Published on 12, July, 2020
Is it moral to punish and put people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Antisocial Personality Disorder with psychopathic features in jails or prisons instead of forensic correctional facilities?
First of all, jails or prisons don't have excellent training to handle those two personality disorders correctly if it is severe or profound, even if a prison psychiatrist or psychologist is trying to help severely mentally ill prisoners fix their thoughts and conduct.
Another issue is that people with severe or profound Narcissistic Personality Disorder or severe or profound Antisocial Personality Disorder with psychopathic features might be legally sane and competent to stand trial. Still, they have this strange nihilistic delusional view of this world. When they commit crimes, many also have a delusion that rules don't apply to them, due to disregard for right and wrong, and also black and withe thinking, with no grounds for the middle ground.
I hope you guys understand where I am coming from with this issue.
For the most serious crimes like murder, treason, rape, sexual offences against any child under 21, drug dealing, drug trafficking, drug smuggling, in most cases these are serious enough to warrant capital punishment, not just mere inprisoment for life - sexual offenders in particular cannot be rehabilitated where they have committed sexual offences against children and I firmly believe that we must take a far more hardline stance on such offenders by means of capital punishment - in order for the deterrent value of the law to really mean something and for the law to really be respected, there must be an element of fear of the law and of the consequences of certain actions and at present, the law, the courts and our legal system is largely toothless when it comes to serious offences - I know that there is the issue of making martyrs out of terrorist offenders by using capital punishment, but we should not be letting the criminals decide the course of justice - every U.K. murder since the abolition of capital punishment in the early 1960’s has become ever more horrific, starting with the Moors Murders - the same applies to the abolition of the Treason & Sedition laws - I have always been a firm advocate and supporter of the restoration of capital punishment for many years now, the lack of which has enabled criminals to escape justice and the lack of which has also caused immeasurable suffering to families decades after the immediate crime, a prime example of which has been the Moors Murders, where Ian Brady, the very epitome and personification of evil, has tormented his victims families from beyond his grave
IrishInManchesterUK said:I firmly believe that we must take a far more hardline stance on such offenders
It is interesting that just 28 years ago, being openly gay in Ireland was a quite serious offence.
Now it is not so it is evidence that society has an adaptable attitude to crime.
What is to say that in another 28 years that manslaughter will be considered only a minor crime (lack on intent perhaps)? Tricky to say what the attitudes will be that far away.
IrishInManchesterUK said:sexual offences against any child under 21
I assume you mean 18 - it means a person who turned 21 who had intimate relations with someone 1 day younger is guilty of a serious sexual crime.
While the spirit of the law is important, the implementation often has serious shortfalls. I guess either the definition of the offence needs to be strengthened or abstenance needs to be enforced until we reach 21.
IrishInManchesterUK said:I have always been a firm advocate and supporter of the restoration of capital punishment for many years now
What other old standards should we re-introduce then? If you open this can of worms then you can quickly end up in a bad place.
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
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
Now that makes sense.
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 we agree to disagree then.