Condeming Children For Birth Defects

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I was looking through my favorited videos on Youtube and came up with this old video again:

In the US at least, you cannot be diagnosed with (or treated for) a personality disorder (sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, etc) until you're 18. You can only be diagnosed with/treated for conduct disorder until that point.

Now, the thread title is such because mental illness is, as far as we know, caused at least partially by genetics, although the exact percentage of what can be attributed to what is still heavily debated. So something like antisocial personality disorder is essentially a birth defect.

With that said, it's very important to keep in mind that although children cannot be diagnosed with personality disorders it does not mean they cannot have them. Antisocial personality disorder is, by definition, something that begins in early childhood and persists throughout adulthood for example.

I feel like it's a good time to bring up this issue because of the shooting in Connecticut. The gunman was likely suffering from anti-social personality disorder. While we would have to wait for the full facts of the case to manifest themselves before coming to anything conclusive, people generally don't just 'snap'. Children with antisocial personality disorder (like those in the video above), progressively build up to acts such as murder. Self-mutilation, animal abuse (especially torturing animals to death), self-sodomy (There was one child in particular that would stick a plunger on a wall and...well...you know. 'Self-sodomy'.), etc. Whatever the gunman's motive was, it's extremely unlikely that he was a well-adjusted individual who just got up one day and said 'My feet itch. Know what? Fuck everyone.

But it's possible that nobody who needed to know did. Once you reach 18, your criminal records are permanently sealed. But as noted above, the symptoms can start to show themselves long before that point. But it doesn't matter either way. There is no effective method of treating those (and related) personality disorders. Psychotherapy is of limited effectiveness and there are no medications that have shown any promise. The only procedure that is successful in treating such illnesses is a full lobotomy.

So! We get to the point of this thread. As of today, many of the children in that video are free to roam the streets with their identities changed and criminal records sealed. They have not been 'cured' and are still a significant danger to themselves and others around them, just to put things into perspective. Is it 'worth it' to replace the vague 'conduct disorder' with the appropriate mental illness? To expand on that...

Is it acceptable to kill, lock up indefinitely in solitary confinement (They're too dangerous for gen pop), or preform lobotomies on children who are clearly exhibiting such disorders? I list those three because there are no other options for dealing with them. They cannot be cured, and those options all amount to the same thing. Killing...well...removes them from society, sticking them in prison for life removes them from society, and a lobotomy is essentially the same thing as killing them.

This is basically the core of the question: Are you willing to go Minority Report and punish people for crimes that they have not yet committed in the name of preventing atrocities, or are the massacres and brutal tortures of (relative) innocents merely the price of freedom?

someone who has anti personality disorder is not automatically going to commit a murder.

sticking a child who displays tendancies toward anti social personality disorder in permament solitary confiment which scares even hardened criminals is barbaric not to mention a great way to make someone completely loose the plot.

yes children with obvious mental health issues need to be treated but outright abuse is not the answer

You do know that anti-social people aren't ticking time bombs waiting to explode in an orgy of murder and violence, right? They can, and do, live with normal people in normal society most of the time. Okay? Okay.

To me, it seems like the real problem here is the whole "not diagnosing children with personality disorders" is the problem here, especially during puberty. A kid with schizophrenia who starts hearing things is going to be really freaking scared and will need treatment. They need to be told that everything will be okay and they are not going to kill everyone around them (like our culture so often likes to tell them). They need to be accepted and treated before that stuff really gets bad. Ignoring it is about the worst thing possible to do. :\

wombat_of_war:
someone who has anti personality disorder is not automatically going to commit a murder.

Hence this part:

Kopikatsu:

This is basically the core of the question: Are you willing to go Minority Report and punish people for crimes that they have not yet committed in the name of preventing atrocities, or are the massacres and brutal tortures of (relative) innocents merely the price of freedom?

But I did mention that I'm talking about the people who show clear symptoms of building up to things like murder. I have anti-social personality disorder, but I'm not going around nailing kittens to walls or carving my initials into the next door neighbor's infant either. (Nor did I in my adolescence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Treatment

Wasn't exactly hard to read the wikipedia page and find out that there are some methods of treatment, particularly therapy as a whole family unit.

The whole problem with every country's attitude to mental health is that it's shoved under the carpet until it manifests in the very late stages of the disease. In the UK we have the capacity to treat about 25% of people suffering from mental illness and prevention programmes are being entirely cut. You don't need to implement anything like Minority Report - there needs to be a massive increase in funding for mental health services so that they can actually treat near to 100% of the patients, and continue lots of outreach programmes to find at risk groups, and to encourage family members to identify the signs.

Also why the fuck have you included schizophrenia? The general population are more likely to harm someone with schizophrenia than someone with schizophrenia is them, so are you suggesting we just lock everybody up because they have the potential to murder someone?

That's silly, crazy, and frightening. Like a my ex-wife. HEYOH. Ahem.

No, to do such a thing would in my opinion, be silly, crazy, and would frighten me because I wouldn't know whether or not my children were destined for prison because they don't like playing sports like he's "Supposed" to.

BreakfastMan:
You do know that anti-social people aren't ticking time bombs waiting to explode in an orgy of murder and violence, right? They can, and do, live with normal people in normal society most of the time. Okay? Okay.

To me, it seems like the real problem here is the whole "not diagnosing children with personality disorders" is the problem here, especially during puberty. A kid with schizophrenia who starts hearing things is going to be really freaking scared and will need treatment. They need to be told that everything will be okay and they are not going to kill everyone around them (like our culture so often likes to tell them). They need to be accepted and treated before that stuff really gets bad. Ignoring it is about the worst thing possible to do. :\

Hearing voices is only how schizophrenia works in popular culture, it's not a real symptom (Similar to how tourette syndrome is portrayed as randomly yelling profanity. While it is technically possible for that to be a symptom, it would be very uncommon. Tourettes would more likely be something like a twitch or convulsion). There are four different 'types' of schizophrenia, but the illness itself is basically described as 'You have difficulty telling the difference been what is real and what isn't/act reasonably and/or normally.'

