible while substance abusing and under the effects of schizophrenia and to come out on the other side - and then having the wherewithal to cope with that as a "normal" person? That's remarkable.

True rehabilitation and redemption is rare. It should be something that makes us, as humans, glad. I'd let him keep his job.

Well...this isn't going to help him stay sane.

Isab, yes I do.

@Cousin Dave

I was offered a job at the MDA four years ago, but family circumstances prevented me from taking it.

Wish I could of. I love Hunstville, and it is in driving distance of many more venues, of my all consuming hobby.

Brain defects don't heal.

Posted by: KateC

And a good thing too. Can you imagine a world without Van Gogh? Edgar Allen Poe?

The same defects which give rise to madness also birth genuis and creativity.

The price of of being more than mere animals may be steep, but it is worth it

Would I fire him? Dunno. Don't know him. Don't care. Up to them.

Wait, can we jump back for a second to the tossed-off side comment from @Redrajesh?

I'm a little confused as to why having worked as an escort while getting her doctoral degree (and blogging about sex and dating afterwards as though she actually enjoyed the horrid stuff) means that Dr. Brooke Magnanti was a bad risk as a medical researcher. I'm assuming because some of her research focused on childhood cancers, and she might have still been carrying cooties from the members of parliament she did back in the day? I mean we must, after all "Think of the chiiiiiildren." Who, as we all know, would rather die of cancer than have an icky lady who likes sex (and for about a year while in grad school got money for it) try to cure them.

Please. It's "could have," not "could of."

Torchlit mob? Hardly. I wonder how many really good profs there are out there that haven't changed their name and lied about their murderous past, and who in fact haven't murdered anyone ever? There is a large pool of professors out there to chose from. No need to keep this guy.

Torchlit mob? Hardly. I wonder how many really good profs there are out there that haven't changed their name and lied about their murderous past, and who in fact haven't murdered anyone ever? There is a large pool of professors out there to chose from. No need to keep this guy.

Posted by: momof4 at August 6, 2013 2:20 PM

Under contract, and employment law, the most they could probably do is "ask" him to retire.

I see no grounds in the article for firing him.

@Anathema
Well, the answer to that lies in the act of firing male ceo's who have relationships on the job or firing professors who have had consensual sex with their daughters. If it is not okay when a guy does it, it is not okay when a woman does it, as simple as that.

It's extremely depressing to me that anyone would even consider firing this guy. It implies that you don't believe in redemption and some things should just never, ever, ever be forgiven.

And this is, without a doubt, among the most arrogant things I've seen on this blog: "I'll decide when someone has done enough, thank you, not the government."

Well, no, you will not. You have no authority to punish anyone, nor do you have any right to deprive someone of their job, because you personally think their crime is so terrible that they can never be punished enough.

And, yes, the government does decide this. Not you. The government was too lenient in this case? Well, that's just tough cookies for you, isn't it?

"there that haven't changed their name and lied about their murderous past, and who in fact haven't murdered"

He lied exactly because of reactions like yours.

For the past 46 years he has "proven" himself. How much more will it take? Must he live in hell here, as well as in the afterlife? Is that punishment enough for you?

I wonder if it was a lie of omission, and anyways the University & the students chose to stick by him. He is obviously doing his job well. Better than other non-murderous professors.

He was a 15 year old schizophrenic kid witha very high IQ 50 years ago. If you read why he murdered it is clear he was in full blown paranoia.

Thank goodness as Patrick said, redemption is not up to you.

It isn't about punishment for mentally ill 15 year olds, it's about rehabilitation, redemption, and forgiveness.

He killed his family and got away with it. Poe didn't kill anyone. He got some nice person to swear he was healed and has been working in a fiield filled with quacks. Now he can retire with a fat pension. Ted Bundy was considered a nice guy, too.

Well, how nice it must be for you, KateC! Imagine, to have never done a single thing wrong in your entire life!

Should we now offer our prayers to you? If you plan on healing this sick during your time on earth, my mother has a particularly pernicious case of dementia, if you don't mind just saying the word so she can be healed.

But if you plan on raising the dead while you're at it, I'd just as soon you let my father stay in his grave. He died when I had just turned eighteen, but I never liked him much, and I don't feel especially deprived for never having gotten to know him.

So, will you be dying for our sins, too, or has that already been covered? I hope so, for your sake. I appreciate the thought but the whole getting nailed to a cross thing sounds kind of sucky.

