Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2003

Forum conversation this week was triggered by the first posting, raising questions in a variety of contexts about the existence, meaning, and significance of "personal responsiblity".

This is a movie review site for Fritz Lang's "M", a German film about serial child-killer Franz Becker (who is obviously mentally ill- note the maniacal picture of Becker on the page!). I think that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the review sums up my opinions on this issue nicely. In a direct reference to Becker's verbal assault from townspeople in a kangaroo court, the end of this paragraph states: "...when he is finally cornered, human nature disintegrates." Although Becker is mentally ill, these townspeople hold him accountable for his actions.

In situations involving serial killers, our society appears rather quick to point fingers when fingers should not be pointed. True, it is difficult to determine what the exact line is that separtates sanity and insanity. However, I don't feel that it is moral to attack those who could truly benefit from some good mental rehabilitation. In my opinion, it is much easier to scorn someone who needs help then to actually go ahead and find them the help that they need. Perhaps then society is taking the "easy way out" by brutally accusing and abusing the serial killers who have been diagnosed as being mentally ill rather than looking for a means to help them.

i can make that assumption as long as my behavior doesn't put me in one of our "legitimate" mental disorder categories. if i claim to have control when i am on a psychopathic rage, i will be in trouble in more ways than one. but i wouldn't because that wasn't a pleasant time and so i see it as being out of my control. but when society tells me i am in good shape, and i feel good, i KNOW that this is MY doing.

so my question to whoever it applies is, did you have control over your actions when you ate to much the last time you were in the DC? im not talking about gorging yourself, but just eating too much i know that i didn't. with this food, i always go in with the thought that i should eat as little as possible, always. i usually leave feeling a little guilty because i have eaten too much of the not-so-nutritious food.

i use this example hoping some of our class can relate, and because it is a part of my everday behavior that i am supposed to have lots of control over. its not a major disorder, its human. ah, thats the word i was looking for, "human." it is still "human" to eat more than you wanted to at meals. that is a luxury, because in another time period it may be considered "wrong" in a serious way. if that were the case, i could honestly claim that i just don't have any control over it but i am sure no one would believe me, because i would say it in a very cold and abstract way as if it wasn't that big of a deal to me or as if i didn't think there was anything "wrong" with it. whether i enjoyed myself in the act or not may come into play as people made moral judgements, but it shouldn't because i really have no control over my actions.

i understand the judgements in the context of our society we have made about the "bad" acts that people sometimes commit, but i am bothered that the question we are looking to ask is whether or not they had control of what they were doing. decisions may or may not seem like "conscious" decisions to those making them, but consciousness does not equal control (i am very conscious of eating my meals, but i have a hard time slowing down at the end). maybe if we made people conscious or in another way put them through therapy, they would have control and then would not commit these "bad" acts anymore?

who decided in the first place they were bad. mother nature did not. if we want to base this on the "norms" of society, i understand that killers do not fit, but you know who else is "abnormal"? mother theresa, and saints in general. because it is not human to be that "good" or else we all would be capable of it. and more than that, some serial killers have quite a bit of "good" in them except for when they are killing and mutilating people. since mother theresa spent all of her time helping people, and not much time being evil, does that make her more "abnormal" than a serial killer. by our judgment system, yes it does.

i would like to make the point that we can not go around, even if the justice system were in good enough shape to concentrate on this issue, curing "abnormal" people and making them "normal" like the rest of us.
they are a part of society, and they didn't decide these norms any more than we did, but maybe we are the lucky ones because in this time period our behavior makes us college students and theirs makes them social deviants.

without serial killers we don't have mother theresa. that abnormality is a result of us being really dynamic creatures and having great potential for creativity and genius that requires defying the "norms" set up by society.

I also wanted to bring up the topic of the Honor Code. Both Bryn Mawr and Haverford have one, and we, as undergraduates, agree to live by it during our time here. We are expected to be responsible for our actions at all times; even if we are intoxicated, we are expected to be accountable for our actions.

