Do you necessarily need to have mental health issues to kill someone?

[omega 616]

snip

No, crimes of passion.

People get caught up in the moment, for example: Guy comes home and sees that his wife is getting it from the neighbor, he flips and grabs the nearest object and swings until the red mist fades.

Also a lot of getting what you think is owed to you, such as killing over a promotion. Revenge over a perceived slight. Are we including hate as a form of mental issue? By which I mean, imagine being raised in a gang and your whole life you have been told "you see a cryp/blood/etc, you kill them" or a kkk member/racist killing a race they hate.

Watch enough csi, bones or just about any other crime show and you will see loads of reasons why people kill.

 

[jademunky]

Very often , when news of someone killing one or more people i see two frequent stances on the matter. We got the people, saying how disgusting and terrible the offender is and how he is the scum of humanity. Then we have the other side who assumes ( read: says ) the person has/had mental health issues, that lead him/her to commit such acts and probably needed help.

Ill say no. I would imagine that most crimes of passion do not involve mental health issues, being very very angry is just not the same thing as having actual issues.

Also I think it just unfairly stigmatizes the mentally ill, who for the most part are relatively harmless. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims themselves.

People see some horrible story on the news and think "he must've been crazy" but I think deep down, most of us have a horrible, mean, selfish little person inside them that wants to lash out at the world sometimes.

 

[Esotera]

The evidence says that people with personality disorders might be an at-risk group, but it's still a very small figure & can be mitigated with effective care (which doesn't exist now, I don't think any country in the world has perfect mental healthcare).

That's understandable. But if someone thinks that killing others is an acceptable action and has committed the act, I feel they've already stepped into the realm of mental illness. You can't be mentally healthy and a murderer.

Why not? A soldier can kill someone in a battle and believe they are justfied, what makes them different from someone who kills an abusive husband and believes they are justified?

I guess it's all in how you rationalize or justify the violence. A soldier fighting to defend his homeland? Quite acceptable to some. A soldier invading a foreign country to take resources? Well, then it becomes appalling. A wife who murders a husband to stop the abusive? Once again, quite acceptable to some. A wife who murders to collect money or a similar reason? It becomes appalling.

Mental illness implies that to an extent, the murderer is not in control of their body (which can certainly be true in untreated schizophrenia). A wife who murders her husband solely to collect money would know what she was doing, and is therefore acting rationally. The point here is that you are defining two things that are different as the same thing. A diagnosis is based on professional assessment & takes a lot of time, and may evolve with the disease.

A subjective judgement takes no time at all & does not conclusively determine whether someone has a medical condition. It's a lazy way of thinking & demonises everyone who has manageable mental health issues.

 

[Frission]

This is a response to the thread about the 20 something guy who went nuts, right?

We might be doing a disservice by saying that people who commit murder must be mentally ill, because we don't acknowledge that completely "normal" can do pretty terrible things.

 

[GreyNicor]

As for needing to have mental issues in order to kill someone(outside of self-defense or extreme circumstances);

See, this is my problem, killing is killing, even if justified, if you need to exclude self-defence or extreme circumstances to get to the conclusion of you need a mental disease then you don't need to have a mental disease.
If you can kill with a mental disease and kill without it then killing does not require a mental disease, else people without mental diseases would by definition be unable to kill.

 

[Foolery]

The evidence says that people with personality disorders might be an at-risk group, but it's still a very small figure & can be mitigated with effective care (which doesn't exist now, I don't think any country in the world has perfect mental healthcare).

That's understandable. But if someone thinks that killing others is an acceptable action and has committed the act, I feel they've already stepped into the realm of mental illness. You can't be mentally healthy and a murderer.

Why not? A soldier can kill someone in a battle and believe they are justfied, what makes them different from someone who kills an abusive husband and believes they are justified?

I guess it's all in how you rationalize or justify the violence. A soldier fighting to defend his homeland? Quite acceptable to some. A soldier invading a foreign country to take resources? Well, then it becomes appalling. A wife who murders a husband to stop the abusive? Once again, quite acceptable to some. A wife who murders to collect money or a similar reason? It becomes appalling.

Mental illness implies that to an extent, the murderer is not in control of their body (which can certainly be true in untreated schizophrenia). A wife who murders her husband solely to collect money would know what she was doing, and is therefore acting rationally. The point here is that you are defining two things that are different as the same thing. A diagnosis is based on professional assessment & takes a lot of time, and may evolve with the disease.

A subjective judgement takes no time at all & does not conclusively determine whether someone has a medical condition. It's a lazy way of thinking & demonises everyone who has manageable mental health issues.

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for your insight. I'm not trying to demonize or be lazy, just come to a better understanding of topics such as this.

