Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why doesn't the American justice system consider psychopathy

Page 4 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

16 Jan 2012, 1:13 pm

As if NTs have empathy? Please.

As has been stated, the mere fact someone has a diagnosis which means they experience things differently to others shouldn't make them more or less guilty of something - evidence of their alleged actions must do that.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

16 Jan 2012, 1:34 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
. If a person is a psychopath, they still know the difference between right and wrong, or understand that something is considered right and something else is considered wrong, even though they may not feel that it is wrong themselves, or care if it is.


Do they truly know the difference then? Perhaps on one level, but not on another? But I kind of see where you're coming from, a schizophrenic generally kills someone because they are literally forced to by their brain, or because they are paranoid and believe they are acting in self-defense, or they believe that God is commanding them to. While a psychopath does so because they are incapable of caring about another person's life and run into a situation where they would commit violence.


Yes, they do. Generally they understand quite perfectly the difference between right and wrong, they simply don't care. They see themselves as above other peoples rules.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

16 Jan 2012, 1:37 pm

abacacus wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
. If a person is a psychopath, they still know the difference between right and wrong, or understand that something is considered right and something else is considered wrong, even though they may not feel that it is wrong themselves, or care if it is.


Do they truly know the difference then? Perhaps on one level, but not on another? But I kind of see where you're coming from, a schizophrenic generally kills someone because they are literally forced to by their brain, or because they are paranoid and believe they are acting in self-defense, or they believe that God is commanding them to. While a psychopath does so because they are incapable of caring about another person's life and run into a situation where they would commit violence.


Yes, they do. Generally they understand quite perfectly the difference between right and wrong, they simply don't care. They see themselves as above other peoples rules.


but the point is, is the behaviour then in any way a choice?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

16 Jan 2012, 1:48 pm

peebo wrote:
abacacus wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
. If a person is a psychopath, they still know the difference between right and wrong, or understand that something is considered right and something else is considered wrong, even though they may not feel that it is wrong themselves, or care if it is.


Do they truly know the difference then? Perhaps on one level, but not on another? But I kind of see where you're coming from, a schizophrenic generally kills someone because they are literally forced to by their brain, or because they are paranoid and believe they are acting in self-defense, or they believe that God is commanding them to. While a psychopath does so because they are incapable of caring about another person's life and run into a situation where they would commit violence.


Yes, they do. Generally they understand quite perfectly the difference between right and wrong, they simply don't care. They see themselves as above other peoples rules.


but the point is, is the behaviour then in any way a choice?


Yes. Have you ever met a psychopath? They know what they're doing, they understand the consequences.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

16 Jan 2012, 5:08 pm

abacacus wrote:
peebo wrote:
abacacus wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
. If a person is a psychopath, they still know the difference between right and wrong, or understand that something is considered right and something else is considered wrong, even though they may not feel that it is wrong themselves, or care if it is.


Do they truly know the difference then? Perhaps on one level, but not on another? But I kind of see where you're coming from, a schizophrenic generally kills someone because they are literally forced to by their brain, or because they are paranoid and believe they are acting in self-defense, or they believe that God is commanding them to. While a psychopath does so because they are incapable of caring about another person's life and run into a situation where they would commit violence.


Yes, they do. Generally they understand quite perfectly the difference between right and wrong, they simply don't care. They see themselves as above other peoples rules.


but the point is, is the behaviour then in any way a choice?


Yes. Have you ever met a psychopath? They know what they're doing, they understand the consequences.


But this is effectively saying psychopathy is a choice, no?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

16 Jan 2012, 5:10 pm

The actual condition of psychopathy isn't a choice any more than Asperger's is a choice. The actions of a psychopath are entirely his or her own responsibility, however.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

16 Jan 2012, 5:11 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
The actual condition of psychopathy isn't a choice any more than Asperger's is a choice. The actions of a psychopath are entirely his or her own responsibility, however.


Precisely.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

16 Jan 2012, 6:08 pm

abacacus wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
The actual condition of psychopathy isn't a choice any more than Asperger's is a choice. The actions of a psychopath are entirely his or her own responsibility, however.


