Crazy as a Loon
Clayton Weatherston has been found guilty of murdering Sophie Elliot and that verdict troubles me on two counts.
The first is the one that everyone has being blogging about, the rather sick attempt to portray Ms. Elliot’s murder as somehow justified by denigrating her character. There is now a strong feeling that the defense of provocation is an obscenity that should be stuck out of our statutes. Good riddance, I say. There can be no justification for taking a life except in the rare “kill or be killed” situation. Certainly, there is no insult that could possibly justify such a thing. To hear Weatherston and Ablett-Kerr destroying a dead girl’s reputation and then calmly trying to justify 216 stab wounds was both nauseating and chilling. I hope this defense is removed as soon as possible.
It has been suggested that removing the defense of provocation would leave battered women more vulnerable. There have been several successful uses of such a defense where an abused woman has killed her spouse or partner and been found guilty only of manslaughter. However, in the majority of these cases a reasonable argument of self defense can be put forward as mitigation at least. Provocation is normally used instead of self defense, because it is far easier to prove and gives a surer verdict. However, an abused woman rarely has trouble enlisting the sympathy of the jury.
Which is more than can be said about Weatherston. Throughout the trial, it seems that he continued to think that it was a perfectly reasonable response to insult – imagined or real – to stab Ms. Elliot 216 times. And therein lies my second concern.
It is obvious to me that Clayton Weatherston is as crazy as a loon. That he has a severe narcissistic personality disorder is so utterly incontestable, it warrants no further discussion. The complete lack of empathy he showed in the courtroom is classic for this condition. It is also self-evident that even narcissists do not normally murder people, so I am inclined to go along with the psychiatrists view (since they have examined Weatherston) that he has obsessive traits as well. Both of these conditions, however, are part of the personality disorders and people with personality disorders are not considered to be of unsound mind. Supposedly, they can choose to act normally and are therefore not barking mad.
This is precisely why are jails are full of them and why we have so few long-term mental hospitals. The contents of said hospitals have gravitated into our penal system.
It could be argued that personality disorders are extremely hard to treat and the results are shockingly poor, therefore hospital treatment is pointless and they may as well be in jail. It is true medication and psychotherapy are uniformly ineffective. Narcissism is one of the harder personality disorders to treat, mainly because the “sufferer” refuses to consider that there is anything wrong with him/her. They also lie through their teeth, making it almost impossible to assess progress. Having said that, prison is absolutely guaranteed to make them worse. Whereas we may be able to help people with lesser pathology that Weatherston in a hospital setting, prison just ensures that they will always be there.
It is dubious that someone with the depth of pathology of Weatherston can truly be considered to be of sound mind. He clearly lives in his own, rather sick , little world and is incapable of even a semblance of normal relationships. People are often drawn to Narcissists because they are charming and flatter outrageously. They then rapidly become trapped in a relationship that is completely one-sided. If they are very unfortunate they meet up with a case as severe as Weatherston’s and pay for it, like Ms. Elliot, with their lives.
Weatherston certainly needs to be locked up, for the safety of himself and society, but he needs doctors and nurses, not prison guards.
Related posts:
- Spam Journalism #42 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add...
Jul 23 09 3:20 am
You want to medicalize bad character?
Maybe some people are just bad and the labels you apply just that, labels.
In response to the first part of your post – our justice system allows the accused to put his/her side of the story – When this occurs we either empathize with what he/she has to say about the events surrounding the commission of the crime or feel repulsed assuming of course we aren’t just indifferent.
In the case of Clayton Weatherston the repulsion is the almost universal response of our fellow citizens – a response I share incidentally.
I am sure that when it comes to sentencing Mr Weatherston the communities revulsion at both his crime and his attempted excuse for it will be taken account.
With respect for whether or not we empathize with the defendant, please don’t kid yourself that this has anything to do with rationality either – factors such as race, age, gender and sexuality of both the accused and the victim will come into play here and with the biases of the reporters of the story playing a big part along with our own on we feel about the defendant. So for example our response to a trial involving the rape/murder of a child differs markedly to the trial of a mongrel mobster accused of the murder a black power guy.
The public fascination with the Weatherston trial arises not only from the savagery of the attack on Miss Eliot – which is far from unique, but rather from the fact that they were both presentable youngish upper middle class people with a world of opportunity before them. A prostitute who suffered a similar ignominious end to that of Miss Eliot would barely raise the flicker of an eyelid, a thirty second report on the six o’clock news perhaps.
All in all the mental image I have of this whole “debate” over the provocation defense is one of an enraged mob carrying pitchforks baying for blood outside a jail.
And if the lynch mob gets its way it will be the a defendants chance for a fair trial that will be degraded.
