Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 5:00 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 1:03 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2021, 11:19 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2021, 2:39 am

Well it depends how far upstream you want to start. I guarantee that if you took the US prison population and transferred them to Sweden for incarceration, what resulted would be way worse than Swedish prisons are today.

OTOH if you propose taking US babies destined to be incarcerated and brought them up in Sweden then incarcerated them in a Swedish prison if they broke the law, then I would agree with you. However, at that point they're Swedish which brings me to my original point.

Did you have an original point? Babies are generally the product of their treatment. I do not think US babies are desitined to be criminals, unless you are saying that Americans have a higher than usual percentage of psychopaths?
I think there is a fundemental mistake you are making. First timers in prison are not unredeemable. You could easily transform the US penal system. It would have massive benefits for society. Once they has been put in a cage and had to fend for themselves in a US prison then I think it might be too late.
American is unique for having more prisoners that anywhere on earth and the costs for incarceration are as high or higher than anywhere else - something is going wrong. Privatisation is one part of the problem.

Privatisation is a small part of the problem.

My point is that at this moment the American prison population consists of a number of very bad individuals.
You can try to describe how they got that way and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the fact remains that putting those individuals in a Scandinavian prison system will not change who they are and what they do. It might actually put the Scandinavian guards at some risk.

THe media only reports on the psychos, mobsters, and serial killers - I doubt and they are easy to spot and not likley to respond to rehab in any event. Percetpions are screwed.
The vast majority of inmates are just ordinary people; great candidates for improvement.
Privatisation means minimal provision for the maximum amount of money.
You can't expect a prisoner to come out a better person when they are just seen as cash cows. It works well for business if they return to prison so there is ZERO incentive to help.

However as a thought experiment (not an actual viable plan) if you could draw a line in the sand and decide that from now on, future first time US prisoners are going to be incarcerated in a Scandinavian system, that would have some improvements with less increased risk (though it would involve some increased risk, since first time US prisoners are a worse lot than average than a Swedish first time offender).

I was not saying that Americans in infancy are more prone to criminal behavior, in fact my point was the opposite, that growing up in the US, regardless of genetics, on average produces criminals who are more "hardened". For a similar reason that you cite for US prisons turning out more hardened criminals.

I'm not sure you can divide the two. It may well be that the US, being a country whose ancestors were fleeing might well have a higher proportion of psychopaths. IN the 17thC- 19thC is you were a criminal in Europe on the run, the first place you would think of going would be the USA. IN that way, although most would be law abiding, the rate of criminality would be higher. So to the extent criminality is inheritable - or at least the traits that might lead to it is inheritable, would result in further generations.
We know that cultural criminality such as the Mafia and the Tongs did translate well to the US.

I was not referring to psychos, the Mafia nor serial killers, who I agree are a tiny fraction of US prisoners. Rather I was thinking of gang members, either community gangs who end up in prison, or just bad dudes who join a prison gang for protection.

My expectation is that the influence of genetics on the US crime stats are minimal, but the role of systemic racism and the economic repression that results from it, increases the crime rate and acuity here.

Gertie wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 7:55 am Arjand

The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will. This makes it an interesting case for philosophical consideration (i.e. to watch real world implications of a deterministic perspective on reality).

No it isn't.

Forensic psychiatry has no philosophical position on determinism and free will. In a courtroom its purpose can vary, from helping a judge to assess whether someone is fit to stand trial at a particular time (do they understand what's going on, can they contribute to their own defence), to helping a jury assess whether a mental health issue might have affected their ability to know right from or wrong, or the reason for committing the crime in relation to the criminal definition of 'insanity'. And to provide treatment to offenders in prisons and psychiatric facilities, with the intention of helping them as patients, and preventing further offending.

If you want to make a philosophical argument about determinism or free will, go ahead. You can then state what implications you think your position might have for psychiatry.

I endorse Arjand's claim.

The evolution of psychiatry really only began after the scientific enlightenment. The scientific enlightenment happened at least partly and probably largely because of scepticism about faith-based beliefs ;human reason had become more important than the diktat of a deity that intervened in history.There is historiographic narrative that explains the rise and rise of scientific enlightenment.

