Kevin's Watch

To my mind, anyone who commits a crime like rape, or murder... is not evil. They're mentally ill. By most definitions of mental normality (and certainly those within Western society), wishing to harm other people makes you abnormal. Why, then, does carrying it out make you suddenly sane?

There's a difference between abnormal and mentally ill. I'd argue that harming someone doesn't make you abnormal, it makes you anti-social (and mentally ill doesn't even come into the picture other than very specific cases).

do sociopaths suffer from mental illness? i think the argument is a strawman, if folks are that unsafe to be around they should be locked up for society's own good. part of what i dislike about psychiatry is the sense of dismissal from responsibility. the idea that behaviour trumps.

Excellent Post Somberlain, I hope you start participating in the other discussions here and in the Think-Tank as well.

I certainly agree with you about there being no "absolute" morality, and no absolute good and evil as well.

I think you make some good arguments there too. And interesting a valid point about the dichotomy between the laws of a society, and upholding those laws consistently.

Even Cail's rebuttal there is telling. Anti-social. The worst thing that any person can be in a society is anti-social. Literally, "against the society."

Really enjoyed your post.

--Avatar

That's the meaning I was using Av.

Avatar wrote:Excellent Post Somberlain

Yeah, I think we should keep this one.

sgtnull wrote:do sociopaths suffer from mental illness? i think the argument is a strawman, if folks are that unsafe to be around they should be locked up for society's own good. part of what i dislike about psychiatry is the sense of dismissal from responsibility. the idea that behaviour trumps.

I entirely agree that they should be locked up. But just left in a prison for some arbitrary length of time isn't going to help them. I can appreciate that people don't like the idea that they should be "let off the hook" by being treated psychiatrically. But if they're truly reformed - and assuming that the process of judging that is a pretty stringent process, I can't understand why they should not be allowed back into society.
It's not denying that they were responsible for their crime. It's simply acknowledging that there's a possibility that they can change for the better (and by 'better', I guess I simply mean 'more fitting with their own society's values'). It's not like it'd be pleasant, or lax, being in a maximum security psychiatric ward. I don't doubt that certain forms of punishment would have to be used, particularly with the more dangerous/determined criminals. And if they still aren't "cured"... then they'll die in prison (prison equalling the mental hospital, here). The idea of imposing some specific sentence (this only really applies to the more extreme crimes, I suppose), at the end of which, no matter what, they'll be released... just seems like a really stupid idea.


Cail:
I'd agree that harming someone makes you anti-social, in the most literal sense of the term. But I also think that that is pretty much the same thing as mental illness, mental abnormality... whatever you choose to call it. In a society where, for instance, there's a traditional ritual which involves a fight to the death between contestants, that would perhaps be considered barbaric by ourselves, but it wouldn't be mental illness. Here, it would.
The terms are impossible to universally define, so I think that being anti-social (to the extent where you're causing harm; I don't just mean being withdrawn or sullen, obviously) is probably the most effective definition of mental illness anyway.
Thus, I believe that it's a treatable problem. Maybe there won't be any success in treatment, and the prisoner will remain as he/she was, and it'd be a failure. But I think that at least trying to treat them is a better solution than executing them.


Glad my opinions were of some interest, anyway

Prebe wrote:That's a novel approach Saloth. You are against the death penalty, because you think it is to MILD a sentence?

Yep.

And to counter Cail, if someone is facing the death penalty and my say can change that to Life, I'm pretty sure that it will be life without the possibilty of parole. I guess I'll just take my chances. I mean, that is, if I had a choice in the matter.

It's an interesting theory, but I'll tell you why I don't like it. It removes all responsibility from the perpitrator, and writes off their misdeeds as "mental illness"; a health problem. Some people are mean, and hurt people because they can, or because it makes them feel good. Some people steal because they can't afford what they want. Does that make them mentally ill? I really don't think so.

I honestly think it does make them mentally ill. However the responsibility still lies (to varying extents, depending on the person. I'm not saying that a thief is *as* mentally ill as your proverbial Hannibal Lecter) with the criminal. The onus is on them to change while imprisoned/being treated.

In some ways it's no more than (if I may say so) an improvement on the current prison system. Given that prisoners are rarely kept in prison for life - even when given life sentences - I think it's safe to assume that the driving principle behind most prison sentences is to give the criminal a chance - while being kept away from the society to which they currently pose a danger - to consider the implications of their behaviour, in the hope that when they are released, they'll have changed for the better.
This is simply a more active version of that, based on the idea (which I hold to be true) that committing a crime is inherently sociopathic, implying some sort of psychological problem, and so implying that the desire to commit it can be treated.

Take your own example of people who hurt others because they can. It seems to me that there's clearly something 'wrong' in their mind that causes them to behave in such a socially undesirable/unacceptable way.

Socially undesireable, to be sure, but there's a big leap from there to mentally ill.

I think prisons gave up on rehabilitation a long time ago. They're primarilly for keeping the riff-raff away from society.

we keep them locked up as long as the courts say. the courts are in an ebb and flow though. when we are full to max cap, the courts demand we run some folks out.

if you all knew who we let out, you would demand that they all stay for life.

Prison systems are far from perfect. But, why not build more prisons? You would get more jobs, and the drop in crime rate would mean you could save a corresponding amount of policemen, not to talk about the increased quality of life for those not exposed to repeat offenders?

Talking about those, I have yet to see a repeat offender in rape or murder (at least one leaving biological evidence). While it is more the rule than the exception in petty crime.

rapist tend to be serial. and child molesters even more so.

I just said I have never seen a repeat offender (deffined as one having served his time). And quite a few rape cases go across my desk every year. I didn't mean to imply, that rape and child molestation can't be serial.

Perhaps the difficulty with Somberlain's post arises from different definitions of "mentally ill." Or different perceptions thereof.

I certainly agree that by societies definition, anti-social behaviour is "abnormal" which should equate to roughly the same thing.

(Of course we're interested in opinions. Everybody's opinions. )

Interesting Prebe. You suggesting that to a certain extent, prison does act as a rehabilitation process of some sort?

--A

Yes Av. I'm sure it is not perfect, but there is no doubt in my mind, that it works to a certain extent. A lot of rapists and molesters get treatment during their sentence, which might help lowering the rate of repeat offences.

Edit: The caveat being of course, that I only see cases where biological evidence have yielded a DNA profile (most rape cases do in fact). Biological evidence in incest cases are usually a whole lot more difficult to use in court, for obvious reasons.

I can certainly agree that treatment/counseling etc. could have a positive effect, which goes back to what The Somberlain is suggesting.

However, I see Cail's point about personal responsibility as well. The whole "victimhood of the offender," while not necessariliy an invalid argument, has never sat right with me. In the end, you choose your actions. Nobody else does. Regardless of what you're driven to do, you still have to make a choice.

Of course, treatment, as was mentioned, gives the possibility of making it again. But you still have to make it in the first place.

It's certainly a tough one...

--A

You don't believe in any kind of reformatory effect of the penal/treatement system, you would have to either kill everybody, lock everybody up for life, or let everybody go.

Agreed. In theory at least.

--A

then lock them up for life.