As Ppen points out, he has proven himself by any reasonable standard for the past 46 years. And I find his students' willingness to stand by him, despite knowing what he's done, to be very touching. I agree he did a terrible thing, but I see no reason to ruin his entire life over it, the whining of self-righteous prigs notwithstanding.

And quite frankly, I'll take the opinions of these soi-disant quacks who have given him a clean bill of health over yours on any day of the week that ends in "y."

I am absolutely staggered by your arrogance. You, having no expertise in the field of mental health, have dismissed his doctors, experts in the field, as quacks. And you've never even spoken to this person, but you know oh, so much better than those who have actually examined him.

And let's not forget that the opinions of these "quacks" have been validated by the last 46 years of his life as a productive, tax-paying citizen (as opposed to someone languishing in a prison or mental hospital at taxpayer expense). But you still know better than they do, despite the evidence, despite their education in this field and your lack thereof.

Honeybunch, I would tell you to get over yourself, but in your case that would be an impossible task.

@Redrajesh . . . got it! If anyone at any time in the past has committed an offense that an HR manager would have frowned on, even if it has nothing to do with their current job, they should be fired. I assume you're not talking about CEOs *currently* having affairs, as that would obviously be a *current* HR violation. The cognate situation with Dr. Magnanti would be someone who, at a prior job a few years ago, had been involved with a coworker, then quit and got a new job at which they *didn't* go against company policy. And when HR finds out that they did something against company policy at their prior job years ago, you fell that they should be fired from the current job. It seems awfully convoluted but heck, it's your morality, I'm just glad you don't set policy for the company at which I work. And I really hope you don't tell my current boss that 20 years ago when I was an intern I took home some packets of Post-its. By your lights, that should get me out on my ass.

Also, just as a side note, pretty sure female execs are also constrained from sexual harassment. But now, since it seems from your comments that you're one of the "Men's Rights" aka "Girls Are Icky and Should Stay Home and Stop Bothering Me with Their Icky Cooties in the Workplace" blokes who for some odd reason seem to enjoy trolling Amy, I'll just put down the Internet and back away slowly.

"He killed his family and got away with it."

You know KateC, do you believe the whole field of psychiatry is full of quacks? Or did you just determine that the particular doctors in this case where quacks? Because from cursory reading of the case it seems St.James was in full blown paranoia at the time of the murder. So do you think he was mentally ill and deserved punishment? Or do you think he was faking it & deserved punishment?

Which is it? Because it matters. He was 15 after all.

Paranoid schizophrenics, from my own personal experience, tend to extremely violent towards family members in particular. (This particular family member thought I was Satan's child and needed to be killed.)

Anyways KateC have you heard of a little medication called Saphris? It was approved in 2007. There was a recent case of a little 13 year old girl at the UC Davis medical center. She had early onset of paranoid schizophrenia and for years tried to kill her mom violently multiple times. They tried every medication to no avail.

And then came Saphris! The girl lives a normal life now. Who knows whether it will continue indefinitely. That is how mental illness works. Much like cancer people can go into "remission".

Finally as to my family member, he is in his 60's now and poses no real threat. It's an age thing ya know?

I believe murder should never, ever be forgotten, Patrick, damn skippy I do. Most people agree with me, which is why there is no statute of limitations on it.

It's great if meds and time fixed his brain. It doesn't wash away what he did. He ended 3 lives. His should not get to go on as if nothing happened, ever. I'm not saying he should be locked up in jail. But in a position to influence thousands of young minds? Hell no IMO, which is exactly what this thread asked for.

Isab lying on an employment application is grounds for firing. I don't know if he did.

And no, the government does NOT get to decide for me when someone gets forgiveness.

Isab, I'm sorry your family circumstances prevented you from being able to make that move. May I inquire as to what said hobby is, or would that be telling too much here?

As as for our Professor St. James: I don't know if "redemption" is quite the right word. As I understand it, it's not like he served out his sentence and was released; he escaped from a mental health facility. So arguably justice was not served. However, I am also aware of the nature of schizophrenia and I have some sympathy for people who suffer from it; it's pretty hard to function like a normal human being when your own senses are massively lying to you. That said, some schizophreniacs are a danger to the public and just have to be locked up until/unless a treatment can be found for them.

