Casey & Family Psychological Profile #10

[Searchfortruth]

I wonder if KC were found to be guilty and additionally diagnosed as a sociopath, psychopath or other psychological disorder that may cause her to display similar behavior in the future, would that be used as an aggravating factor in favor of the death penalty?
As opposed to any kind of mental disorder being used as a mitigating factor, would it be used for just the opposite?

I thought this was an interesting question JBean, so I went looking for an answer. I found a very small part of an answer, in the article linked below.

"The use of a mental disorder, even anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), to justify imposition of the death penalty should be impermissible under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This thesis, however, does not prevail today. In many jurisdictions, sentencing juries are permitted to use mental disorder as a factor, or the factor, warranting a death penalty."

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=47f8896c9b4bde549f7c31c9b1a0a35e

This also explains it well...

Psychopath brain and crime — mitigating or aggravating?

"I vote aggravating, because psychopathy is a permanent condition, and therefore argues against rehabilitation – the stated goal for mitigation in capital cases. Unlike other mental illnesses that can be treated — or even adolescent brains that grow up — psychopathy is not transient, it is very permanent unless white matter grows back. Therefore, the “my psychopathic brain made me do it” mental illness defense goes toward a more severe punishment, rather than a less severe one."

http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/w...th-brain-and-crime-mitigating-or-aggravating/

 

[JBean]

I thought this was an interesting question JBean, so I went looking for an answer. I found a very small part of an answer, in the article linked below.

"The use of a mental disorder, even anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), to justify imposition of the death penalty should be impermissible under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This thesis, however, does not prevail today. In many jurisdictions, sentencing juries are permitted to use mental disorder as a factor, or the factor, warranting a death penalty."

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=47f8896c9b4bde549f7c31c9b1a0a35e

Oh wow! Thank you. I just got to thinking, if they are not truly "mentally ill" ie insane asylum type disturbed, then why wouldn't the fact that they suffered from some disorder be used against them and apparently it can.
Now that I am thinking about it, I want to go check a few cases and see if they actually did do that in some that come to mind.
Thanks for doing my research for me

 

[Searchfortruth]

I was reading that in the Diane Downs case the state actually brought up her MMPI results, by asking her if it was true that she had been diagnosed as a deviant sociopath. There was some issue after her conviction with that statement by the prosecutor, because deviant sociopath wasn't a real psychiatric diagnosis, but that's beside the point. My point is that even back then the state used the diagnosis of sociopath as part of their case against her. Apparently it didn't hurt.

I think that it's not uncommon for the state to use some of these personality disorders in their cases to help convict. It does make sense because most of them can not be treated and that factor alone makes release risky.

 

[JBean]

bumpity bump bump

 

[Searchfortruth]

My question is what is the difference between a child that fails to develop empathy in early childhood and a sociopath. Aren't children without empathy possibly set up to become sociopaths ? Some say sociopaths are born, not made. If there is a connect to children that fail to develop empathy and sociopathic behavior later on, does that argue against the "born that way" theory ?

 

[sharpar]

Whether they are born or made they are walking among us - devoid of empathy gives alot of room for alot of behavior choices.

They are aware of what is right and wrong they CHOSE not to follow it.
They are choosing their actions and they keep chosing their disorder every single day they dont face up to the truth of what they are.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Whether they are born or made they are walking among us - devoid of empathy gives alot of room for alot of behavior choices.

They are aware of what is right and wrong they CHOSE not to follow it.
They are choosing their actions and they keep chosing their disorder every single day they dont face up to the truth of what they are.

I guess my interest lies in the causes of these conditions. I have never been one to excuse a persons behavior simply because they are sociopaths or have a personality disorder that leads to violence. The curiosity in me makes me question how they came to be.

I think some posters on here look at a psychological discussion of the criminal as providing excuses for their behavior. I don't see the connection. I think it's normal to try and figure out why these people function this way. We all know that a criminal will not be excused unless they fit the definition of legal insanity. Sociopaths and those with personality disorders don't qualify.

 

[Tulessa]

My question is what is the difference between a child that fails to develop empathy in early childhood and a sociopath. Aren't children without empathy possibly set up to become sociopaths ? Some say sociopaths are born, not made. If there is a connect to children that fail to develop empathy and sociopathic behavior later on, does that argue against the "born that way" theory ?

I posted this in another thread but it will fit nicely here. this is some information from a friend of mine (Clergy person).


I passed along this thought to a friend of mine and here was her take on it. Used with permission of course.


There are some children that I met while working for a social service agency that seemed neurologically disabled, basically from birth, and unable to feel any compassion or connection with other children. As a consequence by age six or seven they were in DSS care because they represented a major threat to others as sexual offenders, potential murderers and arsonists. To others these children would seem to be pure evil in what they were capable of doing to others.

I just don't know, however, if one can know what we do about mental abuse and physical damage in children and still turn around and blame the child as evil.

