Psychopathy

I was reading a newspaper article a while ago - I think it was in the Guardian - by this guy who'd been working with prison inmates and researching psychopathy. And it mentioned a test that was given to the inmates, and which he himself had taken out of interest, which would classify you as a psychopath if you got over a certain score. And this journalist said, in essence, that the test should be improved and worked on to improve its reliability, because if we could accurately identify psychopaths we could lock them up before they became murders or corrupt police officers or investment bankers.

I do not know much about psychopathy from a medical point of view, or any other points of view in particular, but when I read this my immediate reaction was, What? How could you justify that? What have these people done to excuse your imprisoning them because they were born with a certain mental condition?

Would anyone here think it was justifiable to test people for psychopathy and, if they come in positive, imprison them for the rest of their lives in case they killed somebody? Is it just me that finds the idea utterly repellent?

One thing I have to wonder about that kind of test is: what incentive do the participants have to answer honestly? If I was in jail, bored out of my mind, and some nerdy guy from some university came at me with an anonymous questionnaire about my morals, I would be strongly tempted to answer as if I was a Complete Monster just for the hell of it.

This said, assuming for the sake of discussion that such a test existed and was reasonably reliable... I'd be in favor of widespread testing, and of surveillance of those who are at-risk, and I would most definitely in favor of the research of means for curing such people or at least preventing them falling into dangerous behaviours. But I would not be in favor of preemptive incarceration. Not unless it was guaranteed, beyond reasonable doubt, that these people would hurt others, and there was not other way at all.

Besides, even if you lack ability for empathy, it doesn't mean you have any kind of desire to murder people So yeah, that would be rather inhumane.

Related question: What if they didn't want a cure?

I dunno. Perhaps offer them a choice between being cured and being put under extensive surveillance for the rest of their lives?

Does being born with a mental condition negate their right to privacy, then?

If their mental condition puts other people at risk, and if there is no other way to get around it, then yes.

But there are lots of other categories of people (people who are exceptionally unintelligent; alcoholics and drug addicts; people who have a tendency to crime and/or violence for other reasons; bad drivers; people with other mental conditions) whose existence puts others at risk, and we don't keep them under 24-hour surveillance.

Yes, but those people aren't likely to kill other people and make them into a suit.

And the unintellegent can get looked after and drug and alcohol addictions are "outside" mental problems, I'm sure they can be treated the same way, but they are not in built and can have "easier" cures.

edited 13th Sep '11 11:19:27 AM by JosefBugman

Only a few amount of those who'd want to let's say kill others actually do it.

Neither are the vast majority of psychopaths.

I suppose, but we have things in place for most of the above people, why not psycopaths?

Well being a drug addict, a drunk, or stupid does lead to many deaths.

Not all psychopaths go around making skin suits. And not all drunks and drug addicts kill.

Stupid people however...

The point I was making is that there are a lot of demographics who are more likely to kill or seriously harm another person than is average, but we don't lock them up or watch them constantly. In my opinion, it's not justified to take away from someone the rights we allow everyone else because of something they were born with, didn't choose, and can't change. Equally, if there were a cure, I would consider it wrong to force someone to fundamentally alter their personality and psychological makeup, and feel emotions that they might not necessarily want to.

edited 13th Sep '11 11:27:25 AM by cityofmist

No, but we do have safegaurds and agencies to deal with them.

By the same token if someone is assessed as a psycopath and refuses to recieve treatment that we get into the matter of some form of surveliance.

If he or she did get treatment for it, no problem, but with almost all of those bar drug and alcohol addiction (which typically tend to claim the lives of only the people involved) some form of scrutiny at some level is invoked.

Really? Allow me to go through the list I gave as examples, then (although I must admit that those were just the first examples off the top of my head, solely to prove that there existed such groups, and aren't particularly meaningful otherwise).

• People who are exceptionally unintelligent: If it's taken to the point of an actual disability, then yes, they're probably being watched some of the time. Then again, I believe that's mostly considered to be for their own good rather than other people's, which doesn't apply to psychopaths, and if they're just seriously lacking in intelligence without actually having a disability, they're still putting other people at risk by way of irresponsibility, and not under twenty-four hour surveillance.
• Alcoholics and drug addicts: They're more likely to abuse family members and spouses. They're also more likely to commit sometimes violent crimes to fund a habit of some kind. Unless they voluntarily check into a rehab facility of some kind, no surveillance.
• People who have a tendency to crime and/or violence for other reasons: Obviously, more likely to perpetrate crimes and violence. Unless they actually have a serious criminal record - and sometimes not even then, if it was long ago - no surveillance.
• Bad drivers: More likely to cause dangerous accidents. If someone reaches a certain level of badness they might get their licence taken away, but otherwise they're still at least slightly more likely to kill or injure someone in a road accident, and no surveillance.
• People with other mental conditions: I don't know for certain, but I would suspect that someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder would be more likely to kill someone than your average person. Unless they're actually in a mental institution, no surveillance.

edited 13th Sep '11 11:43:22 AM by cityofmist

The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry

I haven't read the book yet, but the author from what I hear goes to say that Psychopaths are responsible for a lot of bad shit in the world. That the jobs psychopaths are most drawn to and good at, are as people in high power such as business people.

