Question if it is moral to punish and put people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Antisocial Personality Disorder with psychopathic features

[Au Naturel]

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.

I don't believe in any kind of punishment for anything. If someone is so dangerous they commit crimes, that person may need to be isolated from society. If you intentionally cause real damage to another person, the objective ought to be compensation with interest for the loss as best as possible and then isolation to prevent them from causing further harm. It's not the same as punishment.

The purpose of punishment is to exact revenge. The satisfaction from revenge is itself an evil thing. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

 

[Oz67]

With all due respect, NPD is a personality disorder and a developmental disability that cannot be fixed at this time with the knowledge and skills that we have. People with NPD are do not have empathy nor a conscience. They are extremely good at camoflaging this, however.

For as yet unknown reasons, the proper development of empathy and conscience in people with NPS stops maturing at some stage during childhood. They literally never grow up.

People with NPD do not see themselves as needing help and do not want to accept help because they don't need it.

It can be improved with therapy for 15 years, but that patent should be willing to be self-aware and comply with that treatment.

 

[Oz67]

I don't believe in any kind of punishment for anything. If someone is so dangerous they commit crimes, that person may need to be isolated from society. If you intentionally cause real damage to another person, the objective ought to be compensation with interest for the loss as best as possible and then isolation to prevent them from causing further harm. It's not the same as punishment.

The purpose of punishment is to exact revenge. The satisfaction from revenge is itself an evil thing. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

That is what I agree with, but therapy or antipsychotics can also help reduce psychotic features or violence related to severe or profound personality disorders.

 

[Cryptid]

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?

Only if their crimes warrant being locked up in prison.

Having APD/NPD does not excuse criminal behavior.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Oz67

This question can't really be framed in terms of morality.

Your examples are two groups of people who, per person, cause a very large amount of harm to everyone else in society.

That takes it outside simplistic interpretations of morality. And into murky waters.
One common way to help frame this: if you could go back in time once, are you morally obliged to assassinate <some famously bad person>?
(There are surprisingly many to choose from).

That question can't be answered in the 21st century "developed world".

Here's another one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemBTW there are a lot more of these, but wikipedia has deteriorated a lot, and it no longer a good source for this stuff.

IMO where that leaves you personally is what Cryptid said above.

I word it this way: every individual is responsible for their own actions, and should, where appropriate, be held accountable for them.
No discounts for having some label or other, medical or otherwise.

This isn't the most comfortable starting point for people with ASPD. But what's the alternative?
Free passes for extremely harmful people who cannot control their behavior?

 

[Hypnalis]

@Oz67

I added this to my previous message, but the (IMO unreasonably) short time to edit made it impossible to update that post, so here it is. It fits right after the post above:

A reminder: prisons, hospitals, and especially treatment centers for dangerous people, and very expensive per person. They consume limited resources than can definitely be better used to improve the lives of people who aren't dangerous. (In economics this is called an "Opportunity Cost").

So the nice-sounding answer is a lot less nice than it seems: it certainly harms other people - but people who can't be easily identified.

This kind of nonsense answer is what the modern world "always" chooses /sigh.

The Trolley Problem captures it quite well. Yet in the 21st century, if you actually created that case, except with a sad puppy as the sacrifice to save five humans, most people would do nothing and later make a TokTok praising themselves for saving the puppy /lol.

 

[marc_101]

@Oz67

Such a hard topic.

In an ideal world, isolating a person from society would be about (in that order) 1) rehabilitation, 2) deterrence, and 3) punishment. But it's mostly 2 and 3 with a touch of 1.

Answering your question: I do think it's moral, but I don't think it's often done right. The legal definition of insanity is very narrow, but for most people under most circumstances a diagnosis is not an excuse or a free-pass for crime.

This is one of those topics that it's a case-by-case issue, which thankfully that's how the legal system does it.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

People with NPD do not see themselves as needing help and do not want to accept help because they don't need it.

I agree completely, which is why I said that it's the most difficult personality disorder to treat, though they are all very difficult. I haven't been following the literature in the last few years so you might be right about it being a neurological disorder rather than stemming partly as a coping mechanism from neglect or trauma (which is what I had read some years ago). However, I'm happy to accept corrections.

I do find it annoying how narcissistic personality (?) disorder and psychopathy are conflated, as in my mind, they are two quite different disorders which happen to both have negative consequences for society.

 

[Oz67]

Only if their crimes warrant being locked up in prison.

Having APD/NPD does not excuse criminal behavior.

But that need therapy or antipsychotics.

 

[Oz67]

I agree completely, which is why I said that it's the most difficult personality disorder to treat, though they are all very difficult. I haven't been following the literature in the last few years so you might be right about it being a neurological disorder rather than stemming partly as a coping mechanism from neglect or trauma (which is what I had read some years ago). However, I'm happy to accept corrections.