These children were sociopaths. A handful were damaged from severe abuse, but what made the biggest impression on me was that there are children born this way with no particular bad track record of parenting. Saddest of all, of course, was the likelihood that they would require some kind of lifetime care because of the risk they presented to others.

 

[wenwe4]

The nature vs. nurture question has long been studied and much research exists, however- it most often comes down to a continuum of both for each individual. Some of the best research were studies with twins who were raised in separate homes (some separated at birth). Barring a neurological disorder, a head injury or organic brain issues - the incubation of a sociopath lies within various forms of exposure to traumatic events and a primary care provider that does not or cannot meet the child's needs in a timely and loving manner. If an infant/child has a care provider who recognizes and appropriately meets their needs on a continual basis - a child learns to recognize when he feels content and then is able to recognize when another human is not feeling content. Within relationship is where we learn how to recognize and respond to other people's pain (ie: Daddy's give hugs and kisses for boo-boos and Mommy's recognize when their child is sad and offers open arms to the child before he cries). Once those emotionally regulating traits have been modeled for a child - they learn to do that with others.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

"If an infant/child has a care provider who recognizes and appropriately meets their needs on a continual basis - a child learns to recognize when he feels content and then is able to recognize when another human is not feeling content. Within relationship is where we learn how to recognize and respond to other people's pain (ie: Daddy's give hugs and kisses for boo-boos and Mommy's recognize when their child is sad and offers open arms to the child before he cries). Once those emotionally regulating traits have been modeled for a child - they learn to do that with others."

Okay, but then bringing the above into the Casey Anthony situation, that would mean that as a small child Casey never got her needs met by either George or Cindy?

Based on how they obviously adored Caylee, spent time with her and were interested in her, I would find it difficult to believe that neither of them cared much about their own children.

Oh, and on the when did George know about the pregnancy, I felt that whole story he told was a lie. During the same statement where he said he knew about it in April or May he said his reaction was that he was "over the moon with happiness". Remember taht whole passage? It was kind of ludicrus, given the circumstances of your 19 yr. old unmarried daughter announcing - or in this case, admitting - that she's pregnant.

Now, I do think this family has been "weird" for a long time. All of them, including Lee. But for some reason I don't think things were that weird when Lee and Casey were really young.

 

[Tulessa]

Here's an interesting read.


Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author.

Without having examined Ms. Anthony, I won’t hazard a diagnosis of her. But there’s plenty that’s clear from her demeanor and behavior.

Read on.............
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/dr-keith-inside-the-mind-of-casey-anthony/

 

[Tulessa]

Interesting how he compares her with Scott Peterson.

 

[wenwe4]

Okay, but then bringing the above into the Casey Anthony situation, that would mean that as a small child Casey never got her needs met by either George or Cindy?

Based on how they obviously adored Caylee, spent time with her and were interested in her, I would find it difficult to believe that neither of them cared much about their own children.

Oh, and on the when did George know about the pregnancy, I felt that whole story he told was a lie. During the same statement where he said he knew about it in April or May he said his reaction was that he was "over the moon with happiness". Remember taht whole passage? It was kind of ludicrus, given the circumstances of your 19 yr. old unmarried daughter announcing - or in this case, admitting - that she's pregnant.

Now, I do think this family has been "weird" for a long time. All of them, including Lee. But for some reason I don't think things were that weird when Lee and Casey were really young.[/QUOTE]

Regarding the "never got her needs met by GA and CA" is not exactly what I meant. KC certainly had her needs met by her parents as far as physical needs (housing, food, finances, cothing, toys etc). I believe the needs they met were needs that reflected back onto them in a positive way (ie: cute clothing purchased by CA to look "perfect" to others). But emotional needs, like recognizing KC's true emotions and responding to them appropriately. For instance, again the video of Caylee snuggling with GGP, it wasn't Caylee's or GGP's need for Caylee to hug and kiss him. There was no need to do anything but just enjoy those moments between this little one and her elderly Papa, but CA had a need she could not override and forced Caylee to stop her own emotional feelings and natural interaction w/GGP to comply w/CA's demand to hug and kiss. In that interaction, Caylee and GGP then had to stop their sweet moment of relationship to comply w/CA's need. This demand of "performance" from CA was not for the benefit of GGP or Caylee, it was purely to meet CA's need. A need for Caylee to perform for her. If a pattern of behavior overtime is established, where each time CA sees someone else's emotions don't fit w/CA's agenda, CA's agenda will always override KC's eventually. I think this speaks to the interaction between KC and her Mom in jail. "Will somebody just let me (speak/feel)?" In essence, KC may have grown up in a house w/an extremely "esteem sensitive" parent who feels their child must look perfect at all times in order for the parent to look perfect to the outside world. It is all about how they think others will perceive them (narcissism). The child is a reflection of themselves.