Social control and administration of justice has lagged behind science because most populations are not educated by either priests or the education system; also because it costs more immediate investment of time and public money to base a justice system on deterministic ethics than when the justice system implies that each individual is a free essence commonly called 'free will'. Moreover, Even today, in free liberal democracies, and in a popular philosophy forum, theistic cartesianism still haunts many people's consciousness.

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 2:46 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 5:00 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 1:03 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2021, 11:19 am

Did you have an original point? Babies are generally the product of their treatment. I do not think US babies are desitined to be criminals, unless you are saying that Americans have a higher than usual percentage of psychopaths?
I think there is a fundemental mistake you are making. First timers in prison are not unredeemable. You could easily transform the US penal system. It would have massive benefits for society. Once they has been put in a cage and had to fend for themselves in a US prison then I think it might be too late.
American is unique for having more prisoners that anywhere on earth and the costs for incarceration are as high or higher than anywhere else - something is going wrong. Privatisation is one part of the problem.

Privatisation is a small part of the problem.

My point is that at this moment the American prison population consists of a number of very bad individuals.
You can try to describe how they got that way and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the fact remains that putting those individuals in a Scandinavian prison system will not change who they are and what they do. It might actually put the Scandinavian guards at some risk.

THe media only reports on the psychos, mobsters, and serial killers - I doubt and they are easy to spot and not likley to respond to rehab in any event. Percetpions are screwed.
The vast majority of inmates are just ordinary people; great candidates for improvement.
Privatisation means minimal provision for the maximum amount of money.
You can't expect a prisoner to come out a better person when they are just seen as cash cows. It works well for business if they return to prison so there is ZERO incentive to help.

However as a thought experiment (not an actual viable plan) if you could draw a line in the sand and decide that from now on, future first time US prisoners are going to be incarcerated in a Scandinavian system, that would have some improvements with less increased risk (though it would involve some increased risk, since first time US prisoners are a worse lot than average than a Swedish first time offender).

I was not saying that Americans in infancy are more prone to criminal behavior, in fact my point was the opposite, that growing up in the US, regardless of genetics, on average produces criminals who are more "hardened". For a similar reason that you cite for US prisons turning out more hardened criminals.

I'm not sure you can divide the two. It may well be that the US, being a country whose ancestors were fleeing might well have a higher proportion of psychopaths. IN the 17thC- 19thC is you were a criminal in Europe on the run, the first place you would think of going would be the USA. IN that way, although most would be law abiding, the rate of criminality would be higher. So to the extent criminality is inheritable - or at least the traits that might lead to it is inheritable, would result in further generations.
We know that cultural criminality such as the Mafia and the Tongs did translate well to the US.

I was not referring to psychos, the Mafia nor serial killers, who I agree are a tiny fraction of US prisoners. Rather I was thinking of gang members, either community gangs who end up in prison, or just bad dudes who join a prison gang for protection.

My expectation is that the influence of genetics on the US crime stats are minimal, but the role of systemic racism and the economic repression that results from it, increases the crime rate and acuity here.

Without referring to some very clever research by people able to dot the is and cross the ts, I supose we are just blowing air.
But on the psycho issue. There are a lot more psychopaths than we have imagined.
I saw a fascinating BBC documentary which traced the work of a sociology professor would when identifying a genetic basis ofr psychopathy revealed that he himself had the gene. Whilst he was horrified, his family sort of siad "meh", we knew he was a bit reserved, and not quite with it when it came to emotional intelligence.
People who excessive amounts of boldness, indifference to others, disinihition, and meanness are likley to be so because of genetics. There are as much as 1% in the general population and as much as 20% with these traits in US prisons. There are serious ethical issues for genetic testing of prisoners. I think it would be useful were someone brave enough to do the research.
The fact that a academic has the trait is a hopeful sign that rehabilitation is a possibility for those that have already overstepped the mark. Another feature of the programme was a discusion with a psychopath who had been imprisoned for repeated instances of physical violence, was going striaght be learning to recognise the signs of his violence and walk away rather than pile in.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 7:08 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 2:46 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 5:00 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 1:03 am

Privatisation is a small part of the problem.

