Legal Argument For Psychopaths

608 Words3 Pages

The legal argument to the criminal responsibility of psychopaths revolves around the importance of emotion in the regards of the criminal act. Section 1.1 of the NCR legislation states that “people who commit criminal acts under the influence of mental illnesses should not be held criminally responsible for their acts or omissions in the same way that sane responsible people are. No person should be convicted of a crime if he or she was legally insane at the time of the offence … Criminally responsibility is appropriate only where the actor is a discerning moral agent, capable of making choices between right and wrong” (The Review Board Systems in Canada, 2015). The legislation states that criminals are responsible for their actions if they are able to demonstrate correct moral judgement. However, the psychopath is unable to fully understand their decision due to their inability to comprehend emotion. “They are entirely unable to use empathy, concern, or morality as reasons not to harm others, even though these are the best reasons to comply with moral and legal rules. They are ‘morally insane’ and are incapable of being morally responsive agents. Psychopaths are simply not part of the moral community and do not deserve blame …show more content…

A study conducted by Pascal Molenberghs tested the brain activity of both psychopaths and non-psychopaths when they shoot a civilian and soldier (Kluger, 2015). In-depth research showcased that the prefrontal and the frontal cortexes were active in those who were not diagnosed psychopaths, while there were no impulses present in the psychopaths’ cortexes. This shows that the psychopath was unable to express empathy to the victim, as they did not have any brain activity. When a person doesn’t have the emotional understanding in their morality, they are more suspect to commit more haphazard actions. This can result in the psychopath lashing out and