There was no trial evidence wrt personality disorders in either of the accused. It's speculation by the publc. Lots of people have personality disorders .. the existence of such doesn't make them guilty.
This bears repeating, sorry to be late to the party on this one. Neither personality disorders, nor diagnosable neurological abnormalities (such as psychopathy, FAS, and some others) have any necessary relationship to criminal responsibility, guilt or innocence. They can conceivably (big CAUTION sign here) be mitigating factors in sentencing or in determining appropriate treatment. Also, there are certainly different types of personality disorders and neurological or behavioral disorders, of which none are shown to be
causally related to criminal behaviour though several, such as FAS, are highly
correlated with later incarceration rates. IMO, these provide opportunities for preventive intervention, not shoulder-shrugging on the part of those who have opportunities to make a difference. The research in cognitive neuroscience and how to intervene to minimize the effects of faulty "wiring" is ongoing and positive. There is room for optimism here.
I think speculation on whether the accused (in this case or others) suffers from such conditions is not inappropriate, however. Informed speculation also leads to greater awareness on the part of the public, and knowledge is power. TV and movies, as well as sensational crimes, give folks the impression that a "psychopath" is a violent, dangerous person, almost certainly a criminal, and potentially if not actually homicidal. This is wildly at variance with the facts. Most psychopaths (according to Dr. Robert Hare, arguably the leading authority on the subject) are
not lawbreakers, but they are wont to wreak havoc in the lives of people around them due to their manipulative, narcissistic, self-serving ways. Those who do break laws are more likely to be corporate robber barons than serial killers. It behooves the rest of us (the 95% +\- a couple of points) to learn more about how psychopathic personalities operate and the best ways to deal with them, so that the least collateral damage takes place. It's almost a certainty (statistically) that we all know, work for or are related to at least one such person. Hare's own book is a good place to start, as is one called
Snakes in Suits (HPL has it), about psychopaths in the workplace.
As for FAS, we're unlikely to know, but estimates are that 10% of babies born in Ontario are alcohol-affected, so we are also in everyday contact with people who have varying degrees of brain damage
in utero from alcohol exposure. There are some useful guidelines for dealing with people like this as well. A confirmed diagnosis in childhood of FAS or CD (Conduct Disorder) is a red flag that provides an opportunity to ensure the young person gets the opportunity to develop along pro-social lines. I'm not sure how many here followed the case of the Richardson family murders in Medicine Hat in 2006. That was a horrific case, where one of the perpetrators was a 12-year-old juvenile, diagnosed with CD. It appears now (fingers crossed) that the intensive intervention the judge ordered put in place for her during her incarceration has been a success, though time will tell. But, we should not wait for a CD child to commit a homicide before providing intervention. I've found when helping parents advocate for their high-risk children that appropriate services are extremely limited. If you can't pay for these services in the private sector, the child is unlikely to be served appropriately.
But to reiterate sillybilly's point, most individuals with personality or neurological disorders, of whatever kind, do not commit crimes, and if they do, it is only tangentially related to their "disorder," not caused by it. Individuals, whatever their challenges, make choices for which
they are responsible except in cases of severe mental illness. That's a different issue entirely.
Although I was specifically referring to myself and the person I quoted, I do see your point.