My point is that at this moment the American prison population consists of a number of very bad individuals.
You can try to describe how they got that way and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the fact remains that putting those individuals in a Scandinavian prison system will not change who they are and what they do. It might actually put the Scandinavian guards at some risk.

THe media only reports on the psychos, mobsters, and serial killers - I doubt and they are easy to spot and not likley to respond to rehab in any event. Percetpions are screwed.
The vast majority of inmates are just ordinary people; great candidates for improvement.
Privatisation means minimal provision for the maximum amount of money.
You can't expect a prisoner to come out a better person when they are just seen as cash cows. It works well for business if they return to prison so there is ZERO incentive to help.

However as a thought experiment (not an actual viable plan) if you could draw a line in the sand and decide that from now on, future first time US prisoners are going to be incarcerated in a Scandinavian system, that would have some improvements with less increased risk (though it would involve some increased risk, since first time US prisoners are a worse lot than average than a Swedish first time offender).

I was not saying that Americans in infancy are more prone to criminal behavior, in fact my point was the opposite, that growing up in the US, regardless of genetics, on average produces criminals who are more "hardened". For a similar reason that you cite for US prisons turning out more hardened criminals.

I'm not sure you can divide the two. It may well be that the US, being a country whose ancestors were fleeing might well have a higher proportion of psychopaths. IN the 17thC- 19thC is you were a criminal in Europe on the run, the first place you would think of going would be the USA. IN that way, although most would be law abiding, the rate of criminality would be higher. So to the extent criminality is inheritable - or at least the traits that might lead to it is inheritable, would result in further generations.
We know that cultural criminality such as the Mafia and the Tongs did translate well to the US.

I was not referring to psychos, the Mafia nor serial killers, who I agree are a tiny fraction of US prisoners. Rather I was thinking of gang members, either community gangs who end up in prison, or just bad dudes who join a prison gang for protection.

My expectation is that the influence of genetics on the US crime stats are minimal, but the role of systemic racism and the economic repression that results from it, increases the crime rate and acuity here.

Without referring to some very clever research by people able to dot the is and cross the ts, I supose we are just blowing air.
But on the psycho issue. There are a lot more psychopaths than we have imagined.
I saw a fascinating BBC documentary which traced the work of a sociology professor would when identifying a genetic basis ofr psychopathy revealed that he himself had the gene. Whilst he was horrified, his family sort of siad "meh", we knew he was a bit reserved, and not quite with it when it came to emotional intelligence.
People who excessive amounts of boldness, indifference to others, disinihition, and meanness are likley to be so because of genetics. There are as much as 1% in the general population and as much as 20% with these traits in US prisons. There are serious ethical issues for genetic testing of prisoners. I think it would be useful were someone brave enough to do the research.
The fact that a academic has the trait is a hopeful sign that rehabilitation is a possibility for those that have already overstepped the mark. Another feature of the programme was a discusion with a psychopath who had been imprisoned for repeated instances of physical violence, was going striaght be learning to recognise the signs of his violence and walk away rather than pile in.

I completely agree with you on the psychopathy issue. However, if the gene is evenly distributed among countries, why does the US have so many prisoners? One possible answer is that the US has similar crime but finds and incarcerates more lawbreakers. I doubt it.

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 5th, 2021, 1:44 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 7:08 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 2:46 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 5:00 am
THe media only reports on the psychos, mobsters, and serial killers - I doubt and they are easy to spot and not likley to respond to rehab in any event. Percetpions are screwed.
The vast majority of inmates are just ordinary people; great candidates for improvement.
Privatisation means minimal provision for the maximum amount of money.
You can't expect a prisoner to come out a better person when they are just seen as cash cows. It works well for business if they return to prison so there is ZERO incentive to help.


I'm not sure you can divide the two. It may well be that the US, being a country whose ancestors were fleeing might well have a higher proportion of psychopaths. IN the 17thC- 19thC is you were a criminal in Europe on the run, the first place you would think of going would be the USA. IN that way, although most would be law abiding, the rate of criminality would be higher. So to the extent criminality is inheritable - or at least the traits that might lead to it is inheritable, would result in further generations.
We know that cultural criminality such as the Mafia and the Tongs did translate well to the US.

