von Gastleser » Mittwoch, 04. November 2026, 11:46:39
HE_Gffnkkd hat geschrieben: ↑Mittwoch, 04. November 2026, 08:36:32
Dazu hatte ich schon mal, was ausführlich gepostet, kleine Erinnerung an meine subjektiven Prozessbeobachtungen von dem Tag:
----------
Möglicherweise war die Aussage, dass bei allen 20 Aspekten mindestens ein Punkt vergeben wurde etwas übertrieben, […..]
Es ist für mich jedenfalls sehr schwer vorstellbar, dass Herr Keiper einerseits im Kern sagt, dass ihm ein solches Ausmaß an Empahtielosigkeit wie er es bei Gina vorgefunden hat, noch nie in seiner Karriere untergekommen ist und selbst ihn noch überraschen konnte, anderseits dieser Aspekt dann aber nicht mit maximaler Punktzahl bewertet worden sein soll.
Dankeschön für die Auflösung, genau dieser Abschnitt ist mir entgangen!
Denn das war auch der Beitrag mit deinem legendären Schlusssatz, der nicht passender sein könnte:
„War irgendwie ein typischer Löcker Move
“
^^^^^^
Das sehe ich genauso. Hmm. Sind diese charmanten Eigenschaften bei „8.“ ausreichend für „2 Punkte?
Bin mir sicher, dass der Ehrenwerte n.B.Schütt die Testmerkmale genau kennt, denn das erklärt die Diskussion mit der Reitgerte, „Peitsche“, und ein paar andere in das Verfahren eingebrachte Verhaltensweise und „Freundschaften“ der Angeklagten:
5
8
11
[quote=HE_Gffnkkd post_id=369247 time=1793777792 user_id=12034]
Dazu hatte ich schon mal, was ausführlich gepostet, kleine Erinnerung an meine subjektiven Prozessbeobachtungen von dem Tag:
----------
Möglicherweise war die Aussage, dass bei allen 20 Aspekten mindestens ein Punkt vergeben wurde etwas übertrieben, […..]
Es ist für mich jedenfalls sehr schwer vorstellbar, dass Herr Keiper einerseits im Kern sagt, dass ihm ein solches Ausmaß an Empahtielosigkeit wie er es bei Gina vorgefunden hat, noch nie in seiner Karriere untergekommen ist und selbst ihn noch überraschen konnte, anderseits dieser Aspekt dann aber nicht mit maximaler Punktzahl bewertet worden sein soll.
[/quote]
Dankeschön für die Auflösung, genau dieser Abschnitt ist mir entgangen!
Denn das war auch der Beitrag mit deinem legendären Schlusssatz, der nicht passender sein könnte:
„War irgendwie ein typischer Löcker Move :D “
^^^^^^
Das sehe ich genauso. Hmm. Sind diese charmanten Eigenschaften bei „8.“ ausreichend für „2 Punkte?
Bin mir sicher, dass der Ehrenwerte n.B.Schütt die Testmerkmale genau kennt, denn das erklärt die Diskussion mit der Reitgerte, „Peitsche“, und ein paar andere in das Verfahren eingebrachte Verhaltensweise und „Freundschaften“ der Angeklagten:
5
[spoiler] Item 5: Conning/Manipulative
Description:
Although similar in some respects to Item 4 (Pathological Lying), Item 5 is more concerned with the use of deceit and deception to cheat, bilk, defraud, or manipulate others. The use of schemes and scams, motivated by a desire for personal gain (money, sex, status, power, etc.) and carried out with no concern for their effects on victims, warrants a score of 2. Some of these operations are elaborate and well thought out, whereas others are quite simple; in each case, they are carried off in a cool, self-assured, or brazen manner.
Conning and manipulative behaviors include criminal activities, such as collecting social assistance under several different names. passing bad checks, and setting up phon businesses. However, they also include noncriminal activities. Sometimes the individual will describe how he
"uses" family members for their money, or how-unknown to his partners—he is involved in two or three intimate relationships at the same time. He may also show a predilection for using a variety of dishonest and unethical practices that are of dubious legality or that make use of loopholes in the law.
Sources of Information:
In the interview, he may willingly describe himself as a "con man," "hustler," or "fraud artist." His manipulativeness is evident in many different areas (crime, relationships, etc.).
His statements may reveal a belief that the world is made p of "givers and takers" and "predators and prey," or tha t would be foolish not to exploit weaknesses in others. H may be very astute at determining what these weaknesses are, and at using them to his benefit. He may say he is willing to do almost anything for money. He may even attempt to manipulate the interviewer to do him a favor (generally something illegal or against institutional rules).