It goes beyond this, because, for instance, a delusion is only something outside the societal norm. For example, if I went to Washington DC and started preaching about how we are all puppets being controlled by the Space Lord Monkeyface Demonpants (and actually believing it), that would be a delusion because not many/any people believe that. But if I were in a city where most of the people believed in Space Lord Monkeyface Demonpants, then that would no longer be a delusion.

Esotera:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Treatment

Wasn't exactly hard to read the wikipedia page and find out that there are some methods of treatment, particularly therapy as a whole family unit.

The whole problem with every country's attitude to mental health is that it's shoved under the carpet until it manifests in the very late stages of the disease. In the UK we have the capacity to treat about 25% of people suffering from mental illness and prevention programmes are being entirely cut. You don't need to implement anything like Minority Report - there needs to be a massive increase in funding for mental health services so that they can actually treat near to 100% of the patients, and continue lots of outreach programmes to find at risk groups, and to encourage family members to identify the signs.

Also why the fuck have you included schizophrenia? The general population are more likely to harm someone with schizophrenia than someone with schizophrenia is them, so are you suggesting we just lock everybody up because they have the potential to murder someone?

I listed schizophrenia because it is part of the disorders that someone under 18 cannot be diagnosed with. I thought it was rather clear that the rest of the post was mostly pertaining to sociopathy and it's ilk.

Also, according to just the wiki entry that you've provided, there are also contradictory reports on the treatment options and others are only just being considered. As in, being tested but nothing conclusive has been found yet.

newfoundsky:
That's silly, crazy, and frightening. Like a my ex-wife. HEYOH. Ahem.

No, to do such a thing would in my opinion, be silly, crazy, and would frighten me because I wouldn't know whether or not my children were destined for prison because they don't like playing sports like he's "Supposed" to.

You're misunderstanding what the 'tells' are. It's not merely acting abnormally. It's acting abnormally malicious. Such as the aforementioned nailing kittens to the wall and carving things into other people for no reason other than for what amounts to shits and giggles.

The inclusion of grossly dysfunctional individuals within societies undermines the effectiveness of said society. It's Immoral not to remove those who are incapable of adhering to the most basic stipulations of the social contract.

Most of these kids were abused by their parents or came from broken homes. If their own parents don't care about them, who do you expect is going to notice the 'tells'? And if they do surely the obvious solution would be to give them the care and attention they need, not lobotomise them.

vonmanstein:
The inclusion of grossly dysfunctional individuals within societies undermines the effectiveness of said society. It's Immoral not to remove those who are incapable of adhering to the most basic stipulations of the social contract.

"Remove"? Hm. Please, person who uses the picture and name of a Wehrmacht general for their forum avatar, what exactly do you mean by "remove"? What does that entail in particular? "Remove" them from where and how?

manic_depressive13:
Most of these kids were abused by their parents or came from broken homes. If their own parents don't care about them, who do you expect is going to notice the 'tells'? And if they do surely the obvious solution would be to give them the care and attention they need, not lobotomise them.

Not really. Only ~14% of men in prison were abused as children, for instance. There's a higher rate of sociopaths coming from single parents than abusive ones (although the two aren't mutually exclusive). Another example, Ted Bundy kidnapped, raped, and tortured ~30+ people to death but he had only good things to say about his childhood and family.

Like I said, it's largely genetic. Occasionally it can be 'activated' by childhood abuse, but often it's simply innate.

Edit: Can't give numbers on exactly how genetic, 'cause as mentioned earlier, that's still debated.

Skeleon:

vonmanstein:
The inclusion of grossly dysfunctional individuals within societies undermines the effectiveness of said society. It's Immoral not to remove those who are incapable of adhering to the most basic stipulations of the social contract.

"Remove"? Hm. Please, person who uses the picture and name of a Wehrmacht general for their forum avatar, what exactly do you mean by "remove"? What does that entail in particular? "Remove" them from where and how?

There are many ways to "remove", all equally valid, but some are less legal than others.....

Clearly it is insane to list an arbitrary age as a requirement for a diagnosis (does anyone know of any other country that has this requirement?). The NHS website says that Schizophrenia is most common in 15-35 year olds.

It is also insane to lock people up, lobotomize or whatever just for having an illness that doesn't even guarantee that they will go fucknuts crazy. A very tiny percentage of people with these mental illnesses will actually harm anyone (far more likely to harm themselves though).

While there is no 'cure' we can treat the symptoms and reduce their severity. It is also a good idea to have people regularly see a doctor, therapist or just someone that assists them with living. If something is amiss you have a better chance of noticing it if you actually have others involved.

Mental health care in plenty of developed countries is at a pretty low standard when compared to physical health care, I cannot imagine how bad it is in the US. I assume for a majority of people mental health care is non-existent.

Anti-social personality disorder has much too strong of an environmental factor to ever be treated like that. At worst, children showing signs of it should have their home life evaluated. Jumping straight to treatment is ridiculous. As for schizophrenia, that should only be treated once they become a threat to themselves or others.

Revnak:
Anti-social personality disorder has much too strong of an environmental factor to ever be treated like that. At worst, children showing signs of it should have their home life evaluated. Jumping straight to treatment is ridiculous. As for schizophrenia, that should only be treated once they become a threat to themselves or others.

There is evidence to suggest that sociopathic individuals are actually less affected by childhood experiences than normal people. You cannot be a sociopath unless you're born with the capacity. It is an abnormality for a reason.

