People Who Do Crazy Things Are Not Necessarily Crazy Essay

In the article ‘Who’s Crazy Here, Anyway?’, Rosenhan’s reason for research was because Rosenhan doubted whether the characteristics that lead to psychological diagnoses reside in the patients themselves or in the situations and contexts in which the observers find the patients. The hypothesis generated by Rosenhan was, that the staff will recognize the sanity of the patients, question their diagnosis and follow to release them. The objective was to observe whether personal or environmental factors dictate mental health diagnosis and professional treatment. Rosenhan recruited eight subjects which consisted of three women and five men, one graduate student, three psychologists, one pediatrician, one psychiatrist, one painter, and one homemaker.

Everyday a different crime is committed; however, the reason or motive behind it is not always understood. Over the years, theories were developed to explain why certain crime occurs. For example, Andrea Yates was a mother of 5 who drowned her children due to a mental illness she endured, but there are many theories that play a vital role in explaining why she committed this crime. The theories that will be discussed throughout this paper are the Biosocial Trait Theory and the General Strain Theory.

Throughout the course of history, society has tried to explain and diagnose the abnormal behavior of individuals with mental illnesses. Originally, folklore and other concepts dating back to ancient times, influenced societies to define and label those individuals that expressed abnormal patterns of behavior as mad, insane and mentally ill (Henderson, 2009). Treatment and legal proceedings for such individuals often incorporated cruel and unusual punishments and in some cases even death. Over time, societal views on the available treatments and legal proceedings for the mentally ill have changed drastically. Legal defense for those with mental illnesses, known as the insanity defense became available as far back as King Henry III’s reign over England (Ahia, 2009). The insanity defense is often used interchangeably with: the insanity plea as well as the phrase “not guilty” by reason of insanity. The accepted use of the insanity plea by the defendant, an individual whom is accused of a crime, is determined by the mental health evaluations of the court’s legal standards and or by mental health professionals. The issue of mental illness and the insanity defense becomes controversial when those with mental illnesses commit heinous crimes and use the “not guilty” by reason of insanity defense. The public fears that the individuals are using a questionable and concerning defense to be pardoned for committing violent crimes and that those individuals who are found not guilty and

The question of what it means to be labelled ‘psychologically abnormal’ is examined closely in Rosenhans study of ‘On Being Sane in Insane Places’. This study highlights the usefulness and consequences of being diagnostically labelled.

Clinical psychologists treat those whose thought patterns and behaviours are a threat to their own wellbeing and potentially a threat to others. By using techniques such as observation and interviews, clinical psychologists will assess a patients problem and use this information to provide suitable treatment. Treatments through this pathway require the patients cooperation to both analyse and manage their condition (Health Careers, 2016). Whilst conducting treatments with

Susanna confronts this classification of BPD as she makes its imprecisions clear. She feels that the vagueness surrounding the ‘social contrariness’ and the ‘generally pessimistic outlook’ result in an unfair justification of BPD, as these behaviours are clearly not predictive of her adult life. She feels that there obviously should be more substantial medical indicators to this passage regarding BPD. There is only subjective content, resulting in inevitable confusion over true presence of insanity. Consequently, insanity can easily be confused with social non-conformity due to minor indicators in early life, which is otherwise categorized as simply being different as an adolescent.

Expert witnesses from the case of Kjeldsen (1981) state that even though psychopaths are not able to experience remorse or guilt for their victims, they have the mental abilities to appreciate the nature and quality of the actions (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p. 209). That is, in other words, psychopaths are to have capabilities to understand as well as foresee the physical consequences of their actions, despite not being able to understand the psychological damage created towards their victims (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p.

The United States formed the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty”. Sometimes the perpetrator knows that they’re guilty, but they’re found not guilty. Kenneth Parks, a twenty-three-year-old man who “… Broke in, stabbed his mother… drove himself to the police station… said ‘I think I may have killed some people’” (Quoted in Eagleman 437). Parks was a man who committed murder and was found not guilty. Various parties knew that Parks committed the murder, but motive was the reason he was found not guilty. Controversy around Parks’ adjudication just added to existing debates about psychological crimes. Who did the crime, the culprit or his/her biological factors? Should the culprit get rehabilitation

