I meant to post this in ethics, but I suppose it also fits in this category. Oh well

When is blame warranted? Is it ever warranted? — kepler

There's another active thread you might be interested to on the forum - Reconciliation and Forgiveness. It's different enough from your post that it's still worth having this discussion.

I'll go with "no" to the question "Is blame ever warranted?" More accurately, it's never needed or useful. You don't have to blame someone in order to hold them responsible for their actions. Blame leads to punishment, retribution, and revenge. What's needed is justice, fairness, and effective social control.

Also - I think people with ASPD are sane and should be able to tell right from wrong. Isn't that true?

You don't have to blame someone in order to hold them responsible for their actions. — T Clark

Blame:
An accusation that you are responsible for some lapse or misdeed
A reproach for some lapse or misdeed

Blame leads to punishment, retribution, and revenge. — T Clark

No, being responsible for something leads to punishment, retribution, and revenge.

What's needed is justice, fairness, and effective social control. — T Clark

Is that not what happens in the justice system when someone is judged to be responsible for some act that is considered to be against public well being?

Blame:
An accusation that you are responsible for some lapse or misdeed
A reproach for some lapse or misdeed — Sir2u

Yes, a reproach for a moral lapse. That's what is not needed.

No, being responsible for something leads to punishment, retribution, and revenge. — Sir2u

If there is no moral judgment, society's reaction to unwanted behavior is more likely to be effective. Punishment, retribution, and revenge make some people feel better, but they are not the best way to handle crime and other damaging behavior.

Is that not what happens in the justice system when someone is judged to be responsible for some act that is considered to be against public well being? — Sir2u

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's the way it should be. Justice, fairness, and social control are different from punishment, retribution, and revenge. One focuses on effectiveness in protecting the public, the other focuses on moral and emotional satisfaction.

Yes, a reproach for a moral lapse. That's what is not needed. — T Clark

It does not say anything about moral lapse, so either find a definition that does include it or leave it alone.

If there is no moral judgment, society's reaction to unwanted behavior is more likely to be effective. Punishment, retribution, and revenge make some people feel better, but they are not the best way to handle crime and other damaging behavior. — T Clark

Punishment, retribution, and revenge are not part of moral judgement either. That would be immoral.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's the way it should be. Justice, fairness, and social control are different from punishment, retribution, and revenge. One focuses on effectiveness in protecting the public, the other focuses on moral and emotional satisfaction. — T Clark

So your local legal system deals out revenge to criminals?

It is has been observed that as many as 25% of the general prison population demonstrate psychopathic behavior. In a study by researchers at the Dept of Psychiatry at the U of Iowa, 320 newly incarcerated inmates were tested for Antisocial personality disorder. ASPD was present in 113 subjects, or about 35%. — kepler

Yes, this is a serious problem, but we don't have any effective therapy for psychopathy; I'm not aware how effective therapy for ASPD would be, if there is any.

Clearly, we are imprisoning people who could be more effectively (and cheaply) managed outside of prison -- like low level drug users and dealers. But some people need to be separated from society because they are just too antisocial.

There aren't any easy solutions, but one goal we should definitely work toward is the stabilization of society. People need a stable, reliable, economy and stable families in which to grow up. They benefit greatly from quality education experiences. That would, in the long run, end a lot of antisocial disruptive behavior resulting from growing up in chaotic, dysfunctional families.

lies in the realm of ethics, law, and the philosophy of the mind. Correct me if I'm wrong. — kepler

The moderators move misplaced topics into the correct category. It isn't terribly important what box you put your topic in, as all new and recently active threads show up in the same list, without respect to the box they are in.

but one goal we should definitely work toward is the stabilization of society. People need a stable, reliable, economy and stable families in which to grow up. They benefit greatly from quality education experiences. That would, in the long run, end a lot of antisocial disruptive behavior resulting from growing up in chaotic, dysfunctional families. — Bitter Crank

Very true, yes.

