Defense attorneys for Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant football coach at Penn State who is accused of molesting 10 boys, may argue that the man suffers from histrionic personality disorder. So what is it? Lovefraud readers sent links to articles that explain:
What is histrionic personality disorder? on CNN.com.
What is histrionic personality disorder? on Health.Yahoo.net.
This is about how adults act towards other adults.
He doesn’t even fit the criteria.
If Sandusky was doing this, I would expect his defense to parade a whole bunch of adults who are saying that he has done this with them. Not a hint about that, though, just more, “Poor me. I have this condition.”
Yeah, it’s called pedophilia.
I hope they lock him up and throw away the key.
So? That is no defense for him being a pedophile and a liar.
IMHO, there are only two disorders that can rightfully be used as defense to criminal behavior — full blow mania and schizophrenia.
The rest is just a legal ploy and as such, indicates underlying guilt.
Sandusky doesn’t have a mental disorder-it’s legal tactics. They always pull the insanity defense, just to get someone off. I always wonder how defense attorneys can live with themselves for getting pedophiles and rapists off by claiming the insanity defense. They should be held responsible when that person re-offends.
BTW, after reading the traits of histrionic personality disorder, I see a lot of that in my N. She is a raging N with schizoid traits, histrionic traits, and sometimes it also seems that she has more than one personality as well-they act and dress differently. Wow, I was infatuated with one f***ed individual. Freud himself couldn’t fix her even if I dug him up and had him work on her full time!
Every time I read the definitions for ‘different’ personality disorders I think ‘Different flavors and styles’, but not different diagnosis. And Elizabeth, I think there is NO discernable difference between being N and being ‘H’. They are one and the same.
I agree with everyone here: not only does he not fit this precise definition, he also sounds like a run of the mill child predator. Does he have a personality disorder? Likely. Is it the ‘kind’ that keeps him from making choices? No. None of them do.
We all have hardwiring of one sort or the other. And, we all have choices.
I am hardwired to love. But I can choose NOT to love and get involved with harmful people.
Slim
“We all have hardwiring of one sort or the other. And, we all have choices.
I am hardwired to love. But I can choose NOT to love and get involved with harmful people. ”
Well said, Slim!!!!!
A Cluster B is a Cluster B.
I agree with Slimone, “Every time I read the definitions for ’different’ personality disorders I think ’Different flavors and styles’, but not different diagnosis.”
This should in no way get him off the hook for what he did. IMO he is surely a predator and I believe a highly Narcissistic predator. So would that make him a Sociopath. I strongly believe so.
At the very least, maybe this will open the door for wider education about personality disorders. God, I hope so.
Those poor, poor boys. I am beyond disgusted at this whole thing.
I don’t understand why the lawyers aren’t better at education the juries during a trial.
Dr. G., who has a wonderful cable program that educates viewers about what she finds when performing autopies and was the prosecution’s medical examiner who testified at Casey Anthony’s trial, wasn’t called back to refute certain statements made by Anthony’s “expert” medical examiner. Dr. G. ultimately had an hour program showing the failures of the legal system not to cover and address certain medical points.
So, why, why these lawyers throw around psychology terms, don’t they have experts explaining the histrionics has nothing to do with being a pedeophile.
They’re just muddying the waters, which I understand is a legal tactic, but somebody has to have enough intelligence to figure it out. We did. If we can do it, why can’t they?
The verdict isn’t out on Sadunsky yet, is it? It’s just a lawyer tactic from what I can make out of it. And it seems from the articles that psychologists find it a totally ridiculous proposal.
As for trials… last week was the murder case of a 71 year old man accused of manslaughter on his son Younes (a toddler). He and his much younger wife had a row and fight one night (and the old father had loose hands); she ran away; he supposedly went looking for her… when he returned the youngest son (in his diapers) had gone allegedly missing and police were warned. Later, they found the little Younes in the river. The father tried to claim the boy must have walked out of the house and accidentally fell in the river, while without adult supervision. Then the father and mother were both arrested and the older brother (6-7 years) was interrogated. The mother was set free again. The older brother corroborated his father’s story, but during nightmares his fostering supervizors overheard him crying out for his father to stop. Though now convicted of manslaughter he still proclaims innocence, and the mother believes him. On what grounds was he convicted: Younes’ blood was found in the house and on the father’s clothes. Both his controlling and abusive treatment of his wife, the weird story of how Younes went missing and died, persisting his innocence even in the face of so much bloody evidence, adn the stockholm bonded belief of the wife in the innocence of her abusive husband are all signs to me the man is a P.
Seems to be the ‘excuse’ fashion in Belgium these days when a spath parent kills their child: claim the child went missing and found some accidental death, while they were somewhere else.
Sandusky is one of those __________ that will go to his grave claiming he did nothing wrong. I think he will get life in prison but he wont last long when they leave his cell door open ……