Hmm, I noticed something. Twisted logic?

Question

A few days ago I asked "How can a person commit an heinous heartwrenching crime?". Quite a few commented that it was due to mental illness. As if the person was not in control of their actions, or the mental illness took away all reason. However when it comes to lesser crimes, some people say that the person had a choice free will.

So what is the difference? Is a criminal act so unimagineble that people cannot fathom why a person would do such thing, so it must be due to mental illness. If a criminal act is bad, but not as bad then the person had a choice/ free will?

Please explain.

Reply:
"Hmm, you're right, I simply can't distinguish between shoplifting and cutting my wife's head off, you really got me thinking here"
EggHead:

Well some people would say that you didn't mean to cut her head off because anyone who would do that MUST be mentally ill. You didn't have that choice. However they would say that you chose to shoplift, you had free will then. People can stomach that.

They cannot stomach that maybe you couldn't control your shoplifting urges, and perhaps you REALLY wanted to cut her head off.

Addition:
Scott Peterson is a prime example. He wasn't brought up in a bad home, he was loved, and he wasn't mentally ill (at least I don't think he was). He wanted to get rid of Laci. She was in his way. People will try to attach the label of mentally ill to him, to make his crime seem more compatible.

Nubiage:
You don't have to be sociopath to not care. Some people just don't give a damn, or they care only about a selected few.

Bad Tim:
You won the golden ticket. Spot on, thumbs up.

Egghead:
No duh foster farm? Well don't use petty crimes. If a person kills someone for insurance money the concept of mental illness never comes up. It is greed. Plus the matter that a person is killed is important. If someone is butchered, dismembered then people call it mental illness. Any other type of murder it is jealousy, greed, and anger; anything but mental illness.

Reply:
"...the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal."
Hairypot:

Wow two golden tickets in one question. Exactly, that is why I say that how can you draw your morals from your society? How do you know what is wrong when according to your society their precieved right isn't wrong. To others it is wrong.

Answer 1

the nazis were very sane, rational people and managed to commit the most heinous crimes in history. they may be delusional, but the most brutal criminals are not insane. calling them insane or 'evil' is a way people distance themselves from the dark side we all have. if we can justify the sadistic criminal as different, then we can pretend that we are better than they are. it's the same mechanism that allows all kinds of prejudice.

Answer 2

Perhaps it is an interesting psychological phenomenon...like cognitive dissonance or self-fulfilling prophecy. When people think about and discuss the behavior of another person, they put themselves in the other person's shoes to some extent. When they are talking about a crime, if they can imagine themselves committing that crime for some reason, they attribute the cause to choice...but when they can't imagine themselves doing it for any reason, they attribute it to an illness.

Or perhaps, instead of themselves, they compare the behavior to their own perceived range of "normal" human behavior. Whether something is a result of an abnormal mental condition or a normal but bad choice depends on their own personal perception of human nature. People who think humans are basically "good" probably attribute more horrible crimes to illness than those that think people are basically "bad".

One thing I would mention is that people often have their own definition of mental illness. For example, I know some people that would be willing to accept the "I'm an alcoholic" excuse from someone that gets caught drinking and driving...for me, I don't buy it and think a lack of moral character not an illness causes people to drink and then do stupid things as a result! As a result, I find it far more heinous and heartwrenching when a confirmed "alcoholic" kills a child with his car than when a man snaps and shoots 10 of his co-workers after being fired! After all, the drunk KNEW he had a problem and drank anyway...the other man may have had no way of knowing how he would react to being fired!

Answer 3

I think truly heinous acts do require a high level of mental illness to take away any human compassion. Lesser crimes do not require the same lack of compassion; they often just require a bit of greed and marginal lack of compassion - or more greed than compassion. The worse the crime, the lesser the compassion, the greater the mind must be corrupted.

I think being greedy enough to commit a crime can be seen as a mental illness as well. I really do think most criminals need psychological help to some degree. They at least have not been properly socialized.

Since we are hardwired to work toward the continuation of the species first and for self-preservation second, I can understand how one might go for self-preservation over continuation of the species when the stakes are not as high, without actually being that screwed up in the head.

Answer 4

Every perpetrator had a choice at some point. Some made ill informed choices for a variety of reasons. Read up on the Holocaust and more recent "Ethnic Cleansings" and hate crimes. Each inflictor thought they were doing something to protect what they believed in.
The Banality of Evil is a phrase coined in 1963 by Hannah Arendt in her work Eichmann in Jerusalem. It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

Answer 5

This question is being answered by people who know better and have a clearer conscience on things and a better perspective.

The perspective of a person who would commit such a horrible crime more than likely won't see it as so horrible. To him/her it's like stealing candy. The mental "illness" people are talking about would be more like a satanic influence, however, this doesn't necessarily mean the person worships Satan or anything. It merely means the person made a CHOICE!

Answer 6

People are a product of their DNA and their upbringing. Anyone can be turned evil if they are tortured and brainwashed enough. Some people grow up in horrible abusive conditions with little or no moral guidance and these people are more likely to commit heinous crimes. Same goes with lesser crimes. As far as free will goes, it is still a highly debated topic among philosophers. DNA, our upbringing, what we have learned in our past, and our surroundings, have a huge if not a complete influence in our decision making. This doesn't leave much room for free will in my opinion.

Answer 7

I think it's because people put themselves in the criminals' place... they could imagine themselves stealing (and many have done it, usually as kids), but they cannot fathom a brutal killing, so the answer must be the person was crazy.

There's actually a theory that people who do terrible crimes are in fact crazy at that moment. The act itself is so vile they distance themselves from it by creating a sort of temporary split personality... that does the killing. So there might be some truth to it.

I think :)

Answer 8

Every single one of us is mentally ill. It's only a question of degree. Perfect mental health would ensure never feeling depressed or hyper-excitable, anxious or over-confident, unworthy or suffering from illusions of grandeur, irritable or uninhibited. Perfect mental health is enjoyed by perfect people. Know any? I don't.

Whether it's a lack of seritonin or a purely selfish choice to be criminal is not actually the issue. The selfish choice is just as much a sign of mental illness as is wonky brain chemistry. But the latter can be treated.

Answer 9

A person never starts out doing their worst crimes first. Just like anything else ,it is a growing problem.
As a person lets Satan more and more into their life, they become filled more and more with hate and evil thoughts. They have need to worse things each time to feel satisfied with there evil lusts.
It is the uninformed liberals who promote this 'illness' type of belief.
No matter how "ill" they are ,they do have a choose. But the more time they spend with the devil , the harder it is for them to change.
This doesn't mean they Can't change--It's just harder to reach them.
When they decide that they like it where they are-- and have absolutely no desire to change and have NO feelings or guilt--The Lord says to just turn them over to Satan.

Answer 10

Mike Royko answered this in a column years ago. He said that you have to make a distinction between the insane and the nutso.

If someone commits a horrible crime, you can argue they must be totally nutso, because no normal person would do that.

But that doesn't mean they are "insane" in the sense that they can't tell fantasy from reality. So a person can be nutso, and still in control of their actions.