This isn't something that can be prevented, hence the hardline stance that's needed to deal with it.

Kopikatsu:

I listed schizophrenia because it is part of the disorders that someone under 18 cannot be diagnosed with. I thought it was rather clear that the rest of the post was mostly pertaining to sociopathy and it's ilk.

Also, according to just the wiki entry that you've provided, there are also contradictory reports on the treatment options and others are only just being considered. As in, being tested but nothing conclusive has been found yet.

Having therapy as a whole family is one of the best treatment options for similar conditions such as psychosis, most likely because it considers the environmental factors that cause/exacerbate the condition. I can't see how this wouldn't work for something like anti-social personality disorder - it would teach parents to notice a deteriorating condition and intervene, and to remove stress factors from the individual's life. At the very least treatment would make parents and others aware that not everything is ok, and think twice about allowing them access to weapons, which is the whole reason you're proposing this dystopian nightmare in the first place...

pyrate:
Clearly it is insane to list an arbitrary age as a requirement for a diagnosis (does anyone know of any other country that has this requirement?). The NHS website says that Schizophrenia is most common in 15-35 year olds.

It's incredibly difficult to give a solid diagnosis for something like schizophrenia, because a lot of the less severe symptoms (lack of sleep, not caring about the world) are also symptoms of being a teenager. I wouldn't trust the DSM-IV that much though; it's nearly two decades old and is not that great.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:
Anti-social personality disorder has much too strong of an environmental factor to ever be treated like that. At worst, children showing signs of it should have their home life evaluated. Jumping straight to treatment is ridiculous. As for schizophrenia, that should only be treated once they become a threat to themselves or others.

There is evidence to suggest that sociopathic individuals are actually less affected by childhood experiences than normal people. You cannot be a sociopath unless you're born with the capacity. It is an abnormality for a reason.

This isn't something that can be prevented, hence the hardline stance that's needed to deal with it.

I refuse to take such a radical stance. The jury is still out, as they usually are regarding such issues, this one especially so considering that so much keeps changing regarding our understanding of such people. Even your book said it takes a trigger. I refuse to say that 3% of human beings are incapable of valuing others. I will however admit that 3% don't. The latter we know, the former not so much. We must try. We cannot give up on such a subsection of the human race, no matter how terrible they are. There are no monsters, only people.

Kopikatsu:
Not really. Only ~14% of men in prison were abused as children, for instance. There's a higher rate of sociopaths coming from single parents than abusive ones (although the two aren't mutually exclusive). Another example, Ted Bundy kidnapped, raped, and tortured ~30+ people to death but he had only good things to say about his childhood and family.

Like I said, it's largely genetic. Occasionally it can be 'activated' by childhood abuse, but often it's simply innate.

Edit: Can't give numbers on exactly how genetic, 'cause as mentioned earlier, that's still debated.

Right. Two dot points below that quote...

National Child Abuse Stastics:
Children who experience child abuse & neglect are 59% more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28% more likely to be arrested as an adult, and 30% more likely to commit violent crime

So yes, I would say abuse plays a significant role, particularly in the case of juveniles which is what your video and question were about. Furthermore approximately 50% of prison inmates are there as a result of non-violent crimes, and I certainly don't think drug offences are a reason to be lobotomised.

We also know that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more like to commit crimes. Yet instead of addressing social inequality and child abuse you think the answer is to lobotomise people with mental illnesses pre-emptively. That is one of the most absurd and frankly insulting things I've ever heard. I don't think I want to talk to you any more.

Esotera:

Kopikatsu:

I listed schizophrenia because it is part of the disorders that someone under 18 cannot be diagnosed with. I thought it was rather clear that the rest of the post was mostly pertaining to sociopathy and it's ilk.

Also, according to just the wiki entry that you've provided, there are also contradictory reports on the treatment options and others are only just being considered. As in, being tested but nothing conclusive has been found yet.

Having therapy as a whole family is one of the best treatment options for similar conditions such as psychosis, most likely because it considers the environmental factors that cause/exacerbate the condition. I can't see how this wouldn't work for something like anti-social personality disorder - it would teach parents to notice a deteriorating condition and intervene, and to remove stress factors from the individual's life. At the very least treatment would make parents and others aware that not everything is ok, and think twice about allowing them access to weapons, which is the whole reason you're proposing this dystopian nightmare in the first place...

dys·to·pi·a
/disˈtōpēə/
Noun
An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad.

I would argue that this current state of affairs is what is dystopian. You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy, though.

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:
Anti-social personality disorder has much too strong of an environmental factor to ever be treated like that. At worst, children showing signs of it should have their home life evaluated. Jumping straight to treatment is ridiculous. As for schizophrenia, that should only be treated once they become a threat to themselves or others.

There is evidence to suggest that sociopathic individuals are actually less affected by childhood experiences than normal people. You cannot be a sociopath unless you're born with the capacity. It is an abnormality for a reason.

This isn't something that can be prevented, hence the hardline stance that's needed to deal with it.

I refuse to take such a radical stance. The jury is still out, as they usually are regarding such issues, this one especially so considering that so much keeps changing regarding our understanding of such people. Even your book said it takes a trigger. I refuse to say that 3% of human beings are incapable of valuing others. I will however admit that 3% don't. The latter we know, the former not so much. We must try. We cannot give up on such a subsection of the human race, no matter how terrible they are. There are no monsters, only people.

Even if some trigger is required, it doesn't really change my assertion that it's not preventable. Also, 'trigger' doesn't have to be abuse. 'Right' and 'wrong' are not innate concepts, they have to be taught. A sociopathic individual cannot learn or understand those concepts. So they don't need to be abused, all they need to do is see one action movie, read one horror story...and they're 'primed'. That is all it takes for something to be a trigger for a sociopathic person. It's not very reassuring to say 'I'm sorry that your daughter was kidnapped, raped, then had her flesh torn off with fishhooks while she was still alive and left to bleed out; but you know, the guy who did it had a really bad childhood so it's not his fault; we're just going to let him off in ten years with some therapy.'