I was not referring to psychos, the Mafia nor serial killers, who I agree are a tiny fraction of US prisoners. Rather I was thinking of gang members, either community gangs who end up in prison, or just bad dudes who join a prison gang for protection.

My expectation is that the influence of genetics on the US crime stats are minimal, but the role of systemic racism and the economic repression that results from it, increases the crime rate and acuity here.

Without referring to some very clever research by people able to dot the is and cross the ts, I supose we are just blowing air.
But on the psycho issue. There are a lot more psychopaths than we have imagined.
I saw a fascinating BBC documentary which traced the work of a sociology professor would when identifying a genetic basis ofr psychopathy revealed that he himself had the gene. Whilst he was horrified, his family sort of siad "meh", we knew he was a bit reserved, and not quite with it when it came to emotional intelligence.
People who excessive amounts of boldness, indifference to others, disinihition, and meanness are likley to be so because of genetics. There are as much as 1% in the general population and as much as 20% with these traits in US prisons. There are serious ethical issues for genetic testing of prisoners. I think it would be useful were someone brave enough to do the research.
The fact that a academic has the trait is a hopeful sign that rehabilitation is a possibility for those that have already overstepped the mark. Another feature of the programme was a discusion with a psychopath who had been imprisoned for repeated instances of physical violence, was going striaght be learning to recognise the signs of his violence and walk away rather than pile in.

I completely agree with you on the psychopathy issue. However, if the gene is evenly distributed among countries, why does the US have so many prisoners? One possible answer is that the US has similar crime but finds and incarcerates more lawbreakers. I doubt it.

Clearly the prison problem in the US is primary systemic. But I was also questioning the possibility that the genetic element of psychopathy might actually be higher in the US given the nature of its founding.
The US attracted people who were fleeing. Fleeing people will naturally have a higher proportion of miscreants, and that would also refelect a higher percentage of psychopaths. In addition the colonisation of the West is likely to have favoured a ruthless nature.

Sculptor wrote:

The US attracted people who were fleeing. Fleeing people will naturally have a higher proportion of miscreants, and that would also refelect a higher percentage of psychopaths. In addition the colonisation of the West is likely to have favoured a ruthless nature.

You may as well say the same of Britain, or any other colonised territory in Europe , Asia, or Africa.. Man's past is all about how man is a coloniser. You may as well say colonisers are less psychopathic than men who failed to go with the flow.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2021, 3:59 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 5th, 2021, 1:44 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 7:08 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 2:46 am

I was not referring to psychos, the Mafia nor serial killers, who I agree are a tiny fraction of US prisoners. Rather I was thinking of gang members, either community gangs who end up in prison, or just bad dudes who join a prison gang for protection.

My expectation is that the influence of genetics on the US crime stats are minimal, but the role of systemic racism and the economic repression that results from it, increases the crime rate and acuity here.

Without referring to some very clever research by people able to dot the is and cross the ts, I supose we are just blowing air.
But on the psycho issue. There are a lot more psychopaths than we have imagined.
I saw a fascinating BBC documentary which traced the work of a sociology professor would when identifying a genetic basis ofr psychopathy revealed that he himself had the gene. Whilst he was horrified, his family sort of siad "meh", we knew he was a bit reserved, and not quite with it when it came to emotional intelligence.
People who excessive amounts of boldness, indifference to others, disinihition, and meanness are likley to be so because of genetics. There are as much as 1% in the general population and as much as 20% with these traits in US prisons. There are serious ethical issues for genetic testing of prisoners. I think it would be useful were someone brave enough to do the research.
The fact that a academic has the trait is a hopeful sign that rehabilitation is a possibility for those that have already overstepped the mark. Another feature of the programme was a discusion with a psychopath who had been imprisoned for repeated instances of physical violence, was going striaght be learning to recognise the signs of his violence and walk away rather than pile in.

I completely agree with you on the psychopathy issue. However, if the gene is evenly distributed among countries, why does the US have so many prisoners? One possible answer is that the US has similar crime but finds and incarcerates more lawbreakers. I doubt it.

