What to do with guilty Jodi Arias and other psychopaths

Yesterday (May 8, 2013), Jodi Arias was found guilty of murdering her boyfriend. Actually, she more than murdered him, she virtually obliterated him. Stabbing him 29 times, shooting him in the face, and slitting his throat almost from ear to ear. She made damned fucking sure he was dead.

That alone should qualify her as a psychopath. However, she's also a pathological liar. She had several versions of her story, finally admitting that she killed him but in, as she termed it, "self defense." She trotted in battered woman syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, and just about everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to beat the rap.

She may get the death penalty, but should she? The syllable "path" in "psychopath" and "pathological liar" indicates a sickness. She's not a mentally healthy person. 

pathology (n.) "science of diseases," 1610s, from French pathologie (16c.), from medical Latin pathologia "study of disease," from Greek pathos "suffering" (source)

As revolting as the murder was, can we separate her guilt from the sickness from which she suffers?

More generally, suppose all crimes could be traced back to some sort of pathology. What would happen to the entire concept of guilt? And suppose that once a pathology was identified, there was a "cure." Could we ethically hold people responsible for their actions before the cure, given their diminished capacity for making proper ethical choices?

Load Previous Replies
  • up


    This is gonna be tough, because I am oddly attracted to her, but she should probably spend the rest of her life in some sort of prison-mental hospital hybrid. Arkham Asylum basically.
    • up

      Paul Zink

      A lot of "what if" scenarios being floated here. You can make a sound case for executing psychopaths on the grounds that they are dangerous to other members of society, regardless of any issues of guilt or responsibility, and thus too much bother to keep around. You could argue that a rehabilitative cure might be found, but one would need to evaluate the cost of finding such a cure, in the face of other demands for limited resources (cure psychopaths or cure cancer?).

      And is the cost worth the benefit? We allow 50,000+ Americans to die each year from traffic accidents because as a society we don't think saving some or all of those 50,000 lives justifies the increased costs (in the broad sense of the word) of requiring more rigorous driver training (test track courses, skid pads, high-speed maneuver training), enacting more draconian laws against distracted & impaired driving, maintaining larger police forces for enforcement, or developing more crash-resistant cars. We allow thousands to die of obesity-related diseases because as a society we are not willing to accept the economic and political costs of banning entire categories of food and beverages. 

      As far as all crime being a pathology, that doesn't necessarily hold water. The man or woman who steals food to feed his or her family is not automatically suffering from diminished capacity to know theft is a crime; s/he is making a reasoned choice of the lesser of two evils: commit a crime against property rather than be a party to allowing death by starvation. 

      George Bernard Shaw covers this extensively and with sharp insight in his long preface to his play "Major Barbara": I recommend anyone interested in crime and punishment read it first. 

    • up

      Belle Rose

      Every criminal I've ever talked to believes on some level that they are innocent. Rarely will you find a con that takes true ownership. This isn't a disease, it's a delusion of the mind, not unlike religion. But taking away personal responsibility isn't ethical, especially for conditions which are sometimes loosely interpreted or defined by the DSM-IV. Every criminal is mentally ill to some extent. This does not make them innocent.