And I would agree, they're not monsters. But I don't see why you need to be a 'monster' to be condemned to death or the equivalent. If an abused animal lashes out and injures a person, the animal is still put down. Let's put it this way, could you go before the families whose children were killed in the Connecticut and say 'It's unfortunate that your children had to die in this potentially preventable tragedy, but it's important to let things run their course because I believe in humanity.'? (Hypothetically. I'm not saying the shooter was a sociopath 100%. I have no idea at this point in time)

If it really bothers you that much, there is a compromise. Take those children and submit them for testing and experimentation. I imagine that such a program would exponentially facilitate the development of an effective treatment for such disorders. Either way, lives would likely be saved in the long run.

manic_depressive13:

Kopikatsu:
Not really. Only ~14% of men in prison were abused as children, for instance. There's a higher rate of sociopaths coming from single parents than abusive ones (although the two aren't mutually exclusive). Another example, Ted Bundy kidnapped, raped, and tortured ~30+ people to death but he had only good things to say about his childhood and family.

Like I said, it's largely genetic. Occasionally it can be 'activated' by childhood abuse, but often it's simply innate.

Edit: Can't give numbers on exactly how genetic, 'cause as mentioned earlier, that's still debated.

Right. Two dot points below that quote...

National Child Abuse Stastics:
Children who experience child abuse & neglect are 59% more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28% more likely to be arrested as an adult, and 30% more likely to commit violent crime

So yes, I would say abuse plays a significant role, particularly in the case of juveniles which is what your video and question were about. Furthermore aprroximately 50% of prison inmates are there as a result of non-violent crimes, and I certainly don't think drug offences are a reason to be lobotomised.

We also know that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more like to commit crimes. Yet instead of addressing social inequality and child abuse you think the answer is to lobotomise people with mental illnesses pre-emptively. That is one of the most absurd and frankly insulting things I've ever heard. I don't think I want to talk to you any more.

At what point did I make a blanket statement saying that all people with any mental illnesses should be lobotomized?

Kopikatsu:
At what point did I make a blanket statement saying that all people with any mental illnesses should be lobotomized?

I didn't say you did. What you are proposing is that we premptively lock away or lobotomise people with particular mental illnesses who exhibit specific traits and I'm telling you that not only is that absurd and unfeasible, it's disgusting to even suggest it.

manic_depressive13:

Kopikatsu:
At what point did I make a blanket statement saying that all people with any mental illnesses should be lobotomized?

I didn't say you did. What you are proposing is that we premptively lock away or lobotomise people with particular mental illnesses who exhibit specific traits and I'm telling you that not only is that absurd and unfeasible, it's disgusting to even suggest it.

It could just as easily be said that it's disgusting to suggest that no action should be taken to prevent such things from occurring in the future. Because even something like tightening gun laws will do very little, if anything to stop such things from happening.

This is a numbers game. Say you kill/lobotomize 50 people under this proposed solution, and 30 of them would have gone on to kill at least one other person, and of those, 7 would have killed more than five and 1 would have killed more than twenty.

That's a net gain as far as lives saved goes. But ideally (and probably realistically), the rate for flaws would be much lower than 40%. As mentioned, if they're at a point where they are forcing animals to swallow fire crackers for shits and giggles, then it's basically only a matter of time before they move onto humans by that point.

You're stating it as though I'm saying 'PEOPLE WITH VERBAL TICKS MUST DIE' or something.

Kopikatsu:
You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy.

Sociopathy is not considered to be a seperate thing from ASPD. In fact, it isn't even a thing at all, medically that is. Criminology is the only social science that recognizes it and psychopathy as specific disorders, and only for pragmatic reasons if any at all.

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:

There is evidence to suggest that sociopathic individuals are actually less affected by childhood experiences than normal people. You cannot be a sociopath unless you're born with the capacity. It is an abnormality for a reason.

This isn't something that can be prevented, hence the hardline stance that's needed to deal with it.

I refuse to take such a radical stance. The jury is still out, as they usually are regarding such issues, this one especially so considering that so much keeps changing regarding our understanding of such people. Even your book said it takes a trigger. I refuse to say that 3% of human beings are incapable of valuing others. I will however admit that 3% don't. The latter we know, the former not so much. We must try. We cannot give up on such a subsection of the human race, no matter how terrible they are. There are no monsters, only people.

Even if some trigger is required, it doesn't really change my assertion that it's not preventable. It's not very reassuring to say 'I'm sorry that your daughter was kidnapped, raped, then had her flesh torn off with fishhooks while she was still alive and left to bleed out; but you know, the guy who did it had a really bad childhood so it's not his fault; we're just going to let him off in ten years with some therapy.'

And I would agree, they're not monsters. But I don't see why you need to be a 'monster' to be condemned to death or the equivalent. If an abused animal lashes out and injures a person, the animal is still put down Let's put it this way, could you go before the families whose children were killed in the Connecticut and say 'It's unfortunate that your children had to die in this potentially preventable tragedy, but it's important to let things run their course because I believe in humanity.'? (Hypothetically. I'm not saying the shooter was a sociopath 100%. I have no idea at this point in time)

Firstly, we do not let what we will have to tell the family of the victim ahead of what is right. That is just revenge, something that the legal system should never become tool of. Secondly, these are not rabid animals. They are human beings. Even the worst of them can be reasoned with. This is why I am so strongly against the death penalty. It is all about all the worst and most dysfunctional goals of a justice system. The ones most divorced from reality and decency. Thirdly, if the signs are evident and analysis of home life leads to the conclusion that the only solution is therapy then off to therapy it is. Not a trip to prison, not a lobotomy, and certainly not an execution. They need help. They are broken people, regardless of what horrifying actions they are capable of committing. Jumping straight to extremes like that without evidence that they at least are planning to do something terrible is too far divorced from reason to ever be the right thing to do.

dys·to·pi·a
/disˈtōpēə/
Noun
An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad.