On the nature of blame and "justice", I do feel that justice systems unfortunately do wield quite a big revenge stick,
Judicial systems should be about administering the following actions

1) punishment for reasons of deterrence - for crimes that can be effectively deterred through punishment. I suspect the latter class of crimes are certain types of less anti-social financial and property crimes committed as one-offs. If a person is a habitual offender, then action 2) is more appropriate

2) Education and rehabilitation to change the offender's mindset. This type of treatment should have no fixed length of time, rather it ends with a successful outcome, and is appropriate for highly anti social behaviors. Incarceration might be involved initially, and the danger the offender poses to society will determine how long the incarceration element is necessary.

Of course there is a great danger that society itself is not well, and imposes itself upon individuals in a rather malign Orwellian way in its attempt to "reeducate" the "errant". For example, homosexuality has only recently been decriminalized; attitudes to recreational drug usage are sharply divided in society....

3) Incarceration for the safety of others.

It is has been observed that as many as 25% of the general prison population demonstrate psychopathic behavior. In a study by researchers at the Dept of Psychiatry at the U of Iowa, 320 newly incarcerated inmates were tested for Antisocial personality disorder. ASPD was present in 113 subjects, or about 35%. — kepler

In such cases I think that the schema I outlined above still broadly applies, with the proviso that education and rehabilitation fully takes into account such a disorder. so the focus would be on behavioral strategies that minimise offending.

Though I agree that proactive measures focusing on the upbringing of someone with a mental health disorder is necessary, and is more effective than any sort of reactive measure, my original question lies in the nature of whether someone with a mental illness who ends up committing a crime is to be blamed. I don't think the will to resist committing crime is strong enough in some cases--due to the fact that the forces in such a person's brain move them to commit the crime.

my original question lies in the nature of whether someone with a mental illness who ends up committing a crime is to be blamed. I don't think the will to resist committing crime is strong enough in some cases--due to the fact that the forces in such a person's brain move them to commit the crime. — kepler

What do you mean by "blame" ... are you saying that the more one consciously chooses a certain antisocial course of action, the more "blameworthy" one is, and hence the more .......[fill in your choice here please]?

my original question lies in the nature of whether someone with a mental illness who ends up committing a crime is to be blamed. I don't think the will to resist committing crime is strong enough in some cases--due to the fact that the forces in such a person's brain move them to commit the crime. — kepler

The answer to your question is: "It depends". "Mental illness" is an exceedingly broad term. Someone who is moderately depressed and someone else who is in a psychotic episode are both mentally ill, and at vastly different levels of self-control. Most mentally ill people do not operate with the same level of impairment all the time. A person with bi-polar disorder may be mentally healthy for long periods of time, even though they still have the diagnosis, and then may slide into a period of psychotic, manic episodes where they are extremely impaired.

Persons who are at most moderately impaired (depression, anxiety, OCD, phobias, etc.) can be expected to care for themselves so that their moderate impairments do not result in criminal behavior. This includes self-monitoring, so that they don't allow their conditions to push them into criminal behavior. Many people--moderately mentally ill or not, have felt like physically attacking someone who was annoying them a lot. Most of the time they don't. They understand that it is their responsibility to deal appropriately with their feelings of anger/rage.

If they do not deal with their inappropriate behavior (like shoplifting, reckless driving, getting into fist fights, etc.) sooner or later they will be arrested and will then be forced to deal with it.

People who are more seriously mentally ill may may commit felonies (such as rape, murder). The innocent by reason of insanity laws are generally not much defense, in practice. Prosecutors, judges, and juries just don't like that defense.

