Research Topics: Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

Sample Behavioral Essay: The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in Relation to UK Social Policy

THE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS IN RELATION TO UK SOCIAL POLICY     INTRODUCTION                 The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders policy or ASBO for short has been receiving quite an attention in the UK. Perhaps, because the UK society has never experienced anything like it before, it grabs the attention of almost anyone in the country. People see ASBO in various ways but the media and other non-governmental civil societies mostly criticize it than giving praise.   Like any other act, the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has its strengths and shortcomings. The government, however, sees the act as the solution to the problem of anti-social behaviours within UK communities. ASBO, as an act that can sentence up to five years in prison to a person who is unruly towards the community, seems to have sharp teeth and nails that promise to punish offenders. But is this really the case? Is punishment really an effective substitute to education? One thing is lacking in ASBO – it does not address the deep root of anti-social behaviour problems through educational and therapeutic interventions. To elaborate, psychologists never suggest that punishment is the key to resolve a specific behaviour problem. Instead, they would suggest something like educating the relatives of the person suffering from behaviour problem or undergoing cognitive behavioural therapy or other kinds of therapy that may help produce behaviour change. The implication of this limitation of ASBO are becoming obvious when a complainant is unsatisfied after the person being complained about  goes back to his or her unruly and pesky behaviour after serving ASBO for a few months (Rawstorne, 2004). Others, on the other hand, see ASBO as a legislation that may be used wrongly as it contradicts with basic human rights such as protesting, privacy, and even safety (Sims, 2004).   In relation to UK social policy, ASBO may also experience some problems. For instance, the UK has a highly centralised system of government, and the powers of local government are very limited. Central government exercises considerable controls over local action. This may slow the process of the ASBO or may even result in higher cost. The failure of the local government to put central government policies immediately into effect may affect the effective implementation of ASBO. There are also other areas to look at – like social security, the NHS, housing policy, education policy, and personal social services. The limitations shown early by ASBO in the wake of its implementation clearly states the need for it re-evaluation – on whether or not it will provide the UK society the welfare it deserves. Social policy is a very broad term is which the welfare of a country as a whole is addressed. This paper will try to determine how ASBO relates with the UK social policy as it evaluates its strengths and weaknesses in relation to each policy areas.   As a means to specify variables included in this paper, a brief background of those variables will be provided, which will then segue to discussion. Variables that will be discussed include the ASBO, its relation with social policies, and the theoretical frameworks that will be encountered along the way. Each discussion is hoped to bring some light on the issue and ultimately, to bring a useful and insightful conclusion to the readers.   THE AIM OF THIS ESSAY                 The aim of a particular paper is important to identify so as the readers will understand why it is written. This topic is explored so as to understand more about ASBO, specifically its pros and cons. This can be done by evaluating how the UK society reacts to it and how they perceive its effectiveness. Furthermore, it is also explored to identify its relation with the different social policies governing UK. ASBO may contradict with those policies in many ways as it is a type of punishment that can be applied to anyone at any age. An issue such as deciding on whether or not ASBO should be sentenced to a person is just an example of an issue that may relate with social policies. There is more to explore by reviewing the social policy areas and relating them with the strengths and weaknesses of ASBO.               The following are objectives of this paper: 1.                  To explore the basics of ASBO. 2.                  To read and review literatures, specifically news articles, concerning ASBO and its implications to the society. 3.                  To read and review the basics of UK social policy. 4.                  To identify relevant frameworks.   5.                  To unitise the all the information reviewed to draw a useful and insightful conclusion.   ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE UK               Anti-social behaviour in the UK is an old issue that is still cannot be resolved, even earlier before Steve Jones was singing ‘Anarchy in the UK’. Unruly behaviour is no stranger in the British culture. In a report participated by 1,500 organisations, it was found that 66,000 reports of anti-social behaviour were made for just a day (Home Office Development and Practice Report, 2004). It has been estimated that this is equivalent to 13.5 million reports per year or one report every two seconds (Home Office Development and Practice Report, 2004). The following are the data for specific anti-social behaviour offence for just one day: drug/substance misuse and drug dealing (2,920); street drinking and begging (3,239); prostitution, kerb crawling and other sexual acts (1,011); vehicle-related nuisance and inappropriate vehicle use (7,782); intimidation and harassment (5,415); noise (5,374); rowdy behaviour (5,339); nuisance behaviour (7,660); hoax calls (1,286); animal-related problems (2,546); abandoned vehicles (4,994); criminal damage/vandalism (7,855); and litter/rubbish (10,686) (Home Office Development and Practice Report, 2004). This data, although limited as it may seem, is alarming in a sense that that thousands of anti-social behaviour can be experienced by an organization for only a day. This does not count yet the experiences of individual citizens. This greatly reflects the prevalence of anti-social acts in the UK.   In the ‘2004 5-year strategy against crime’ speech of Prime Minister Tony Blair, he emphasized that the high prevalence of anti-social behaviour in the UK originated from the 1960’s liberal, social consensus on law and order (Directgov, 2004). According to Blair, the breakthrough in terms of freedom of expression, of lifestyle, of the individual’s right to live their own personal life in the way they choose in the 1960s, which survived and strengthened in today’s generation unfortunately produced something alongside with it – the increase of irresponsible citizens (Directgov, 2004). By irresponsible, it means performing anti-social acts, pestering other citizens who only wish to on with their normal lives unbothered. The ASBO and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 were made to make British citizens more responsible.   THE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS               The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) was introduced by section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in England and Wales (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003, Nacro, 2002). ASBOs can be used by local authorities and the police against anyone, aged 10 or over, who has acted in an anti-social manner (Nacro, 2002). They are considered as civil orders that exist to shield the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). Under ASBOs, a specific order includes conditions prohibiting the offender from specific anti-social acts or entering defined areas and is effective for a minimum of two years (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). ASBOs are not criminal penalties (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). They only become criminal penalties when they have been breached (Nacro, 2002).               People who play important roles in the implementation of ASBO include the complainant, the local city magistrate, and the witnesses. Stand-alone applications for ASBOs are made to the magistrates’ court acting in its civil capacity. It involves local people not only in the collection of evidence but also in helping to enforce breaches. The civil nature of ASBO is that hearsay and professional witness evidence can be heard. This means that it still enforces human rights as it also allows the offender to defend his or herself in a court-like proceeding (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003).               The fact that ASBOs are not considered criminal penalties may bring ambiguity to its nature. An offender may be ordered not to do any anti-social behaviour for a period of a few months but after that ASBO, that offender can be back into action. Identifying breach can also be a problem as this will require a number of credible witnesses and processing within the local government. The maximum sentence for a breach can reach up to 5 years in prison for an adult. On the other hand, the maximum sentence for breach by juvenile is a detention and training order, which has a maximum term of 24 months – 12 months of which is custodial and 12 months is in the community. Proponents of the ASBO states that the process of proceedings should be swift but what they should look at is how the sentence can be fairly implemented. Rawstorne (2004) stated in an article about ASBO: “residents who have stuck their necks out to get an ASBO are left feeling let down when the orders are seemingly breached with impunity”. There are examples of cases that breaches are not being taken seriously and offenders are getting away with it. This affects the credibility of ASBO in many ways and the worst situation is that it may ultimately lose the trusts of the UK citizens.               Scope-wise, there is a great list of anti-social behaviours that can be tackled by ASBO. This includes: harassment of residents or passersby; verbal abuse; Criminal damage; vandalism; noise nuisance; writing graffiti; engaging in threatening behaviour in large groups; racial abuse; smoking or drinking alcohol while under age; substance misuse; joyriding; begging; prostitution; kerb-crawling; throwing missiles; assault; and vehicle crime (Home Office Communication Directorate, 2003). This list shows the relationship of ASBO with social policies. Tackling and controlling those anti-social behaviours may lead to the welfare of the community, specifically on several areas such as health, social security, and housing.               