I would argue that this current state of affairs is what is dystopian. You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy, though.[/quote]

Your OP focuses on anti-social personality disorder and none of your replies to me have even mentioned sociopathy that I can see, so yes, I'm focusing on one disorder. You've also neglected the option of funding greater research into drugs that could give better treatments. It is almost certainly possible to boost MAO-A levels in sociopaths by using a chemical regulator, which might 'cure' the lack of empathy.

Kopikatsu:
It could just as easily be said that it's disgusting to suggest that no action should be taken to prevent such things from occurring in the future. Because even something like tightening gun laws will do very little, if anything to stop such things from happening.

This is a numbers game. Say you kill/lobotomize 50 people under this proposed solution, and 30 of them would have gone on to kill at least one other person, and of those, 7 would have killed more than five and 1 would have killed more than twenty.

That's a net gain as far as lives saved goes.

Hahahahaha wut. What if none of them would have gone on to kill someone? How could you know?

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:
You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy.

Sociopathy is not considered to be a seperate thing from ASPD. In fact, it isn't even a thing at all, medically that is. Criminology is the only social science that recognizes it and psychopathy as specific disorders, and only for pragmatic reasons if any at all.

Revnak:

I refuse to take such a radical stance. The jury is still out, as they usually are regarding such issues, this one especially so considering that so much keeps changing regarding our understanding of such people. Even your book said it takes a trigger. I refuse to say that 3% of human beings are incapable of valuing others. I will however admit that 3% don't. The latter we know, the former not so much. We must try. We cannot give up on such a subsection of the human race, no matter how terrible they are. There are no monsters, only people.

Even if some trigger is required, it doesn't really change my assertion that it's not preventable. It's not very reassuring to say 'I'm sorry that your daughter was kidnapped, raped, then had her flesh torn off with fishhooks while she was still alive and left to bleed out; but you know, the guy who did it had a really bad childhood so it's not his fault; we're just going to let him off in ten years with some therapy.'

And I would agree, they're not monsters. But I don't see why you need to be a 'monster' to be condemned to death or the equivalent. If an abused animal lashes out and injures a person, the animal is still put down Let's put it this way, could you go before the families whose children were killed in the Connecticut and say 'It's unfortunate that your children had to die in this potentially preventable tragedy, but it's important to let things run their course because I believe in humanity.'? (Hypothetically. I'm not saying the shooter was a sociopath 100%. I have no idea at this point in time)

Firstly, we do not let what we will have to tell the family of the victim ahead of what is right. That is just revenge, something that the legal system should never become tool of. Secondly, these are not rabid animals. They are human beings. Even the worst of them can be reasoned with. This is why I am so strongly against the death penalty. It is all about all the worst and most dysfunctional goals of a justice system. The ones most divorced from reality and decency. Thirdly, if the signs are evident and analysis of home life leads to the conclusion that the only solution is therapy then off to therapy it is. Not a trip to prison, not a lobotomy, and certainly not an execution. They need help. They are broken people, regardless of what horrifying actions they are capable of committing. Jumping straight to extremes like that without evidence that they at least are planning to do something terrible is too far divorced from reason to ever be the right thing to do.

They're not really interchangeable. Since, for instance, a psychopath is someone who is legitimately insane (experiencing pervasive delusions/hallucinations/illusions; especially relating to paranoia) while a sociopath is just someone who feels no empathy and has no conscious (Which can be argued to be a type of crazy, sure, but it's not really on the same level as perceiving untruths as real). Psychopathy is a more severe version of ASPD, but...to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure of Sociopathy's exact relation to PTSD. But I go into what Psychopathy is in the next response, so...meh.

The justice system is entirely based on revenge. People aren't put into prison to be rehabilitated in the US, they're put into jail to remove them from society.You'll also notice families of the victims/the victims claim that they were wronged if a criminal dies before being brought to course, since they hadn't yet 'paid' for their crimes (I never understood this viewpoint since death is as final as it gets, but whatever). As mentioned before, there is no such thing as innate 'right' and 'wrong'. The word's meaning changes significantly based on the society that is using it. So every single law, from littering to slavery, is entirely arbitrary and so the punishment for breaking them is, in fact, revenge of a sort as it's punishment for not adhering to the social contract. But you can think of it this way; a man finds his wife in bed with someone else and kills one or both parties. He will never kill again, and so putting him into prison is actively harmful since prison generally turns even minor offenders into career criminals for a variety of reasons. He will still go to jail regardless, which is pretty much the definition of revenge. (despite my using them interchangeably, jail and prison aren't the same thing)

re·venge
/riˈvenj/
Noun
The action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for a wrong suffered at their hands.

Putting someone in jail with all that entails is very harmful in basically every possible way. Physically, emotionally, societally, etc. Anyway, that doesn't excuse their actions in the slightest. For example, this case. I feel as though his execution is entirely justified. The fact that he's retarded doesn't make the man he killed any less dead, nor is it any consolation to the deceased's family. But through his death, he can never kill again. Which is what matters. The death sentence is barely different from life in prison, except it has the potential to be much cheaper, much more efficient, and the conviction cannot be overturned once it's carried out.

