Is Sociopathic behavior considered insanity legally? Like what if I do not agree that some action is wrong. Then I can’t be knowing that my actions were wrong and did them anyway right? In this case the action would be something that violates the expectations of the status quo, but does not include a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of reality.
I think insanity probably has something to do with either an awareness and experience of something that isn’t real, or a lack of awareness and experience of something that is real.
Is there a mental disorder that can be considered “insanity” which doesn’t involve either of those two premises?
I don’t think a person who kills you because they don’t value human life and are trying to do their part to exterminate our species is insane, because they still experience reality in the same way as the rest of us. They still see what we see and hear what we hear, they just have made different value judgments based on that experience.
I don’t think you can be insane unless you experience something that isn’t real. That lady that drowned her kids because God told her it was the only way to protect them from evil was insane, assuming her story is true, but Jeffery Dahmer wasn’t. The fictional Hannibal Lechter is perfectly sane, I think.
It’s true, ‘society’ brands certain people - who are powerless, voiceless, on the periphery - as insane. Like a scarlet letter. In the past, they would have been called “crazy” but now they are labeled “insane”. There are too many events in the world today (Virginia Tech, tilted astronauts, kidnapping, terrorism) that make people distrustful of others.
My sole criterion for insane is if the person is a potential harm to themselves or to others.
So then a everyone is insane, because everyone has the potential to harm themselves or others?
Okay, I know you meant something a little more than merely potential. Are all criminals who commit violent crimes insane? Soldiers? Police? They all have the potential to harm others, and it’s quite likely that they will eventually harm another person.
You mean computer user… We call them clients here.
In Medieval times they believed that the poor folks were possessed by the devil. I guess we’ve come a long way. Still, there remains the unknown part of the human spirit, which just can’t be contained. Indeed, every so often there’s unleashed the beast within us.
To tell the truth, I really don’t see much difference between “he’s behaving that way because he’s possessed by demons” and “he’s behaving that way because his humours are imbalanced” and “he’s behaving that way because of a chemical imbalance in his brain.” They are simply different ways of saying “he’s behaving that way because of something that we can’t see, smell, hear, taste, or touch.”
Truly, the only difference is that our means of exorcism have become more reliant upon a broader range of chemicals than just holy water.
As it happens, that was precisely the point of In Cold Blood. BTW, sociopath is no longer used by psych types; the DSM-IV label is Antisocial Personality Disorder. Bottom line, under the common law definition, no, APD is not insanity, because the perp knows what he’s doing is considered wrong by society. Capote was arguing that it should be considered insanity, at least in some cases. Meaning that the perp should be restricted, so he can’t cause harm, but being angry with him or punishing him is inappropriate.
And, KneadToKnow, I respectfully disagree that ascribing mental illness to a chemical imbalance of the brain is simply saying “he’s behaving that way because of something that we can’t see, smell, hear, taste, or touch.” If APD is organic, Capote is right. If it’s a choice, the hard-asses are right. If it’s in between (or a little of both), well, that gets interesting.
A person who is insane might have strange theories that veer from the mainstream. Part of the what they write or say may actually be sound but there are parts that trigger a short fuse. If I said the music industry is brainwashing youth with lyrics, images, OK, that might be plausable…but if I end with an ominous "it’s all part of a masterplan to make teenagers buy corporate products…
You try to level with them, talk some sense to them, try to reason with them. And the person goes off the deep end: “they’ve got you brainwashed. You worship a false idol, American Idol!” Then they act normal. Then a little crazy. Then normal.
I think the fundamential difference between “dead-serious insanity” and “everybody’s a little insane” is that we can debate 9/11 conspiracy with facts, opinions, ect – they just go off. I can’t explain it.
They aren’t willing to change their position. I guess, in the end, insanity, is doing the same act repeatedly and expecting different results.
True, but my point was that insanity in law includes conditions that we do not normally include in the colloquial use of “insane” such as mental retardation, and that the disorder only has a bearing on the defendant’s legal sanity as it affects his subjective state of mind at the time of the offense. The mentally retarded indivdual I mentioned in my post could be adjudged “insane,” but mental retardation is not necessarily per se legal insanity in all cases. Another mentally retarded defendant who understood that what they were doing was wrong in the eyes of society could be found legally sane, although their mental retardation would likely be a mitigating factor in punishment.