I guess it's all in how you rationalize or justify the violence. A soldier fighting to defend his homeland? Quite acceptable to some. A soldier invading a foreign country to take resources? Well, then it becomes appalling. A wife who murders a husband to stop the abusive? Once again, quite acceptable to some. A wife who murders to collect money or a similar reason? It becomes appalling.

Justification doesn't matter, if you say that killing requires a mental disorder then if you kill you have a mental disorder.
If you can think of ANY reason in ANY circumstance SOMEONE could kill without having a mental disorder then killing does not need a mental disorder.
Then there is something else that determines whether you have a mental disorder, it could be that other thing and killing, but killing itself wouldnt require a mental disorder.

Point taken, my good man.

I guess it's up to the current society and culture to deem what's acceptable or not. No single person's morality, ethics, or philosophy is going to be the same. You may come to a general consensus and that will change with the times.

I totally agree, and that's what I've been getting at this whole time. However, this doesn't have anything to do with mental illness. Changes in culture don't fundamentally make bipolar disorder or schizophrenia more or less illnesses any more than they do with cancer or diabetes. Violence may become less acceptable, but that doesn't make it an illness.

Sorry if I'm coming on strong with this stuff. As a bipolar sufferer myself, I really want more people to understand mental illness.

No need for apologies. I can see where you're coming from and I appreciate what you've added to the discussion. Speaking of cultures, I might add there's also warrior cultures that concern themselves with showing restraint and killing only as a last resort. Something to think about. Anyway, I'm out for now. Good day to everyone.

 

[stroopwafel]

If you can kill with a mental disease and kill without it then killing does not require a mental disease, else people without mental diseases would by definition be unable to kill.

How so? Is killing out of self-defense(ie. your life or the assailant) and killing out of 'enjoyment'/frustration/envy etc. not an important distinction to make?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I don't know. I can't say for certain whether a person who kills is or isn't healthy mentally. I can't see inside their head nor can I diagnose someone mentally healthy or not. Its not my area of expertise. All I can say is personally it isn't easy to harm someone, even with mental issues (and I am bipolar), but I can say that I have had breaks with reality in the past where I've gone a bit too far and seriously hurt someone.
All I know is my gut says "maybe".

 

[Vegosiux]

If you can kill with a mental disease and kill without it then killing does not require a mental disease, else people without mental diseases would by definition be unable to kill.

How so? Is killing out of self-defense(ie. your life or the assailant) and killing out of 'enjoyment'/frustration/envy etc. not an important distinction to make?

I think it's not as important as the distinction between "circumstancial" and "premeditated".

But what I'm not sure here is what we mean when we say "mental illness"...Eamar's been trying to shed some light on that, but it still seems to me as if we're talking about vastly different things, or, actually, as if "mental illness" is only one, uniform condition. Which is of course not the case.

 

[Eamar]

If you can kill with a mental disease and kill without it then killing does not require a mental disease, else people without mental diseases would by definition be unable to kill.

How so? Is killing out of self-defense(ie. your life or the assailant) and killing out of 'enjoyment'/frustration/envy etc. not an important distinction to make?

Of course it is, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mental illness. Killing out of envy, frustration or even enjoyment doesn't require a mental illness, just that you are envious, frustrated or enjoy feeling supremely powerful (or whatever else causes you enjoyment).

As I've said several times in this thread, "abnormal/uncomfortable/outside the social norm" is not necessarily equivalent to "mentally ill."

 

[GreyNicor]

If you can kill with a mental disease and kill without it then killing does not require a mental disease, else people without mental diseases would by definition be unable to kill.

How so? Is killing out of self-defense(ie. your life or the assailant) and killing out of 'enjoyment'/frustration/envy etc. not an important distinction to make?

Killing is just taking another person's life, circumstances do not matter and thus the distinction does not, assuming killing needs a mental disorder.
If you do need to make that distinction then the distinction determines whether someone does or does not have a mental disorder and not the act of killing in and of itself, and thus the act of killing in and of itself does not need a mental disorder.

Just to clear this up, I do think we should make such distinctions.
I was trying to prove that killing does not need a mental disorder by assuming it is true and showing some logical consequences.

 

[krazykidd]

This is a response to the thread about the 20 something guy who went nuts, right?

We might be doing a disservice by saying that people who commit murder must be mentally ill, because we don't acknowledge that completely "normal" can do pretty terrible things.

No really a response, but it did make me want to make this thread. But it's not the first time. Everytime, something like that happens ( like once a week on a good week), those are the two most popular responses. I just wanted to know, are those just spur of the moment responses or do people actually think this. Like i said i know nothing abot the brain and psychology, just curious more than anything else.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

No, but it doesn't help.

A moment of anger, a desire for justice, those traits can be found in all of us.

 

[stroopwafel]

Of course it is, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mental illness. Killing out of envy, frustration or even enjoyment doesn't require a mental illness, just that you are envious, frustrated or enjoy feeling supremely powerful (or whatever else causes you enjoyment).