And there is evidence. You lot seem to have this strange idea that I'm advocating killing anyone who might end up doing something bad or something. There are very clear signs that lead up to something like wholesale slaughter. I can't think of a single case where a completely normal and well-adjusted just said 'I feel like making everything die today.' and going out to accomplish that. Most people (85%, according to another thread, although I'm still a bit iffy on that number. Seems like it should be lower) can't kill another person even to save their own life. It's just not something that normal people do.

Sidenote: The main problem I'm seeing here is that you're attributing an inherent value to a human life above that of other lives. Don't do that, because it confuses issues profoundly. Humans are animals, and they act as such. Gang rape, cold blooded murder, war, tools, prostitution, drug abuse, homosexuality, justice, etc...none of these things are unique to humans. The only thing that humans have that other animals don't is a drive to build and invent. So, if a human is neither building nor inventing, then they are no better as any other common animal (This does include myself and I am aware of how shallow and worthless both my and other's lives are, before you go around accusing me of hypocrisy)

Esotera:

Kopikatsu:

dys·to·pi·a
/disˈtōpēə/
Noun
An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad.

I would argue that this current state of affairs is what is dystopian. You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy, though.

Your OP focuses on anti-social personality disorder and none of your replies to me have even mentioned sociopathy that I can see, so yes, I'm focusing on one disorder. You've also neglected the option of funding greater research into drugs that could give better treatments. It is almost certainly possible to boost MAO-A levels in sociopaths by using a chemical regulator, which might 'cure' the lack of empathy.

Before/After every instance that ASPD is mentioned in the OP, it says 'for example' or some such thing. I used it as such because it covers enough terms to be good for making examples, but I mostly dropped it beyond that because it is vague enough that it's not particularly good for specifics.

Do you have a source for the chemical regulator bit? Not doubting you so much as I've never heard of that being even considered in treatment. For instance, individuals suffering from Psychopathy have roughly four times the dopamine level of normal people and are more receptive to the chemical (Meaning they're extremely selfish and pursue 'reward' at the expense of all else)-

Aaaand I just realized that I'm running a bit late for work. I'll finish this post when I return this evening.

Schizophrenia isn't a personality disorder, it's a psychotic disorder. The diagnosis is generally avoided in children because it's a heavy one with many implications and it may resolve. That's not to say it isn't treated but terms like Juvenile Psychosis or Schiziphreniform (basically schizophenia-like) might be used instead depending on length and severity.

While we don't diagnose ASPD in children, conduct disorder pretty much means the same thing.

Skeleon:

vonmanstein:
The inclusion of grossly dysfunctional individuals within societies undermines the effectiveness of said society. It's Immoral not to remove those who are incapable of adhering to the most basic stipulations of the social contract.

"Remove"? Hm. Please, person who uses the picture and name of a Wehrmacht general for their forum avatar, what exactly do you mean by "remove"? What does that entail in particular? "Remove" them from where and how?

Leave him be, he can just as easily be removed under the same pretense..

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:
You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy.

Sociopathy is not considered to be a seperate thing from ASPD. In fact, it isn't even a thing at all, medically that is. Criminology is the only social science that recognizes it and psychopathy as specific disorders, and only for pragmatic reasons if any at all.

Even if some trigger is required, it doesn't really change my assertion that it's not preventable. It's not very reassuring to say 'I'm sorry that your daughter was kidnapped, raped, then had her flesh torn off with fishhooks while she was still alive and left to bleed out; but you know, the guy who did it had a really bad childhood so it's not his fault; we're just going to let him off in ten years with some therapy.'

And I would agree, they're not monsters. But I don't see why you need to be a 'monster' to be condemned to death or the equivalent. If an abused animal lashes out and injures a person, the animal is still put down Let's put it this way, could you go before the families whose children were killed in the Connecticut and say 'It's unfortunate that your children had to die in this potentially preventable tragedy, but it's important to let things run their course because I believe in humanity.'? (Hypothetically. I'm not saying the shooter was a sociopath 100%. I have no idea at this point in time)

Firstly, we do not let what we will have to tell the family of the victim ahead of what is right. That is just revenge, something that the legal system should never become tool of. Secondly, these are not rabid animals. They are human beings. Even the worst of them can be reasoned with. This is why I am so strongly against the death penalty. It is all about all the worst and most dysfunctional goals of a justice system. The ones most divorced from reality and decency. Thirdly, if the signs are evident and analysis of home life leads to the conclusion that the only solution is therapy then off to therapy it is. Not a trip to prison, not a lobotomy, and certainly not an execution. They need help. They are broken people, regardless of what horrifying actions they are capable of committing. Jumping straight to extremes like that without evidence that they at least are planning to do something terrible is too far divorced from reason to ever be the right thing to do.

They're not really interchangeable. Since, for instance, a psychopath is someone who is legitimately insane (experiencing pervasive delusions/hallucinations/illusions; especially relating to paranoia) while a sociopath is just someone who feels no empathy and has no conscious (Which can be argued to be a type of crazy, sure, but it's not really on the same level as perceiving untruths as real). Psychopathy is a more severe version of ASPD, but...to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure of Sociopathy's exact relation to PTSD. But I go into what Psychopathy is in the next response, so...meh.

The justice system is entirely based on revenge. People aren't put into prison to be rehabilitated in the US, they're put into jail to remove them from society.You'll also notice families of the victims/the victims claim that they were wronged if a criminal dies before being brought to course, since they hadn't yet 'paid' for their crimes (I never understood this viewpoint since death is as final as it gets, but whatever). As mentioned before, there is no such thing as innate 'right' and 'wrong'. The word's meaning changes significantly based on the society that is using it. So every single law, from littering to slavery, is entirely arbitrary and so the punishment for breaking them is, in fact, revenge of a sort as it's punishment for not adhering to the social contract. But you can think of it this way; a man finds his wife in bed with someone else and kills one or both parties. He will never kill again, and so putting him into prison is actively harmful since prison generally turns even minor offenders into career criminals for a variety of reasons. He will still go to jail regardless, which is pretty much the definition of revenge. (despite my using them interchangeably, jail and prison aren't the same thing)

re·venge
/riˈvenj/
Noun
The action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for a wrong suffered at their hands.

