Why doesn't the American justice system consider psychopathy

Post Reply New Topic

i'd have to state that you are wrong here, although i can only speak from the legal point of view in scotland. people with personality disorders often find themselves in the psychiatric system. personality disorders, while not specifically "mental illnesses", are nonetheless considered "mental disorders". and here psychopathic personality disorder can, since the 2010 act, constitute a defence of diminished responsibility. as i said elsewhere i can only comment on the situation here.

Last edited by peebo on 13 Jan 2012, 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Make that "diminished capacity".

psychotic symptoms don't get you off the hook a jury may see that as a reason to put a person away as a danger to society.

you need to also take into account that since psychopathy is an enduring and untreatable personality disorder, the implications for accepting it as a basis for diminished responsibility could theoretically mean life in a secure psychiatric facility. nobody would realistically opt for such a plea given that the alternatives would likely be less harsh save for a tiny minority of offenders.

over here it could end up in time in the state hospital or in less serious cases a spell in a secure psychiatric ward. the later can be a better option depending on the nature of the offence. psychiatric detention can never be permanent, at least in theory and principle, and is always considered in relation to a person's presentation and symptoms, and there are in most cases appeal options.

listen to this or read the transcript

i would, as it sounds interesting, however i don't see a transcript?

edit: found it!

hmm quite interesting.

i was a little confused though at the points where "tony" states that he had refused treatment. i'm 100% certain that if you're in a state hospital as the result of a disposal by the courts, that you can't refuse medication. even people detained in regular psychiatric wards receive compulsory treatment.

it's unfortunate that the scientologists via the cchr tarnish a lot of valid criticisms of psychiatry.

seems a harsh outcome as compared to the crime.

ultimately, the guy really wants to get himself a solicitor, though. representing yourself, especially in a situation like his, is not really a good idea. and i'd imagine he'd qualify for legal aid (an educated guess though, as not sure how that works in england)

I'm really confused about the original post, a link to an article about Casey Anthony not being mentally ill... and then the assertion that it's fallacious for a psychiatrist to assert that Casey Anthony is mentally normal. Yet the thread is about asking why psychopathy is not considered a mental illness... ?

First I would like to ask if Casey Anthony was diagnosed with psychopathy, because I guess I didn't see the whole article or something, I didn't see anything about her being diagnosed with psychopathy.

I'm rather confused.

you're correct, there is no mention of psychopathy or sociopathy in the article other than in the comments section. i suppose the original poster might have made an assumption that the person is question is psychopathic, or read about a diagnosis elsewhere.

i just googled the individual in question, as i do not follow american mainstream news at all, and the wikipedia page that showed up made no mention at all of psychopathy either. seems her defence team cited "dysfunctional upbringing" as the source of her errant behaviour.

certainly a horrific story though.

hmm, who knows...

Yes, the trial was a national sensation. People saying horrible things about Casey Anthony and claiming they were absolutely certain she killed her child. Then when she was found innocent people became outraged and there has been an endless slew of television programs about how the not guilty verdict just had to be wrong and so much public opinion that a killer went free.

I have no idea how people can become so emotionally invested in one particular trial like that. I understand it's all over national news coverage and many talking heads harp on the story and get worked up, but I don't understand why so many Americans mimic what they see on TV. Nor do I understand how anyone can believe they know for certain what happened and that Casey Anthony is a murderer. Surely there is something more worthwhile to become passionate about.

But honestly, after reading up on the case, I can see why she was found not guilty. If there isn't any evidence proving she murdered her daughter then a not guilty verdict is the logical conclusion. I don't see why the masses are obsessed with believing she is guilty in any case.

I don't think she murdered the child, but she's still a sicko regardless.

I personally believe her father had a bigger role in this.

Well the way I read it, they found her 'not ill' by a fairly limited standpoint. I'm pretty sure they were not taking personality disorders into account.

probably because it's not considered grounds for diminished responsibility? but does she actually have a personality disorder diagnosis?

regardless, the fact that someone is "mentally ill" doesn't necessarily mean they'd get a disposal of diminished responsibility anyway.

That's pretty much the way i see it.

I once had this clinically depressed girlfriend who treated me really badly. A year or two after we broke it off she found herself a psychiatrist who helped her externalize all her problems and by doing so abdicate responsibility for anything and everything.

She called me up and expected "it wasn't me, it was the depression" to make everything better.

She did those things, she knew what she was doing, the depression just made her want to do it.

But she was convinced that there was no need for her to apologize for anything.

What about all of those insane nuclear warlords who nuked Hiroshima and killed thousands?