supposedly doesn't work. It hasn't stopped me.
but it does make you worry that with all these government cuts, potentially treatable offenders like him, and those suffering mental distress due to mental illness, are being pushed into the only sure and cost effective way out
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 12:50, Share, Reply)
He's said he wants to die, hasn't he?
I question whether a violent rapist is "treatable". Unless he's discovered the empathy he probably wasn't born with. What's the mental illness you're referring to? Paraphilia or ASPD? I don't think either respond to treatment.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 13:13, Share, Reply)
Treatbility opens a hell of a can of worms.
There's a link between antisocial (violent) behaviour and a mutation in the MAOA gene, for example; in that case, there seems to be a reasonable argument for the behaviour being a symptom of a deeper pathology, and so something that (a) shouldn't be punished, and (b) should be treated.
There's also evidence of a link between lead pollution and violence. It's mainly circumstantial at the moment, but it's still reasonably powerful.
We know that empathy can be boosted by oxytocin. So suppose that someone's lack of empathy could be shown to be related to a neuroendocrine glitch in relation to oxytocin: again, there'd be a candidate for treatability there.
Indeed, why shouldn't we think of antisocial behaviour as treatable? (There's a lovely line in Nietzsche somewhere along the lines that Christianity invented free will in order to be able to punish people; the underlying thought is interesting. What if punishment is the wrong approach because behaviour isn't chosen? It seems worth considering to me...)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 14:19,
Share,
Reply)
I absolutely agree that punishment is in most cases not productive in the slightest. It certainly isn't a deterrent when criminality is pathological. In reference to irrational criminality, at least.
A friend of my father who is a clinical psychologist and works at a London acute MH unit always spoke of punishment as being absolutely useless in practice. And just speaking on a personal level I don't believe in the concept of penal harm beyond deprivation of liberty. I think all we have a duty to do, as a society, is to remove bad people to prevent them from doing more bad things. Deprivation of liberty is enough. Many would disagree.
I have read some of Dr. James Fallon's stuff on the "warrior gene". Absolute fascinating; though I've not read anything about the possibility of any related treatments, beyond theory. All I know from my own understanding is that pathologically "bad" people are probably the hardest psychological cases to treat in practice - incidentally, my dad's friend also said quite bluntly that personality disorders "are untreatable" - assuming they don't end up running corporate banks or countries, of course.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 14:39, Share, Reply)
Rehabiliation of offenders has always been based on this idea that prisons and hospitals should have a similar function and that criminality is treatable
Whether crime was caused by race, mental illness, poverty, or bumps on your head, there has long been a belief that humans are not responsible for their crimes. Genetics is not going to radically change this tradition.
So, from the 18th century, punishment inside the prison was one method to treat the disease - a dog or cat is not responsible for its bad behaviour, but we correct it through punishment and reward.
The problem is that this tradition attacks the idea of free will and personal liberty. Whether we treat prisoners through punishment, drug therapies, genetic therapies, psychotherapies, etc, (and even the euthanasia solution) we are still denying the liberty of the individual, objectifying the person, and travelling the road of dehumanisation.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 15:23, Share, Reply)
Hang on...
You're confusing free will and liberty - which aren't the same thing at all. And you're assuming that (a) there is such a thing as free will, based on apparently nothing more than a desire that there should be; and (b) that freedom must be understood in one particular way.
I don't see what worrying about dehumanisation has to do with it - if the world is thus and so, whether or not its dehumanising is neither here nor there.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 16:19,
Share,
Reply)
many people want to die. Doesn't mean we should help them do it.
by 'potentially treatable' I mean both the potential to reform, of which modern penal regimes are based on, and the potential of medicine to understand and treat pathologies. That people like him are deemed 'untreatable' in both the penal and medical sense, and may be disposed of by euthanasia, perhaps shows that the State and civic society are failing in their duty of care.
As for mental distress due to mental illness - this is roughly an idea from Enzyme's blog - I'm not speaking of offenders (although, it has been argued that the US prison system has a large majority of mentally ill inmates because the US has inadequate mental health care). I'm speaking of the right to die based on mental distress. There are many people suffering treatable and untreatable mental distress - schizophrenia, chronic depression, bipolar, DID, etc. Even before the Government cuts, the NHS was unable to fully help the mentally ill and disabled. So, in places like Belgium (or in a future Britain) I worry people are being deemed (or will be deemed) viable for euthanasia because there just aren't the finances to treat them, as well as taking away incentive to find a cure.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 14:46, Share, Reply)
I think that shifts the context slightly, though
If you're talking about somebody suffering from a mental illness like chizophrenia, chronic depression, bipolar or DID, those individuals should absolutely be treated. And if their culpability is deemed due to mental illness, then the treatment should absolutely be the same.
I just don't think this example, where no specific mental illness has been listed in the article beyond "violent sexual urges" - which leads me to assume likely a paraphilia and ASPD comorbidity - can be placed in the same context. Because neither is currently regarded as a mental disorder which responds to treatment. It's rare that a person is hospitalised because of a personality disorder.
Society would say he was responsible for his actions. I don't at all believe he should be killed or mistreated beyond deprivation of liberty by the state if he's assessed as a risk to society, but if he wants to die in a country that allows euthanasia then what can be done?
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 14:58, Share, Reply)
if the question of a mental disorder is taken out then we are left with the state's failure to rehabilitate...
as well as a person seemingly wishing euthanasia based on self awareness and guilt
are not self awareness and guilt the road to redemption, and thus shows the man to be treatable in some way
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 15:37, Share, Reply)
But how would you know that self awareness and guilt are genuine in somebody with an ASPD?
Isn't that one of the hallmarks of the disorder? The so called mask of sanity?
I'm all for rehabilitation if possible - I just don't believe it is possible in pathologically "bad" people. Maybe I'm wrong.
(, Tue 16 Sep 2014, 16:46, Share, Reply)