Putting someone in jail with all that entails is very harmful in basically every possible way. Physically, emotionally, societally, etc. Anyway, that doesn't excuse their actions in the slightest. For example, this case. I feel as though his execution is entirely justified. The fact that he's retarded doesn't make the man he killed any less dead, nor is it any consolation to the deceased's family. But through his death, he can never kill again. Which is what matters. The death sentence is barely different from life in prison, except it has the potential to be much cheaper, much more efficient, and the conviction cannot be overturned once it's carried out.

And there is evidence. You lot seem to have this strange idea that I'm advocating killing anyone who might end up doing something bad or something. There are very clear signs that lead up to something like wholesale slaughter. I can't think of a single case where a completely normal and well-adjusted just said 'I feel like making everything die today.' and going out to accomplish that. Most people (85%, according to another thread, although I'm still a bit iffy on that number. Seems like it should be lower) can't kill another person even to save their own life. It's just not something that normal people do.

Sidenote: The main problem I'm seeing here is that you're attributing an inherent value to a human life above that of other lives. Don't do that, because it confuses issues profoundly. Humans are animals, and they act as such. Gang rape, cold blooded murder, war, tools, prostitution, drug abuse, homosexuality, justice, etc...none of these things are unique to humans. The only thing that humans have that other animals don't is a drive to build and invent. So, if a human is neither building nor inventing, then they are no better as any other common animal (This does include myself and I am aware of how shallow and worthless both my and other's lives are, before you go around accusing me of hypocrisy)

Esotera:

Kopikatsu:

I would argue that this current state of affairs is what is dystopian. You keep focusing on ASPD though, and I keep pointing specifically towards sociopathy, though.

Your OP focuses on anti-social personality disorder and none of your replies to me have even mentioned sociopathy that I can see, so yes, I'm focusing on one disorder. You've also neglected the option of funding greater research into drugs that could give better treatments. It is almost certainly possible to boost MAO-A levels in sociopaths by using a chemical regulator, which might 'cure' the lack of empathy.

Before/After every instance that ASPD is mentioned in the OP, it says 'for example' or some such thing. I used it as such because it covers enough terms to be good for making examples, but I mostly dropped it beyond that because it is vague enough that it's not particularly good for specifics.

Do you have a source for the chemical regulator bit? Not doubting you so much as I've never heard of that being even considered in treatment. For instance, individuals suffering from Psychopathy have roughly four times the dopamine level of normal people and are more receptive to the chemical (Meaning they're extremely selfish and pursue 'reward' at the expense of all else)-

Aaaand I just realized that I'm running a bit late for work. I'll finish this post when I return this evening.

- "Legitimately insane" is not a thing.
- A world exists outside of the US, and various countries focus on rehabilitation for prisoners.
- You don't have to define revenge for us...this forum might be stupid at times but we're not that bad.
- Please research what causes mental illnesses and how they are treated from a mental health charity and something other than the DSM-IV/wikipedia, then come back to the debate. There's a lot of mixed terminology that's confusing, maybe I'm just not used to American psychiatry but it seems like you think there's no possible way to treat some illnesses.

As for the MAO-A, I'm a biochemistry undergraduate. It's a protein that breaks down various chemicals in the brain - low levels of this protein can lead to agression and lack of empathy. The wikipedia page (and various other sites like pubmed & ncbi) shows that we already have an inhibitor drug that binds the protein to reduce its activity when an individual has too much present. When a protein can be inhibited, as a rule it can also be activated to produce greater activity; this is how most drugs work. Alternatively if this wasn't promising it would always be possible to target a regulator of the MAO-A protein or a different protein entirely, in order to increase empathy (along with CBT or some other psychotherapy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAOA

These people are time bombs it seems, they act in a rash way and don't care about others or consequences. But I disagree with not being able to treat them, a person with aids can be treated but never cured, the sames goes for these people. Of course if we actually had the means to test for this genetic disorder without scaring every parent in the country all we would be able to do is suggest treatment and often times suggestions can go unheard.

No, it isn't acceptable to do those things.
Children with disorders should obviously receive treatment, but punishing innocent people before they can do anything they MIGHT do isn't any sort of justice.

Yes, it sucks we often can't tell who is going to go fruity loops until they actually do it, but we also cannot punish people for something they have not done on the grounds that they might.

I already love this thread.

Lobotomizing children because they show certain symptoms?
Now that thought is grotesque in a most exquisite way.
Atleast it would get rid of humanity's false sense of morality.

Is it okay to "remove" a couple of dysfunctional children to potentially save the lives of others?

Is it immoral to kill them, or is it immoral to let them kill?

Quite interestingly, this is a case in which a psychopath, instead of taking lives, would have no problem picking the "right" (or atleast, the best) choice and save lives.

Lets say for the sake of argument that we can accurately tell whether an infant/child/adolescent is probably going to commit murder because of whatever mental illness he or she may suffer from. Would it then be alright to kill/lobotomize/remove this person from society forever, to save lives? Or would it be immoral to do so, and should we simply wait for said person to kill people, before locking them up, which in a way is even more immoral, because you will allow more lives to be taken.

Should someone have killed Hitler when he refused to play with the Jewish children in kindergarten?

This isn't about justice, people, this is about utilitarianism and how morality so often stands in the way of the best solution.

SimpleThunda':
I already love this thread.

