The Psychology Thread

Really? What are the most common/widespread/well-known definitions in medical practice, if there are any? And on a related note, what is counts for the legal instrument of "insanity defense"?

edited 21st Dec '14 4:38:15 AM by MarqFJA

My understanding of the insanity defense, at least in the US, is that the person has to have been incapable of realizing that they were doing wrong. So, not just choosing to ignore morality/the law and not just "insane" in the general meaning of having some sort of severe mental disorder, but at a point where they truly had no idea that what they were doing was—or could be—immoral/unlawful.

Isn't insanity defense overrated? I thought being confined to a mental institution is pretty much as bad as getting convicted anyway. Is that correct?

Except in places with the death penalty.

I hear that the success rates of the insanity defense are actually fairly low. How often do people resort to it?

In any case, success with The Matrix defense must be even more unlikely.

Not the US, but two high-profile recent cases in Quebec had the defendant try to claim they weren't criminally responsible. It worked for the first one (dude murdered his children and wife I think - the case is about 2-3 years old) and the second one is underway (murder of a Chinese immigrant before cutting him in pieces and uploading a video on the interweb).

The public here is rather unconvinced by their defense.

But what does it actually win them?

Basically you get committed to a mental institute, since if you committed a horrible crime and were totally unaware that it was awful, you clearly shouldn't be part of normal society. The problem is that people tend to think a successful insanity plea just means you go see a counselor once a week or something similarly light.

Mr "Stabbed his two daughters" is allegedly being rehabilitated and is gradually reintegrating society.

The case for Mr "Kill and butchered an immigrant" is still on going.

They're named respectively Guy Turcotte and Luka Rocco Magnotta, if you are curious.

In America, you get institutionalized, you rarely get out unless you are wealthy or have wealthy family regardless of means.

Criminally insane? If you can pull off that defense you aren't getting out. You really are batshit.

"Criminally insane"? Is that different from the insanity defense?

If you charged with a crime and declare insanity as a defense, and succeed, you are deemed criminally insane.

We can't execute the criminally insane, but we can put them in an institution and never let them out again.

Again, the insanity defense is really hard to succeed at, so you have to be a horrific murderer or some other form of ghastly offender to get it, and we wouldn't let those people out.

... Then I suppose that those criminals who used this defense under the belief that institutionalization is temporary and bearable are probably regreting their ill-made decision?

Those people normally don't succeed with the insanity defense.

We really don't like giving that to anyone. So if they are able to think like that, the state will find out and no insanity defense.

Most defense attorneys won't even go there unless they have serious evidence on their side.

If anyone still care about the insanity defense tangent, Luka Rocco Magnota was condemned to life with an absolute minimum of 25 years. Which is to say, insanity defense did fuck all for him.

In another tangent: is it possible for the body to develop a psychosomatic reaction to the absence of normal stimuli (internet, job, etc) and start feeling much sleepier than normal?

Re "Insanity" and the "Insanity Defense". Professional psychologists wont talk about "insanity", we refer to specific mental disturbances which have very objective criteria attached to each of them. They are all in the latest edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual.

The problem with the American insanity defense is that it is poorly supported by research. It's a legacy of a former age in which we thought the criminally insane were qualitatively different from the rest of us, and it was possible to definitively measure that difference. Neither assumption is really true. Nearly everything is on a spectrum now, and you can find ordinary people who regularly show some of the symptoms of even extreme mental illnesses. Is there a measurable condition that prevents someone from understanding that what they did is "wrong"? That isn't even a scientific concept, so I really doubt it.

Psychologically speaking, there is no "insanity", as it is known in the "popular" terms.

If someone is described as "insane" then the average person might think of the typical spirally eyed napoleon wannabe walking naked or something wacky like that, but the closest thing we would have in psychology to those would be the most extreme sides of schizophrenia during a psychotic breach.

When it comes to defining it legally, then it is very different depending on country and such.

But psychologically, there are very, very, very few and very, very, very extreme situations where a person is not actually in control of his or her actions where he may commit murder, mostly accidental. Like. A person holding another in a precarious position who got a seizure and killed the other person? Yeah, can't blame them. Someone tries to use depression to justify murders? I would laugh. And laugh. And then sick him in the slammer for the rest of their lives.

I like psychology, so I'm observing the discussion here. Added to watchlist.

To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This Interesting...

What is Love?

No. Seriously. What is love?

The study fails to define how those two did in their relationship, or if they are still married. The questions generate some form of empathy between the people asking them to each other...empathy alone is so mother fucking important for relationships that I cannot even fathom how to explain how important it is. I literally can't even. In that, it has credit.

But from there to calling that opening "love", I think is far fetched.

These are the questions asked if you read the previous thing, by the way.

Hmm. We appear to have a scientifically validated romantic counterpart to the Pickup Artist mentality. Hmm.

As for Aszur's question- it's placing someone else's need before one's own.

edited 12th Jan '15 9:34:23 AM by DeMarquis

I hope Subway Subs have a need to be eaten because I am a lonely man and I could use some love in my life and some grub in my stomach.

And yeah, a bit worrisome, is it not?

Worrisome? For what reason?

[Q] What is Love? [Q]

[Q] it's placing someone else's need before one's own. [Q]

Is that a definition used in psychology or in dictionary?

OK: another question that doesn't have a definitive answer, but reams of theory and argument. <_<

The short answer is: defining love is tough, and, depending on how you do that, then, sure... that works.