Clearly the prison problem in the US is primary systemic. But I was also questioning the possibility that the genetic element of psychopathy might actually be higher in the US given the nature of its founding.
The US attracted people who were fleeing. Fleeing people will naturally have a higher proportion of miscreants, and that would also refelect a higher percentage of psychopaths. In addition the colonisation of the West is likely to have favoured a ruthless nature.

I see your logic. However, wouldn't Australia (a penal colony) have an even worse statistic if true?

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 5th, 2021, 11:22 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2021, 3:59 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑July 5th, 2021, 1:44 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 4th, 2021, 7:08 am

Without referring to some very clever research by people able to dot the is and cross the ts, I supose we are just blowing air.
But on the psycho issue. There are a lot more psychopaths than we have imagined.
I saw a fascinating BBC documentary which traced the work of a sociology professor would when identifying a genetic basis ofr psychopathy revealed that he himself had the gene. Whilst he was horrified, his family sort of siad "meh", we knew he was a bit reserved, and not quite with it when it came to emotional intelligence.
People who excessive amounts of boldness, indifference to others, disinihition, and meanness are likley to be so because of genetics. There are as much as 1% in the general population and as much as 20% with these traits in US prisons. There are serious ethical issues for genetic testing of prisoners. I think it would be useful were someone brave enough to do the research.
The fact that a academic has the trait is a hopeful sign that rehabilitation is a possibility for those that have already overstepped the mark. Another feature of the programme was a discusion with a psychopath who had been imprisoned for repeated instances of physical violence, was going striaght be learning to recognise the signs of his violence and walk away rather than pile in.

I completely agree with you on the psychopathy issue. However, if the gene is evenly distributed among countries, why does the US have so many prisoners? One possible answer is that the US has similar crime but finds and incarcerates more lawbreakers. I doubt it.

Clearly the prison problem in the US is primary systemic. But I was also questioning the possibility that the genetic element of psychopathy might actually be higher in the US given the nature of its founding.
The US attracted people who were fleeing. Fleeing people will naturally have a higher proportion of miscreants, and that would also refelect a higher percentage of psychopaths. In addition the colonisation of the West is likely to have favoured a ruthless nature.

I see your logic. However, wouldn't Australia (a penal colony) have an even worse statistic if true?

I thought about that, but the case is quite different. Transportation was usually the result of petty crime by desperate people, not so much people taking the initiative to flee from the law. Many were political prisoners.
But you are right the rates in OZ are 3 times lower that the US. I wonder how much of that is because more than half (54%) of the people in US prisons have already been there.
Recidivism rates though are a minefield of confusion since countries all have different follow up periods.
SO I give up on this one

Criminal prosecution in a nutshell, you know how you are, don't be like that!! Of course, we all know we got to be how we are through the process of biology and a life lived, in the absence of freewill punishment makes little sense accept for the things of our common temptations. For the more serious offenses the subject needs close examination, physical and mental, and perhaps confined for the protection of society at large. So, much for the sin business as well.

Gertie wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2021, 7:55 am Arjand

The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will. This makes it an interesting case for philosophical consideration (i.e. to watch real world implications of a deterministic perspective on reality).

No it isn't.

Forensic psychiatry has no philosophical position on determinism and free will. In a courtroom its purpose can vary, from helping a judge to assess whether someone is fit to stand trial at a particular time (do they understand what's going on, can they contribute to their own defence), to helping a jury assess whether a mental health issue might have affected their ability to know right from or wrong, or the reason for committing the crime in relation to the criminal definition of 'insanity'. And to provide treatment to offenders in prisons and psychiatric facilities, with the intention of helping them as patients, and preventing further offending.

If you want to make a philosophical argument about determinism or free will, go ahead. You can then state what implications you think your position might have for psychiatry.

What distinguishes a psychiatrist from a psychotherapist is a medical approach, i.e. psychopathology such as a brain disease model of psychological problems.

Psychopathology is based on causality which requires determinism to be true for its validity.