Jul 23 09 8:51 am
Andrei: You want to medicalize bad character?
Do you consider someone who stabbed another person 216 times to just have a “bad character”? Does it not strike you as strange that we consider someone capable of such an attack to be “of sound mind”?
And yes, I agree that most of the frenzying around this case is solely because the protagonists are very photogenic…
Jul 23 09 9:58 am
I absolutely agree with your observation that prison is the wrong place for someone with a severe narcissitic personality disorder.
The reason people are put in prison is to show them the error of their ways. With Weatherston’s disorder he is likely to emerge from prison some years hence still convinced he was absolutely in the right and having gained no insight whatever.
There needs to be another look at how severe personality disorders are handled, ideally in long-term psychiatric care. I suspect that is going to be very difficult to achieve in the prevailing lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key in-sensible sentencing climate.
.-= Bright Wings´s last blog ..Too much graphic detail in media =-.
Jul 23 09 10:36 am
So what is the treatment for severe narcissitic personality disorder? And what is the long term prognosis for sufferers of this condition?
And what is the treatment for ego-dystonic homosexuality?
Oh wait-there is no treatment for that, it ceased to be a medical condition around about 1986 or so.
Point taken, Andrei, but that still does not answer my question. Can we consider someone who stabbed another person 216 times as “of sound mind”?
Jul 23 09 11:59 am
Provocation needs to remain as a defence for the legitimate situations it applies in. Accused will often try to raise defences for which, if they are being honest with themselves should not be trying to raise, however if we remove a defence because we do not like seeing these attempts we remove it for those who do deserve to succeed in such a defence.
This is the same argument those who support the anti-smacking law use when they talk about removing the defence so an accused child abuser cannot even dare try to suggest it to the court. I wrote a rebuttal of this reasoning on my own blog called “no defences permitted for the accused” which was picked up and published on Vote No.
Courts are places where people will try to run all kinds of far-fetched defences in a desperate bid to get off. Had Weatherston not had provocation as an option he might have tried self-defence or innocence and you would have seem very similar attempts to smear the victim playing out as he tried to run with these options.
The only way you can get rid of attempts to smear the victim completely is to get rid of trials and summarily convict all accuseds.
The system worked. Weatherston’s attempt at provocation rightly failed and in making that attempt he made himself look worse and his victim gained more sympathy, distateful as the process was.
.-= Madeleine´s last blog ..MandM featured on Vote No UPDATE 2 =-.
I bow to your superior legal knowledge, Madeleine, but it still sucks…
Jul 23 09 12:10 pm
A personality disorder is not a pathological state.
Weatherstoine has a psychological disorder which means that it is amenable to alteration in behaviour pattern. He is ‘sick’ only in that he has developed a personality in which he sees himself as being above the rest of us and that he can get away with what he has done. He is a sly manipulative bastard who has got his way for far to long and now thinks that he is bullet proof.
I like to draw an analogy to drug dealers. They know that the consequence of their actions can lead to the death of many people, but, never the less, continue to deal in their noxious substances – because they do well out of it and they think they can get away with it. They belong in goal, and so does Weatherstone. He can get his psychotherapy, at State expense, there.
Fat chance of that happening…
Jul 23 09 12:40 pm
We except with some equanimity that a bloke like “born to rule” Richard Worth will slip between other sheets and that the occasional Maori will go off his trolly and murder several people. In both cases we sort of expect thats how they behave and in the case of the Maori we expect there will be mental disease involved.
But in the Bain and Weatherstone cases they are one of us, white middle class.. and they are (or were) “evil”.. presumably because they let the side down.
Weatherstone reminds me of the story of the Queen visiting one of our mental institutions (or whatever they’re called) where she meets one of the inmates. He impresses her as totally sane and its all a dreadful mistake.. she promises to take up his case with John Key.
As shes walking out of the ward shes hit on the back of the head by a flying brick. Dazed she’s helped up and looks back to see the inmate smiling gently, wagging his finger and saying “Now, don’t you forget!”
JC
Jul 23 09 3:10 pm
I think you’re onto something JC, I always find when I read the cold hard facts of a reported murder case (I’m a law student so I get to read a few) there is something shocking about how like us those who commit heinous acts are.
.-= Madeleine´s last blog ..In Defence of the Partial Defence of Provocation =-.
Jul 23 09 5:46 pm
As an aside..
A man who stabbed his partner and his best friend to death after he found them having sex on his canal boat has been jailed for 12 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8163411.stm
Reasonable grounds for provocation or “crime passionnel”
Jul 23 09 9:15 pm
JC:
I accept that the excessive interest of the media and blogosphere in this case is probably driven by the fact that both protagonists are photogenic caucasians. However, our reaction to the “pumpkin” case and the murder of Nia Glassie tells me that this is by no means the entire reason for our interest.
