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

[krazykidd]

Just to be clear, i'm not talking about self defense , accidentally killing someone or people that go to war ( soldiers).

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.

Now i'm not going to list any examples because i've been on the escapists long enough to know that if i do, the thread will be derailed into the stories i wrote. So i want to talk about the second part, mental issue. Here is the main question for this thread.

Do you think a person who kills another, necessarily has mental health issues?

Now i'm not as educated as most of you fine escapist, and i don't pretend to know anything about psychology and how the brain works. Despite that, i don't see why an average Joe cannot kill someone without having health problems. That isn't to mean, that i don't know why they wouldn't, killing is bad afterall. However if they wanted to , i think they could , no mental health issues required, they just don't.

 

[Muspelheim]

Well, statements about the mental health of the perpetrator tend to mostly come up when the crime is or seems to be irrational. When there is no "reasonable" motive, like gain of various sorts or intimidation. It is a reasonable question to ask if the murder doesn't seem to have any rational reason or goal.

Murders for revenge is a border case, of course, but it depends. If the victim is personally responsible for having wronged the perpetrator in the past there is at least a thread of logic, but it begins to frey if the victims are haphazardly chosen members of a nebulous "enemy" of sorts.

John Citizen could murder anyone he likes, without being ill. But he won't, because it won't gain him anything, and it's likely he will lose everything. Why should he risk that, hell, why should he bother? It'd just be a waste of time. It's simply not productive, besides being an immoral action. Mr. Citizen is rational, for the most part.

 

[Foolery]

Killing someone for no reason, without mental issues? Nah. If you murder someone out of the blue, you're fucking nuts.
Violence usually takes immense effort and moral struggle out of a sane person. I have been around violent people and I can tell you, those who commit violence easily, are not normal or sane. My father was an abusive sociopath. People with mental issues often do not realize they are sick.
They also can't rationalize the way a healthy individual would.

 

[Zontar]

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.

 

[Eamar]

While certain (very rare) conditions do increase the likelihood of someone being violent to others, people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than the general population, and in fact are significantly more likely to be a victim of violent crime. If mentally ill people are violent towards anyone, they're overwhelmingly more likely to harm themselves than someone else.

It annoys me when people go straight for the "they must have been mentally ill" explanation. I get that it's comforting and much easier to believe that only people who are in some "different" category to you could do such terrible things, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, these knee-jerk reactions only reinforce the fear and misunderstanding of mental illness that's a very real problem in our society.

 

[Vegosiux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "not keeping the sanctity of human life above all other considerations" pretty much one of the bullet points with which sociopathy is defined?

 

[Foolery]

It annoys me when people go straight for the "they must have been mentally ill" explanation. I get that it's comforting and much easier to believe that only people who are in some "different" category to you could do such terrible things, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, these knee-jerk reactions only reinforce the fear and misunderstanding of mental illness that's a very real problem in our society.

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.

 

[Eamar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "not keeping the sanctity of human life above all other considerations" pretty much one of the bullet points with which sociopathy is defined?

Definitely not. By that definition (thinking particularly of the "above all else" part), a huge number of people would have to be insane

"Psychopathy" or "sociopathy" are not actually recognised psychiatric diagnoses anywhere in the world. It's only the courts, press and entertainment media that insist on upholding them as some sort of inherent mental disorder (see my previous point about it being easier to accept that only a "crazy" person could be so reprehensible).

Validity of the terms aside though, the main "bullet point" you're looking for is lack of empathy for others.

 

[Vegosiux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "not keeping the sanctity of human life above all other considerations" pretty much one of the bullet points with which sociopathy is defined?

Definitely not. By that definition (thinking particularly of the "above all else" part), a huge number of people would have to be insane

"Psychopathy" or "sociopathy" are not actually recognised psychiatric diagnoses anywhere in the world. It's only the courts, press and entertainment media that insist on upholding them as some sort of inherent mental disorder (see my previous point about it being easier to accept that only a "crazy" person could be so reprehensible).

Validity of the terms aside though, the main "bullet point" you're looking for is lack of empathy for others.

Ehhh, yeah I went too absolutist there. But I was going by what the OP was about, reasons like self-defense, life-or-death, them-or-me, war, were ruled out at that point already.

So I figured it was about premeditated, non-circumstantial killings. And I can't think of a single scenario in which such a killing wouldn't have "lack of empathy" as a considerable element. No, not even death penalty.

 

[Eamar]

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? Why is it so impossible that they're just horrible, horrible people who don't go along with society's current set of values?

I mean, does your mental illness explanation extend to cultures elsewhere in the world or in other periods of history where killing wasn't necessarily the ultimate crime? Warrior cultures? Cultures with gladiatorial sports? Cannibalistic cultures?

Hell, "bloodlust" and "battle frenzy" have been celebrated and glorified in various places and times. Was everyone who went along with that mentally ill?

And besides, which mental illnesses are you suggesting all these killers have? As I've already said, mental illness doesn't increase a person's risk of violence. Mental illnesses are real things with defined diagnostic criteria, not just catch-all terms for people who are a bit unsettling.