ASBO is further strengthened with the legislation of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The act’s first eight parts deal mainly with several of UK’s social policy problems such as drug-use, housing, parental responsibilities, dispersal of groups in an anti-social hotspot, possession of firearms, the environment, public order and trespass, and high ledges (Crown, 2003). This act enables the police to to serve a closure notice on premises that have been used for use, production or supply of Class A drugs. Police officers now also have the power to disperse groups of two or more persons in any public place if their presence “has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed”. Police should now also intervene with a public gathering of only two persons or more instead of the minimum twenty of the previous ASBO. It also increases the power of social landlords to take action against tenants who cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. It also specifies the steps that parents must take to control the behaviour of their children and to ensure that their children are not performing anything anti-social in nature. Possession of airgun or any imitation weapons are also now considered an offence that UK citizens should take note, especially the teens. Furthermore, the council also now have the power to serve a closure order on premises causing public nuisance by noise, as well as to serve a graffiti removal notice on the owner of any surface where graffiti has been applied. Hedges are also now required to be controlled and the failure to do so can lead to an ASBO (Crown, 2003).   THE PROS               This side of the story is pretty much easy to explain as the motivation behind the ASBO and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 lies within the advantages perceived by its proponents. Based on ASBO and on the 2003 act, such actions can help UK become a better a society, freeing peaceful citizens from irritations and annoyances caused by unruly neighbors. Those who are victimized often by unruly people or gangs now have voices to shout out. Anti-social people can now be controlled through punishment threats.               A particular charity in the UK known as Nacro (2002) reasoned that theories such as the ‘contagion theories’ and ‘broken windows theory’ explain why there is a need to control anti-social behaviour with an iron hand. The ‘contagion theory’ explains that the ‘presence of vandalism stimulates more vandalism’ (Skogan, 1990). Nacro (2002) stated that this is supported by many studies which found that the presence of anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, rubbish or criminal damage ultimately leads directly to more antisocial behaviour. Almost similarly, the ‘broken windows theory’ explains that deteriorations within a community leave the impression to community members that “nobody cares so apprehension is less likely” and “The area is already untidy so one more act will go unnoticed”. Thus, providing the community with the ASBO is seen to lessen the numbers of deteriorations such as broken windows, graffiti, etc and also strikes fear to unruly citizens making them less likely imitate a particular anti-social behaviour.               The ASBO is also seen as the way to decrease the inhibitions within communities. Anti-social behaviour inhibits fear to community citizens as it affects their individual progress and welfare. With ASBO, citizens will be encouraged to take steps and end their nightmare or in Tony Blair’s term – ‘hell’.               ASBO also promises to eliminate the cost of anti-social behaviour. Nacro (2002) explains that it can undermine stability and confidence in an area’s housing market, and can also affect the success of local businesses and can be costly (in terms of human and financial resources) to repair. This shows the relevance of the program with the housing and financial welfare of the citizens. Through ASBO, financial loss can be prevented in the long-run because facility and reputation damage.               ASBO may also likely decrease drug-use in schools and gang wars on the streets. Teens will now have second thoughts on whether they will bring drugs at school when police and sniffing dogs are always around. Gangs may also now have difficulty walking or gathering in groups on the streets. This will make the lives of the citizens safer and more convenient. In this term, it can be said that ASBO is related to safety in a sense that its implementation can lead to the decrease of activities that makes people feel unsecured. Safety within the community is one of the most important areas of social policy that the government needs to address.               In a sense, ASBO can also be considered educational as it educates the public which behaviours are accepted by the society and which behaviours are considered unruly or destructive to fellow citizens. Early in their lives, children will recognize what is right from wrong. They will be forced to stray away from anti-social acts because they know that a certain punishment awaits those who are proven anti-social. They will also be familiarized with anti-social behavior that they should avoid.   THE CONS   Despite the long list of anti-social behaviour that ASBO addresses, there are still many issues that its proponents and instigators should look into, specifically in the legal and humanitarian side. In the humanitarian side for instance, while ASBO can lead to welfare, it may also destroy welfare in a sense that it is being wrongly applied to vulnerable people such as children, drug users, prostitutes and the mentally ill (Cummings, 2005). On the other hand, in the legal side, it may contradict to other social policy areas such as safety, as Sims (2004) noted. Sims (2004) explained that because cycling is prohibited in the pavement because it is considered as an anti-social behaviour, those who do it for safety are forced to cycle on the road – a type of thing they never get used to do. Sims (2004) stated: “A lot of pavement cyclists have good reasons. They shouldn’t be forced to choose between illegality and looking after themselves. Such issues often seem like an outrageous infringement of civil liberties.” In other words, ASBO is confusing in a sense that it cannot define exactly what it prohibits and what it allows. An ASBO sentence can be issued with just few hearsay evidences because of its failure to define anti-social behaviour, and the lack of appropriate measures to exclude certain type of actions that may not be anti-social if analyzed deeply.               