Take psychopathic (or sociopathic) personality disorder. Psychopaths are thought to have neurological deficiencies which prevent them from acquiring the normal restraints on their behavior. The condition of psychopathy is ambiguous in that a little psychopathy can be a good thing--sort of. Some slightly psychopathic CEOs are probably better CEOs (from the company's perspective) because they are capable of executive decisions that more sensitive people would be reluctant to take -- like firing 3000 people to marginally increase profitability. A lot of psychopathy is a bad thing, though, and when psychopaths commit crimes they are likely to get zero sympathy because we hold them responsible for their acts, even if they couldn't hold themselves responsible. (Psychopaths literally don't feel guilt.)

In summary, there isn't a simple hard and fast rule for holding people with mental illness responsible. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

when psychopaths commit crimes they are likely to get zero sympathy because we hold them responsible for their acts, — Bitter Crank

Is that fair though?

Is that fair though? — Jake Tarragon

It isn't fair, if psychopathy is a real disorder that prevents people from behaving normally, within the constraints of society. I think it is a real disorder (based on what I've read--I have no experience dealing with psychopaths, as far as I know).

Some behaviors--like pedophilia. homosexuality, and psychopathy which various societies have very strong reactions toward--happen to not be responsive to any therapeutic approaches. They are just deeply--structurally--ingrained features of the personality.

It isn't fair to imprison pedophiles for child abuse, have them complete the prison term, and then consign them to mental hospital confinement indefinitely. The same would go for homosexuality, were it to be re-criminalized here. There is no known method of rearranging someone's sexual orientation, object choice (in the case of pedophilia) and there is no known method of altering psychopathy.

So, I don't have a solution that get's us out of unfairness.

So, I don't have a solution that get's us out of unfairness. — Bitter Crank

I think there are principles that could guide society as to "best practice" - perhaps based on what I posted earlier. The goal should always be to minimize actual overall harm - and that has to include harm to perpetrators of anti social behaviors where possible. Revenge without focus should not be part of the scheme of justice, but most societies tend to give great import to this emotion.

I agree. I am not informed about what the "best practices" to achieve the least harm to the individual and the collective society. "Least restrictive" is one principle that guides the care of elderly and disabled who need daily care. Sometimes this seems counter-intuitive. Is it better to have an elderly or disabled patient fall out of bed, or is it better that bed rails be employed? Personally, I think it would be better to employ bed rails.

Do pedophiles who have completed their prison terms need the restriction of a locked and fenced in hospital? Or is it better to have them living in a neighborhood group home where they can receive some supervision? I think the default should be group homes after prison. After all, we let murderers out of prison, we set them free. (and most of them don't re-offend)

We can certainly do better than locking people up forever to appease victims' families.

We can certainly do better than locking people up forever to appease victims' families. — Bitter Crank

I was reading recently about a guy that had been assaulted by some drunk strangers. The worst offender kicked the victim's head while he was down, with full force and at close range. He wasn't pleased that the offender was out of prison after just a few years while he himself had to deal with quite severe brain damage for the rest of his life. Who couldn't be moved by that man's plight and at least get an idea of how much anger and hate he must feel? (though I'm glad to say he did also have a positive state of mind about getting on with his life).

For such a crime, I think the sentence term should not be fixed and finite; nor infinite. Rather it should be determined by the progress the offender makes in recognizing the awfulness of what he has done and that he needs to change and does change. This will surely be a painful process - far more than languishing in prison for some years in a state of denial.

Yes, exactly. The more one consciously chooses an antisocial action, the more blameworthy they are, and therefore the more harsh the punishment should be. The debate really lies, essentially, in how much control one has over their actions, especially when suffering from an anti social mental illness. I don't think neuroscience can tell us enough yet about that balance of power and choice.

Yes, exactly.The more one consciously chooses an antisocial action, the more blameworthy they are, and therefore the more harsh the punishment should be. — kepler

Actually Kepler that is not what I am saying (sorry for not being clearer :) ) because I don't believe in punishment per se, except as a societally useful deterrence for certain types of "crime". I did say that true rehabilitation and repentance is likely to be more painful than a some fixed prison term lengths, but the pain is not supposed to be intentionally inflicted in such a schema. Rather it is a highly likely occurrence when undertaking a rehabilitative, repentant journey - almost a side-effect.

