Violent, Antisocial, Beyond Redemption?

New Scientist ^ | 4-11-2007 | Peter Aldhous

[blam]

Violent, antisocial, beyond redemption?

11 April 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Peter Aldhous

Whether you think of them as mad or bad, they are certainly dangerous to know. All societies contain a few extremely violent individuals, who are either psychopaths or have a related severe personality disorder. With no concern about the harm they inflict, little can be done to change their behaviour, psychiatrists say.

Now the UK government is challenging this dogma in the hope of protecting the public from these highly risky people. It has already altered criminal law to allow certain violent offenders to be given indefinite jail sentences. Over the coming weeks, parliament will debate legislation that could broaden the definition of mental disorders and use its existing powers to detain such people for treatment (see "Doctors or jailers...", below).

Meanwhile, the government is rolling out an unprecedented treatment and research programme aiming to show it is possible to reduce the risks posed by the most dangerous violent offenders. Just like the changes to the law, the "Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder" (DSPD) programme is highly controversial. However, even critics concede that it holds the best chance yet of showing whether violent psychopaths can be reformed - and so psychiatrists worldwide will be watching.

Every country faces the dilemma of how to manage violent people with personality disorders, who are resistant to conventional treatments. The UK government's determination to address the issue stems in part from a brutal double murder in 1996, in which Lin Russell and one of her young daughters, Megan, were bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Michael Stone, a violent man with a history of drug abuse, was later convicted. He had been in and out of prison, and also diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), a pervasive disregard for the rights

[Wonder Warthog]

Good idea, as long as the decisions are based on the suspect individuals actually having committed crimes, and not the determination of some psychologist or social worker.

Of course, many states here in the US already have such policies in the "three-strikes" laws (which the bleeding heart liberals absolutely hate).

[coloradan]

How about “violent crimes, in which someone was actually hurt”? Possession one round of AP ammunition is a “violent felony” in CA.

[Titan Magroyne]

mark for later

[Wonder Warthog]

"How about “violent crimes, in which someone was actually hurt”? Possession one round of AP ammunition is a “violent felony” in CA."

I dunno. I think "three felonies" is about right. If someone is a habitual car thief, for instance. Three convictions for "grand theft auto" and they should go away indefinitely. Because in actual fact, getting three CONVICTIONS represents a far higher number of actual criminal offenses. Most states aren't as insane as California.

There might need to be some adjustment of laws as to what constitutes a "felony" on a state-by-state basis, but that's what legislatures are supposed to do.