Another negative humanitarian implication that has been strongly stated is the impact of ASBO on children. For example, ASBO prohibit children using certain words, wearing certain clothes, and banning them from congregating in certain areas (Statewatch News online, 2004). Police and sniffing dogs are actively disseminated in schools for drug-checks, but this seems to be uncomfortable to children. A Kent police survey found that some children felt they had been lied to about the bag searches, and uncomfortable around the dogs (Statewatch News online, 2004).             Misapplication of ASBO can also occur frequently especially to people who are just practicing their freedom. Take for example this case: “…protestors gathered at Caterpillar construction company’s offices in Solihull to demonstrate, as they had on previous occasions, at their continued sale of bulldozers to Israel. This time eight out of the 11 protestors were arrested under ASBOs” (StateWatch News, 2004). Another case was: “a man who has campaigned against the council over issues such as health and safety and corruption, was served with an ASBO” (StateWatch News, 2004). This shows that ASBO criminalizes non-criminal offences, putting innocent people to jail (Cummings, 2005).               ASBO can also demoralize a person served with it, as well as that person’s family, because one of its attached punishments is to shame that person by issuing public notices in newspapers. A mother who has a son named Ruell served with an ASBO said: “Now, if people are complaining about kids in the neighbourhood the police come straight to my house. It’s been hard on us…” (Raymond and Fletcher, 2005). The fact that Ruell is also a mixed-race child can also stir discrimination ideas for both sides. Another question is how can the government ensure that they issuing ASBOs to the right person? It shows that there are not enough criteria to determine who should get an ASBO. For instance, that mother also recalled that the doctors told her that her son have ADHD, a psychological disorder (Raymond and Fletcher, 2005). Can these conditions count as liable for ASBO? Other cases show a no consideration at all to people who really need help like prostitutes and drug addicts. Instead of funding rehabilitation centres and educational programs, ASBO simply bans those individuals from the things they have been addicted into. It is ridiculous to ban addiction or a way of life, because they have been deeply embedded to that person’s life.   ASBO – A ‘GOOD’ SOCIAL POLICY?               Although the government is somewhat correct that anti-social behaviour problems are old-age problems that should be addressed with tough hands, it is obvious that the issue has just been overtly politicized without much consideration on other factors that may affect ‘good relations’ among the citizens and participation in public meetings. As Cummings (2005) stated: “For the political class, however, ‘antisocial behaviour’ calls for nothing less than a transformation of the relationship between the citizen and the state”. It ignores many important issues such as deep-rooted psychological and sociological problems. Instead of unitising people and promoting good relations, the politics of ASBO divides the society even further into confusion.               ASBO can perhaps be considered as a hybrid form of institutional racism policies. Policies of institutional racism such as “encourages authorities to solve the problem by changing people’s attitudes and behaviour” and “assumes that every stranger is a potential racist who may even be unaware of his/her prejudice, and therefore needs to be monitored by an authority” (Mirza, 2004) can also be reflected in ASBO. ASBO, as a social policy to improve citizens’ lives, tries to change people’s attitude toward anti-social behaviour. This may be good in nature as people will learn to act and cooperate with the government, but damaging nonetheless because it discriminates those persons served with ASBO. Also, anyone from 10 years old onwards can receive an ASBO. ASBO is a creeping new form of institutional racism because it promotes anxiety and discrimination rather than unity and cooperation among citizens.               Mirza (2004) recommended a policy to resist all calls for further restriction of free speech. Mirza (2004) further stated that we should defend people’s freedom to believe whatever they choose, without intrusion or correction by government. The rationale for these recommendations is that society can only progress when people are enlightened about what society really stands for. ASBO does not enlighten, but instead promote ambiguity to British people on how they want their society to be. People are just diverse in nature (Mirza, 2004) and implementing a policy that is poorly defined and categorized may backfire because it lacks the capability to address diversity as it should be.               