Rather it should be determined by the progress the offender makes in recognizing the awfulness of what he has done and that he needs to change and does change — Jake Tarragon

It isn't fair to imprison pedophiles for child abuse, have them complete the prison term, and then consign them to mental hospital confinement indefinitely. — Bitter Crank

(**I meant to post this all a week or two ago but I was busy and forgot)
I agree with both of you. I don't think there is a solution fair to everyone. Tracking an offender's progress in recognizing the awfulness of their action(s) until it is determined that their treatment is no longer needed seems to be the fairest solution. And even that raises questions--How can you be certain an offender is being honest about their understanding of their offense? Should offenders only be released when they feel guilty? If they aren't capable of feeling guilt, like psychopaths, should they even be released? I think it does boil down to preventing such acts before they happen.

I once read of a 60-something-year-old man who had no history of pedophilia. He had begun to make advances on children. He was eventually arrested and jailed. After a couple months of his sentence, he complained of piercing headaches. Eventually he was given an MRI and the doctors discovered he had a brain tumor. Once removed, and after his sentence, he had no interest in children. I can't recall the evidence for this but I remember it was certain. A while later, his pedophilia returned. Shortly after, it was discovered that his tumor had returned. It turns out that brain injuries can alter your personality so much so as to cause pedophilia. A brain tumor made this man a pedophile.

It may be argued that this man could have resisted his temptations for children. And he surely knew that what he was doing was wrong since he hadn't been a pedophile up until the last years of his life. But if he had entire control of his actions, he wouldn't have made advances on children. After all, he had a clean record before these incidents. The fact that he went his entire life without sexually harassing or assaulting a single person suggests that the tumor also switched something else in his mind which caused him to knowingly risk jail time in order to satisfy his urges. Assuming the tumor is the complete determining factor in his pedophilia, which I believe is, and because he had no previous issues with self-control or whatnot, then he cannot be at blame for something he had no control over.

Assuming the tumor is the complete determining factor in his pedophilia, which I believe is, and because he had no previous issues with self-control or whatnot, then he cannot be at blame for something he had no control over. — kepler

Sure, but few cases are so clear cut medically. I guess they are useful in illustrating that guilt maybe not as black and white as some think.

I guess they are useful in illustrating that guilt maybe not as black and white as some think. — Jake Tarragon

Yes, examples like that are useful in that sense

Here's a link to the NEW SCIENTIST article on a 40 year old married man with a large tumor in the right orbifrontal cortex, an area having to do with judgement.

He engaged in several personally very atypical behaviors -- propositioning workers in massage parlors, having an urge to rape the landlady and pedophilia. The article didn't explain how the tumor prompted urges the man hadn't felt before, only that he had no control over the desires (because of the tumor).

A feature of our consciousness is that we can't help our emotional reactions--in this case, our sexual reactions. We are aroused by what we find arousing. Gay men find other men attractive whether they think it is normal or not, and straight people find many people attractive and fuckable even though they are happily married. It's the same for pedophiles: they have the same specificity and certainty of emotional desire as everyone else. They find children arousing whether they think it is normal or not.

We can decide to act or not act on our desires, but lots of people (gays, straights, celibate priests, and so on) have found that their control over their behavior wasn't as tight as they thought it was. The problem for pedophiles is that their greatest sexual desire is socially unacceptable and has been deemed criminal. I was born in 1946, and I can remember a time when sex between men was held to be criminal and abnormal. This knowledge didn't prevent me from seeking sexual experiences.

We have not solved the problem of pedophilia. They can't change and we do not allow any form of sexual gratification for them. Even computer generated animated pedophilic pornography is illegal. We blame pedophiles for having desires which really are beyond their control.

