WDW365 September 29.docx

39 views3 pages
19 Apr 2012
School
Course
Page:
of 3
WDW365 Lecture 3 Psychological Models of the Mind Continued TH Sept 29, 2011
Tips for the Essay:
-focus on own opinion and be able to mention sources and exact points (at least 2 sources)
-address difficult questions no ‘I think’ etc. assert them and back up with arguments
-no rhetorical questions
NCR and Insanity
-law regarded e.g. paranoid schizophrenics as responsible in history; focused upon person having responsibility for
coming to reasonable judgements, and thoughts had gone astray not possessing an inner defect etc.
-notion in history of a disease of the mind giving rise to delusions and hallucinations
-this bit is psychologically determined; inner workings of the mind are creating deception
-look at cases as if these deceptions were true and to judge how person would act in said situation
-if voluntarism/intentionalism is true, why accept the psychological determinism of delusions and hallucinations
-if delusions and hallucinations can be viewed through a psychological deterministic lens, why can’t other actions
-where can we draw the line on when to excuse NCR cases and when not to
-normal learned behaviour; people learn to be criminals in the same way that people learn to be good citizens
-M’Naughten rule becomes the underlying principle in US code
-notion of irresistible impulse; two prongs of M’Naughten; defect of reason so that you didn’t know nature and quality
of the act, or you understood, but couldn’t identify that it was wrong; deprived of good judgement
-is there such a thing as irresistible impulse; know what you’re doing and understand its wrong but can’t stop yourself
from doing it; context of severe mental illness
-1954 US change to insanity law; Durham case expanded into a product test; jury must be convinced that the crime
was a product of the mental disorder
-product test embraces psychiatry; allow most flexibility
-Branner; ability to appreciate criminality
-Hinkley attempts to assassinate President Reagan; strong uprising about insanity defence; limiting it to a tight standard
-some states abandon insanity rule altogether following Hinkley
-GBMI standards, guilty but mentally ill USA has more room to argue against code law; prosecution gambit verdict
will be a message to corrections to give an adequate psychiatric treatment
-England and Wales in 1950’s take a different route; decide to sidestep insanity notion most of the time; leave
M’Naughten rule, bring in new idea called hospital orders
-change in homicide law in diminishing of responsibility can lead to hospital order
-Canada removed piece of M’Naughten of whether delusion is true
-Chaulk case;
-1991 case in Canada, Landry; insanity claim was rejected
-Canada has stuck close to M’Naughten
Michael Moore
-mental disorders are products of defects of inner workings in the mind; not just mistakes, arise out of malfunctions of
the mind
-central idea is that psychology (scientifically) is a completely different enterprise than psychiatry
-psychology is to understand and explain mental processes and the mind; inherently deterministic in a way that’s wrong;
he does not support psychology
-psychiatry’s task is not to understand inner workings of the mind; task is to differentiate between mental illness and
mental wellness; do not tinker with inner workings of the mind except when they come to conclusion that mental
functioning is impaired and therefore they are mentally ill
-kinds of considerations that are stimulated by trying to explain how the mind works are fundamentally different from
considerations of whether a person is mentally impaired
-different to explain how minds work and distinguishing between mental illness and wellness
-1970s issue of homosexuality as a disorder; concluded no inherent basis for this to be a disorder
-determination is not based upon knowing anything about the inner workings in the mind; no genetics or early
childhood experiences; issue is whether homosexuals are mentally impaired by being homosexual
-Moore’s point is psychiatrists have to make a distinction that’s fundamental to their work about mental and social
impairment, not about causes of behaviour
-psychiatrists aren’t making the same determination as the law as whether they are ill or well vs. responsible or not, but
Moore argues that this is the same kind of decision
-law and psychiatry both have a view of the human subject which is similar; law understands human subjects as practical
reasoners
-explain conduct not psychologically, but through reasoning
-practical reasoners; conduct is based on reasoning, reasons for action are part of the decision, weigh action etc.
-psychiatry aims in treating is to get someone to practically reason; treatment is to get people in a state where they
match the state that the law interprets human actions through
-psychiatrists have an ideal in achieving autonomous action in much the same way that the law presumes it
-his crucial point is that in this activity that psychiatrists do in deciding whether someone is ill, they are doing the same
kind of thing as the law; asking whether someone’s practical reasoning is impaired in some sort of way
-law wants functional impairment, not psychological inner workings
-fact that paranoia points to machinery is separate from the task of asking whether it is a disease that causes
impairment
-given psychiatrical model being congruent with the law; objections about psycho-analytical thinking
-most crucial argument he takes on is the view that psychiatrists think that everybody is a bit ill
-if we are all a bit ill, we must all be a bit non-responsible
-psychiatrists don’t really agree anything that simple; we may all have some sort of impairment, but there is still a
distinction of whether someone is truly ill i.e. give medication or not
-is someone depressed or are they clinically depressed; can you medicate without the clinical bit
-psychology is dangerous to Moore; he doesn’t believe in determinism; cannot explain mental processes through
psychology
-makes it clear that psychiatry can work in the law because it is not fundamentally psychological
On Lipkin
-concrete account of practical reasoning; account which doesn’t make psychological testimony a problem; they are not
distorting the role of the court
-philosophical core is about philosophy of mind in his article
-Lipkin’s central idea is you have to be autonomous to be responsible, capable of practical reasoning, some behaviour
caused does not make us non-autonomous, we are autonomous because of self critical capacity
-capacity to challenge own mental processes
-idea that we have thoughts that should be challenged; its normal to criticize our actions and thoughts, beliefs, etc.