It is the excessive nature of the crime that stirs most of our interest. If “Pumpkin” had been abandoned with her sister , or little Nia had been the victim of shaken baby syndrome or Weatherston had stabbed Sophie only once or twice, our interest would have been far less.
My theory is that it is the clearly pathological nature of these cases that stimulates our interest.
Jul 23 09 9:24 pm
Madeleine:
Having thought some more about the provocation defense, it seems to me that a simple solution would be to limit it to action, preferably illegal action, rather than personality issues. The problem with the Weatherston trial is that he was given the opportunity to assassinate Elliot’s character. If provocation is limited to illegal actions that provoke, he would have had to prove that she assaulted him beforehand, rather than simply insulted him. This would preserve the defense of battered women and the like but prevent people like Weatherston from dragging people’s name through the mud.
Jul 23 09 11:26 pm
Can we consider someone who stabbed another person 216 times as “of sound mind”?
The problem is what is an unambiguous definition of the term “of sound mind”? Or perhaps more pertaintly “of unsound mind”
It is not as though there is a blood test, say, that can determine how “sound” ones mind is.
Take historical figures like Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Were they of “unsound mind” or just plain evil and ultimately in the scheme of things does it matter which.
Likewise with the gentleman we are discussing – regardless of whether you consider his actions ‘evil’ or the manifestation of illness, he will have to be confined – we might call the place of confinement a hospital or we might call it a prison and those who run the place on a day to day basis nurses or prison warders accordingly.
And given that there is probably no medical intervention – other than a lobotomy, perhaps, that will alter the personality traits of the individual concerned it makes little difference.
And let us suppose for a moment that there was a medical intervention that could change someones personality from bad to good would it be appropriate to employ it against criminals?
Are you familiar with “A clockwork Orange”?
Yes. It was a real horrorshow book, but a malenky bit too bolnoy for my tastes. The key to an ethical medical intervention is consent of the patient, of course.
Jul 24 09 10:28 am
MacDoctor, I am glad to see Madeleine has convinced you that there is some downside to getting rid of the defence of provocation. Stephen Franks puts up a much better case than I can hope to.
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=2178#comments
Last time National was in they introduced the Domestic Protection Act in response to a man taking his life along with his three children. This meant many fathers had their access to their child severely affected. Knee jerk legislation is seldom good legislation.
I agree, but I would still like to see some way of avoiding the obscene denigration of a victim during a provocation defense.
Jul 24 09 11:27 am
The key to an ethical medical intervention is consent of the patient, of course.
What about involuntary psychiatric patients? Do they always give consent?
Philosophically, of course, I accept, we live in a fallen and imperfect world and all we can do is our very best to treat each other with respect and humanity. Unfortuantely none of us, no matter how good willed, gets this 100% right all of the time and some of us are not good willed at all nor well disposed towards their fellow men.
Which is why we have courts and prisons of course.
Jul 25 09 12:25 am
Andrei: What about involuntary psychiatric patients? Do they always give consent?
Well, clearly not, otherwise they would be voluntary. But there is a difference between a mental health condition that renders you incapable of a decision, and a condition that allows you to make a choice.
This is why someone like Weatherston, a narcissistic personality, is considered “of sound mind”, because he still has volitional ability. He chose to Kill Sophie. Someone operating under a paranoid delusion would not be able to choose.
I disagree with this stance. Although someone like Weatherston still has adequate volition, it is clear that he is operating under a set of beliefs completely out of keeping with normality. It is a pathological belief in his own superiority that has driven him to murder for a slight that is completely paltry. Although we may consider him culpable, I greatly question whether he even considers his actions blameworthy.
For this reason, I think personality disorders are a mental pathology in need of treatment. Although the various treatment modalities available to us are not very effective, they are not ineffective. You would treat a man with temporal motor epilepsy who had murdered someone during a seizure, I see no reason why we should not attempt to treat someone like Weatherston. This is not medicalisation, which is the attempt to treat a normal condition as a medical one (pregnancy comes immediately to mind here), this is simple medicine. The only reason why there is any debate here is because this is psychiatric medicine and the boundaries are not as clear cut.
Jul 25 09 9:34 am
Although someone like Weatherston still has adequate volition, it is clear that he is operating under a set of beliefs completely out of keeping with normality.
Agreed that Mr Weatherston is not normal – but that does not make him ill. Actually this is something that civilized society has struggled with for over 200 years hence the McNaughton rule
which you allude to above.
But if you medicalize Mr Weatherston where does it end.