ASBO seems to be based on the enlightenment model of policy making as anti-social behaviour acts have increased considerably in the UK over the years. However, given that ASBO has a colorful political background justifiably neglects that idea. In the political model of policy-making, it is argued that different groups, different interests and different ends are all involved in the policy process (Carlisle, 2002). Cummings (2005) argued that “politicians have not invented antisocial behaviour out of nothing, but they have popularised a vocabulary and developed a quasi-legal framework that encourage people to interpret certain kinds of behaviour in a particular way”. The fuss about anti-social behaviour started from the government although there were many complains about such behaviours in the past. But the point it, this issue is not as serious as the issues of poverty, health, racism and education. People can deal with anti-social behaviour themselves. If they are well-educated, they can communicate with the person bothering them. If no progress were made, then they can call the police. Taking an issue like this into political mainstream indicates many agendas that may be worth finding. Sure, anti-social behaviour is a nationwide problem that should be addressed. But policy-makers should also consider its potential impact, not just on the problem that the policy targets to address, but also on the different contexts that it can affect along the way, such as inequality, contradiction with other policies such as in safety and health, etc.               Schneider (1999) defined good public policy as “policy that adds positive values to the society, to the lives of people in it, and to the future conditions of democracy”. For Schneider, a successful one is one that has produced more positive values for target populations or the society as a whole than some alternative implementation would have produced. Now the question is – does ASBO produce positive values? Maybe so, but the weakness of the values it produce lies on the fact that values are being forced, rather than embedded within the citizens. As a policy to stop anti-social behaviour, ASBO eliminates negative values and promotes positive ones by ordering citizens to act in manners that they only allow. However, because this is policy is based on force rather than taught and explained to the citizens, the effect may be less successful. For instance, one cannot just tell a drug addict to stop using drugs with an ASBO. Such people should be put under rehabilitation, educated about the use of drugs, and so on.               Another fault of the ASBO is that its standard is obviously based on compliance. Schneider (1999) explained that this not good for a number of reasons. Schneider (1999) argues that “a focus on compliance directs attention away from the use of discretion, even though wise choices in discretionary decision making may have far more to do with the policy’s impact on society”. This may be used as an effective rationale on why ridiculous ASBOs are being given to undeserving individuals. Because the priority of officials is to comply, they fail to see the obvious and they fail to examine the situations and practice discretion. As Schneider (1999) also puts it: “compliance does not take into account the creative ways that agency officials may try to adapt the statute to fit into the local value context”. Thus, compliance is important, but it should not be set as the standard. What policy makers should do is that they should make the ASBO flexible in a sense that it will be continuously assessed for improvements. The reason why compliance is the main focus of this policy may be traced from the power gap between the central and the local government. There has been a recent move to strengthen the relationship between central and local and this may be the driving force on why local officials are greatly complying with ASBO. Of course, as mentioned, another problem of the local authorities is their incapability to define what anti-social behaviour is. As a result anti-social behaviour is being greatly generalized.   CONCLUSION                 ASBO, as a social policy, needs further assessments and improvements in order for it to fit with the British and Welsh society. Although this policy has a potential to decrease anti-social acts in the UK, there are certain issues that policy makers have overlooked. The first problem is the lack of coherent and specific definition of anti-social behaviour. Because the term is vague, misapplications of ASBOs are prevalent, humiliating its proponents. There should a more specific way to categorise anti-social behaviour, including the developments of special-case exemptions. As a social policy, ASBO also fails to produce any positive values. It is perhaps because it develops from the political theory of policy. It is a haphazard attempt to satisfy the country’s demand for safety, driven by unknown but obvious political agendas. However, the social structure and good relations among people is being sacrificed as can be seen by the implications of ASBO. People with ASBOs are being seen with contempt and discrimination, which should not be the case as instead of building that person’s personality and confidence, shame shatters them completely. That is why ASBO should never be taken as is and should be explored further in terms of psychological and sociological effects. It should also be explored in terms of its legal aspects, specifically on certain points to which it can contradict with other social policies. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Sample Behavioral Essay: The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in Relation to UK Social Policy

THE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS IN RELATION TO UK SOCIAL POLICY INTRODUCTION The Anti-Social Behaviour Orders p...

