4CRIM004W.2 Assignment 1: Analysis of Legal Concepts in UK Law

This document presents a take-home assignment exploring several legal concepts. It begins with an analysis of stalking and harassment legislation in the UK, focusing on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, highlighting the challenges of underreporting and definitional ambiguities. The assignment then delves into the concept of a psychopath, contrasting it with sociopaths and discussing the intersection of law and mental disorder, including the use of mental health defenses in criminal cases. It further examines antisocial personality disorder, false memories, and stalking, including cyberstalking. The assignment also addresses the 'rape myth' and concludes with a discussion on personality disorders, their classifications, and challenges in distinguishing between them. Each concept is explored in detail, providing definitions, legal implications, and relevant case examples.

Assignment 1: details and list of
concepts
Take Home Paper
Student Details:
4/19/2020

1
1. Stalking and Harassment Legislation
In the present day and age, the significance of stalking and harassment legislation is crucial. In
UK, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was introduced to bring amendments to Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 in context of stalking offences. This was done through insertion of
sections 2A and 4A. The former section labels stalking as being a criminal offence whilst the
latter deals with stalking causing serious distress or fear of violence (The Suzy Lamplugh Trust,
2020). This act also chalks out the consequences of breach of them, including prison sentence of
up to 10 years. Despite the advent of these clauses, the stalking instances in UK still remain high.
As per a research report published by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the cases of stalking remained
underreported. This clearly highlights the restricted reach/awareness of these provisions to
public. There is also the issue of absence of exhaustive definition of stalking leading to
ambiguities (Strickland, 2018).
The Protection from Harassment Act, 1997 is legislation in UK offering protection against
harassment in the nation. A breach of it results in both civil and criminal liabilities; and offers
protection against incidents like racial threats, stalking, using dogs to frighten you, and such.
However, from the very start, this legislation has been deeded to be a rushed one filled with
inadequacies requiring its numerous amendments. This legislation also furthers unfounded
accusations particularly when the other person is mistaken or has certain prenotions about
another person (CCPL, 2013).

2
2. Psychopath
Psychopath is a very common term in criminal jurisdiction and is often seen as being misused as
well. The term refers to a personality disorder where the behaviour of individual is persistently
antisocial, depicting egotistical traits. Such individuals also are disinhibited, bold and lack the
capacity to show remorse and empathy. However, this very definition of psychopaths has been
widely criticized or being a highly subjective, and poorly conceptualized term particularly by
Hare (Kiehl and Hoffman, 2011). There are even times when a person who is reserved in nature,
and likes to keep to himself is deemed as having an antisocial personality disorder, which is a
common trait in psychopaths (Lindberg, 2019).
Another common problem when it comes to the term psychopath is its use interchangeably with
word sociopath. However, these two terms are very different. A main point of differentiation
between the two is presence of conscience. Sociopaths do have a little voice inside them which
guides them on their conduct being right or wrong; however, this is not the case with
psychopaths. At best, psychopaths can fake that they have a conscience but in view of
psychologists, they simply lack it. Even though the movies have shown both psychopaths and
sociopaths as being violent, it is not always true. Contrary to this, they are deemed to be cold and
calculated killers (Robinson, 2020). It is also believed that psychopaths are born the way they
are, whilst the external factors and environment around a person makes them a sociopath
(Grohol, 2018).