 

[Phumi]

Oh wow! Thank you. I just got to thinking, if they are not truly "mentally ill" ie insane asylum type disturbed, then why wouldn't the fact that they suffered from some disorder be used against them and apparently it can.
Now that I am thinking about it, I want to go check a few cases and see if they actually did do that in some that come to mind.
Thanks for doing my research for me

I find it really troubling that a mental disorder can be used as an aggravating factor. As a culture we have still not overcome the stigma of mental illness. Nor do we understand it as well as we should. It wasn't that long ago that epileptics were confined to asylums and uteri were thought to cause "hysteria" and therfore needed to be removed.
As I've posted before, I don't pretend to know what society should do with criminals who are mentally ill, but using it to increase a prison term or justify the death penalty seems morally and ethically wrong to me.



Don't hit me with a trout.

 

[JBean]

I find it really troubling that a mental disorder can be used as an aggravating factor. As a culture we have still not overcome the stigma of mental illness. Nor do we understand it as well as we should. It wasn't that long ago that epileptics were confined to asylums and uteri were thought to cause "hysteria" and therfore needed to be removed.
As I've posted before, I don't pretend to know what society should do with criminals who are mentally ill, but using it to increase a prison term or justify the death penalty seems morally and ethically wrong to me.



Don't hit me with a trout.

I agree with you. Plus I don't even support the death penalty even for sane people.

 

[Phumi]

I agree with you. Plus I don't even support the death penalty even for sane people.

No. Neither do I.

 

[Tulessa]

I agree with you. Plus I don't even support the death penalty even for sane people.

At one time for many years, I didn't either. We even went to our DA and ask him not to seek the DP in my brothers brutal murder. But Caylee has changed my opinion on it.

 

[Jenny60123]

"Based on how they obviously adored Caylee, spent time with her and were interested in her, I would find it difficult to believe that neither of them cared much about their own children. "

Respectfully clipped, this made me think for a minute. Perhaps Casey simply needed more than they had to give. She seems to be ultra needy. Perhaps no matter what they did for Casey, it was never enough? (I'm mainly making conversation, this in no way makes what she did to Caylee ok, nothing ever will.)

 

[ynotdivein]

"If an infant/child has a care provider who recognizes and appropriately meets their needs on a continual basis - a child learns to recognize when he feels content and then is able to recognize when another human is not feeling content. Within relationship is where we learn how to recognize and respond to other people's pain (ie: Daddy's give hugs and kisses for boo-boos and Mommy's recognize when their child is sad and offers open arms to the child before he cries). Once those emotionally regulating traits have been modeled for a child - they learn to do that with others."

Okay, but then bringing the above into the Casey Anthony situation, that would mean that as a small child Casey never got her needs met by either George or Cindy?

Based on how they obviously adored Caylee, spent time with her and were interested in her, I would find it difficult to believe that neither of them cared much about their own children.

Oh, and on the when did George know about the pregnancy, I felt that whole story he told was a lie.

Respectfully snipped...

Children have emotional/developmental needs beyond comfort and enjoyable experiences. For example, they need to learn accountability and responsibility, in order to develop healthy relationships. From what I've read about the family, and considering what we know of KC's actions June 2008 to present*, GA and CA may not have met KC's need for clear behavioral boundaries and her need to take responsibility for her actions. They may have cared very much about her; so much that they protected her from the consequences of her behavior. GA's denial of the pregnancy fits in with this theory... which is MOO!

*By this I mean the lying, stealing, emotional manipulation, and failing to show concern for a daughter she had not seen for weeks.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Whether they are born or made they are walking among us - devoid of empathy gives alot of room for alot of behavior choices.

They are aware of what is right and wrong they CHOSE not to follow it.
They are choosing their actions and they keep chosing their disorder every single day they dont face up to the truth of what they are.

Thank you for stating the distinction above - THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG THEY CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW IT. This is precisely why we begin teaching a small child right from wrong and usually we see shaping and positive responses as we go along over time. If we don't, we should be concerned and find out if there is something developmentally wrong (easier said then done I'm afraid). That said, it's a process and black and white answers are not always available (as in ADHD, etc.) but the worst thing would be to accept and ignore the behavior imo.

Excellent! Makes clear for me why people say there are sociopaths who never kill people, etc. It's not that they'd loose sleep over it if they did, it's just that they know they'd probably have to pay for their wrongdoing and don't want to risk sitting behind bars for their life because they care about theirself. Therefore, it's not their conscious, morals or feelings of brotherly love "do on to others as you would have them do unto you" keeping them from committing high crime; it's their intelligence and/or some semblence of forward thinking keeping them from crossing criminal lines. I can imagine then, if you have a child with sociopathic leanings and never enforce consequences for their bad bahavior, how those two combinations could be a breeding ground for creating a dangerous adult.

Then, we must ask ourselves, could there be something else lacking in a killer sociopathic person such as lack of impulse control to such an extent as in an animal, or some emotional lacking as in I don't matter to anyone (despite proof otherwise but they can't feel it or believe it) therefore, noone else matters to me if they're not "with" me. It goes beyond survival instinct though and into the domain of control.