 

[JoJo]

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.

Generally that's correct, although obviously certain disorders such as anti-social personality disorder are exceptions, your usual bipolars, depressives, autistics etc are no different from anyone-else in committing crimes, but far more likely to be victims or self-harm.

OT: Something that needs to be remembered is that 'mental health issues' is a subjective term, applied to a certain sub-set of people who have difficulties in various 'mental' attributes that negatively affect their life in this particular society. Could killing someone for a reason our society finds unacceptable be defined as a 'mental disorder' in itself? Possibly, depends on where you draw the line.

 

[Foolery]

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? Why is it so impossible that they're just horrible, horrible people who don't go along with society's current set of values?

I mean, does your mental illness explanation extend to cultures elsewhere in the world or in other periods of history where killing wasn't necessarily the ultimate crime? Warrior cultures? Cultures with gladiatorial sports? Cannibalistic cultures?

Hell, "bloodlust" and "battle frenzy" have been celebrated and glorified in various places and times. Was everyone who went along with that mentally ill?

And besides, which mental illnesses are you suggesting all these killers have? As I've already said, mental illness doesn't increase a person's risk of violence. Mental illnesses are real things with defined diagnostic criteria, not just catch-all terms for people who are a bit unsettling.

I'm inclined to say yes. "Bloodlust" and "Battle Frenzy" could definitely be part of mental illness. Same with cannibalism.
Just because it's a celebrated or glorified part of a culture, doesn't make it sane or normal. I'm not saying killing itself is the ultimate taboo either. There can be justified reasons such as self-defense. I think you're absolutely correct about the empathy part. It plays a huge role in how a person views and regards the life of other beings.

Perhaps this can't really be properly encompassed by pscychology. Maybe it's closer towards philosophy or morality and what your views on killing are.

 

[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). http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/10October/Pages/Does-mental-illness-make-you-more-likely-to-kill.aspx

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?

 

[Eamar]

I'm inclined to say yes. "Bloodlust" and "Battle Frenzy" could definitely be part of mental illness.

I'll ask again: which one? Because it doesn't sound like any diagnosable condition I'm familiar with.

And I think you'll find a great deal of how we behave nowadays (good as well as bad) isn't "normal" in relation to most of human history. "Normal/acceptable" behaviour is socially constructed, and (as I've already said) mental illness is more than just acting outside of the norm. If that were true, we'd still consider homosexuality a mental illness. As with "psychopathy" now, that was just an attempt to distance "normal" people from people/behaviours that made them uncomfortable.

[small]Not in any way saying that "psychopaths" are a persecuted minority that should be accepted like homosexuals, obviously, just pointing out how society tends to deal with divergent behaviours.[/small]

 

[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.

 

[Foolery]

I'm inclined to say yes. "Bloodlust" and "Battle Frenzy" could definitely be part of mental illness.

I'll ask again: which one? Because it doesn't sound like any diagnosable condition I'm familiar with.

And I think you'll find a great deal of how we behave nowadays (good as well as bad) isn't "normal" in relation to most of human history. "Normal/acceptable" behaviour is socially constructed, and (as I've already said) mental illness is more than just acting outside of the norm. If that were true, we'd still consider homosexuality a mental illness. As with "psychopathy" now, that was just an attempt to distance "normal" people from people/behaviours that made them uncomfortable.

[small]Not in any way saying that "psychopaths" are a persecuted minority that should be accepted like homosexuals, obviously, just pointing out how society tends to deal with divergent behaviours.[/small]

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.

 

[GreyNicor]

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.

 

[Eamar]

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.

 

[shootthebandit]

I think that it doesnt take a mental illness to kill someone. A crime of passion is simply an irrational action under certain circumstances. Yes it shouldnt happen and im not justifying it but you could see why a sane person would do it


Yes theres probably a significant number of killings where the murderer had a mental illness but it doesnt mean that all murderers have a mental illness or more importantly that everyone with a mental illness is a murderer. Id probably say theres more of a correlation between wealth (or lack there of) and killings. Does that mean all killers are poor? No it doesn't.

 

[stroopwafel]

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?

Good point. Kill for the government and you're a hero, kill for self-preservation and you're a criminal.

As for needing to have mental issues in order to kill someone(outside of self-defense or extreme circumstances); I think you do. If you don't have a developed sense of empathy, you suffer from a mental disorder. Simple as that. Some people are unable to feel remorse, guilt, shame or emotional pain. All prerequisites that enables a person to kill someone. It's a defect similarly as any other neurological disorder.

When children are cruel to animals it's usually an early indicator for psychopathy. When they get older they tend to become more manipulative and calculative and able to understand human feelings on a 'intellectual' level but not on an emotional one. That is not to say their future is one of driving around with a trunk full of dead bodies though. They could just as well become Fortune 500 executives or established politicians.

There are also people who kill out of addiction or desperation, but this is rarely premeditated. In short, given the complexity of our emotions (mentally) healthy people aren't born killers. Espescially not out of cruelty.