Criminal Responsibility

Hi again! Welcome back to my psychology of evil blog.

In this blog post I will be talking about mental illness, Asperger’s and Autism. I wanted to write a little disclaimer about these things. I am in no way saying that everyone who is Autistic, has Asperger’s or any mental health deficit is going to commit a crime or do something evil. When I classify people as “normal”, I don’t mean to say that those with the aforementioned conditions are abnormal, but I did not want to classify them as “unhealthy”. I’m just looking to draw some connections from the biology in extreme cases with the utmost respect.

This week in class the discussion topic focused a lot on the levels of empathy that were discussed in Simon Baren-Cohen’s book, The Science of Evil. These different levels of empathy do a good job of illustrating who is most likely to have little empathy and what their thought process is. The conversation led us to talk about those who are biologically prone to committing evil acts. Simon Baren-Cohen discussed both Asperger’s and Autism, and how individuals with Asperger’s and Autism Spectrum Disorder have a diminished capacity to feel empathetic. These individuals do have the cognitive understanding of empathy, but struggle to identify what others are feeling (Baren-Cohen, 2011).

With a background in forensic science, I obviously got thinking about the law and court system. This got me thinking how we can fairly judge those who have a predisposition to feel less empathy. Arguably, the rest of us have more control over our actions because we can identify social cues, correctly perceive others’ emotions and act accordingly. Others do not have this social advantage, and can be seen as 100% responsible. How do you attribute guilt to someone who is not of a sound mind when doing something? They most likely did not follow the same cognitive thought process that we would that would lead them to judge that particular act as wrong. They would not possess the mens rea (the criminal intent) to commit the crime, for various reasons. Maybe they did not perceive another’s emotions as we would, or maybe they saw that act as morally correct.

This can be extended to mental illness as well. Those who suffer from borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia, for example, may be at a higher risk to commit a crime. This is because they have an emotional impairment that can cause them to act erratically or fail to comprehend their behaviour. Again, I’m really wondering where the line is drawn between responsible and NCR (not criminally responsible). Of course, context matters, and we need to consider the tangible occurrences and the thought process of the perpetrator. These thoughts are very parallel with the ones that I’ve been struggling with throughout the whole course.

Serena & Sophia

            Serena (3 y/o) and Sophia (1 y/o) were drowned in their bathtub by their mom, Elaine Campione, who was in a custody battle with their father. Their dad, Leo, was facing assault charges at the time for a domestic dispute. Leo had been threatening to take the girls away from Elaine. After she drowned them, Elaine put them in pyjamas and posed them on her bed holding hands, and then overdosed on pills before calling 911. In the hospital, she said she didn’t remember what happened to her daughters.

            Again, I would like to highlight the context here. There is no doubt that Elaine was not right in drowning her daughters, but she also was diagnosed with psychosis and was experiencing extensive life stress. This is an instance where an individual had a clear biological predisposition to commit an evil act, and it caused her to act in a way that does not follow a normal cognitive process. It can be assumed that she did not completely understand what she was doing. When we ask ourselves if we would do this, the answer is clearly no.

Not Criminally Responsible

            As Elaine’s offence occurred in Barrie, Ontario, I thought I would look into some research from Canada. The largest number of offences that are committed by someone who is deemed NCRMD (not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder) is assaults (26%), followed by threats (25%), offences that cause death (11%) and then property offences (10%). There were other offences, but they only accounted for a small amount of the offense committed (Crocker, Nicholls, Seto, Charette, Cote, & Caulet, 2015).

            Approximately one half of individuals who are found NCRMD have had no prior contact with the criminal justice system. The majority of individuals who are found NCRMD were under the care of a psychiatrist. The victims of these crimes were mostly males, with family members and partners being targeted most often (Crocker et al., 2015). This description partially describes Elaine in that she hurt her children.

            Canadian law states that an individual who is accused of a crime must possess the capacity to understand their actions in order to be found guilty of an offence (Crocker et al., 2015). This piece of legislation can apply to those with Autism or Asperger’s, those with psychosis, or those with Borderline Personality Disorder. If someone has an issue regulating their emotions or feeling empathy and understanding empathy, this may apply to them.  

            But can we really blame someone if they do not understand their behaviour?

References

Crocker, A. G., Nicholls, T. L., Seto, M. C., Charette, Y., Cote, G., & Caulet, M. (2015). The national trajectory project of individuals for criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in Canada. Part 2: The people behind the label. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(3), 106-116).

Ramsay, J. (2019). Barrie mother who drowned her children approved for escorted prison leave. Simcoe.  https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/9622313-barrie-mother-who-drowned-her-children-approved-for-escorted-prison-leave/