PSYCHOPATH: EVIL OR MENTALLY ILL

Kate McDougall
When the news report on the recent Quakers Hill Nursing Home fire aired, small
children may have asked their parents why Roger Dean set fire to, and subsequently killed
nine elderly residents of the nursing home he worked in. The parents response would be
well honey, hes an evil man, but if the neuro-scientific community had their way this
would soon change to well honey, hes sick. Over the last few years, scientist have
observed that MRI scans taken of the brains of convicted killers have shown a lack of
activity in the orbital cortex, the area commonly believed to control ethical behaviour,
morality, empathy and impulses. The consequences of this is that like those who suffer
from schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder, murderers may soon be able to claim
that they have a mental illness that made them unable to feel empathy for their victims or
remorse for their action.
But what are the consequences for society at large? The recent concept of
Neurolaw, which is being used in courtrooms, pathologies emotions and increases the risk
of misdiagnosis as well as rationalising anti-social behaviour. In coming years this issue and
its consequences will play an increasing role in society as science and technology increases,
and we gain more understanding of the brain and how it works. However these
consequences may have more negative effects than positive.
One of the risks of Neurolaw is turning natural human emotions, or a lack thereof, in
a disease, something to be treated with medication. If someone shows too much emotion
then something is wrong with them, such as experiencing excessive sadness after a loved
one had died, or if they show too little emotion, like the lack of empathy found in serial
killers, there is also something wrong with them, such as an anomaly in the brain. However,
the way people react to events in their lives is dependent on their situation, and as such no
two people will ever react in exactly the same way. This creates an important question,
what is a normal reaction? And where do we, as a society, draw the line? The biggest
consequence of taking a pathological view on emotions is the risk that in the future,
everyone will have to be treated with medication in order for them to get to the ideal place
of experiencing just the right amount of emotion.
In this modern day and age in order to succeeded we are often told to leave our
emotions at the door by congratulating ruthless businessmen and looking upon women
who cry in the office with contempt. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the lack of
empathy a businessman shows for his competition and his ability to detach his emotions
when making decisions are the same symptoms that are experienced by a psychopath. This
is a prime example of the consequences of taking the neuro-scientific view of emotions, as
there is ample evidence to suggest that misdiagnosis would become a major issue. A study
done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that 21% of Australians aged 18-85 had
suffered from a mental disorder related to moods and emotions (depression, anxiety
disorder, dysthymia) for at least 12 months, which in terms of population is 3,295,900
people. This statistic of 1 in 5 will only increase as every display of under or over-emotion
will be seen as a symptom of a mental illness.
Anti-social behaviour is seen as an indicator of a deeper issue in a person or
community, and often occurs in those of a lower socio-economic background. It can reflect
issues affecting the person such as substance abuse, violence, homelessness and
community attitudes, but as a social consequence of neuro-science, this anti-social
behaviour could soon be explained away. This has already begun to happen, with new
mental disorders being created in order to rationalise behaviour that goes against social
norms, such as anti-social personality disorder, because surly there must be a problem with
the persons brain for them to act out? This rationalising of human emotions creates an
excuse for all involved, from the person who is acting out, to the doctors and government
agencies who seek to Band-Aid an ever-increasing division in society.
The way we view the world is changing, as no longer may we classify people and
actions as good or evil, but rather normal or sick. There will be many consequences of
this cultural shift and we have only just begun to see the differences that this rational,
scientific view of our emotions has caused. We are now asked to believe that rather than
our emotions coming from our heart or soul, they are simply fluctuations in our brain, a
hormonal imbalance that causes us to act differently. This new belief will not just affect
society now, but society generations into the future.

Consequences are unpitying. Our deeds carry their terrible consequences, quite apart from
any fluctuations that went before, as our consequences are hardly ever confined to just
ourselves.
George Eliot

REFERENCES:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4326.0Main%20Features32007?
opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4326.0&issue=2007&num=&view
http://www.litquotes.com/quote_topic_resp.php?QuoteType=Good%20vs.%20Evil
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1292438/Teenage-anti-social-behaviour-
caused-brain-abnormality.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/antisocial_personality_disorder/article.htm
http://allpsych.com/disorders/mood/index.html