Qu: About Morality If Punishing Criminals With severe or profound NPD And ASPD

IrishInManchesterUK said:

The moral standards are clear based on the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, based on Biblical teachings and I’ve always included myself in this

The same Catholic church that was integral in the Spanish Inquisition, that denied the Holocaust, that covered (and covers) up sexual abuse in thousands of cases, that burned Joan of Arc for being masculine etc etc.

That church?

https://www.ranker.com/list/most-unforgivable-things-the-catholic-church-has-done/lea-rose-emery

A shining example it has set through history. Not.

Please do not let the abused (you) become the abuser (of others rights) and lend that corrupt organisation any credibility.

Are you willing to be the one who carries oout the hangings, blindings, ear cutting, nose cutting, removal of hands, pressings etc?

The moral standards are clear based on the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, based on Biblical teachings and I’ve always included myself in this - maybe going back to Medieval ideas of crime and punishment might be a good thing - law and order is what is needed 

It is indeed.

To say that they have a mature right from wrong is misleading because both ASPD and NPD can have cognitive distortion if it is severe to a point.

Please "The Psychopath test" for some very interesting answers on this. It's by Jon Ronson.

That makes sense,

People with NPD or ASPD with psychopathic tendencies have different neurological wiring, and they can understand and rationalize what is right from wrong, but they might not have the feelings to care about it, unless it's to their benefit. They put themselves first above all others, and that includes living by their own rules, and not those made by other people. They want the freedom to do anything they want, and to get anything they want, even if it means taking advantage of people and using them in order to get it. To stop them means you're against them.

It's very challenging to try and fix these types of individuals. Why? Well, because they put themselves first, they only value themselves and their own words. They don't care about other people, and they won't listen to what other people have to say, because they don't want anyone to have authority over them. They see themselves as the ultimate authority. So even if you put them into a correction facility to try and change and fix them, they don't see a problem with themselves, because in their mind, they are the best person in the entire world, and who are you to say to the best person in the world, that they need to change? You're a less valuable person in their eyes, so your opinion doesn't matter to them.

I think that it's rare that people with NPD and ASPD will actually change, but if they do, that comes from whether or not they want to change, not from other people trying to impose change upon them. If they realize that people just keep leaving their lives, it might be enough for them to want to change. But who knows. Some break the law, some don't. I mean they can be hard to be around, but not all of them commit heinous crimes against humanity.

Is it moral to put someone with NPD or ASPD with psychopathic tendencies in prison? It depends on what they do. They are the least likely to want to face the consequences of their actions, or abide by anyone else's rules other than their own. I mean, they can rationalize what's right from wrong, and they can know that they are hurting someone, but they just might not have the empathy to care about it. Some of them even think it's fun, as long as they can get away with it. I mean they won't like it if other people hurt them, but if it's not them that's being hurt, they won't care.  

That is an interesting observation.

That's an interesting observation.

That makes sense.

Now that makes sense.

That makes sense.

That makes sense. But death penalty is problematic, because wrong criminals or eve innocent people get wrongly executed.

That is actually a good point.

It's an interesting question. Culpability should involve awareness of wrongdoing; this is why a wild animal can't be guilty of murder, because it doesn't know any better.

But I don't think you can absolve someone from guilt if they themselves don't comprehend wrongdoing, because we have to protect society from such people. Is it cruel? Yes. But what else can we do.

We also have a concept of age of legal responsibility. In the UK it's 10, I think in Scotland it might be 16. So we think children younger than this don't know what they're doing and shouldn't be held responsible or punished as harshly. In the case of those suffering from severe mental retardation or a childlike mind, should they be punished as adults? It's such a difficult question and so difficult to prove one way or another in court.

But lots of people do get excused from the crimes they commit due to mental illness (diminished responsibility), particularly with things such as psychosis. But the criteria could arguably extend to NPD or ASPD. The law says if you have an inability to:

(a) to understand the nature of your conduct;

(b) to form a rational judgment;

(c) to exercise self-control.

Then you have diminished responsibility.

Could this be true for someone with ASPD and NPD who has a very warped view of the world? For me it's very hard to say. I think most people do not like the behaviour of such people and want them to be punished. They're aware of their actions, they just don't care.

Most violent criminals probably have some kind of issue which means they don't value the lives of others and a low capacity for empathy and are prone to reckless behaviour. I don't think they should be excused from their crimes. If anything, locking them up is what we have to do to protect everyone. Unless there is some way of fixing them, but I don't think there is?

In a very rare case, paedophilia was caused by a brain tumour in a specific part of the brain, and when the tumour was removed the desire to do such things went away. Should such a person be released from jail, since they're no longer a danger? The victim was harmed regardless of whether it was the perpetrator's fault... but in a way they were the victim of the tumour. Were they culpable for their actions?

I assume that those traditional values include homosexuality? Where does this leave you as an openly gay man?

I assume that by a return to traditional values you are anti-abortion? As you're in avour of capital punishment can you enlighten us as to when its OK to start killing people? Are you anti-contraception too?

Why is 18 to young? Surely those traditional values include marriage at 16 where parental consent is given?

I do not believe in capital punishment, I believe it is state murder, I understand why some favour it, especially for the worst crimes, but I think it is vulnerable to "mission creep". How long would it be before people are hung for stealing a loaf of bread to feed themselves? That did used to happen, would you like to see the return of the stocks, the whipping post, the ducking stool? Are executioners not murderers too? Do those who support such punishments, who pass laws, prosecute and hand down these sentences not equally morally and karmically liable?

In response to the OP, I don't see how it is avoidable for such people not to end up prison. There are to many variations in mental health conditions for everybody to be accomodated and what of the mental health of the victims and families of those affected by crime? Is it really OK to say to one person, 'Oh yes, you're a psychopath so we understand why you ignored your victim's pleas not to rape or murder her, so no punishment for you'? Sexual offences happen at such a high rate with such a low prosecution rate, lest alone a conviction, that the law feels more theoretical than real now. Narcassasist and phychopaths are quite capable of telling others that their behaviours violate laws, but they want to claim some special right for the laws not to apply to them, no I don't think so, this is just more game playing.

I do think there are to many people with learning difficulties and mental health problems in prisons and that theres next to no rehab for them. To me the ways of dealing with this are to start early with interventions, to many children languish in unsuitable educational establishments that cannot or will not give them adaquate support. The government, whoever that will be on the 5th July need to hit the ground running on sorting out learning difficulties support and for those with mental health and other additional needs. I hope this will make young people less vulnerable to those who wish to use them for their own nefarious ends. If young people do end up with a custodial senence then they need to have help in young offenders insitutions, to help them not commit more crimes as adults. If they do commit crimes as adults that give a custodial sentence then they need proper rehab, rather than the revolving door that we have now.

On the whole I think there are very few people who genuinely don't know that society views some actions as criminal and what will happen if they get caught. I think people should remember that if you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.

I guess in the light of the flaws present in our system, mental health concessions for criminals or even further research into the matter, seems unfathomably luxurious.

Ultimately adult babies, as they seem in the eyes of the public, are not worth the work. It is ugly work and limited in its rewards, especially when the true potential lies in youth and not in the ill-developed, at least in the eyes of the public.

I guess we agree to disagree then.

An immediate return to traditional moral values and standards is the only solution to our current problems, so I stand by my comments and I do not compromise - the age of consent must be raised to 21 for everything, as age 18 is way too young