Criminals and mental illness

[Unveiled Artist]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook.

While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you-edit-without mental illnesses).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook. While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you) because of it.

Such criminals are examined by psychiatrics specialist, forensic psychologists, etc. to determine if they are mentally ill. By what other measure do you propose mental illness be measured?

 

[Estro Felino]

Neuropsychiatry has been discovering newer and newer things on how our brain works.

Each of us has two emispheres, the right and the left. One is responsible for the sensible sphere, the other for the emotional.
In a perfectly functioning brain the two emispheres have to be connected (via synapsis) constantly, 24/7. This enables the person to feel all those good emotions, such as love and empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel what the others feel.
Empathy prevents us from harming or hurting others because we understand in advance how the other feels if we hurt them.

We take this ability for granted...actually neuropsychiatry has shown that in many people the two emispheres do not communicate with one another. At times , they never do.
This creates lack of empathy. Meaning...the person does not even understand what empathy is.

So the person is not aware of the harm they can do to others. Meaning the brain understands only individualistic pleasure or suffering, but not selfless or altruistic feelings.

These subjects are, according to psychiatry more likely to commit grave crimes.

As for your question...do we have justify them?
Of course not. But penal science and criminology really need to be rewritten with the help and support of modern neuropsychiatry.
So we can help these people in proper structures.

I can think of so many recent cases...Nikolas Cruz...and many others in my country.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Such criminals are examined by psychiatrics specialist, forensic psychologists, etc. to determine if they are mentally ill. By what other measure do you propose mental illness be measured?

The question is referring to those who do not have mental illnesses, and that a lot of the public justify their horrific crimes by mental illness (stereotype) even though they have none.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This has to do with the stereotype that all criminals who commit horrific crimes have mental illnesses even though some do it intentionally without any mental illness involved.

 

[Stevicus]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook. While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you) because of it.

I don't think mental illness excuses criminality, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances and the type of mental illness. I think when people say "he had a mental illness," it may not be with the intent of getting the criminal off the hook. It could also be a way of saying that if society had devoted more resources to helping people with mental illness, whatever criminal acts which were committed might not have happened.

It seems it would be much cheaper to treat mental illness before it gets out of hand, cheaper than feeding and housing prisoners for the rest of their lives. I believe that's what people mean when they say "he had a mental illness." It was a preventable crime, but that doesn't mean anyone should get let off the hook.

The sad irony of it all is that a lot of people who need help aren't really taken seriously until they do something horrendous. I remember that was brought up during the Loughner case after the Giffords shooting. He had sought out mental health assistance at his community college, but they more or less blew him off. But after his shooting spree, they had forensic psychiatrists flown in from all over the country to examine him. He was given mental health treatment and considered sane enough to stand trial, where he pled guilty.

So, if you shoot somebody, you get to the front of the line to see a psychiatrist. Anything short of that, and you get put on a waiting list. It's easier and cheaper to get a gun than it is to get to see a psychiatrist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The question is referring to those who do not have mental illnesses, and that a lot of the public justify their horrific crimes by mental illness (stereotype) even though they have none.

By what measure are you determining they have none?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Neuropsychiatry has been discovering newer and newer things on how our brain works.

Each of us has two emispheres, the right and the left. One is responsible for the sensible sphere, the other for the emotional.
In a perfectly functioning brain the two emispheres have to be connected (via synapsis) constantly, 24/7. This enables the person to feel all those good emotions, such as love and empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel what the others feel.
Empathy prevents us from harming or hurting others because we understand in advance how the other feels if we hurt them.

We take this ability for granted...actually neuropsychiatry has shown that in many people the two emispheres do not communicate with one another. At times , they never do.
This creates lack of empathy. Meaning...the person does not even understand what empathy is.

So the person is not aware of the harm they can do to others. Meaning the brain understands only individualistic pleasure or suffering, but not selfless or altruistic feelings.

These subjects are, according to psychiatry more likely to commit grave crimes.

As for your question...do we have justify them?
Of course not. But penal science and criminology really need to be rewritten with the help and support of modern neuropsychiatry.
So we can help these people in proper structures.

I can think of so many recent cases...Nikolas Cruz...and many others in my country.

This is speaking of those who do not have a mental illness but the public considers that they do based on the severity of horrific acts.

Criminals who do have mental illnesses is irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By what measure are you determining they have none?

I'm saying that some criminals do not just as I can do a bad act that doesn't mean I have a mental illness no matter how horrific it is.

If you hit someone now, that doesn't mean you have a mental illness. If you committed a horrific crime, that's still an action and does not mean you have a mental illness. It just means you made an silly decision to harm someone and you suffer the consequence of your actions.

Can someone commit horrific crimes without needing to have a mental illness to do?

Why would we justify people who commit horrific crimes are 'all' ill even when we (the public) don't have a means to test whether all criminals do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think mental illness excuses criminality, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances and the type of mental illness. I think when people say "he had a mental illness," it may not be with the intent of getting the criminal off the hook. It could also be a way of saying that if society had devoted more resources to helping people with mental illness, whatever criminal acts which were committed might not have happened.

It seems it would be much cheaper to treat mental illness before it gets out of hand, cheaper than feeding and housing prisoners for the rest of their lives. I believe that's what people mean when they say "he had a mental illness." It was a preventable crime, but that doesn't mean anyone should get let off the hook.

