In the nineteenth century a new criminal form emerged. The criminal’s heinous acts gripped the imagination of the masses. That criminal is called the lucid killer. Scientific advances led to a rejection of occult activities being held responsible for the actions of this new brand of criminals. This left one possible culprit, the people themselves. While these killers knew what they did was intellectually wrong, they showed no remorse for their actions. This violated the very construction of what crime was thought to be. To answer how people were capable of such crimes the search turned to the body and biology. Scientists in the nineteenth century had already begun to examine the brain. These lucid killers became an area of intense interest
…show more content…
As Esquirol’s mentor, Phillipe Pinel called it “a reasoning insanity.” While these terms reason insanity and moral insanity may appear different that maybe largely due to translation, and are actually synonymous in the way Esquirol and Pinel used them.
The psychiatric community of the early nineteenth century recognized that there seemed to be some biological implications in the mentally ill. The minds of some seemed to operate differently than those of other humans. However, Pinel and his student Esquirol, while being considered revolutionary in their day still sought to treat the “morals” of those afflicted. (Girard) Treating the so-called “morals” of their patients, would in modernity be referred to as psychological treatment, not a choice between right and wrong.
In order to continue this discourse it must first be noted that the term “moral insanity” meant something quite different in the nineteenth century than it does today. By a modern definition we might consider moral insanity as a misunderstanding of what is virtuous. Moral insanity as defined by Pinel was rather a person who could use their intellectual capacities but their emotional capacity was damaged causing them to get carried away by a so-called furious instinct. These people are the cold calculated killers still portrayed in modern media; the charming intelligent killer …show more content…
This was a major development in the reimagination of the brain and mind. The heinous acts of this individual could possibly be ascribed to his body and not the nature of his soul.
In 1840 a doctor by the name of James Pritchard coined the term moral insanity in a direct response to phrenology. The basis of Pritchard’s argument was simply that if the intellect can become insane, why not the emotions as well? This displayed a serious schism from older modes of thought. If both the intellect and emotion or morals were equally corruptible that insinuates that these higher thought processes are housed in the same organ, the brain. Through the development of the theory of moral insanity Pritchard hoped to refocus the attention of criminality to the psyche and away from biology. Therefore even in the mid 1800’s the concepts of psychological disorders and biological anomalies were not yet harmonious. Especially when it came to ascertaining a diagnosis for those that in modernity are referred to as having personality disorders. Pritchard himself states, “the prognosis in cases of moral insanity is often more unfavorable than in other forms of mental derangement. When the disorder is connected with a strong natural predisposition it can scarcely be expected to terminate in recovery.” While, Pritchard may have been trying to refute the more biological basis of moral insanity it is interesting
As Esquirol’s mentor, Phillipe Pinel called it “a reasoning insanity.” While these terms reason insanity and moral insanity may appear different that maybe largely due to translation, and are actually synonymous in the way Esquirol and Pinel used them.
The psychiatric community of the early nineteenth century recognized that there seemed to be some biological implications in the mentally ill. The minds of some seemed to operate differently than those of other humans. However, Pinel and his student Esquirol, while being considered revolutionary in their day still sought to treat the “morals” of those afflicted. (Girard) Treating the so-called “morals” of their patients, would in modernity be referred to as psychological treatment, not a choice between right and wrong.
In order to continue this discourse it must first be noted that the term “moral insanity” meant something quite different in the nineteenth century than it does today. By a modern definition we might consider moral insanity as a misunderstanding of what is virtuous. Moral insanity as defined by Pinel was rather a person who could use their intellectual capacities but their emotional capacity was damaged causing them to get carried away by a so-called furious instinct. These people are the cold calculated killers still portrayed in modern media; the charming intelligent killer …show more content…
This was a major development in the reimagination of the brain and mind. The heinous acts of this individual could possibly be ascribed to his body and not the nature of his soul.
In 1840 a doctor by the name of James Pritchard coined the term moral insanity in a direct response to phrenology. The basis of Pritchard’s argument was simply that if the intellect can become insane, why not the emotions as well? This displayed a serious schism from older modes of thought. If both the intellect and emotion or morals were equally corruptible that insinuates that these higher thought processes are housed in the same organ, the brain. Through the development of the theory of moral insanity Pritchard hoped to refocus the attention of criminality to the psyche and away from biology. Therefore even in the mid 1800’s the concepts of psychological disorders and biological anomalies were not yet harmonious. Especially when it came to ascertaining a diagnosis for those that in modernity are referred to as having personality disorders. Pritchard himself states, “the prognosis in cases of moral insanity is often more unfavorable than in other forms of mental derangement. When the disorder is connected with a strong natural predisposition it can scarcely be expected to terminate in recovery.” While, Pritchard may have been trying to refute the more biological basis of moral insanity it is interesting