From Stanford's reference on psychopathology:

If psychiatry is really (really?) a branch of medicine, we should see the specific causal hypotheses emerge about mechanisms that cause the symptoms of mental illness. Psychopathology is to be identified as the departure of a psychological system from its proper state.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychiatry/

Note the use of 'really' in the Stanford reference on philosophy of psychiatry, which implies that it is not considered to be certain that psychopathology is valid or even justified as a theoretical concept.

The intent to replace the retributive justice system

When it concerns a 'growing influence of psychiatry' in criminal prosecution (ie, the intent to replace the retributive justice system with preventative measures), ultimately, it will come down to free will vs determinism.

At question will be: can causality explain mind (and its problems)?

Within the concept psychopathology mental problems are not subjective (i.e. psychological) but require a scientifically valid causal hypothesis.

Therefor, from a philosophical perspective, it may be of interest to examine psychiatry's growing influence within the criminal justice system to learn about real world implications of a deterministic view on reality.

Personally, when I was examining it, I literally had giggles daily due to the absurd nature of some of the practices that I discovered. I used Google Alerts to notice every publication, including on blogs, forums et cetera.

Arjand quoted:

From Stanford's reference on psychopathology:
If psychiatry is really (really?) a branch of medicine, we should see the specific causal hypotheses emerge about mechanisms that cause the symptoms of mental illness. Psychopathology is to be identified as the departure of a psychological system from its proper state.

The best way to help people who suffer from some psychopathology is to combine psychiatry and deterministic neurochemistry. The subject describes to the psychiatrist how they feel, and the neurochemist seeks correlations with objective signs of neurochemical anomalies. There may also be a detectable anatomical lesion which also is caused.

This is not new in clinical practice where patients describe subjective symptoms and clinicians see objective signs.

Psychiatry practically is deterministic neurochemistry due to its focus on a brain disease model of psychological problems. The prescription of psychiatric medications is deterministic neurochemistry.

With regard it being a solution for the prevention of crime.

Isn't the 'why' question most relevant when it concerns the choice to commit a crime? (when the intent is to prevent crime from ever happening)

When it concerns brainless life forms, at question would be: is morality applicable for such life forms? Do those life forms 'choose' a path in life that is aligned with what can be indicated to be 'good'?

With plants there is evidence for morality. Plants are proven to be able to recognize kin, they nurture their off spring and help those in need through their underground fungus network (internet network of plants). Plants also instruct other plants where to grow to prevent a sunlight struggle.

The mind has been capable to overcome a lot. There are people merely with 5-10% brain tissue that live a healthy live with wife, children and a job or that have a high IQ and are capable of achieving an academic degree.

Consciousness without a brain?
"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor philosophy of cognitive science from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16742

It puts the 'chemical imbalance' story at question. The chemical imbalance idea doesn't seem plausible from a scientific causal hypothesis perspective.

With psychopathology, one is to establish a direct 1 on 1 causal relation for psychological problems such as for example the 'why' for criminal behavior. That the environment, such as for example a neurological disease, can result in mental health problems does not by itself count as evidence for psychopathology and thus cannot be said to be a scientifically valid causal explanation for the 'why' of crimes.

As far as I know, psychopathology has never been proven valid until now and that means that a deterministic neurochemistry approach cannot be said to be applicable as proposal for a solution to predict and prevent crime.

The following article provides an indication of the actual and potential validity of the idea that the mind originates in the brain, and psychiatry's label based prediction capability when it concerns crime.

(2019) Psychiatric diagnosis 'scientifically meaningless'
Clinical psychology professor John Read, University of East London, said: "Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131152.htm

With psychopathology one assumes a physical origin (causality in a pure form) for mental states, e.g. brain chemistry, on the basis of which a pathology is possible and by which a medical neurochemistry approach becomes applicable.

With the concept psychopathology, psychology as a whole is to be explained within the scope of causality, and thus, requires determinism to be true.

To prove determinism is quite a step to make.

Psychopathology requires a sound causal hypothesis BEFORE a disease is diagnosed and BEFORE a medical treatment is applied since otherwise it cannot be known what is being done and whether someone is 'medically cured', let alone, that it can be used to predict and prevent crime.