Should we create a "psychopath watchlist"?

More Than Mortal · June 01, 2015, 04:51:27 PM

For the sake of monitoring people who are probably--or definitively--antisocial to the point of having a personality disorder, and perhaps even to bar them from doing certain jobs, or working in the public sector.

Forget the technicalities for a moment, would this be ethical? Or is it just discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses? Would that be warranted nonetheless for the sake of society's well-being? On the other hand, are psychopaths actually valuable, on net, to society? Hell, are egosyntonic disorders even illnesses?

My own answers to those questions:

Spoiler

No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.

eggsalad · June 01, 2015, 04:54:08 PM

Do companies not already screen employees for past mental illnesses?

More Than Mortal · June 01, 2015, 04:55:42 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 04:54:08 PM

Do companies not already screen employees for past mental illnesses?

Not to my knowledge, depending on the sector. That's usually for things like schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Personality disorders, especially cluster B disorders like psychopathy and narcissism, aren't actually viewed by many people as "illnesses" in the traditional sense.

Mr. Psychologist · June 01, 2015, 05:00:13 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 04:54:08 PM

Do companies not already screen employees for past mental illnesses?

Some do, some don't.

It's more of a medical background check than a psych eval prior to an interview. It's a tricky one because it can fall under discrimination laws if a business snubs a candidate because they were unwell in their past but I can't say that it's wrong to not employ someone if they have a history of instability. Ultimately the business needs a worker who is reliable and isn't going to go postal on them.

At the same time it doesn't mean anyone who had depression or who has schizophrenia is unsuited for the workplace, some can function fine and others can't.

eggsalad · June 01, 2015, 05:04:55 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on June 01, 2015, 05:00:13 PM

It's more of a medical background check than a psych eval prior to an interview. It's a tricky one because it can fall under discrimination laws if a business snubs a candidate because they were unwell in their past but I can't say that it's wrong to not employ someone if they have a history of instability. Ultimately the business needs a worker who is reliable and isn't going to go postal on them.

Isn't that similar to businesses not hiring women in fear of them soon going on maternity leave? By reason it is a legitimate concern from the company's perspective, but it places the burden instead on someone for something they had no control over.

More Than Mortal · June 01, 2015, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:04:55 PM

but it places the burden instead on someone for something they had no control over.

Women have no control over getting pregnant?

eggsalad · June 01, 2015, 05:07:45 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 01, 2015, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:04:55 PM
but it places the burden instead on someone for something they had no control over.
Women have no control over getting pregnant?

They don't have control over being a woman in their 20's, a demographic that is likely to get pregnant.

More Than Mortal · June 01, 2015, 05:09:35 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:07:45 PM

They don't have control over being a woman in their 20's, a demographic that is likely to get pregnant.

Because so many women of that age choose to have children. I get the point your making, obviously, but I don't think it's true to say that pregnancy is comparable to mental illness.

Wait, or are you saying companies not hiring women of that age because they might get pregnant is comparable to mental illness?

Mr. Psychologist · June 01, 2015, 05:10:18 PM

Numbers/sentences address each question in the block <.<
1. I don't think Psychopaths pose enough of a threat to society that could ever warrant a watchlist. It sounds unethical as all hell and smacks of prejudgement.
2. I wouldn't call it discrimination though, pointless fear sure.
3. Refer to point 1., a psychopath can live a perfectly normal and relatively harmless life. They might be predisposed to doing impulsive and reckless things, being cuthroat and untrustworthy but that's why we have the professions of Bankers, Lawyers and Politicians.
On a more serious note, I don't think they pose a threat to society. Serial Killers do, but as hopefully we all now know Serial Killers =/= Psychopaths >_>
4. I'd say in a way they are, you have various advantages from psychopaths. Efficient soldiers and policemen, even if they need a leash <.< being a cut-throat son of a bitch tends to help in the competitive business sectors too. I can't say that they'd make a great family figure though, infact I'm not entirely sure if it's a good thing that they tend to be prolific breeders thus passing on the psychopathic traits quite frequently >_>
5. Illnesses in the sense that it's something abnormal, but it's not something that can really be treated or prevented. Personality Disorders are a form of mental illness, but it's loosely one that is impossible to treat (For certain types) because it's something that completely shapes a person rather than being a warped set of cognitions, bio-neurological issues or traumas and the like >_>

eggsalad · June 01, 2015, 05:11:50 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 01, 2015, 05:09:35 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:07:45 PM
They don't have control over being a woman in their 20's, a demographic that is likely to get pregnant.
Because so many women of that age choose to have children. I get the point your making, obviously, but I don't think it's true to say that pregnancy is comparable to mental illness.

Wait, or are you saying companies not hiring women of that age because they might get pregnant is comparable to mental illness?

In the sense that someone has a risk factor (Woman in their 20's - Past mental illness) that makes a company decide not to hire them when there is no tangible evidence any problems will happen other than them being part of that demographic.

More Than Mortal · June 01, 2015, 05:13:39 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:11:50 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 01, 2015, 05:09:35 PM
Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:07:45 PM
They don't have control over being a woman in their 20's, a demographic that is likely to get pregnant.
Because so many women of that age choose to have children. I get the point your making, obviously, but I don't think it's true to say that pregnancy is comparable to mental illness.

Wait, or are you saying companies not hiring women of that age because they might get pregnant is comparable to mental illness?
In the sense that someone has a risk factor (Woman in their 20's - Past mental illness) that makes a company decide not to hire them when there is no tangible evidence any problems will happen other than them being part of that demographic.

Ah, my bad. I misunderstood what you meant.

Mr. Psychologist · June 01, 2015, 05:13:42 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 05:04:55 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on June 01, 2015, 05:00:13 PM
It's more of a medical background check than a psych eval prior to an interview. It's a tricky one because it can fall under discrimination laws if a business snubs a candidate because they were unwell in their past but I can't say that it's wrong to not employ someone if they have a history of instability. Ultimately the business needs a worker who is reliable and isn't going to go postal on them.
Isn't that similar to businesses not hiring women in fear of them soon going on maternity leave? By reason it is a legitimate concern from the company's perspective, but it places the burden instead on someone for something they had no control over.

Pretty much, it's a tricky one because if you take the humanist approach then a business shouldn't be refusing to employ people because they *might* become ill again or they *might* have children. But at the same time they are out to make a profit so it's understandable that they might not want to employ people who won't be reliable for one reason or another.

Of the two, I'd say hiring someone with a history of mental illness is a less costly option than hiring someone who is likely to go on maternity leave within a year of becoming employed because iirc they have to not only pay for the leave but also for the replacement labour and god help them if they fire the mother (Which is a shitty thing to do, but again from a business perspective it's understandable) >.>

SecondClass · June 01, 2015, 05:19:52 PM

lolno

BrenMan 94 · June 01, 2015, 07:43:35 PM

We already have one.

DAS B00T x2 · June 01, 2015, 08:11:12 PM

No. If I oppose the sex offender registry for being unconstitutional and unethical than by principle I have to oppose this.

Super Irish · June 02, 2015, 08:00:07 AM

It seems like a reason to discriminate against others for some reason or other.

Unless it's a private list only for police/doctors and for the person(s) in question than I don't really agree with such a proposition.

Kitsune 狐 · June 02, 2015, 08:53:39 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 01, 2015, 04:54:08 PM

Do companies not already screen employees for past mental illnesses?

They do for pilots. My dad is bipolar and isn't allowed to earn his commercial air license (or whatever it's called) because of his disorder.