Document

When Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband John Bobbitt’s penis, she fulfilled her desire to harm

Ref IMAGES-002-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012869.txt Release House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025) 1 pages

Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.

View the original on the official release

People & organizations named in this document

Being named here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.

Document text

Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.

When Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband John Bobbitt’s penis, she fulfilled her desire to harm another. She carried out this gruesome act despite the moral and legal sanctions against it. But she did not plan this act in advance, and nor did it occur in the heat of the moment, triggered by finding her husband in bed with a lover. It followed in the wake of his repeated philandering, attempted rape and psychological abuse. As an act, it fell between the cracks of a long-term plan and a reflexive response — it was hatched on the night of the fatal attack, triggered by seeing a carving knife in the kitchen. Lorena either lost self-control for that fatal moment or she was in complete control, aware of what she was about to do and justified by her own moral convictions, believing that harming John was just deserts. John was most definitely not innocent. The jury delivered a “not guilty” decision, appealing to a crime of passion defense. This decision effectively excused Lorena’s harmful act as normal and justified given the mitigating circumstances. When we consider the nature of evil, we must pause to consider our own biases and prejudices about what’s normal. We must ask about the human potential, about our evolved capacities and our ability to behave in novel ways in novel environments. When we say that a person, group or nation is evil, we are saying something important about human nature, about our capability as a species. We are saying something important about the relationship between nature and nurture. Evil eggs and corrosive coops How much do career criminals cost? Estimates from the United States suggest that if you can prevent a high risk child from entering this career, you save $1.5-2 million in costs of education, mental health, and criminal fees. Educational facilities such as the Penikese Island School in Massachusetts, where I have had the privilege of working, spend about $100,000 per student per year to keep high-risk teens off the streets and out of jail. Based on statistics collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, approximately 100,000 individuals under the age of 18 years were arrested in 2007 for violent crimes — murder, forcible rape, and aggravated assault. If we had nurtured and educated these teenagers before they committed such crimes, we would have saved close to $100,000,000,000. Violent crime prevention pays. How does a career of violent crime start? Are there early warning signs? How early? How much starts with the egg and how much with the coop in which it was raised? Early scientific interests in this chicken and egg problem can be traced to the efforts of the Italian physician and psychologist Cesare Lombroso. In 1876, he published his magnum opus 7he Criminal Man. This was a serious, scholarly book aimed at understanding “whether there is a force in nature that causes crime.” Based on measurements of both anatomical and psychological characteristics, Lombroso Hauser Chapter 4. Wicked in waiting 123 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012869

Have a question about what this document contains?

Ask the documents