Why doesn't the American justice system consider psychopathy

Post Reply New Topic

a mental illness? I was reading this:

http://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-case ... 18066.html

To me, it's incredibly fallacious to suggest Casey Anthony is 'mentally normal'. So being delusional (schizophrenic) like all humans sometimes are makes you 'insane' and 'abnormal' but somehow the inability to empathize and love other people is 'normal' and just a 'choice'? Psychopathy and sociopathy are most definitely mental illnesses, ones that are in some ways more severe than schizophrenia. I would argue that psychopaths are the unluckiest people on Earth since they don't have the ability to love. I think that's tragic.

I think the reason why they are not considered mental illness is to support a punitive approach to treating psychopaths rather than classifying them as mentally ill and in need of help. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't consider it a disability.

Of course, it's incredibly difficult to treat psychopaths. But i don't think it's impossible. I just think most people aren't interested because their actions are often so heinous people just want them to suffer. Which is understandable, I guess.

So what do you think? Should we continue to believe psychopathy is the result of free will and personal wickedness, or should it be thought of as a mental illness? And should psychopaths and sociopaths who commit heinous crimes such as murder be put in jail or killed, or should they be put in institutions for the criminally insane?

If they kill someone because of it, then yes they should suffer. They aren't out of control when they do it.

You didn't answer my question though. Is psychopathy a legit mental illness, or would you consider it a choice if someone wants to be a psychopath?

it's considered, in the uk at least, a personality disorder. but the whole notion of "mental illness" is a can of worms.

It's a legitimate mental illness, but mental illness alone doesn't constitute not guilty by reason of insanity. It's the ability to discern the difference between right and wrong at the time of committing the crime. 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.

Sure, they are mentally ill, but that alone doesn't get them out of prison.

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.

My main issue is referring to psychopaths as sane. This is more than just free will going on here. Psychopaths are in my opinion, insane by definition, though 'psychopathology' might be a better term as nowadays 'insanity' tends to mean delusions and is strongly associated with schizophrenia:

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor.[2]

You think it is tragic. You have an opinion on the matter. The operative question is: are people who are devoid of empathy and love necessarily harmful to others. If they do no harm, why should you care whether they are capable of love, compassion, empathy etc.. If it be not harmful, then you have no ground for action. And your judgement is mere opinion.

I think people not burdened with such subjective emotions are fortunate. They feel no pain. As long as they "behave themselves" I have no objection to them.

ruveyn

I suppose so, I just think it would be such an empty life. But I suppose that's also just my opinion. And of course not all sociopaths/psychopaths like violence or would act in a violent manner. I'd even say most of them are not violent.

You think they have an empty life. That is what you think. What do THEY think? That is a more relevant question.

My position on the matter is this: If these folks are not harmful, then I have no objection. And what I think about the quality of their attitude has no standing in their lives. My opinion does not matter.

I am mind blind (for what I am very grateful). I have very few "feelings" and I am pleased not to have too many "feelings". They are an impediment and a source of pain or discomfort. Emotions are ka ka.

I would rather be remembered for my justice than for my mercy and compassion, of which I have very little.

ruveyn

It sometimes help to think like a lawyer.

When we are considering the legal circumstances of a person who has been diagnosed as a psychopath, what purpose are we considering that for?

--Criminal law conviction? The law on diminished capacity is complex, but generally speaking it is not sufficient to have a mental illness. The accused must have been suffering from a mental illness of sufficient gravity that the accused was not aware of the wrongful nature of the accused's actions.

--Criminal law sentencing? There's a lot more leeway here. Mental illness can create circumstances in which a judge or a jury believe that an accused person--while still aware of the wrongful nature of the actions--did not fully appreciate the nature and scope of the consequences of those actions, and should not, therefore, be held to the same penalty.

--Family law custody? Suddenly we have a whole other issue at stake--the best interests of a child. Does mental illness impair the person's ability to provide the necessities of life for a child for whom the person is responsible.

...and so on.

So I think the short answer is, "Actually, it does. But it does it differently in different areas of law and for different people."

Not all states have a innocent by reason of insanity plea.
it never means that the mentally ill get off scott-free.
I robbed the liquor store because I have depression not a great defense
and it should not be.

It means you are too batshit to help with your own defense.
it rarely works anyway not it the way you would want it to get out of jail free.
secure Mental institutions are not fun places and prisons usually let you out after
some fraction of your sentence the hospital lets you out when they think you are sane
(maybe never)

Well, I'd call free will rubbish on its face - I don't believe *anyone* or anything has it. However, that's more of a sidepoint.

The thing about sociopaths and psychopaths is that most of them are functional, most of them 'do what the Romans do' and don't cause major problems. The difference with sociopaths is that if they do hit a breaking point where they're just bored, too tired of having to play influence games, or are tired of playing within the lines, they have less internal restraint stopping them.

What I'd love to know actually is if a self-aware sociopath or psychopath has ever written (even anonymously) at length and analytically about their experiences, how their internal world works, and particularly from someone who no one would ever guess to be one and who doesn't have a tendency to drift towards the dark side - what keeps them in touch with humanity and what rules do they believe keep more sociopaths from not acting on their impulses than doing so? Debunking mythology in this area would be a great thing.

That said though, noting that most psychopaths and sociopaths aren't criminals or murderers, it stands to reason that its not direct causation. Even if their morality ends up equating to the lowest level of not getting caught - there's still enough mental math going on to say that they knew what they were getting themselves into. Its one person with no empathy to kill someone because they're inconvenient, or in worst case torture them to watch the reactions, rather than someone who tries to stab someone because reality is gone and they really believed that the person they were trying to stab was some type or demon.

H. H. Holmes wrote one I don't know how honest he was in it.
for some reason I can not find it I guess my goggle searching skills are waning
but it is in the bibliography of devil and the white city.

in scotland a plea of diminished responsibility can be valid for mentally disordered offenders, which since the criminal justice and licensing (scotland) act 2010 includes psychopathy, although prior to this it didn't. i checked this out today at work having looked at this thread this morning. i don't know about other jurisdictions at all though. although personality disorders aren't really considered "mental ilnesses" per se, they are of course considered within the wider category of "mental disorders".

Personality disorders do not prevent someone from understanding what they are doing, so they are not treated as a psychiatric problem. They would have to be moderately ret*d or have psychotic symptoms as well to make a case for insanity.