I do find it annoying how narcissistic personality (?) disorder and psychopathy are conflated, as in my mind, they are two quite different disorders which happen to both have negative consequences for society.

That makes sense.

 

[Oz67]

@Oz67

Such a hard topic.

In an ideal world, isolating a person from society would be about (in that order) 1) rehabilitation, 2) deterrence, and 3) punishment. But it's mostly 2 and 3 with a touch of 1.

Answering your question: I do think it's moral, but I don't think it's often done right. The legal definition of insanity is very narrow, but for most people under most circumstances a diagnosis is not an excuse or a free-pass for crime.

This is one of those topics that it's a case-by-case issue, which thankfully that's how the legal system does it.

That actually makes sense.

 

[Oz67]

@Oz67

I added this to my previous message, but the (IMO unreasonably) short time to edit made it impossible to update that post, so here it is. It fits right after the post above:

A reminder: prisons, hospitals, and especially treatment centers for dangerous people, and very expensive per person. They consume limited resources than can definitely be better used to improve the lives of people who aren't dangerous. (In economics this is called an "Opportunity Cost").

So the nice-sounding answer is a lot less nice than it seems: it certainly harms other people - but people who can't be easily identified.

This kind of nonsense answer is what the modern world "always" chooses /sigh.

The Trolley Problem captures it quite well. Yet in the 21st century, if you actually created that case, except with a sad puppy as the sacrifice to save five humans, most people would do nothing and later make a TokTok praising themselves for saving the puppy /lol.

That actually makes sense.

 

[Oz67]

@Oz67

This question can't really be framed in terms of morality.

Your examples are two groups of people who, per person, cause a very large amount of harm to everyone else in society.

That takes it outside simplistic interpretations of morality. And into murky waters.
One common way to help frame this: if you could go back in time once, are you morally obliged to assassinate <some famously bad person>?
(There are surprisingly many to choose from).

That question can't be answered in the 21st century "developed world".

Here's another one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemBTW there are a lot more of these, but wikipedia has deteriorated a lot, and it no longer a good source for this stuff.

IMO where that leaves you personally is what Cryptid said above.

I word it this way: every individual is responsible for their own actions, and should, where appropriate, be held accountable for them.
No discounts for having some label or other, medical or otherwise.

This isn't the most comfortable starting point for people with ASPD. But what's the alternative?
Free passes for extremely harmful people who cannot control their behavior?

That is an interesting point to consider.

 

[Mary Terry]

I agree completely, which is why I said that it's the most difficult personality disorder to treat, though they are all very difficult. I haven't been following the literature in the last few years so you might be right about it being a neurological disorder rather than stemming partly as a coping mechanism from neglect or trauma (which is what I had read some years ago). However, I'm happy to accept corrections.

I do find it annoying how narcissistic personality (?) disorder and psychopathy are conflated, as in my mind, they are two quite different disorders which happen to both have negative consequences for society.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a spectrum. Narcissists at the upper end of the spectrum are mentally ill, have narcissistic breaks with reality (psychotic?), and do not hesitate to harm anyone who gets in their way or who refuses to bow down to them.

Narcissism tends to run in families which begs the question of whether NPD is a coping mechanism formed during a "bad" childhood or is genetic or is a combination of both. Many narcissists will insist that they had perfect childhoods, perfect parents (even showing hero worship for their parents), and that they, themselves, are perfect.

 

[Oz67]

Narcissistic personality disorder is a spectrum. Narcissists at the upper end of the spectrum are mentally ill, have narcissistic breaks with reality (psychotic?), and do not hesitate to harm anyone who gets in their way or who refuses to bow down to them.

Narcissism tends to run in families which begs the question of whether NPD is a coping mechanism formed during a "bad" childhood or is genetic or is a combination of both. Many narcissists will insist that they had perfect childhoods, perfect parents (even showing hero worship for their parents), and that they, themselves, are perfect.

That is exactly why they should be in a forensic correctional facilities, but only if they have a criminal behaviors, because they might have Egomania or Megalomania, those two constructs can explain delusion of grandeur in extreme narcissism.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

I agree completely, which is why I said that it's the most difficult personality disorder to treat, though they are all very difficult. I haven't been following the literature in the last few years so you might be right about it being a neurological disorder rather than stemming partly as a coping mechanism from neglect or trauma (which is what I had read some years ago). However, I'm happy to accept corrections.

I do find it annoying how narcissistic personality (?) disorder and psychopathy are conflated, as in my mind, they are two quite different disorders which happen to both have negative consequences for society.

There is overlap in the diagnostic characteristics of NPD and Antisocial Personality Disorder which makes diagnosis difficult even among experts.

