An examination of the psychological aspects of bite marks

The intent of this paper is to present some psychological threads which appear to be operative for the perpetrator of bite marks. In the catalogue of multiple motivations, there appears to be a current theme of power, control, potency, and the attempt to have a psychological symbolization of the perpetrator's omniscient capacity for absorbing life essences. In an examination of these highly complex needs, the modern perpetrator appears to act out consistently with cultural biases coupled with immediate psychological needs which have pressed for expression. Due to a pattern of psychologically expressed ritualism, the perpetrator will often inadvertently leave important psychological clues at the crime scene. The attack style, mode of death, characteristics of the victim, etc.--these components reveal the information on the type of psychological needs that the perpetrator is trying to satisfy. In the cases of bite marks associated with violent crime, it becomes crucial to an "investigator" what type of personality characteristics are welded together to form this kind of need complex. After reviewing cases reported in the literature and after conducting psychological interviews with perpetrators, three major groups of perpetrators seem to be apparent. The first group is motivated out of an anger track, the second group is motivated out of sadistic biting, and the third is out of the more traditional "cannibal complex" motif.     

Defining risk

Risk is the focal topic in the management of many activities and technologies. For that management to be successful, an explicit and accepted definition of the term risk is essential. Creation of that definition is a political act, expressing the definers' values regarding the relative importance of different possible adverse consequences for a particular decision. Those values, and with them the definition of risk, can change with changes in the decisionmaker, the technologies considered, or the decision problem. After a review of the sources of controversy in defining risk, a general framework is developed, showing how these value issues can be systematically addressed. As an example, the approach is applied to characterizing the risks of six competing energy technologies, the relative riskeness of which depends upon the particular definition used.