It makes me think about the case of Charles Manson, to the most extreme, where his followers murdered an innocent couple at his command. They were imprisoned but, recently, one of his followers Leslie Van Houten was released. Would she be a risk factor to reoffend, even though she outwardly expressed regret? Was she taught that empathy and accountability are socially desirable traits to better manipulate the parole board or is she truly sorry for what she did?
Since those diagnosed with psychopathy have no empathy, it can only be taught in a cognitive way (to understand the concept, not necessarily feel it). Because of this, I believe psychopaths may become better offenders (knowing how to better manipulate people by understanding how empathy impacts those who do not have psychopathic traits). I want to differentiate that this is not applicable to young offenders as they may be able to be rehabilitated due to the mailability of their underdeveloped brain. You can read more about it here.
I don’t believe that Sarma was a psychopath but, based on the limited information I was given in the documentary and my inability to formally diagnose people, it seemed that she could have shown some traits to a lesser degree, specifically with her flat affect and limited empathy (showing accountability of the impact of her actions towards her mother). Perhaps there could be other factors or diagnoses that played a role, such as a form of autism (which can mimic psychopathy) or other personality disorders (that aren’t necessarily related to psychopathy).
So does this mean that she is a risk factor to reoffend? Perhaps she may not get the opportunity to be in the same position financially as she once was but is she easily manipulated to commit other crimes? With her seemingly lack of accountability and empathy, this could possibly be true. Or maybe she doesn’t have any psychopathic traits but perhaps she may have a mental deficiency that also may put her at risk to reoffend in the right type of environment.
Alternative Approaches
Her actions could a result of a mental disability that may present itself as a risk factor to society. People who present a danger to the public or themselves, at no fault to their own, are typically admitted into assisted living or a mental health facility, depending on the diagnoses and risk factors at hand. If she is incapable of differentiating between right and wrong, devoid of any ability to understand the ramifications of her actions on others and a risk factor to be easily manipulated, would it be fair to segregate her from society to protect herself and the public from recidivism?
In Conclusion…
It’s all such interesting thoughts processes to work through. We are in a mindset within society where people who are victims of abuse are typically seen entirely as victims, and any accountability in their role of hurting others as a result of the abuse is placed solely on the mastermind (where most of it should be). More importantly, we aren’t even considering the risk factors of those who are prone to manipulation and their risk of reoffending (and their level of accountability in that next crime). Should we be focusing more on risk factors of reoffenders of those who are easily manipulated to commit further crime? And how can we measure this before it even happens?
In summary, negligence should always be weighted separate from intent, psychological evaluations (and IQ tests) should be conducted on those who say they were manipulated into committing a crime, making the same mistakes over and over within that period of time should be considered and recidivism should be weighted in conjunction with outwardly obvious and uncoached empathy towards the victims impacted and accountability of their role in the crime.
And then I think of war, where the rules change, the social culture changes and people do horrific things based on their commitment to “the cause.” Their actions become more acceptable as morality is “bent.” It’s such a grey area, but one where the Intentional court of justice thankfully has the power to step in when grey goes to darkness.