I don't have a solution, but I do think that our treatment of pedophiles is problematic. So do some courts. Psychopaths present a similar problem: They may not have committed any crimes yet, but we know they do not have the same behavioral controls in place that most of the population have. What to do, what to do? Again, I don't have a solution.

Blame is the natural result of human laziness, i.e. it is the easiest thing to do aka "path of least resistance" :) A laziness to investigate, a laziness to understand, a laziness/unwillingness to accept harsh truths that one knows may be uncovered.

It is far easier to take a single gunman to court than the collective human insanity that resulted in the violent act.

Blame is also the natural result of seeing events as being isolated from all prior events. There is far more to an act of violence than a gun or ammunition. But, no one wants to understand all that. This guy pulled the trigger and people died, so let's lock him up, and problem solved. This is skimming the surface of reality. And, as long as we don't go deeper than the surface, no problems will ever be solved.

But, no one wants to understand all that.

Well, not no-one. There are plenty of people that are concerned about that - you and me for a start, and probably other contributors to this thread. It's just that they don't get heard above the shrill, vengeful shouting of the 'law and order' zealots.

Such is the sad state of public discourse on important issues like this. If it's any consolation (probably not) I don't know that there was ever a time in the past either when governments were prepared to take on the difficult, real solutions, rather than the popular, ineffective, cruel ones.

Well, not no-one. There are plenty of people that are concerned about that - you and me for a start, and probably other contributors to this thread. It's just that they don't get heard above the shrill, vengeful shouting of the 'law and order' zealots.

Such is the sad state of public discourse on important issues like this. If it's any consolation (probably not) I don't know that there was ever a time in the past either when governments were prepared to take on the difficult, real solutions, rather than the popular, ineffective, cruel ones. — andrewk

Well said (Y)

@Aurora A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page! Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution~

I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people, at least in the US, will put 100% of the blame on the individual who commits a specific crime.
...
When is blame warranted? Is it ever warranted? — kepler

There's a couple peculiarities endemic to our system of law that aren't consistent with maintenance of an organized society.

1). There is almost no difference between blame and responsibility. This manifests where crimes with a victim are then placed in the victim's lap and it becomes their responsibility to act, with the implicit claim that inaction amounts to allowing the guilty to go free. It looks to me like a form of outsourcing police work.

2). Where free will is implicated as a necessary component to the law, it is usually the case that the perpetrator is not the causal source of the crime. Examine the reasoning of the first post and the underlying theme is evident in conversations alluding to but not mentioning cause beyond the individual -- which is in my opinion a good description of the bulk of crimes committed.

In that the USA has the world's highest percentage of it's population incarcerated, criminalized and remanded of full claim to the rights of a citizen, I suggest that the mechanism of blame/responsibility does not produce a prosperous and healthy nation.

---
prison population data: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm

A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page! Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh cool, thanks :) Didn't know this forum was on Facebook.

Every criminal ls the way he is because of heredity, or environment, or a combination of those.

That doesn't make him innocent.

Many crimes result from culture or economic conditions, and so, then, society, too, is fully to blame. So, for many cases, I suggest that the criminal himself, and society, both are fully to blame.

But if it's someone's disposition to unjustibiably harm others, then of course he's fully to blame (even if society is too).

The fact that the criminal or society is fully to blame doesn't mean that both aren't fully to blame.

If a chain is holding up a weight, each individual link of the chain is fully holding up the weight.

By the way, when I as in highschool (secondary school) and junior-high-school (pre-secondary school), there were violent bullies, and there was no police protection from them. Evidently, the protection of law was only for adults.

I believed then, and believe now, that when a juvenile in school attacks another juvenile in school, then the attacker should be prosecuted just the same as an adult who attacks another adult, on the sidewalk.. ...with exactly the same penalties.

I don't care how the attacker got that way. The fact that, for whatever reason, he chose to attack someone makes him guilty of the crime of battery, and qualifies him for the full penalty that an adult would receive for the same crime committed against an adult.

Michael Ossipoff