Behaviors that are Not Illegal but may be Characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)

Behaviors that are Not Illegal but may be Characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)   It is said that any form of personality disorder is a pervasive psychosomatic disorder that have an effect on an individual’s state of being (2003; 1994;2000). Suffering from personality disorder has negative effects on one’s work, familial relations, and communal life. Behavioral disorders exist on a range. In terms of how occurrence, they can be mild to more severe, to the extent that the individual shows obvious manifestation of a specific personality or behavioral state of confusion. People with identified mild disorders are said to live normal ways of life and yet during the times when their stress or external pressures (including family, relationships, work, etc.) are heightened, the indications of personality or behavioral condition strengthen and initiate grave disturbances on their affecting and reasoning mechanisms. People with personality disorders possess quite a few noticeable psychological features that may include self-image disturbances, ability to successfully gain interpersonal relationships; correctness of the range of emotion, ways in identifying themselves, others and the world; obscurity in having the proper impulse control (1994;2004).  These particular disturbances combine together in creating pervasive configuration of behavior and inner experience which is quite distinctive from the standard of the culture of an individual and which often likely to be distinguished in the behaviors which are apparently dramatic than what is considered by the society normal or usual ( 1994;  2004).  This paper discusses some behaviors or traits that are not illegal but may be considered as one of the characteristics of ASPD.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Controlled range of human feelings </li> </ul> This could be characterized by the person’s inability to empathize or sympathize with the feelings of an individual. More or less, a person in proper state of emotional stability and maturity is mindful of others feelings. Compassion is very evident value among emotionally balanced and matured person. In this case, if a person is not really taking care of the feelings of others, then there must be something wrong with him/her. When a person is experiencing this kind of behavior, there are high tendencies that he/she might be able to violate individual’s rights. However, it is very important to consider that controlled range of human emotions is not illegal as long as it is still within the boundaries of human relationships (e.g. family circle, relatives, friends). Unless acted upon to people beyond legal conditions, it is considered illegal. Then again, the controlled range of human emotions does not exactly mean that a person is showing attributes of ASPD. A person is entitled to choose what emotion he/she wants to show towards others. The only difference in relation to ASPD is that human emotions are constantly negligible (2000). People with ASPD will act upon their personal motivations on whether or not they will show kindness or compassion to a person. This behavior can be evaluated in relation to other repercussions or subsequent behaviors that will lead to the eventual manifestation of ASPD characteristics.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Irritability or aggressiveness</li> </ul> Irritability is an extreme reaction to a stimulus (1999). When a person is irritated, there are varied reasons behind this. More frequent than not, irritation is a result of an action or incident that creates unpleasant reaction to a person’s own perceptions or sensibilities. Sometimes, irritability is a state of mood. It may be physiological and behavioral in nature. On the other hand, aggressiveness is the condition that may result to violence. This may be related to the state of irritation as the one may come before the other or vice versa. Irritability and aggressiveness are not illegal behaviors if taken in terms of the area of application or personal experience. If a person is irritated to something, it is normal, given the fact that such irritation is supported with justifiable reason. This is same as true with the condition of aggressiveness. Irritation may also lead to aggressiveness. The only difference when applied to normal circumstance against ASPD is that irritation and aggressiveness comes from unidentified source. According to  (1995), irritability and aggressiveness as associated to ASPD is indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults. It can be claimed that if unjustifiable condition of irritability and aggressiveness occurs constantly, this could be possibly associated with ASPD ort other personality or psychiatric disorders. Again, it is very important to evaluate the connection of this behavior to other behaviors that characterizes ASPD.