As I've said several times in this thread, "abnormal/uncomfortable/outside the social norm" is not necessarily equivalent to "mentally ill."

Mental illness and disturbing behavior shouldn't probably all be hoarded into the same category, fair enough. Let me just say that for psychopathy there is a neurological defect which leads to lack of inhibition. This isn't necessarily an 'illness' just the way you were born, similarly as other people might be born without arms or legs. And unlike an illness, it can't be treated or cured.

Not every psychopath grows up to be a cold-blooded killer ofcourse(which I think many people automatically make the association with Hannibal Lecter types). But lack of inhibition is a prerequisite to kill without guilt or remorse. A person is more than mere brain chemistry but neurological defects/damage that leads to complete lack of empathy is certainly a dangerous predicament to be in. Espescially since life's many trials and tribulations pose an easy trigger.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No. They can be a gamer. They could be Muslim. They could listen to satanic music.

Only if they aren't any of those sorts, we deduce that they are obviously insane, in order to avoid examining the problem in greater detail.

...

You'll note the OP has to (of course) exclude soldiers, and people acting in self defence, because they have a cause we generally accept. What if the person considers themselves fighting a war against someone or something, or is defending someone or something from someone or something else?

People accept that wars are fought over wrongs committed, why is it so different from someone to consider themselves wronged by society and to be warring against it, or somesuch?

Now, or course, it's morally indefensible, but that's not the same as being mentally ill. All the assumption of mental illness does is demonise them, and ensure the problem isn't properly addressed. You'll note that, in the US at least, mental health seems to be widely talked about only in response to a shooting, and only in the context of protecting Us from Them. Not helping the many, many people who are mentally ill.

Aren't those with mental issues less likely to commit a crime and far more likely to be the victim of a crime? I can't remember where I ay the statistic, but I'm pretty sure someone with mental health issues is 8 times more likely to be a victim then someone who is healthy.

Seven, or so I'm led to believe.

 

[Bluestorm83]

Every single person on the planet has "Mental Health Issues." That's because brains don't come in one standard size. If it were represented in a character creation screen, there would be around 25 different sliders just to determine what we think of how the air smells after it rains.

Some people just have "Amoral" and "Evil" cranked way up there. These people can't be "fixed" because that's just who they are. To that end, they need to be put away before they commit murder, or permanently removed from society via execution after they commit or attempt to commit murder. I'd suggest the same treatment for anyone whose brain has a series of boxes checked that amount to "molesting children isn't THAT bad, is it?" or the guy whose subroutines equate an unwilling woman with a woman who is only acting like she's terrified and resistant. In short, let's all protect the good from the evil, and stop trying to fix the evil at the cost of leaving them in society to do more evil to the innocent good.

Side Note: With the increased knowledge into just how a brain functions, and how you can change a brain to bring about an altered person as a result, I call into serious question the morality of medicating or eventually permanently altering the brain chemistry of the so called "Mentally ill." One day, what you and I believe or think may be classified as a mental illness and taken from us by force. Read "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin. It's about a society of nearly gender-neutral, docile, unambitious drones who eat nothing but totalcakes and receive their weekly "treatments" to keep them manageable, whilst Unicomp, the planet's central computer, regulates everything from who they may marry to whether or not you're allowed to cross a street.

Addendum: If in the future, anyone in power does decide that anything I think or believe equates to mental illness, I'd just like to go on record that I'd personally prefer execution to being changed into something which I am not.

 

[Eamar]

Side Note: With the increased knowledge into just how a brain functions, and how you can change a brain to bring about an altered person as a result, I call into serious question the morality of medicating or eventually permanently altering the brain chemistry of the so called "Mentally ill." One day, what you and I believe or think may be classified as a mental illness and taken from us by force.

That attitude's all fine and dandy right up until you or someone you love actually has bipolar disorder/schizophrenia/chronic depression etc. Without my medication, I'd either be dead or utterly unable to function as an independent adult.

Addendum: If in the future, anyone in power does decide that anything I think or believe equates to mental illness, I'd just like to go on record that I'd personally prefer execution to being changed into something which I am not.

Some of us feel that it's our illnesses that change us into something we're not, not the medication.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Of course not. There are criminals of all kinds, domestic violence victims and perpetrators (works both ways), and plenty of other conditions in which regular people can be put under enough pressure or stand to gain enough to kill other people.

But there does seem to be a correlation. Like violently anti-gay activists and homosexuality.

 

[shootthebandit]

Without my medication, I'd either be dead or utterly unable to function as an independent adult.

Im sorry for being naive but how exactly is this the case. Im not disagreeing with you. Im just curious as to how not taking medication could lead to this

You dont have to answer just to satisfy my curiosity.