The sad irony of it all is that a lot of people who need help aren't really taken seriously until they do something horrendous. I remember that was brought up during the Loughner case after the Giffords shooting. He had sought out mental health assistance at his community college, but they more or less blew him off. But after his shooting spree, they had forensic psychiatrists flown in from all over the country to examine him. He was given mental health treatment and considered sane enough to stand trial, where he pled guilty.

So, if you shoot somebody, you get to the front of the line to see a psychiatrist. Anything short of that, and you get put on a waiting list. It's easier and cheaper to get a gun than it is to get to see a psychiatrist.

I read. But anyone can shoot someone without a mental illness. How does the nature of the crime (assuming they did not have a mental illness beforehand) determine whether they should see a psychiatrist or be convicted to jail?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm saying that some criminals do not just as I can do a bad act that doesn't mean I have a mental illness no matter how horrific it is.

If you hit someone now, that doesn't mean you have a mental illness. If you committed a horrific crime, that's still an action and does not mean you have a mental illness. It just means you made an silly decision to harm someone and you suffer the consequence of your actions.

Can someone commit horrific crimes without needing to have a mental illness to do?

Why would we justify people who commit horrific crimes are 'all' ill even when we (the public) don't have a means to test whether all criminals do.

I don’t think it is any sort of axiom that all people that commit horrific crimes have a mental illness. If that’s your premise here, I think it’s flawed.

I would say it’s a reasonable conclusion that those who have committed such a crime that have been diagnosed with a mental illness have a mental illness. Do you disagree?

 

[Heyo]

Neuropsychiatry has been discovering newer and newer things on how our brain works.

Each of us has two emispheres, the right and the left. One is responsible for the sensible sphere, the other for the emotional.
In a perfectly functioning brain the two emispheres have to be connected (via synapsis) constantly, 24/7. This enables the person to feel all those good emotions, such as love and empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel what the others feel.
Empathy prevents us from harming or hurting others because we understand in advance how the other feels if we hurt them.

We take this ability for granted...actually neuropsychiatry has shown that in many people the two emispheres do not communicate with one another. At times , they never do.
This creates lack of empathy. Meaning...the person does not even understand what empathy is.

So the person is not aware of the harm they can do to others. Meaning the brain understands only individualistic pleasure or suffering, but not selfless or altruistic feelings.

These subjects are, according to psychiatry more likely to commit grave crimes.

As for your question...do we have justify them?
Of course not. But penal science and criminology really need to be rewritten with the help and support of modern neuropsychiatry.
So we can help these people in proper structures.

I can think of so many recent cases...Nikolas Cruz...and many others in my country.

I'm not sure but I think you may have got that wrong (or have old data). Empathy doesn't depend on having a corpus callosum. (And the separation in thinking and feeling side is also no longer held by neurology.)

 

[Estro Felino]

This is speaking of those who do not have a mental illness but the public considers that they do based on the severity of horrific acts.

Criminals who do have mental illnesses is irrelevant to the OP.

Does Nikolas Cruz have a mental illness?
I don't think so.
But still...I do believe his lack of empathy made him commit that awful crime.

 

[Heyo]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook.

While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you-edit-without mental illnesses).

People need explanations. They don't have to be right, but simply not knowing can cause stress in many.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don’t think it is any sort of axiom that all people that commit horrific crimes have a mental illness. If that’s your premise here, I think it’s flawed.

I would say it’s a reasonable conclusion that those who have committed such a crime that have been diagnosed with a mental illness have a mental illness. Do you disagree?

I don't see all people who commit horrific crimes have a mental illness either-I feel it's a stereotype-hence my OP.

I think I do disagree because if I know I can do the same thing criminals do with a sound mind (like now), why would I assume others need to have a mental illness to do something I can do without it.

If someone felt they heard voices that were not there or had disorganized thinking that made them want to kill themselves, I can reasonably assume they have a mental illness. But horrific crimes like rape and murder are not hallucinations or things like that. So, I'd say it's less reasonable for rape and murder than it would for someone wanting to hurt themselves because a voice is telling them to.

 

[PureX]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook.

While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you) because of it.

I don't think it matters whether they are "ill" or not. What matters is are they redeemable, and is it worth the risk to try.

In the case of serial killers, mass killers, and ideological killers, I believe the risk is too great. Society should not have to take on that risk to redeem a killer that has shown themselves to be determined to kill others, and likely to kill again if given the opportunity. But with the others, even if they have to spend the rest of their lives in prison because they cannot be trusted to live in an free society, they can still be a positive influence within that context.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does Nikolas Cruz have a mental illness?
I don't think so.
But still...I do believe his lack of empathy made him commit that awful crime.

Should people justify criminal behavior by saying people who commit horrific crimes such as Cruz have a mental illness?

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure but I think you may have got that wrong (or have old data). Empathy doesn't depend on having a corpus callosum. (And the separation in thinking and feeling side is also no longer held by neurology.)

But the criminologists I follow and read, believe in those studies...which are very advanced and taken seriously in my country.

The Role of the Right Hemisphere in Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Patients With Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration: An Updated Review

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People need explanations. They don't have to be right, but simply not knowing can cause stress in many.

True. I was watching about child abusers who finished their time and can't go back into society because of such stereotypes. Maybe people have more empathy when saying they have a mental illness but it could do much more harm than good.

 

[Estro Felino]

Should people justify criminal behavior by saying people who commit horrific crimes such as Cruz have a mental illness?

In fact he is 100% capable of understanding and wanting.
But neuropsychiatrists explain why he is so different than loving and calm people.