Though it was clear that Richard Hickock’s motive was to take the rumored money the Clutters kept in their home, Perry Smith did not have a certain motive. During the trial the father of Perry Smith noted that he had seen a personality change in his son that concerned him. He stated, “He just didn’t act like the same boy”(Capote pg.292). This raised suspicion about Smith’s mental state. Therefore they had a psychiatric specialist, Dr. W. Mitchell Jones, evaluate both of them. The determined that Hickock knew exactly what he was doing and that his brain was able to tell right from wrong. Dr. Jones found something different with Perry Smith. He concluded that Perry did not know what he was doing during the murders explaining why he did it with no trace of emotion. Dr. Jones stated, “ Perry Smith shows definite signs of severe mental illness”(Capote pg.296). He concluded that this was because Smith had grown up without any direction, love, or a sense of moral values. Smith also showed signs of paranoid orientation, meaning that he felt that no could understand him and people discriminate against him. The doctor also confided in the fact that Perry Smith had uncontrolled acts of severe rage. Dr. Jones concluded that these were caused by, “...feeling of being tricked, slighted, or labeled inferior by others”(Capote pg.297). In conclusion Perry Smith had a mental abnormality meaning that he should have been prosecuted

There are several instances throughout the book where it seems that Smith is conscienceless. He is able to kill a black man and almost an entire family. He feels no remorse for his actions, and if the time arises again he would probably pull the trigger again. The definition of insanity states that when a mentally ill person can no longer distinguish the real world from fantasy he is insane. Perry may seem to be insane, but he is conscience of his actions. Later in the book, Perry mentions how he knows his actions are wrong, but he feels know remorse for them. Perry can be described by another definition, a sociopath. A sociopath know his actions are wrong, but he or she feels no remorse. Perry murdered the family “in cold blood.” He never truly had a motive, except for blindly following the actions of Dick. Perry was able to murder an entire family without a seconds thought.

Other signs of deviance, such as misconduct, exist in our society. This can be stated as true as in our contemporary, any signs of misbehavior such as yelling loudly, constant fits of anger, depression, or any signs of negative emotions which can come from home situations are normally labeled as a person being psychotic or schizophrenic. Social misfitting should not be sufficient evidence or to be used as evidence, let alone for diagnosing any mental illness. The essential point of Scheff’s theory is that the person recognized as mentally ill is the abnormality for which society does not provide an explicit label. The categories of norm violations with in society such as crime, drunk behavior, perversion, and ill-mannered, constitute to labeling someone as mentally ill since they have broken a residual rule. This in turn goes on to modern day society. People are quick to label others for the way they act rather than observe the behavior before putting them a label. Scheff challenges in his book “becoming mentally ill” and “labeling madness” the social nature of health and suggests the term “problems in living” as another term for psychiatric

We do not believe the jury in Anatomy of Murder was correct to acquit Manion based on the irresistible impulse variation of the insanity defense. Although the insanity defense is a legitimate defense to use during trials, the crime itself, by the accuser, should still be regarded as such. Instead of acquitting Manion completely and letting him go free of murder, the jury and judge should have ordered Manion to go through several supervised mental health recovery programs. We believe that it is extremely unfair and unjust for an accuser to be fully acquitted of a crime due to the negligence of their health or their lack of overall expectancy. Despite the fact that many suffer from mental health, the act of killing, such as the one in this film,

“First of all i dismembered the corpse. I cut off the head and the arms and the legs” (59) Now no doubt about Mr. Smith killed Mr. Johnson but was he sane or insane at the time of the crime is the only question that will keep him from jail time. If he is sane enough to take precautions he is sane enough for prison time.

The criminal mind is something that is difficult to comprehend. The aggressive, manic, and psychotic behaviors of criminals are all a reflection of their human biology and the environment. Jeffrey Dahmer, also known as the Milwaukee Cannibal, committed several crimes of murder and rape which were behaviors influenced by both external factors and his genetic makeup. While certain justifications for criminal acts can be argued as irrational, it is clear that the biological and environmental factors that contribute to Dahmer’s loneliness, and antisocial behavior fail to fully excuse his motives. These factors fail to fully excuse his motives because he used his “insanity” at trial as a plea to escape any consequences, and because he was not deprived from the ability to resist his impulsive and obsessive behavior. It is important to acknowledge cases like Dahmer’s because further advances can be made to treat psychotic behaviors and answer vexing questions in regards to law and medicine.

For many years scientists, including doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists, have been interested in trying to understand human behaviour, in particular behaviour that is described as being ‘abnormal’. It is difficult to define ‘abnormal’ in terms of behaviour because there are many differing descriptions which have radically changed over the years. ‘Abnormal’ behaviour is widely categorised as being persistent and in a serious degree contrary to the continued wellbeing of the individual and/or the surrounding community. Cultural beliefs and expectations determine which behaviour patterns are deemed as being ‘abnormal’.