There is also confusion about sociopaths and psychopaths. They are the same thing, but have fallen into popular use which confuses the two.

Mary Terry is correct that NDP is a continuum. It depends on when the development of empathy and conscience stops developing. It is my impression, I could be wrong, that when development stops at a very young age, you get the people who cut the heads off kittens for fun and then graduate to people. Or development stops in the teens, and you get people who are extremely selfish, but do not see themselves that way.

A book I found helpful is: The Sociopath Next Door.

Apparently personality disordered individuals are more common that we are aware.

The most recent research indicates it is a genetic disorder and in the future will be fixable with genetic repair.

The problem for us as autists is that we are prime victims for NPD individuals. NPDs groom vulnerable people similar to sexual predators grooming their targets. NPDs are super nice and helpful and caring - at first - once you're caught the nightmare begins.

 

[Judge]

That is exactly why they should be in a forensic correctional facilities, but only if they have a criminal behaviors, because they might have Egomania or Megalomania, those two constructs can explain delusion of grandeur in extreme narcissism.

I'm afraid there are a few historic "roadblocks" to such considerations depending on the legal climate of various countries:

In some legal systems like the US, committing one to a mental institution over one's behaviors as opposed to actually committing criminal acts is a tall order to say the least. Where such laws over many decades have evolved to enhance the rights of such persons. Further compounded by differing legal positions of various states in terms of what may or may not define insanity relative to a specific criminal act.

In other words, our particular legal and political systems aren't designed to objectively deal with such concerns. Not to mention criminal court jurors presented with an option to ignoring such possibilities. It's also why we are hearing increasing numbers of disturbing stories where law enforcement might predict certain individuals to be potentially capable of heinous acts, yet they remain powerless to do anything about. Often caught between interpretations of existing laws and district attorneys reticent to prosecute without sufficient evidence.

Lastly you also have politicians who fundamentally oppose the state paying for such individuals to be institutionalized on general principle, whether they meet existing legal and medical requirements or not. A policy of de-institutionalizing the mentally ill made famous by a California Governor in the late 60s who went on to become president.

 

[Oz67]

There is overlap in the diagnostic characteristics of NPD and Antisocial Personality Disorder which makes diagnosis difficult even among experts.

There is also confusion about sociopaths and psychopaths. They are the same thing, but have fallen into popular use which confuses the two.

Mary Terry is correct that NDP is a continuum. It depends on when the development of empathy and conscience stops developing. It is my impression, I could be wrong, that when development stops at a very young age, you get the people who cut the heads off kittens for fun and then graduate to people. Or development stops in the teens, and you get people who are extremely selfish, but do not see themselves that way.

A book I found helpful is: The Sociopath Next Door.

Apparently personality disordered individuals are more common that we are aware.

The most recent research indicates it is a genetic disorder and in the future will be fixable with genetic repair.

The problem for us as autists is that we are prime victims for NPD individuals. NPDs groom vulnerable people similar to sexual predators grooming their targets. NPDs are super nice and helpful and caring - at first - once you're caught the nightmare begins.

The problem is that although it very rare, some people with NPD or ASPD have empathy and remorse, you don't need to have all the symptoms to have those two personality disorders.

 

[Oz67]

I'm afraid there are a few historic "roadblocks" to such considerations depending on the legal climate of various countries:

In some legal systems like the US, committing one to a mental institution over one's behaviors as opposed to actually committing criminal acts is a tall order to say the least. Where such laws over many decades have evolved to enhance the rights of such persons. Further compounded by differing legal positions of various states in terms of what may or may not define insanity relative to a specific criminal act.

In other words, our particular legal and political systems aren't designed to objectively deal with such concerns. Not to mention criminal court jurors presented with an option to ignoring such possibilities. It's also why we are hearing increasing numbers of disturbing stories where law enforcement might predict certain individuals to be potentially capable of heinous acts, yet they remain powerless to do anything about. Often caught between interpretations of existing laws and district attorneys reticent to prosecute without sufficient evidence.

Lastly you also have politicians who fundamentally oppose the state paying for such individuals to be institutionalized on general principle, whether they meet existing legal and medical requirements or not. A policy of de-institutionalizing the mentally ill made famous by a California Governor in the late 60s who went on to become president.

That is also what I am trying to talk about as well.

 

[Judge]

That is also what I am trying to talk about as well.

Too many ideologically focused mindsets who choose to ignore the more practical considerations of such issues. In an era where such differences have never been so contentiously polarized.

Leaving both law enforcers and district attorneys to shrug their shoulders in frustration citing there's nothing they can do until a crime is actually committed. In a legal system where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty through due process.

I tend to refrain from even considering that which is deemed "moral". Though I can certainly understand arguments citing that such considerations are presently impractical.