However, it does not appear that St. James poses a danger to his community. And at this point, justice has long since gone dead and cold. So to me, firing him now would serve no good purpose.

"As I understand it, it's not like he served out his sentence and was released; he escaped from a mental health facility. "

I thought he did serve his sentence and even went to live with one of the psychiatrists until he got back on his feet?

"St. James was ultimately found not guilty of his crimes by reason of insanity and ordered to be hospitalized until he "became sane." He would be released six years later and go on to pursue multiple degrees in psychology."

@Cousin Dave.
I am an NRA competitive shooter, which is why I spend very little time with my husband who is employed at Misawa AFB.

Ppen, you got it right. I went back and read it again. Mea culpa.

And @Isab, sounds like fun. I've always wanted to do some skeet shooting, but never had the time to seriously take it up. (And my mom would say, "Yeah, you need one more expensive hobby.")

M4, whether you forgive this man couldn't matter less. I mean, I don't give a rat's derriere whether you forgive me for anything or not, and I actually know you. I couldn't imagine how much he doesn't care that somewhere there's a person who refuses to forgive him, particularly since he will probably never meet you or even know that you exist, and he's never thought, said or did you any harm.

But it makes you feel empowered to stew in your resentment for someone who doesn't even know you, knock yourself out. All I can say is, you must be hell to live with.

The government, which can actually hold him responsible for his actions and assign penalties that mean anything to him, has chosen to forgive him. Which means he did not commit murder, so the statute of limitations on murder (or actually the lack thereof) is irrelevant.

And as for his being in a position to influence thousands of young minds, he already has. And thanks to the protests from people like you, he will influence thousands more.

I can imagine anything less futile right now then you deciding for yourself that you don't forgive this man. If there is any consequence at all from your choosing to hate this man, it will probably be giving him an even larger audience of minds to influence.

By the way, I thought you were a Christian. I believe there's a line in the Lord's Prayer that goes, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

So, basically, you're imploring God to forgive you only as you forgive others. I wonder how long God will take to decide you've suffered enough.

But, yes, you're right. You get to decide when someone is forgiven...by you! Bully for you! You get to decide for yourself how long you get to wallow in your anger, towards a person who doesn't even know you're alive, much less care how you feel about him.

Wow. You must feel very powerful right now.
Oh, I know. I know. He is guilty of your definition of murder. And I'm sure he stays up nights fretting about it.

"I'm not saying he should be locked up in jail. But in a position to influence thousands of young minds...."

So basically you think 20 something college students are too impressionable & naive to have him as a professor but a 15 year old insane schizophrenic kid is mature enough to be vilified for his entire life.

Cool got it.

@Anathema - and by your comments, I can see you are from the "feminist" school of thought which says that women are equal except when it comes to facing the consequences of their actions in which case they become more equal and super divine and should never have to face any consequences for what they do and it is always the man's/patriarchys fault no matter what women do. Problem is, most ppl in HR are women and they tend to think like you since most women are just feminists, the chief characteristic of feminists being hypocrisy when it comes to talking about equality.

"Most people agree with me, which is why there is no statute of limitations on it."

No statute of limitation to get the accused into a courtroom, judged and sentenced according to the resulting verdict, you mean.

"Brain defects don't heal"

What characteristic of the brain do you purport is resistant to healing?

He murdered his family because they annoyed him. The death penalty should have been applied when it first came up. Upon society's failure to deal with this appropriately through law; society should have dealt with it through an unwillingness to accept someone who would do such a thing in their midst. Accepting this person, and in the role of teaching others how the mind works, seems to me to be a hideous travesty.

A. Bundy was not insane. He was evil and reveled in his evil.
A. This man, when he was a boy, did evil yes, but not with a sound and sane mind. If we call him personally evil, we call mental illness evil, which is no more evil than a traffic accident death. Tragic yes, evil no.

B. Mental illness is no more a static state than a broken arm. Condition can improve as a result of a variety of factors including the simple fact of getting older.
B. 6 years seems rather light considering how dangerous a youth he was, but in the long years since, hindsight is showing that it was effective.

C. The guilty are guilty forever, but not punished as such. It is impractical and undesirable to impose lifelong legal punishment in every case, tragic or not. Yes there are some that kill who should never be released, but not all are in the same category.
C. Our system is supposed to allow for change and reform, our mental health services are meant to heal, why are we upset when it accomplishes those ends?

Nothing was gained by putting this in the news.