The premise alone is enough to make one think, and it makes lots of sense. But I don't know enough about the subject to make my own opinion. All I can say is that if we could seperate the psychopaths from the normal people with tests or such, which I think would require more research and refining, though again I'm not sure since I don't know as much as I'd like to, then I'd be completely fine with the unabashed discrimination against psychopaths.

How we would discriminate against them? I don't know, put them in prison early? Round the clock surveillance for the rest of their lives? Simply limiting what kinds of jobs they can acquire so they don't get into a high place of power? Perhaps once we get their, we can find the genes that lead to such a thing and screen for it before birth....Gattaca anyone?

Or we may do nothing.....which I think is a big mistake. I'm not saying pyschopaths are responsible for the world's woes, and that everything would be rainbows and ponies if they were all gone, but the world would probably be a much better place without them.

...this is one of the few moments in my life where I have to heavily question my views, due to its serious implications against other human beings. But as I see it right now, a person who cannot empathize with other humans, is a giant potential for harm and corruption for the rest of us.

edited 13th Sep '11 2:44:48 PM by ViralLamb

But it's not an inability they chose to have. I just don't think I could feel comfortable with taking away people's freedom because of something that isn't their fault. Imagine being under twenty-four hour surveillance, or refused a job which you'd be extremely good at, or even sent to prison, because of something which you were born with and have no way of altering; to my mind, that sounds a lot like racism, or homophobia, or any of the other prejudices which are widely condemned. Discrimination based on anything other than merit is a bad thing.

I agree with you that psychopaths are not responsible for all of the bad things that happen in the world. Compare the percentage of the population who are psychopaths to the percentage of the population who sometimes or often commit actions which could be considered reprehensible, and I'd say that the latter would vastly eclipse the former. People don't need a medical condition to be selfish dicks.

In any case, what would be the reaction when you take a group of people who don't feel empathy for other people, and give them a massive and entirely legitimate grievance against society? Entirely separate from the moral issues, I can't picture that ending well.

edited 13th Sep '11 3:02:40 PM by cityofmist

Disclaimer: the following analogy is not to be taken literally.

I could draw a broad comparison to homosexuality. Is the basis for it (i.e. attraction to the same sex versus a lack of empathy) genetic? Possibly; probably. But the action itself is all down to personal choice.

You are only a psychopath if you actually harm someone. Until then, we have no right to lock you up, because you're a functionally normal person. Actions are what decide how a person is, not thought processes.

Disclaimer again: no, I don't think homosexuals are psychopaths or that there is any connection thereof. It's a psychological comparison, not a literal metaphor.

I agree with that. Actions, unlike thoughts, are something we have control over, and can thus be held accountable for.

No, you're a psychopath if you don't give a crap about others' feelings. That's the definition.

What you're talking about is a criminal psychopath.

Indeed. To continue with the analogy, homosexuality is defined, psychologically, as "an attraction to members of the same sex." Action is not required for this. You're homosexual either way, but a functional asexual if you choose to never act on it. I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong or right (it doesn't have a moral value on its own, IMO), or that sexual repression is a good thing. I'm just saying that acting on homosexuality is a choice, regardless of genetic predispositions.

Likewise, psychopaths may not have empathy for anyone, but that doesn't mean they have to go out and kill random people. They can always decide it's not worth the effort, and just look out for what gets them ahead and not into trouble. It is acting on it that separates jackasses from actual threats...

Edit: ...that would be a lack of empathy.

Also, for the purposes of this analogy, bisexuals work in the same manner. As do heterosexuals, in fact. Just to note...

edited 13th Sep '11 3:12:33 PM by USAF713

Why should prople give a damn about other people's feelings?

Hm, where's the psychopath test again? Perhaps we should take it for...ya know...shits and giggles?

edited 13th Sep '11 3:18:20 PM by ViralLamb

~shrug~

Because it makes you not a jackass, Savage? I guess if you don't care what people think of you then you don't have to, but if you expect anyone to want to help you with anything (that isn't hopelessly idealistic; damn, that'd probably include me, so long as you didn't do anything outright criminal), you'll want to actually be sociable and nice...