Study of personality disorders and law

Kadongy

Some personality disorders are common enough, especially in people involved in certain types of crime - such as Narcissitic Personality Disorder. People possessing certain disorders, like NPD, are very very difficult to understand for people not possessing the disorder, even if experienced with people having the disorder.

It's not always the case that cold hard proof is needed for a conviction to be made. It is only necessary that the judge or jury don't have a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

However certain disorders make it difficult to impossible for people without them to conceive people might act in certain ways. Therefore without a strong understanding of these disorders the rate of wrongful convictions, and wrongful acquittals is likely to be much higher. Not only that but at different levels investigations may be shaped in less effective manners, and charges not be made against the right people, or be made against the wrong people.

Is any significant study of personality disorders involved as part of the study of law, at any level? If not, I would suggest that it would be a very good idea if it was.

Milk & Honey

Personality disorders are not an excuse for committing crime!

Kadongy

That's not what my argument was. My argument was that not understanding personality disorders might influence what versions of events judges and investigators would be likely to believe.

blueythebear

Kadongy wrote: »

It's not always the case that cold hard proof is needed for a conviction to be made. It is only necessary that the judge or jury don't have a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

The prosecution must prove its' case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt, then the accused is not guilty. Are you suggesting that we should increase the burden of proof for criminal conviction?

Kadongy wrote: »

However certain disorders make it difficult to impossible for people without them to conceive people might act in certain ways. Therefore without a strong understanding of these disorders the rate of wrongful convictions, and wrongful acquittals is likely to be much higher.

People with strong understandings of these types of disorders are routinely used in criminal cases. Psychiatrists are often used to ascertain whether an accused is insane or was insane at the time of the offence. In general, insanity is a defence to a criminal charge but a mental health professional would need to make such a diagnosis. In addition, mental health problems are often cited in mitigation pleas, where an accused pleads guilty and it is outlined to the judge that the defendant was suffering from depression or whatever at the time and this contributed to the crime.

There have been numerous studies on this area and I would wager that there is a vast library of publications to the connection between various psychological disorders and criminality. I wouldn't know where to look for but I've no doubt google would yield some results.

Kadongy

In cases where it comes down to one person's word against another's perhaps. I think that it should be a consideration with both the defence and the prosecution though - so I dont know if it would increase the burden of proof per se - but give greater insight into what might or might not have happened rather.

Milk & Honey

Conflicts of fact are for the tribunal of fact i.e. the Jury to resolve. This is done on the basis of their own life experiences. Are you saying that every jury member should study personality disorders?

Kadongy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Conflicts of fact are for the tribunal of fact i.e. the Jury to resolve. This is done on the basis of their own life experiences. Are you saying that every jury member should study personality disorders?

Good point. Honestly I think that a jury is likely to have enough collective experience that they would have some understanding of them, whether from formal education in the subject or not.

However the same is not true for trials by judge only. While juries are used for the most serious cases, >90% of trials are by Judge only, and they can include pretty serious charges.

Victor

If I'm right, personality disorders are not considered a mental illness.

If Anto is a psychopath and genuinely doesn't feel any empathy or remorse when hurting people, then he can't be cured. Medication may alter his behaviour, but can't cure him.

Note that not all psychopaths are violent and / or break the law, others will be manipulative.

Kadongy

Victor wrote: »

If I'm right, personality disorders are not considered a mental illness.

If Anto is a psychopath and genuinely doesn't feel any empathy or remorse when hurting people, then he can't be cured. Medication may alter his behaviour, but can't cure him.

Note that not all psychopaths are violent and / or break the law, others will be manipulative.

That's a non-sequitor surely - stop me if I'm missing the point

Victor

It possibly needs someone with a qualification to explain it properly.

A personality disorders is a state of being and is no different from being happy, sad, angry, etc. You can't cure someone of being happy, but you can, at least temporarily make him unhappy. He will then, presumably return to his normal level of happiness. Likewise, you can treat a psychopath, but once you remove the treatment, he will revert to form.

In comparison, someone may suffer from anxiety to such a level that it affects his ability to get on with his life. With treatment (counselling and medication being the most common), that situation can be cured. However, relapse will still be possible.

Kadongy

Well I got that from it the first time tbh. I don't see how it's relevant. The argument is that it may be difficult to understand why people might tell certain lies or take certain actiosn without an understanding of personality disorders that might cause them to do so. Therefore lies are taken as truths and plausible actions taken as implausible.