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Impulsivity</li> </ul> It is a normal reaction of a person to react in any stimuli that directly or even indirectly penetrate him/her. Thus, it is not illegal that one has to protect him/her self to anything that may harm his/her safety. Impulsivity is rooted to the ability of every individual to think rationally towards his/her own positive benefit. Planning is absent when a person is classified as impulsive. Meanwhile, impulsivity is said to be the most typical and/or core attribute of ASPD. It may come from various forms and definitions. According to various literatures, impulsivity is an instinctive inclination to act with no reflection or logic; dysfunctional and disrupted dealing of information; a high tendency for thrill-seeking or high-risk activities; search for sensation; and failure of sustaining attention or concentration (2000;  2000;2002). For (1995), impulsivity is a “behavioral excess or as engaging actively in goal-seeking or approach behavior even though the path may be a risky one” (p. 160). In this instance, an impulsive individual lacks the ability to plan ahead of time. He/she urgently acts without hesitation, which often leads to aggravating conditions that may include other people if not him/her self alone. Impulsivity is not illegal if used with acceptable line of reasoning. In ASPD applications, impulsivity occurs incessantly and appears to be a normal habit of an individual that leads to severe damage to the person or others. If such condition persist, then, psychiatric and/or legal intervention is necessary.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Sense of entitlement or prerogative</li> </ul> People have their own perception as well as description of their selves. The way we view ourselves is connected with the way we live our lives, acts on everyday dealings, decision making and taking, or psychological and emotional upbringing. In certain situations, people are entitled to identify his/her self to be higher as to compare with others. This is grounded on the idea of social positioning or status quo. This is not illegal as it should be supported with factual evidences and sense of responsibility. Further, every person has his/her identified rights whichever place or circumstance he/she will be. It is his/her common obligation to be responsible in the protection and preservation of the said rights. Thus, a sense of entitlement or prerogative is common to all. But when a person excessively views him/her self against others, to the extent that he/she neglects emotions, norms, and other imposed restrictions, it may be far from the standard idea of self-entitlement. When a person is neglectful of the rights of others and the prescribed policies of the society, they might cause pain, chaos or destruction in the environment they belong. For specific conditions, sense of entitlement or prerogative that leads to absolute neglect to the rights of others and to society’s prescribed laws, social irresponsibility, negligence to obligations, delinquency, and other violations of standards ( 2001) is haphazard and could mean a serious psychosomatic condition. Most ASPD afflicted individuals possess such traits, as it is a primary manifestation (1995). For this behavior or set of behaviors are customary for them, they incessantly do it without any justification at all. If these conditions severely affect surrounding individuals, it is very practical to advise a person to seek psychologically related mechanisms. For grave cases, legal advice is also premeditated.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Use of trickery for personal outfit or deceitfulness </li> </ul> Deception, when seen in any given angle will always be negative and at worst, deception for personal benefits. However, it is not illegal that deception is used for amusement purposes. Poor application as it may be, but there is nothing wrong in deception given the good purpose. But then again, deception as similar to lying will never be justified. When deception leads to criminal behaviors and severity in consequence, then it is classified as an expression of ASPD. According to  (2003), authenticity defines our ability to be true to ourselves. So, when people pretend or deceiving in favor to their personal intentions, it is best to evaluate the moral justification of their actions. Again, the range and frequency of such action is definitive to the condition of ASPD. All in all, it is imperative to evaluate the reasons and motivations of every individual in relation to their actions or behaviors. To quote  (1995), “Because there may be a variety of psychological causes for a given action, classifying people by their actions rather than their psychological dispositions or traits, although perhaps natural for the purposes of the criminal law, is less useful for the purposes of psychiatry or science” ().   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Behaviors that are Not Illegal but may be Characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)

Behaviors that are Not Illegal but may be Characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) It is said that any form of pers...

Top