Can those with personality disorders (psychopaths) be morally accountable?

Doesn't matter.

Release him back into the world and see how long he lasts.

Someone will take are of his innocent person killing ass.

 

That's a good question.

While psychopaths are usually seen as having higher than average intelligence, how they behave is something that is often triggered during their younger years - perhaps as a result of some genetic abnormality that requires a certain set of circumstances to activate. Once set in motion, and depending on the type of upbringing they have, what might be years of horrendous abuse, causes a change that creates the kind of 'monster' we see.

There are many psychopaths who aren't violent though, and many leaders of industry exhibit classic psychopathic tendencies without any violence ever coming into play.

We have to deal with anyone deemed a danger to society, but we don't have to see them as evil, especially if we discover what created them. Do they have a choice how they act? Perhaps. But whether they're morally accountable for what they do depends on whether you see the causes - the possible genetic factors and the upbringing, as mitigating anything. Not an easy one.

 

From what I've read, psychopaths can differenciate between morally good and bad choices, but they simply refuse to comply with society's unwritten and written laws. So seeing as how they are aware that their behaviour is wrong/unlawful/hurtful, and they know the consequences of their actions, they should be held accountable for their decisions.

And you can't necessarily lump people with personality disorders into the psychopathic category; all psychopaths have personality disorders, but not everyone who has a personality disorder is a psychopath.

 

Good point. But I wonder if their refusal to comply is the result of the way they are, rather than because they choose not to.

 

I think more studies need to be conducted on the subject of mental illness, not everything about the human mind has been unlocked and the general public also lack the awareness when understanding the downfalls one experiences with mental illness.

 

What do we know more about, the ocean or the human mind?

I think that psychopaths can't be held morally accountable. After all, there is no way to treat a psychopath, any methods of habilitation are futile since the only lesson a psychopath learns after every punishment is to just be sneakier next time.

It's sad, but a lot of psychopaths live their entire lives in their impulsive present, and frankly they can't give a damn about laws, or punishment, or consqeunces. after all, i'm smarter than these people, i can lie my ass off without a drop of sweat rolling on my face, I can get away with this.

Interviews with psychopaths also show they have limited potentinal to achieve long term goals and have unreasonable expectations about themselves.

I think unless some major breakthrough in science of the mind is made, the safest thing for us and them and society at large is to keep them (sadly) confined in prisions and insitutions.

 

If they have no concept of morals, then no. If they do and decide against those morals, then yes.

Here's a more interesting proposal: can you hold a person with DID accountable for what another identity does?

 

It's not based on an individual's view point on morals and what's right or wrong, but society's. Same reason a wild animal will get put down if it attacks a person. If it was on an individual basis, then everyone would have different punishments for the crimes they commit.

 

In my Psychology class I took last year, we had a section where we talked about psychopaths. There was one study done, where basically they were studying the brain's processing of emotional events in psychopaths. It turns out, psychopaths actually process emotion through the language part of the brain. In other words, if a psychopath were to be confronted with some terrible situation, of someone being brutallly murdered or something like that, their brain would entirely process it through words, without any emotional component.

It's like if I tell you, "The tree has green leaves." Just words that explain something, no emotion. It is the same as a psychopath seeing multiple people brutaly murdered. That is not to necessarily imply an answer to OP, just to give some interesting insight. It at least demonstrates that their brain legitimately functions differently, beyond purely psychological tendencies.

 

Morally, I'm not decided. Depends on how conscious the perpetrator was.

Now, legally, OF COURSE

 

the law does not care about personal morals, but is a set of standards in place independent of them. the law does not what or how you think, but how you act. that said, a person defined as a "psychopath" should absolutely be held accountable for their actions in a legal manner- whether it be institutionalization or otherwise.

however, holding them "morally accountable?" no. a part of their mind literally functions in an entirely different way than the majority of the population, and thus comparing them is futile. it's like trying to determine whether a colorblind person is "accountable" for wearing a mismatching outfit (ignore the weak analogy, but you get my point).

 

It depends what is the sentencing motivation behind the criminal justice system.

'Moral Accountability' seems to be more relegated to those systems designed to be retributive. Perhaps it's more pertinent to ask if convicts with personality disorders can be successfully habituated to participate society?

 

Good point. Before we ask the question the OP asked, it's imporant to ask another question first: Should the purpose of our judicial system be PUNISHMENT or REHABILITATION?

Hint: if you agree with the death penalty, you def lean towards the first choice.
if you agree with financing prison schools and the like, you lean towards the 2nd choice.

 

Punishment has no useful function other than to feed our sense of justice. It doesn't stop people from breaking the law (clearly), and it certainly doesn't change attitudes for the better. People go to prison and come out worse off, what's the point of exacerbating criminal behaviour just so you can feed your sense of justice.

Segregating criminals from society is a valid tactic, but shouldn't be considered tantamount to punishment. I'm OK with putting criminals in prison, but I'm not OK with how prisons function and the assumptions that they run on. Rehabilitation makes far more moral and economic sense. Do something that will help the criminals behave in a more acceptable way, and get them back in to the community contributing to tax revenue!

 

Although I would tend to agree with you, the subject is much more complicated.

Retribution is valued differently from one culture to another. There is a long-established cross-cultural trends where it is felt that the victims are entitled to a sense of retributive justice. The old Abrahamic axiom; "an eye for an eye". This is to say that if a criminal justice system, as a result of established cultural context, should reflect a variation of values. Some would argue that in order for a criminal justice system to be perceived as effective and meaningful, that the sentencing MUST reflect these values.

Also, if we're discussing crime broadly (not just violent crime), then retributive justice can certainly be an effective deterrent, especially when it comes to property crime and petty public order crime.

Depending on you subscribe to a very particular strain of conflict theory, you might be inclined to apply this as an absolute. How about those offenders who are seen as committing a crime so horrific that any chance of recidivism outweighs the cost of rehabilitation? Mass murders or spree killers as an example? What about compulsive sex offenders? Career criminals?

 

I heard that psychopaths can't have dreams, i wonder if thats true.

 

I doubt it.

 

[quote name='"tHe LoNLy StOnR"']From what I've read, psychopaths can differenciate between morally good and bad choices, but they simply refuse to comply with society's unwritten and written laws. So seeing as how they are aware that their behaviour is wrong/unlawful/hurtful, and they know the consequences of their actions, they should be held accountable for their decisions.

And you can't necessarily lump people with personality disorders into the psychopathic category; all psychopaths have personality disorders, but not everyone who has a personality disorder is a psychopath.[/quote]

Yea this..just reminds me of dexter and how he knows what he's doing is considered wrong but he just doesnt give a shit

 

Dexter gives a big shit - that's why he follows his code. He accepts that he is who he is, and needs to kill, but doesn't want the innocent to suffer.