In files, look for a record of criminal charges or convictions for fraud, embezzlement, impersonation, promoting phony stocks and worthless property, and swindles of all sorts, both large and small. Files may contain reports of his ability to manipulate staff, other inmates, and the system. For example, he may have attempted (perhaps successfully) to get a member of the staff to obtain a special benefit for him, to smuggle something in or out of the prison, or to do something for him on the outside. Parole applications and reports are particularly useful in scoring this item. They may show that he tends to use the facilities and programs that give the appearance of a sincere concern for rehabilitation, including educational upgrading, drug and alcohol programs, religious and quasi-religious organizations, and whatever self-improvement fad happens to be currently in favor. In many cases he will join organizations for the sole purpose of enlisting community support for parole applications.
Evaluate conflicting opinions regarding the individual carefully; they may reflect his ability to successfully manipulate others.
Scoring:
2
The item applies to the individual; a reasonably good match in most essential respects; behavior is generally consistent with the flavor and intent of the item.
1
The item applies to a certain extent but not to the degree required for a score of 2; a match in some respects but with too many exceptions or doubts to warrant a score of 2; uncertain about whether or not the item applies; conflicts between interview and file information that cannot be resolved in favor of a score of 2 or 0.
0
The item does not apply to the individual; does not exhibit the trait or behavior in question, or exhibits characteristics that are the opposite of, or inconsistent with, the intent of the item.
In brief:
2 = Yes
1 = Maybe/in some respects
0 = No
[/spoiler]
8
[spoiler] Item 8: Callous/Lack of Empathy
Description:
Item 8 describes an individual whose attitudes and behavior indicate a profound lack of empathy and a callous disregard for the feelings, rights, and welfare of others. He is only concerned with "Number 1," and views others as objects to be manipulated. He is cynical and selfish. Any appreciation of the pain, anguish, or discomfort of others is merely abstract and intellectual. He has no hesitation in mocking other people, including those who have experienced misfortune or who suffer from a mental and/or physical handicap. His contempt and lack of concern for others may lead him to describe himself as a "loner by choice." He views emotionality as a sign of weakness.
Sources of Information:
During the interview, the individual's descriptions of his crimes and victims will often be strangely casual and matter-of-fact. Comments like "very unfortunate," "they got what they deserved," "I can't worry about it; I've got problems of my own," and "I really haven't thought about it," are not uncommon. He may say that his attitude towards others is prompted by a desire to survive in a hostile world. He may be unconcerned about the reactions of friends or family to his incarcerations. Often, those who score a 2 on this item can steal from family or friends as easily as from strangers.
The files my contain reports of callous and sadistic treatment of others. This behavior may be criminal or non-criminal in nature, ranging from emotional or physical abuse of family members to cold-blooded murder. It may start at an early age with activities such as mistreatment of animals.
During the commission of crimes, the individual may engage in excessive violence towards people or property, for no apparent reason: For example, during a break-in, he may
"trash" the house, or during an armed robbery, he may the victim.
Scoring:
2
The item applies to the individual; a reasonably good match in most essential respects; behavior is generally consistent with the flavor and intent of the item.
1
The item applies to a certain extent but not to the degree required for a score of 2; a match in some respects but with too many exceptions or doubts to warrant a score of 2; uncertain about whether or not the item applies; conflicts between interview and file information that cannot be resolved in favor of a score of 2 or 0.
0
The item does not apply to the individual; does not exhibit the trait or behavior in question, or exhibits characteristics that are the opposite of, or inconsistent with, the intent of the item.
In brief:
2 = Yes
1 = Maybe/in some respects
0 = No
[/spoiler]
11
[spoiler]Item 11: Promiscuous Sexual Behavior
Description:
Item 11 describes an individual whose sexual relations with others are impersonal, casual, or trivial. This may be reflected in frequent casual liaisons (e.g. "one-night stands"), indiscriminate selection of sexual partners, maintenance of several sexual relationships at the same time, frequent infi-delities, prostitution, or a willingness to participate in a wide variety of sexual activities. In addition, the individual may coerce others into sexual activity with him, and may have charges or convictions for sexual assault.
Sources of Information:
The interview is particularly useful in obtaining information about sexual behavior that is not necessarily illegal. Ask about his views on sex, his attitude toward sexual partners, the number and nature of sexual relationships he has had, and so forth. He may take great pride in discussing his sexual exploits.
Files may confirm reports of sexual behavior given during the interview. As well, screen the files for sex-related offenses both inside and outside the institution; these offenses are rarely discussed by the individual during the interview.
Scoring:
2
The item applies to the individual; a reasonably good match in most essential respects; behavior is generally consistent with the flavor and intent of the item.
good match in most essential respects; behavior is generally consistent with the flavor and intent of the item.
1
The item applies to a certain extent but not to the degree required for a score of 2; a match in some respects but with too many exceptions or doubts to warrant a score of 2; uncertain about whether or not the item applies; conflicts between interview and file information that cannot be resolved in favor of a score of 2 or 0.
0
The item does not apply to the individual; does not exhibit the trait or behavior in question, or exhibits characteristics that are the opposite of, or inconsistent with, the intent of the item.
In brief:
2 = Yes
1 = Maybe/in some respects
0 = No
[/spoiler]
Açieeed! style by Ian Bradley