Should a person who has committed a serious crime (murder etc..) be held responsible for their actions? In most cases I believe that yes, most criminals are aware of the crime that they committed—before, during, and after the act. While there are crimes that are committed as crimes of passion, this is an aberration from the normal criminals activity. It is definitely an uncomfortable thought, that there is no differentiation between the average person and the average criminal. Nonetheless, when you look at a serial killer they reek of wrongness. How can one say serial killer and normal in the same sentence? The disturbing truth is that most serial killers, are not insane nor were/or are they suffering from a mental illness.

This is when CS's comment that 'in terms of I-function and consciousness, there is something "more",' is applicable. Is it this "more" that she talks about the motivator behind most criminals? Or is it just a comfort blanket that we hug to ourselves, in hope that the line between us and them is not quite as thin as it seems?

I believe that uncovering the answers or proposing answers to these questions is essential to understanding human behavior. Supposedly, our behavior is a function of our environment. For the most part, our environments do have an elaborate moral system governed by rules, laws, and consequences. So....if all of this exist, why do people still constantly disobey and break these rules and laws? Even here at BMC and HC, we have offenders of the Honor Code. Are they less moral than the others who do not, but have thought about the possibility of breaking the rules? Can Honor Council measure a student's morality when they are asked to appear in a hearing?

The I-function was another topic of interest. People were arguing that the I- function can operate with its own output. Therefore, the I-function can work separately. This was, to many in class, maybe the source of some of the abnormal behavior. The thing I was thinking was what Emily Dickinson said about the brain being bigger than the sky. Even if the I-function works own its own it is contained in the brain. Therefore we are back to our original concept that brain equals behavior, so we are accountable for all our actions even the ones that we do subconsciously.

--One of the key features of mental illness is distress. That is, if abnormal patterns of thought or behavior cause substantial distress, unhappiness, or discomfort in the afflicted, they are termed "abnormal" and treatment should be sought in the interest of the person's well-being. Clinical depression is an excellent example of a form of behavior that causes significant and prolonged suffering and is thus treated as a mental illness. In contrast, mild, transient forms of depression ("the blues," "my cat ate my hampster," etc.) aren't placed within the category of mental illness because of the relatively low levels of personal distress involved.

--Another significant point in determing what mental illness is is whether it causes significant distress to others who come in contact with the afflicted person. Here we could use the example of a sociopath, who feels little distress herself, but causes quite a bit in those around her. Sociopaths who kill, rape, abuse, and generally flout social law do significant, prolonged, often irreparable damage to others and are therefore classed as mentally ill and in need of treatment.

Then there is self-induced depression or people who choose to be depressed - such as "cutting". Although the person may be aware that what they are doing is wrong, they still choose to continue this destructive activity. Even when treated, the person may hide their cutting from family members. So why is it that some people want to be depressed (at least it seems that way to me).

To some of you that don't know about cutting, here is a link. Please don't go to this webpage if the sight of blood makes you sick. These pictures are very disturbing. http://www.ruinyourlife.com/ThePage.htm click on pictures/art - on the right
click on self-injury pictures

Virginia allows the executions of the mentally retarded, the severely brain damaged and the mentally ill. 7 executed inmates have been documented mentally retarded in Virginia. How does Virginia define mental retardation? This raises questions of the significance of how we define mental illness and how this definition is implemented in legislation. Both houses of the General Assembly have passed legislation to outlaw executions of mentally retarded felons, but the two bills contain different definitions of mental retardation. Under Senate bill, the court would rely on a clinical definition of mentally retarded and base its decisions on evidence provided by mental health experts. The socio-economic status of an inmate then, could influence the legitimacy of the clinical diagnosis. On average, poor inmates don't have the benefit of hiring outside doctors to evaluate their mental condition and rely solely on the states evaluation, which may be skewed by public sentiment or special interests. Under the House version, the court would also have to determine whether the retardation "substantially impairs a person's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct." What does substantial mean? This seems like an improvement on the definition but there's still subjectivity and personal discretion involved. Without clear boundaries, the gray area of borderline cases swells.

| Course Home Page | Course Forum | Brain and Behavior | Serendip Home |