The bank robber who gets caught is operating under “a set of beliefs completely out of keeping with normality” just as much as Mr Weatherston. If it was “normal” to rob banks we would all be doing it – whereas it is not something that would seriously cross our minds to do.
As for things like pedophila it is probably “normal” to react with abhorrence to the thought – so under your reasoning for Mr Weatherston….
And where does this line of thinking lead?
Jul 25 09 12:29 pm
andrei:
All mental health work has the difficult task of sorting out “normal” from “nuts”. In fact Thomas Szasz in The Myth of Mental Illness cogently argued that mental illness was simply a pseudo-medical interpretation of dysfunction in society — so-called “problems in living”. I don’t wholly subscribe to his view, as I think he is pushing it in those with genuine mental pathology such as schizophrenics. However, I think he is right on the money with personality disorders, which is precisely why psychological intervention in these people has generally far better results (though still not good) than psychiatric interventions.
Given the extremely poor track-record of corrections in dealing with addiction, what chance do you think that Weatherston has of getting the help he clearly needs? Regardless of whether you think he has an “illness”, “pathology” or simply a “problem in living”, it is clear that any chance of rehabilitation for him requires extensive mental health input, which he is not going to get in prison. If you multiply his case by half the prison population, who have personality disorders, then you have quite a problem.
As a Christian, I accept the reality of evil. I fully realise that most of the people with personality disorders will also be in the category of bad, even by the lax standard of the world. All will be in need of redemption. However, as a doctor, I must still insist that most of these will be helped, albeit variably, by mental health intervention. If we wish to address the subject of our high incarceration rate, we had best pay attention to the mental state of a large chunk of our prison population.
Jul 25 09 2:02 pm
In the case of Weatherston trying to cure him is a waste of resources. He should not be a threat to anyone outside prison. We need a law change for degrees of murder that will see the likes of evil people like Weatherston or Reid incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives.
Jul 25 09 3:51 pm
I wonder about the sincerity of the politicians who what to change the law so no one can be found guilty of a lesser crime than murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Using that logic the crime of infanticide should be wiped off the books and anyone male or female even if pregnant who kills a child under ten should not be able to get off with infanticide which carries a maximum penalty of three years. The law make no sense. If the woman’s mental state partially excuses the killing of a child why should if not also apply if the victim is an adult.
If any law is past its use by date it is infanticide. Do you think any political party would support getting rid of this law – not likely? You do not have to be a rocket science to work out why not. They have no principle other than getting re-elected.
I agree on the subject of infanticide. It should be classed as murder while of unsound mind if a mother does it while post-natally depressed. Otherwise it is still plain murder.
Aug 4 09 6:37 am
Wow – he does not need Drs and Nurses. Don’t flatter us. A Personality Disorder is a social construct as one of my best lecturers taught decades ago- a way to pathologise lopsided characters that fall outside the bell curve and so go creating social difficulties.
Personality structure (nice or gross) is character is ones esential immutable nature. Set like concrete by early adulthood. To seek to make significant adjustments late is just not reasonable. Yes behaviour can be better moderated for social functioning if they WANT to work really hard on being someone they naturally are not, but better than. But at the end of the day with a severe npd you are dealing with a socio-path. Someone not creating much wellness or glee in/for society, but who nevertheless is perfectly content in their identity. Not sick or disordered in the normal sense therefore. Not needing medicalisation.
Sure intervene during untoward personality formation pre 12, but after that I call it typically unethical. Sociopathy / NPD etc are not overlays, but are at the core of the individual concerneds identity. Their personality is a stably unstable system therefore sound. Mess with it and you’ll really see trouble. I was involved in an ethically cleared 5 year program to “rewire” a bad npd – it was a joint health / justice dept intensive behaviour modification / reparenting taking numerous staff, millions of dollars literally and the ethical issue was that in the personality deconstruct stage the patient becoms a blank / regressed / suicidal. We did not succeed to wipe the disc and rebuild as intended so to speak but greatly attenuated the n traits and strengthened the empathy side and so forth. Simply such a major and dangerous effort that its not do-able. Best to merely work on improving superficials – stress coping etc if one ever actually seeks help.
Just because we judge their perceptions as warped it does not mean help is indicated. Their way of perceiving is every bit as in harmony with their own complex beliefs and temperaments and backgrounds as our interlocking patterns are. Altho parts of 60 mins presentatiomn were a bit off and jarred me as a UK psych nurse it was right in one way.
Safety lies in realising these people are out there, spotting red flags (difficult for the untrained or uninitiated by fire) and either avoiding or being wise to how not to antagonise. Best to accept they are what they are, they have their place the bad limited twisted ones. And can be useful redirected into some arenas – law, politics, dare I saw recovering drug counsellors and so forth.