Lobotomizing children because they show certain symptoms?
Now that thought is grotesque in a most exquisite way.
Atleast it would get rid of humanity's false sense of morality.

Is it okay to "remove" a couple of dysfunctional children to potentially save the lives of others?

Is it immoral to kill them, or is it immoral to let them kill?

Quite interestingly, this is a case in which a psychopath, instead of taking lives, would have no problem picking the "right" (or atleast, the best) choice and save lives.

Lets say for the sake of argument that we can accurately tell whether an infant/child/adolescent is probably going to commit murder because of whatever mental illness he or she may suffer from. Would it then be alright to kill/lobotomize/remove this person from society forever, to save lives? Or would it be immoral to do so, and should we simply wait for said person to kill people, before locking them up, which in a way is even more immoral, because you will allow more lives to be taken.

Should someone have killed Hitler when he refused to play with the Jewish children in kindergarten?

This isn't about justice, people, this is about utilitarianism and how morality so often stands in the way of the best solution.

False dichotomies as far as the eye can see.

Their moral quandary might make sense in a world where the only 2 choices are to kill people with mental health problems or watch as they slaughter dozens with assault rifles, with absolutely nothing to do between the first preventive step and the last ultimate outcome (of which there is only one outcome).

Esotera:

- "Legitimately insane" is not a thing.
- A world exists outside of the US, and various countries focus on rehabilitation for prisoners.
- You don't have to define revenge for us...this forum might be stupid at times but we're not that bad.
- Please research what causes mental illnesses and how they are treated from a mental health charity and something other than the DSM-IV/wikipedia, then come back to the debate. There's a lot of mixed terminology that's confusing, maybe I'm just not used to American psychiatry but it seems like you think there's no possible way to treat some illnesses.

As for the MAO-A, I'm a biochemistry undergraduate. It's a protein that breaks down various chemicals in the brain - low levels of this protein can lead to agression and lack of empathy. The wikipedia page (and various other sites like pubmed & ncbi) shows that we already have an inhibitor drug that binds the protein to reduce its activity when an individual has too much present. When a protein can be inhibited, as a rule it can also be activated to produce greater activity; this is how most drugs work. Alternatively if this wasn't promising it would always be possible to target a regulator of the MAO-A protein or a different protein entirely, in order to increase empathy (along with CBT or some other psychotherapy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAOA

I explained what I meant by 'legitimately insane'. Psychosis, hallucinations, intense paranoia, etc.

What's wrong with using DSM-IV-TR for information on various disorders? I mean, it's full name is 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'. That is what it is there for. The revised version doesn't come out till March 2013-ish, if I'm remember correctly, which just leaves us with IV-TR.

Worth mentioning: Remember how I said the shooter very likely had a personality disorder? Turns out, he had Aspergers (Not important) in addition to a currently unnamed personality disorder, but it's likely sociopathy. His family was very wealthy and he was very intelligent. The only notable 'traumatic' experience that he suffered was his parent's divorce.

SimpleThunda':

Quite interestingly, this is a case in which a psychopath, instead of taking lives, would have no problem picking the "right" (or atleast, the best) choice and save lives.

That's not entirely true, since psychopathy is more of a mania than anything. A Sociopath would be able to easily make the choice to save more lives, though. If they wanted. A Sociopath would see both outcomes as equally viable since human life has no objective value for them.

To explain the difference more clearly...

If you gave the Psychopath a choice between something they want (say, a cupcake) on top of saving five human lives and saving twenty lives, they will almost always (if not always) choose the cupcake and five lives.

If you gave a Sociopath a choice between saving five lives and saving twenty lives, whichever they chose would basically be a coin toss.

Damien Granz:

SimpleThunda':
I already love this thread.

Lobotomizing children because they show certain symptoms?
Now that thought is grotesque in a most exquisite way.
Atleast it would get rid of humanity's false sense of morality.

Is it okay to "remove" a couple of dysfunctional children to potentially save the lives of others?

Is it immoral to kill them, or is it immoral to let them kill?

Quite interestingly, this is a case in which a psychopath, instead of taking lives, would have no problem picking the "right" (or atleast, the best) choice and save lives.

Lets say for the sake of argument that we can accurately tell whether an infant/child/adolescent is probably going to commit murder because of whatever mental illness he or she may suffer from. Would it then be alright to kill/lobotomize/remove this person from society forever, to save lives? Or would it be immoral to do so, and should we simply wait for said person to kill people, before locking them up, which in a way is even more immoral, because you will allow more lives to be taken.

Should someone have killed Hitler when he refused to play with the Jewish children in kindergarten?

This isn't about justice, people, this is about utilitarianism and how morality so often stands in the way of the best solution.

False dichotomies as far as the eye can see.

Their moral quandary might make sense in a world where the only 2 choices are to kill people with mental health problems or watch as they slaughter dozens with assault rifles, with absolutely nothing to do between the first preventive step and the last ultimate outcome (of which there is only one outcome).

No, sir, you don't understand what I meant to portray.

My moral quandary isn't about killing people of whom we KNOW will commit acts of violence and murder in the future, because that isn't a moral quandary at all. My moral quandary is about killing people who may or may not commit acts of violence and murder, and whether we should really care about the people we murder innocently, because the pros (Functioning people murdered) outweigh the cons ((Probably disfunctional) psychopaths murdered).

Obviously, killing all people that we predict
(Note: This does not mean -every- person with mental health problems, just the ones that may pose a threat to other people)
may end up committing acts of violence and/or murder isn't something that will ever happen, eventhough it's probably the "best" solution (from a utilitarian point of view). Psychopaths or people with other mental disorders that would otherwise end up in an institution or killing people, where they soak up taxmoney, are now dead, thus no longer cost society money nor lives of functioning individuals.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked