• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Personality Disorders and Personal Responsibility

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
As the diagnostic evidence for personality disorders expand does the grounds for believing in personal responsibility shrink?

Can there be penalties or legal sanctions for behaviour which individuals, or more likely their advocates, can plead diminished responsibility?

As distinct from legal penalties and sanctions there are always going to be natural and logical consequences of actions which cause suffering to their author and also others, which of these forms of suffering do you consider to carry the most moral weight?

When a society experiences the consequences of the choices and behaviour of an individual with a personality disorder, is society itself experiencing consequences of its social structure, expectations or attention or neglect of its members?

That is to say, because I know some posters will get derailed into discussing society as a social construct, it causes real suffering to individuals other than the individual with the personality disorder such as trauma, bereavement, material loss or insecurity, injury or death.
 

midnightstar

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
40
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
2
As the diagnostic evidence for personality disorders expand does the grounds for believing in personal responsibility shrink? .

I believe it does, sadly. It seems like most of the time when people claim diminished responsibility they're doing it just to get a lighter punishment for what they did. They're not taking responsibility for their own actions.
 

jcloudz

Yup
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,525
MBTI Type
Istj
good question, lets narrow it down with some kind of example. can you be more specific? maybe give a scenario in which we can apply your question?
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
You could plead diminished responsibility if the person could be treated with therapy, like give them a chance to go through therapy - that be their "punishment" - on a first offense.

But if they refused to cooperate or could not be rehabilitated, I don't know. I don't think the U.S. prison system is a help to ANYONE, but rather a cruel and counter-productive hindrance in some cases, however I do think that psychopaths who cannot be rehabilitated should be ...put to sleep.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
As the diagnostic evidence for personality disorders expand does the grounds for believing in personal responsibility shrink?

Can there be penalties or legal sanctions for behaviour which individuals, or more likely their advocates, can plead diminished responsibility?

As distinct from legal penalties and sanctions there are always going to be natural and logical consequences of actions which cause suffering to their author and also others, which of these forms of suffering do you consider to carry the most moral weight?

When a society experiences the consequences of the choices and behaviour of an individual with a personality disorder, is society itself experiencing consequences of its social structure, expectations or attention or neglect of its members?

That is to say, because I know some posters will get derailed into discussing society as a social construct, it causes real suffering to individuals other than the individual with the personality disorder such as trauma, bereavement, material loss or insecurity, injury or death.

Interesting how the responsibility of an individual is frequently viewed as though it was dependent on the whole. Sometimes we crack under the pressures of everyday life after an unresolved neurosis forces us to crumble into a nervous breakdown or even psychosis. In these cases, I would say that the individual is no longer responsible for being who they once were: a functioning member of society who values their individual role. I'm aware of a Union general in my family tree who, sometime after the Civil War, walked in front of the White House and gunned down a district attorney who was discovered to have had an affair with the general's wife. During his subsequent trial, general Daniel Sickles pled insanity, which was the first use of a "temporary insanity" defense in the United States; it granted him release. Later, Sickles forgave his wife, which was an act even more controversial than pleading temporary insanity. "Insanity" in this case was more of a legal term than a diagnostic term.

We are still held entirely responsible regardless of the circumstances, which means that a judge and jury are still entirely responsible for determining legal consequences.

I don't think there is necessarily a degradation of morality, since I believe most people have an innate sense of morality. The "degradation" of morality is an illusion created by the expansion of our standards for forgiveness. Forgiveness itself is part of valid ethical questions to be raised. Everyone, at one point or another, has to ask, "What consequences are ethical, given the ethical violation of another?". We are never the final judge to determine the consequences in the life of another. However, forgiving doesn't necessarily mean that we let go of our duty to be fair, and fairness is difficult to maintain when our standards shift.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
You could plead diminished responsibility if the person could be treated with therapy, like give them a chance to go through therapy - that be their "punishment" - on a first offense.

But if they refused to cooperate or could not be rehabilitated, I don't know. I don't think the U.S. prison system is a help to ANYONE, but rather a cruel and counter-productive hindrance in some cases, however I do think that psychopaths who cannot be rehabilitated should be ...put to sleep.

Psychopaths are very much a problem, yet most of them are too survivalist to get in trouble with the law. Dexter is an exaggerated example.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something over which they had no control, a situation they were powerless to change, although I grant that the law often does exactly that. If an infirmity, whether mental or physical, constrains someone's actions or renders them unable to prevent unintentionally harming others, they do not have moral responsibility. A good example is a driver who suffers a sudden heart attack, loses control of the car and causes an accident. This actually happened to the wife of one of my colleagues recently, but the only resulting harm was her own death.

A significant exception to this is when the individual understands they have a problem that might result in unintentional harm to others, and does not address it. We might include someone with mental illness who does not take his meds, or an alcoholic who does not get treatment. Do we include the heart patient who does not take his meds, or refuses bypass surgery? How about the elderly person who won't admit her reflexes are too poor to continue to drive? (My colleague's wife was barely 60 and in apparent good health, so total surprise there.) What about people who participate in dangerous sports and recreational activities, resulting in frequent injuries that deplete the insurance pool for everyone?

Now, we must factor in the reality that many people who want to treat their issues cannot afford to do so. Insurance companies and HMOs have been especially stingy with paying for mental health services. To the extent that this exacerbates the problem, society shares in the responsibility for the inadvertent harm done by such people.
 

Cartesian Theater

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
40
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w1
Yes and no.

As society has begun to not only accept but actively search for lesser psychological disorders in children (ADD, schizotypical disorder, hypersensitivity, etc.), it has given a lot of young people permission to be different. In some cases, this is useful, because it allows people to focus on their actual problems, rather than trying for years to fight a personality which is natural to them. It also allows us to give medical attention to people who have debilitating mental disorders. However, illnesses like ADD and ADHD are so frequently misdiagnosed now, that we start to diagnose it in children who are simply high energy, creative or easily distracted. The message has become, "You are sick, therefore you can't function in society" rather than "You have a problem, and you need to fix it." Neither one is entirely helpful to those people who are simply unusual, but don't actually need chemicals to help them function in society.

However, if we look into the past, responsibility shirking has always been the privilege of the "average" person. If you are considered normal and functional in society, then it's not your fault that some ADD kid wasn't listening to your lecture and failed the class, or that a person with an anxiety disorder freaked out when you made a joke at their expense. You can always blame things on the autistic people who can't conjure up an argument on their behalf, and you certainly don't have to hire people with learning disorders who will require extra training.

Ideally every person would work to improve themselves as individuals, but we all know that humans are generally lazy, selfish and driven by personal gain. The difference is that now, we as a society are attempting to give a voice and a name to those people who were previously only known as retards or outcasts. Will they take advantage of this gesture of understanding? Of course they will. But it doesn't mean we should continue locking people in closets or labeling them as delinquents because their brain simply functions a little differently.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ideally every person would work to improve themselves as individuals, but we all know that humans are generally lazy, selfish and driven by personal gain. The difference is that now, we as a society are attempting to give a voice and a name to those people who were previously only known as retards or outcasts. Will they take advantage of this gesture of understanding? Of course they will. But it doesn't mean we should continue locking people in closets or labeling them as delinquents because their brain simply functions a little differently.
If (presumably "normal") humans really are driven mostly by personal gain, all the more reason to help people with problems fix them, whether psychological or otherwise. The more independent and productive they can be, the less we have to give them a free ride. If a label doesn't lead to help, then it does become just an excuse. Unfortunately, without that label, many people end up going without that help.
 
S

Society

Guest
an idea just popped into my head while reading the OP:

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] - the problem you are describing here is on an ethical level of punishment, but let's be clear about the actual point of punishment - scaring the crap out of people. and for most people prison does a good job of that, except one group of people in particular - those who have actually being to prison, because let's face it - they go back a lot.

not only does it currently suck as far as any utopian dreams of rehabilitation, but it actually makes those who've being through it less afraid of going back.

now, i see the problem of people seen it as a form of "lighter punishments" - but what if we can actually use a hierarchy of environments to make the system better? basically have a leveling system of sorts where each you get a much harsher environment, so instead of going back to the old familiar prison experience you have gotten used too, you will have a whole new level to be terrified of and even better reasons to stay out of the prison system.
 

Halla74

Artisan Conquerer
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
6,898
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
As the diagnostic evidence for personality disorders expand does the grounds for believing in personal responsibility shrink?

Can there be penalties or legal sanctions for behaviour which individuals, or more likely their advocates, can plead diminished responsibility?

As distinct from legal penalties and sanctions there are always going to be natural and logical consequences of actions which cause suffering to their author and also others, which of these forms of suffering do you consider to carry the most moral weight?

When a society experiences the consequences of the choices and behaviour of an individual with a personality disorder, is society itself experiencing consequences of its social structure, expectations or attention or neglect of its members?

That is to say, because I know some posters will get derailed into discussing society as a social construct, it causes real suffering to individuals other than the individual with the personality disorder such as trauma, bereavement, material loss or insecurity, injury or death.

Unless a person is institutionalized then they are responsible for their own actions.
Life is about CHOICES and ACCOUNTABILITY.
Yes, some people have more difficult circumstances to deal with in navigating the vast landscape of thoughts and deeds that fill their consciousness each day.
But at the most basic level, if they understand right from wrong, then they are accountable for their actions.
Some people need some OR EVEN alot of medication to stabilize their neural activity to such a degree that they are deemed able to live without being a threat to themselves or others. Hopefully more people have the choice to seek those options, as well as counseling, or both than not. But I know that is not the case. And I also know that many who do have those options choose not to utilize them.

So, in short, I am not for sliding scale "personal accountability waivers" for people of any personality disorders.
First, because many are arbitrarily created by a committee of professionals trying to ensure they have future clients (Have you ever noticed that the number of personality disorders and the number of medications formulatd to treat them goes up year after year? What a big surprise!)

If these things are ever instituted, I want a 100% waiver of personal accountability for being afflicted with "Can't Stand Bullshit Syndrome" - and whenever I am exposed to "bullshit" (as defined by me) then I am not liable for my reaction to its proximity to me. :happy:

:solidarity:

-Alex
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Responsibility is so often not given a pragmatic view.

All to often its saying "You have chosen to not fit into our social scheme, so we are mad at you for making that choice. You will be punished and you should recognize that it is your own fault since it was your choice."

That way of looking at things of course breaks down when one isn't cognitively responsible, when it wasn't their choice necessarily.

If the point of legal action is to induce guilt and punish for choices consciously made, then yes it is going to fail. I don't think that is the right way to handle things in the first place however, since it easily forgoes practical solutions for the sake of ideal persecution.

Or in other words, we often concentrate on the insult of someone breaking the rules rather than the effect of the rules being broken.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Well can we take into account that sometimes personality disorders stem from childhood abuse, or a combination of biology and circumstances, so that someone could have beaten that adult as a child, and they might have already been troubled for either genetic or other reasons, and then is the adult as culpable, really, as a person who had a reasonable upbringing in a home that falls in the range of normal and is fairly neurotypical?

I have a hard time with this, because some people deserve punishment, there's really no other way to control them, they won't be rehabilitated, but I was reading articles recently, starting with an American woman who sent an 8 year old child back to Russia alone on a plane with a note pinned to his chest because she couldn't handle him. Apparently the Russians put a temp-ban on American adoptions in Russia following this, in light of other Russian children who had been abused in some way by their adoptive parents, including a boy who was beaten to death who had multiple head injuries...even though his sister (also Russian) was never beaten and was safely removed from that home.

So I start thinking about all of the parents, in general, not just American-Russian adoptions, but the parents or even foster parents or adoptive parents who either aren't equipped to deal with their child's biological predisposition or problems (in some cases because they share those problems themselves) and the people who adopt children who came from horrific circumstances and then BEAT THEM because they don't understand why the child won't behave.

I started thinking about all kinds of factors in the Russian-American adoptions, including culture and language shock, and in the case of the boy sent home, the adoptive "mother" even tried to change his name (WTF) ...and how psychologically stressful that could be on a child who was already troubled due to genetics and/or early circumstances.

Adults do a lot of bad things to children, sometimes out of simple ignorance, but other times out of selfishness or cruelty, and those children grow up to be adults. And therefore some adults simply aren't as prepared to deal with the world as effectively as others.

And this is why I so firmly believe in things like therapy, rehabilitation, and work programs, etc.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
an idea just popped into my head while reading the OP:

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] - the problem you are describing here is on an ethical level of punishment, but let's be clear about the actual point of punishment - scaring the crap out of people. and for most people prison does a good job of that, except one group of people in particular - those who have actually being to prison, because let's face it - they go back a lot.

not only does it currently suck as far as any utopian dreams of rehabilitation, but it actually makes those who've being through it less afraid of going back.

now, i see the problem of people seen it as a form of "lighter punishments" - but what if we can actually use a hierarchy of environments to make the system better? basically have a leveling system of sorts where each you get a much harsher environment, so instead of going back to the old familiar prison experience you have gotten used too, you will have a whole new level to be terrified of and even better reasons to stay out of the prison system.