Precisely.


no, because the behaviours we are talking about (poor self control, lack of remorse etc.) are a result, i.e. symptoms of, psychopathic personality disorder, much like poor eye contact or lack of theory of mind are symptoms of aspergers. neither are choices.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

16 Jan 2012, 6:35 pm

peebo wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
The actual condition of psychopathy isn't a choice any more than Asperger's is a choice. The actions of a psychopath are entirely his or her own responsibility, however.


Precisely.


no, because the behaviours we are talking about (poor self control, lack of remorse etc.) are a result, i.e. symptoms of, psychopathic personality disorder, much like poor eye contact or lack of theory of mind are symptoms of aspergers. neither are choices.


Not so. The symptoms of psychopathy are general lack of deep emotions (they either feel them very little or not at all), compulsive lying, and in some cases great skill at manipulating people. They have control over their actions, they understand what they are doing and they know it is wrong.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

17 Jan 2012, 2:52 am

yes, in addition to lack of remorse and lack of understanding of it, and egocentricity. antisocial behaviour is an obvious result of these characteristics, just as being stilted in social situations is an obvious result of the characteristics of aspergers.

not having control over your actions doesn't constitute grounds for diminished responsibility, otherwise people who commit crimes while blind drunk could claim it.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

17 Jan 2012, 2:42 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
In the legal sense of the word there are two things that render you insane during the act.

1) You couldn't distinguish between right and wrong
2) You knew it was wrong but you were completely unable to control yourself

When it comes to psychopaths, they are aware of what society considers right and wrong and poor impulse control doesn't mean an inability to control oneself but being tempted once the means and opportunity gives them a motive to commit a crime.


Certainly the first creates a defence of insanity (or diminished capacity, depending upon the terminology of the jurisdiction).

But the second certainly does not. It might point to a defence of automatism, but certainly not insanity.


_________________
--James


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

17 Jan 2012, 4:35 pm

abacacus, i think that your argument is akin to saying that a broken leg is a disability, but that falling over because of it is a choice. would this be fair to say?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

17 Jan 2012, 5:52 pm

visagrunt wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
In the legal sense of the word there are two things that render you insane during the act.

1) You couldn't distinguish between right and wrong
2) You knew it was wrong but you were completely unable to control yourself

When it comes to psychopaths, they are aware of what society considers right and wrong and poor impulse control doesn't mean an inability to control oneself but being tempted once the means and opportunity gives them a motive to commit a crime.


Certainly the first creates a defence of insanity (or diminished capacity, depending upon the terminology of the jurisdiction).

But the second certainly does not. It might point to a defence of automatism, but certainly not insanity.
Yeah that's true. The second would be a mitigating factor rather than an insanity defense.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

18 Jan 2012, 3:59 am

abacacus wrote:

Not so. The symptoms of psychopathy are general lack of deep emotions (they either feel them very little or not at all), compulsive lying, and in some cases great skill at manipulating people. They have control over their actions, they understand what they are doing and they know it is wrong.


so are you saying they could choose to be good people? i don't buy your assessment because to me, it seems like begging the question. also, their only motive for doing the right thing would be to not get in trouble, and sociopaths in general tend to not have a good sense of the future and hence this would not be an inhibitor to them. i think they are basically doomed to be what they are.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

18 Jan 2012, 11:40 am

Yes, sociopaths can chose to be good people. Of course they can. They may not have the emotional pressure to do so, but they can still chose to do so. If this were not the case, they'd all be serial killers.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

18 Jan 2012, 11:59 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Yes, sociopaths can chose to be good people. Of course they can. They may not have the emotional pressure to do so, but they can still chose to do so. If this were not the case, they'd all be serial killers.


Wrong. They would not all be serial killers.

A serial killer gets something out of killing. Some sort of emotional response in themselves, or it relieves frustration. Not everyone who is a psychoparth would get that response out of themselves. Some of them may be horrified simply because of the idea. An example similar to this would be that while I do not get very upset if I hit a cat while driving my car, if the cat runs out in front of me, I do not go and search out cats to kill, nor do I swerve to hit them if I see them on the road, and I do try and brake if possible without wrecking to avoid hitting one. It doesn't upset me to hit one, but I know that they probably belong to someone and it would upset their owner if I were to hit the cat, so because of that fact, with no emotion involved whatsoever, I avoid hitting cats when possible.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com