-state of psychology: closed motivational system
-developing self-critical capacity is a social process
-would seem obvious in identifying whether someone does not have a self-critical capacity although it is more difficult to
identify this- how to tell when someone lacks the critical capacity:
-more philosophical, not just psychological argument; in terms of human actions, done for reason etc. no separation
between description and evaluation of the action in a specific sense; in order to describe an action with reasons we
evaluate that; to describe an action in terms of reasons, those reasons have to be justified not morally, rationally
-to coherently describe an action, we have to see the justification for that action
-hallmark of autonomous conduct that shows self-critical capacity is that the actions appear rationally justified; don’t
have to be most rational action, just rational in general
-minimally acceptable justification; can still understand and describe the action by following reason; reasoning is what
we can accept as rational
-psychiatrists can give useful testimony about the kinds of mental disorders which would explain those problems; heard
about person’s thought processes and it doesn’t make sense; and so, the psychologist or psychiatrist does understand
the workings of the mind and can justify the processes
-he thinks his test is consistent with Bronner and irresistible impulse; he doesn’t believe in concept of irresistible
impulse; philosophically incoherent; if someone wants to do something but are telling themselves not to and they do it,
wanting to do it trumps not wanting to do it
-problem is desire to see his explanation as a global explanation
Other Socio-Political Critique of Insanity Law
-sociologists critical about law, NCR and psychology; critical of psychological model, many of them take a rational actor
model; committed to thought that we think someone has a mental disorder because we don’t understand the dynamics
that give rise to their behaviour e.g. labelling person as insane causes further insanity
-Szasz; no such thing as mental illness
-defeat of law by psychology effects social structure
-aim is to look at current life historically; an insight alive at the core
Foucault Reading
-make a test that makes sense in psychiatry, autonomy etc. are what other authors are doing
-socio-political critique of insanity defence; what happens when the law begins to embrace psychology and psychiatry
-Hadfield and M’Naughten; looking at this timeframe, but different cases
-monomania; singular madness or partial insanity; one thought process as disordered rather than global disorder
-Foucault focuses on homicidal monomania
-preoccupation with homicide is what’s disturbed- depiction of someone whose only derangement is around the
homicides they commit; no other symptoms
-case of Catherine Ziegler; swiss woman found NCR for killing a neighbour’s child who she was babysitting
-placed in an asylum, doctors felt she was better, she asked not to be released she was released
-relatively soon after she got pregnant and killed the baby; executes her
-experts argued this is a case of homicidal monomania caused by dysfunction
-shift in justice system to rehabilitate criminals instead of just punishing; reforming
-claim done by mental experts who place themselves into the system; convince legal authorities that psychiatry is
indispensable to justice
-starts a process of ambiguity of legal questions resulting from psychiatry’s entrance into system
-leads to idea that no one is responsible for anything ; criminals must have something wrong with them
-only minor rational crimes make sense; other crimes are explained through psychological/psychiatric reason; shift from
assuming people are rational and responsible, to having to explain the crime rationally, and therefore not responsible
-shift attention from crime to criminal as someone who needs to be fixed
-by end of 19th century, monomania was removed from the spotlight, idea that everyone is a bit sick returns
-foundation of criminology; ability to identify born criminals as those with a particular set of deficiencies
-dangerous; we know why people commit crimes and so actions will be taken ‘helping everybody
-Foucault suggesting height of systems of regulation is intensive scientific pathology and abnormality identifying science
which characterizes the modern world
-governmental shift; Foucault’s social problems as result from pathologies identifiable by science – network of adjacent
sciences and practices working on the same principle; social work, educational psychology etc. idea to develop whole
system of government based on scientific knowledge of mental illness and wellness
-point of his writing is about the reader; wants you to see the degree to which you have internalized this notion, deep
mental structure we don’t know is there until he helps us see it
-regulate and govern ourselves by this structure; through notions of scientific expertise and psychological understanding
-our moral universe is not driven by right and wrong so much as pathology and wellness, abnormality and normality
-systems aren’t necessarily good at what they do but are effective in changing the way we live our lives
-evidence for homicidal monomania is not the fact that there are no other symptoms, its nature of the homicides
-lipkin argues self critical capacity is self learned and would mean different things would appear rational and acceptable
in different cultures; but made claim of transcultural capacity; some things are abnormal in any society
-system of self critical capacity are fundamentally transformed over time