Since Guy Turcotte was given his release yesterday, I thought it might be appropriate to post something I wrote when his trial ended but never published. In it I examine some of the clinical and societal implications of this and similar decisions.
Needless to say, these opinions are my own and do not reflect the position of the Douglas Institute.
My brain made me do it
Why do we do the things we do? This question can apply to simple behaviours such as why I eat more than I should or why a smoker smokes, as it does to far more serious actions such as why a seemingly loving father would kill his own children.
Determinism
Does a nice person choose to be nice any more than an ass chooses to be an ass? If you have more than one child, or if you have siblings, or even if your cat has kittens for that matter, you will no doubt have noticed how different each individual’s character is. Some children always seem to be smiling while others show an ornery side. Some are hard headed while others are flexible. Some are extremely curious while others show very little interest.These traits seem to appear very early in life. Indeed, some temperament is even evident in the womb, at least according to some mothers. This raises the question: Do we choose our biological make-up? I don’t know about you but I certainly didn’t choose mine. Now, how about our upbringing and culture? Did we have a say in this? Not really. Our language, education, and cultural values were all provided for us.
The end product is a character based on the interaction between innate temperamental make-up and environmental influences, neither of which was of our choosing.
Social responsibility
When seen this way, one can make the argument that none of us are truly responsible for our actions and that perhaps free will is nothing more than an illusion. The person who acts like an ass is doing what comes naturally. One can then argue that an individual who speeds and kills an innocent pedestrian should not be considered criminally responsible since his actions were based on factors he had no control over. The same can be said for the Guy Turcottes of the world.But while all this may be true, society can play an important role in influencing behaviour. Even if speeders will speed under normal circumstances, an educational program can influence their behaviour. And of course the imposition of fines will certainly encourage them to slow down. In other words, if we treat them like they are responsible, even if ‘technically’ they are not, they will indeed reduce their speed. It may not seem fair to the speeder but it certainly is fair for the potential victims out there.
Such is the nature of social responsibility. It exerts an additional influence on individuals. If I am the product of my biological make-up and my environment, then we can create an environment that will affect my behavioural choices. If we do not impose consequences on people because we believe they are not responsible, then we remove an important external influence. I may not choose my environment but my environment can be chosen for me.
I am of two minds about the Guy Turcotte case. The psychologist in me examines human nature and mental illness and understands the verdict. The citizen in me is outraged.
The verdict crosses an important line. We normally conclude a person is not responsible for a criminal act if he or she has a serious mental illness such as a psychosis. This is easy to understand. If I have a diseased brain and kill someone because God commanded me to – let’s say He tells me this individual is a serial killer and I have been chosen to save his future victims – then I would be acting in a way that is completely rational based on my psychotic belief. It is hard to argue that I am responsible for my actions. After all, a person with Parkinson’s doesn’t choose to have that form of brain disease any more than a person with schizophrenia chooses to hear the command of God.
But what do we make of narcissism and other character traits such as were reported in the Turcotte case? Should they be considered in the same way as other brain conditions such as psychosis? If we were to examine the background and circumstances surrounding all major crimes, we would find ample evidence that the perpetrators were not ‘responsible.’ Many were abused or neglected as children. Others were thrown into circumstances they could not manage based on problems with their personalities. What do we make of these cases then?
By all evidence Turcotte’s marriage had failed long before his wife’s affair. He did not accept this reality with stoic detachment or maturity. Instead he hung on with obsessive tenacity and felt narcissistically wounded when she finally gave up and moved on.
Our personalities are indeed the product of our brains and our brains are not of our choosing. Nevertheless, if we accept that Guy Turcotte was not responsible because of how distraught he was over his failed marriage, then we are saying that weaknesses or deficiencies in character can exonerate a person of criminal responsibility in the same way that a psychosis would.
Tagged as Criminal responsibility, determinism, social responsibility.
Posted in Mental health.
Posted on 13 Dec 2012
On Dec 14th 2012 at 13:21
Guy Turcotte is not unusual. He is arrogant, entitled and possessive. One of his “possessions”, his wife, had an affair – cheapening his property. He was so angry with her he very coldly and calculatingly, butchered their children for one single purpose – to hurt Isabelle Gaston. Simple – the man should be in jail.
On Dec 14th 2012 at 18:09
Je penser aller dans votre sens en disant qu’il est probable que nous sommes influencés dans nos choix par de nombreux déterminismes, mais nous avons besoin socialement de postuler la liberté humaine pour que la notion de responsabilité ait sa place. Toutefois, j’ai un peu de difficulté par la façon dont vous associez psychose et criminalité (et non-responsabilité). Je voudrais simplement souligner que, pour plusieurs psychotiques, il demeure possible de distinguer le bien et le mal. Comme je le dis dans mon billet intitulé « criminalité et schizophrénie » sur mon blogue (www.schizophrenedanslacite.com), la criminalité est plus le résultat d’affects, d’un caractère ou d’un tempérament donné, que la conséquence d’une maladie comme la schizophrénie.
On Dec 18th 2012 at 14:50
Absolument. Il faut souligner ici que les personnes atteints de la maladie mentale NE SONT PAS dangereux. En effet, ils sont plus souvent victimes d’actes criminelles.
Je donnais une exemple dans lequel nous ne trouverons pas quelqu’un criminellement résponsable. J’ai donné une exemple d’une psychose mais j’aurais pu également utiliser l’exemple d’un homme qui a une crise cardiaque en conduisant et que sa voiture happe un enfant mortellement. Nous ne le jugerons pas résponsable.
Le cas de Turcotte semble différent. Comme vous l’avez mentionné, était-il capable de “distinguer le bien et le mal?”
On Dec 17th 2012 at 05:10
Hi Cam,
Very thoughtful. Meg, daughter number two , lawyer, tried to explain the legalistic aspects….can’t wrap my head around the fact that he is free to walk among us. I was very troubledand angered..finding myself thinking about how I wished someone would do him in…
On Jan 7th 2013 at 19:32
Serait’il possible de consulter l’annonce en français… ?
Merci
On Jan 7th 2013 at 21:14
Bonjour,
Malheureusement, je n’écrit pas assez bien en Français pour faire une traduction de qualité. Les chroniques que je publie dans le Journal Métro sont traduites par un professionnel (payé par mon employeur). L’article sur le cas de Turcotte comprends mes impressions personnelles et ne reflètent pas celles du Douglas. L’article n’était jamais traduites parce que elle n’était jamais publiée.
Désolé