Terror really isn't an effective method of rehabilitating people, though it can keep average or "normal" people out of prison in most cases.

Do you know anything about Norway's prisons? I think it's probably wise to look into alternative systems which are working instead of suggesting that sending people to worse and worse levels of hell, which just does more psychological damage, particularly when prisons are overcrowded, or the person has an existing mental illness.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
A Personality Disorder is different from a personality type.

For instance, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a mental illness where the sufferer is out of touch with reality, while a narcissistic personality is in touch with reality.

And for instance, narcissistic personalities are often successful and are commonly found among CEOs, while those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder lead unsuccessful lives of suffering.
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
I've thought about this since dealing with a friend with many mental disorders. She shrugs off help people gives her, vilifies anyone who actually tells her how the chips are falling, pushes her boundaries and then blames it on the people she is dating. She won't go to a shrink, says it's too much, but someone who helped her for free she won't go back to because she didn't like their diagnosis. I just don't know. It's hard to know where the mental illness ends and the responsibility starts.

She doesn't have violent tendencies but if someone like her did I don't think it would be treated any more than she gets herself treated when she is just running around emotionally hurting people.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I've thought about this since dealing with a friend with many mental disorders. She shrugs off help people gives her, vilifies anyone who actually tells her how the chips are falling, pushes her boundaries and then blames it on the people she is dating. She won't go to a shrink, says it's too much, but someone who helped her for free she won't go back to because she didn't like their diagnosis. I just don't know. It's hard to know where the mental illness ends and the responsibility starts.

She doesn't have violent tendencies but if someone like her did I don't think it would be treated any more than she gets herself treated when she is just running around emotionally hurting people.

Yeah I wonder about things like this too, people who won't get help, or who won't stay in therapy. That's why in my original post I said people should get a chance, but if they won't follow through or cooperate then they should be punished to understand WE MEAN BUSINESS.
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Yeah I wonder about things like this too, people who won't get help, or who won't stay in therapy. That's why in my original post I said people should get a chance, but if they won't follow through or cooperate then they should be punished to understand WE MEAN BUSINESS.

Alex ( [MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION] ) got me thinking that perhaps people who aren't being treated should be the ones responsible for their actions. Like having to sign a waiver when you leave the hospital before the doctor releases you after surgery. "You should be going to therapy once a week and have treatment for your illness. If you are not then you are responsible for your actions." Since most people with mental illness probably have been to a dr or institutionalized at some point. My friend was institutionalized as a late teen and actually blames some of her problems being institutionalized since she thinks she was more normal than the people with her.

My friend is actually an artistic, interesting, intelligent person but she is stuck between a rock and a hard place with meds vs. keeping creative vs. feeling not herself vs. going on a roller coaster ride. :/ I still feel she is somewhat responsible for her own actions, even if it's her brain making her that way.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Alex ( [MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION] ) got me thinking that perhaps people who aren't being treated should be the ones responsible for their actions. Like having to sign a waiver when you leave the hospital before the doctor releases you after surgery. "You should be going to therapy once a week and have treatment for your illness. If you are not then you are responsible for your actions." Since most people with mental illness probably have been to a dr or institutionalized at some point. My friend was institutionalized as a late teen and actually blames some of her problems being institutionalized since she thinks she was more normal than the people with her.

My friend is actually an artistic, interesting, intelligent person but she is stuck between a rock and a hard place with meds vs. keeping creative vs. feeling not herself vs. going on a roller coaster ride. :/ I still feel she is somewhat responsible for her own actions, even if it's her brain making her that way.

I'm still very creative with my meds so I'm not sure what kind of meds she was taking, I sincerely hope she didn't have a doctor who was over-medicating her or sedating her; that's not as common as it used to be, and usually mainly happens to schizophrenics or VIOLENT bipolars...but if a med doesn't work for you, most doctors want to change it and find something that works for you, so you feel functional and not drugged, because that's not the point, especially not with current advances in medicine.

That protocol you described actually makes a lot of sense.
 
Top