If a person lacks a chemical in his body, which then causes him to do harm; is he responsible for his actions?

fuzzybuddy

fuzzybuddy

SF VIP
Location
The Sticks, Northeast PA.
I've always wondered about this. I was a Certified Psychiatric Nurse. I saw the effects of medication on people. A pt. was out of control, punching others, incoherent, etc. When he was put on medication, there was a significant change in behavior. The pt. was pleasant, cooperative, happy, etc. Other times the medication made him worse. But the fact is medication can alter a person's mood, outlook, even belief system- for good or bad. I've seen those profound changes. Sometimes, it is like night and day. All of this brings up a moral question. If a chemical changes a person's being, is he responsible for the acts done while under the chemical. Or if a person lacks a chemical in his body, which then causes him to do harm; is he responsible for his actions? Bear in mind, some serial killers do seem to have "iffy" brain chemical changes, while others don't.
 

The Americans with Disability Act is clear on this. Yes the person is responsible. The legal system is clear on this, yes, unless declared unfit by an appropriate doctor. If declared unfit then then the person is confined in a mental health, or other appropriate facility, until declared fit for trial.
 
If he uses a street drug, remember PCP and harms (or kills) another-burn him
Alcohol-DUI car becomes a weapon...No, he didn't mean to kill others, but he did.

Now, Fuz, you question? Are you speaking only of those in a care facility?

I have knowledge of a minor that killed another minor while in a state hospital
however, he was on minimal Rx...he raped and killed another patient.
He was charged and convicted of homicide. However, he was 15, only served three years
in a kiddie jail.
So, it dependes on the circumstancs
 
Some of the issue is impulse control or lack there of. Some have anger issues and a short fuse. Many people have violent or disruptive thoughts but they don't act on them because of impluse control. Many drugs including alcohol lowers that control in many people. It would seem many pyschiatric patients have impulse control issue without a recreational substance. But are they still an angry person ready to let to let the world know on a second' notice.

To me there's the thought and the behavior which are different things yet they go hand in hand in many cases. Do chemical imbalances manufacture thoughts anything from paranoia or spiteful tantrum like behaviors? I can see chemical imbalance enabling a behavior but do they manufacture thought?
 
If it is treatable then that person is responsible. If it is not treatable that person is still responsible for making changes in their lives according to the disorder. It is parallel to "I didn't know the gun was loaded'.
 
I've known people who had brain tumors or head traumas and went through major personality changes. I always wondered if that explained the bizarre behavior of some mass killers, who "used to be perfectly normal" (e.g. Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper) and then went psycho.
 
In my own mind, there is a fine line between being responsible and being HELD responsible. Meds can have as many bad effects as good. ( I mean just listen to commercials. The possible side effects sound 10x worse than whatever they were trying to help 😳). Let’s just say I wouldn’t want to serve on a jury deciding something like this.
 
I don't think this is a moral issue. I don't believe robbery is due to a chemical in the brain. But, the effect of naturally occurring chemicals, or the lack of them .in the body, causes ,significant alterations in behavior. If a drug changes a raging, aggressive, threatening person to a clam, compliant, caring person: then the reverse is also true. A drug can change a calm person into aggressive fighter. It's not that a person "decideds" a "fighter", it's that a chemical in his brain causes that behavior.
Like I said, I have always wondered about this. Thanks for letting me yammer about it.
 
Last edited:
JimBob1952 said:
I've known people who had brain tumors or head traumas and went through major personality changes. I always wondered if that explained the bizarre behavior of some mass killers, who "used to be perfectly normal" (e.g. Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper) and then went psycho.
Click to expand...
I read about Whitman's brain tumor found at his autopsy. I'm not convinced it had anything to do with it. Many people have brain tumors & don't commit crimes.
 
We all know the difference between right and wrong. As Poirot stated, we all have a little policeman in our heads. Lacking a certain enzyme might give a person strong urges to commit crime, but their conscience should overcome those urges.
 
The "difference between right and wrong" only comes into the picture when we are talking about a sane, rational person. This is not always the case.

What used to be called "insanity" definitely figures in. However, the definition of insanity used by law is ridiculously outdated, it's something about telling the difference between right and wrong. Or is that an outmoded concept no longer used by courts? (My knowledge of this subject comes entirely from the movies and TV shows, so I can't claim to know anything about it at all.)
 
I found this online:

An autopsy found a brain tumor in an area connected to emotion and aggression. Psychiatrists, neurologists and criminologists have been debating the meaning of this finding ever since. Some say the tumor could explain his actions. Others point to his deteriorating life, his repeated mentions of shooting from the tower, and the calm way he carried out the attack as evidence he was a calculating killer.

So, this is something for which we'll never have a clear answer.
 
What I noticed on the psych wards was how chemicals affect behavior and thinking. I am not discussing things like free will, religious belief, etc, but the nuts and bolts of a living biological entity-the chemical interactions with electrical charges in the brain. It's hard to define the line between what a person can do, and what a person is "programmed to do". I know this stuff is weird . Thanks for listening.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
this stuff is weird
Click to expand...
I second that. I remember a long time ago reading a Reader's Digest article by a guy who'd gotten a prescription of a medicine that had the effect of causing a person to have a lot of initiative to get things done. He only took it for, if I remember correctly, a matter of days, but when taking it he had the drive to spend his evening painting rooms in his house.
I feel like my mother must have had a natural amount of the brain chemical because she was a very busy productive person all the time. Unfortunately I seem to have inherited my father's brain chemistry because I am mostly a lump. Every once in a while when the brain chemistry planets align perfectly I will have a burst of energy/initiative and do a deep clean or reorganization of a part of the house. I wish I knew what that medicine was the guy took and could get a few pills of it every month.
 
I dated a woman whose father was a very nasty person - racist, hateful, an all-around jerk.
After a major stroke, he became a decent, caring person. I'm not sure if it was just illness & dependency on others for care or the fact that part of his brain was damaged.....maybe the "bad" part.
My mom was also a raging witch who became nicer after she was bedridden & required 24-hr. care for the last 3 months of her life.
 
I believe that we aren't aware that we are biological beings. We remember things not because of some ethereal process, but because of chemical changes in the structure of our brains. That is just one example of humans being biological entities. I was a psych nurse, so I saw firsthand how medication affected human behavior.
 
Fuzzy, depends on the state's statutory laws or the common law. In Ohio there are 4 Culpable mental states (mens rea) by statute: The criminal law of Ohio specifies four culpable mental states: "purposely," "knowingly," "recklessly," and "negligently".

If a persons brain waves are altered to where they are no longer so called "human" for lack of a better term, I would think none of the 4 would apply, the same with other states and how they codify CM states.

As a general statement, it may be considered temporary insanity (insanity is a legal term, not medical). Then the court will have various hearings, one would be a competentcy hearing to determine if a trial can proceed within the trial timeframe, etc. Many factors are involved.

Then the real Operation of law commences. Some states (without doing research) determine "Guilty, but Insane" or "Not guilty by reason of insanity".
 
If, through medical testing, it is found that a certain personality altering chemical is absent in a patient, why not just give that patient said chemical? With modern medical technology, there are several avenues of delivering this. At any rate, if that person is an otherwise functioning citizen in society, I would have to say yes, he is responsible for his actions. I remember the book Compulsion about the Loeb/Leopold murders. Did not hold up in court and they were convicted.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top