The word stigma comes from ancient Greece, and was initially used in reference to signs or symbols physically cut into or burned onto the bodies of those deemed to be of an inferior status. It was a marking of one's tarnished and flawed character. Today, stigma is more often attached to one's social standing, personality traits, or psychological makeup. "People are no longer physically branded; instead they are societally labeled—as poor, as criminal, homosexual, mentally ill, and so on. These labels (...) influence public perceptions and behavior and lead to devaluation and denigration of those who are so labeled" (Wahl 1999, 11–12).The modern usage of the term stigma and contemporary focus on the concept as a topic of .. (shrink)

Genomic and neuro-scientific research into the causes and course of antisocial behaviour triggers bioethical debate. Often, these new developments are met with reservation, and possible drawbacks and negative side-effects are pointed out. This article reflects on these scientific developments and the bioethical debate by means of an exploration of the perspectives of one important stakeholder group: juveniles convicted of a serious crime who stay in a juvenile justice institution. The views of juveniles are particularly interesting, as possible applications of current (...) and future scientific findings are considered to be most effective if applied early in life. Based on their statements we come to the following provisional conclusions. Concerns about labelling and stigmatization are recognized and widely shared. Possible effects on one's identity are acknowledged too. Yet, a possible biological underpinning of one's antisocial behaviour is not considered to result in the development of a criminal identity. Nonetheless, psychopharmacological interventions are experienced as endangering one's current self. Concerns regarding the refusal of responsibility and the blaming of one's genes or brain can be put into perspective. Instead, participants emphasize the motive of own choice as underlying their criminal behaviour. Moreover, bioethical debate should pay attention to the role of parents of children at risk and the parent-child relationship in families at-risk. We argue that the short-term and long-term interests of children at risk, as well as their interests and those of society at large, may conflict. In order to deal appropriately with newly arising dilemmas, a normative framework needs to be developed. (shrink)

Psychopaths are often regarded as a scourge of contemporary society and, as such, are the focus of much public vilification and outrage. But, arguably, psychopaths are both sinned against as well as sinners. If that is true, then their status as the victims of abusive subcultures partially mitigates their moral responsibility for the harms they cause. We argue, from the neuroethics of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), that communities have a moral obligation to psychopaths as well as a case (...) against them. A reflection on the genesis and developmental epidemiology of psychopathy reveals an individualist, attribution-type error evident in much Western psychological and legal thinking—an error that obscures important moral truths about psychopaths. The resulting analysis makes us reconsider the distinction between disorders and moral failings and the ethical significance of the biological or neurocognitive mechanisms underpinning psychopathy. We claim that casting aside the deficit model (based on the presupposition that psychopaths are intrinsically unlike the rest of us) in favor of a relational and holistic view of personality potentiates a more informed and inclusive set of ethical, forensic, and therapeutic attitudes. (shrink)