3
3. The law and mental disorder
The intersection between law and mental health is a common affair. These two disciplines
transform and inform each other. This is based on clinical manifestations, ethology
understanding, rehabilitation of mental disorders and treatment modalities. These illustrations
have changed the law in terms of treatment of insanity as being a mental disorder, and for
deeming a lunatic as an individual having mental illness (Gopalakrishnan, 2016).
Other examples include diminished or lowered legal capacity of a person owing to mental
disorder. There have been advances in neuroscience that have helped in gaining insights on
complex minds of brain and how it influences a person’s decisions; along with the role played by
different diseases in conduct of a person. Forensic psychiatry has helped in confining criminal
responsibilities (Gopalakrishnan, 2016). This is the reason that law is increasingly relying on
science to help understanding the mental health of a person.
The increasing reliance has however brought certain problems with it. This is because the
addition of terms in legal dictionary like insanity, along with labelling of terms like anti-social
disorder or schizophrenic have provided criminal an alternative defence for their conduct. Even
depression is being used as a defence in criminal cases (Advanced Assessments, 2020). The law
does put in many requirements to establish such a conduct of an accused but the ease of
availability of such avenues have complicated and delayed the final justice to the victims. Thus,
the justice process has been burdened with costs of psychologists as well, along with spending
time in establishing the real truth.

4
4. Anti-Social Personality Disorder
The Anti-Social Personality Disorder or APS is a key mental health disorder which affects the
manner in which anything is felt, perceived, thought about or related to another. This disorder is
specifically of challenging nature owing to the features of irresponsible and impulsive behaviour
that often results in criminal activities. An individual who has APS usually is deemed to be
reckless, manipulative and deceitful, along with the total lack of caring for what the other person
feels. Often it has been seen that many individuals with APS indulge in serious crimes and other
law breaking activities (NHS UK, 2018).
There have been many criticisms regarding APS and is often discussed in the controversies
surrounding it. It is also stated that the present classification of this disorder is done in
appropriately and that there is a dire need to revisit the manner in which a person is labelled as
having APS. There is also the question of whether APS has to be classified as dimensions or
categories, along with raising question on use of exactly which personality variables to check the
assessment of APS. The stability and the severity gradation of APS are also a controversial
subject. The key reason for these questions is the unique brain chemistry of every person marked
with complexities in predicting how a person would actually function. Even the treatments of
APS vary from person to person owing to the complexities surrounding brain. There have also
been cases of exposure to misunderstandings and inappropriate management in such cases (Kim
and Tyrer, 2010).

5
5. False Memories
False memory is a self-explanatory term that denotes that an individual remembers something
which is not how it actually happened. Further, there are also such cases which have seen a
person having a memory of an event that never even took place. Such memories are often very
vivid and the person dictating them has confidence regarding them being real. Such confidence
and vividness of a memory makes it hard for the person to be convinced that such memory was a
false one. There are a range of factors that cause false memories and these have been uncovered
by the psychologists through controlled experiments. Some of these factors include the
inaccurate perceptions, the interferences, the similarity, the inferences, and the wrong attribution
of familiarity. False memory is helpful in resolving cases for trauma victims, particularly when
these involve cases of childhood sexual abuse. The stress of questioning in such cases could lead
to accepting something that is not true (Shaw, 2016).
The problem with false memories is the role of psychiatrists and therapists. This is particularly
for those cases where the therapists implant a false memory of a crime or an event in mind of a
person, in legal matters. A leading example of this is the case of Ramona v. Superior Court
(Ramona) (1997) No. B111565. Second Dist., Div. One. Aug 19, 1997. This case
saw the two therapists helping Ramona recall about how her father had
sexually abused her. Isabella, one of the therapists in this matter, was
accused of having planted this memory in the girl’s mind. This led to the
therapist being declared negligent towards her client.

6
6. Stalking
Stalking is unwarranted intimation and harassment of an individual by another, by consistently
monitoring hem. A stalker repeatedly and unnecessarily undertakes surveillance of another,
thereby causing the victim fear for life, fear of being abused both physically and sexually, and
psychiatric harm. Earlier the stalking acts required physical intervention of the perpetrator.
However, the boom in technology has allowed deeper levels of stalking through simple click of
mouse. The cases of cyber stalking have escalated and the misuse of personal information is
rampant on the internet (People Safe, 2020). Such a level of stalking is not only an intrusion in
the privacy of a person but also put their daily life in jeopardy.
UK has a number of legislation in place to stop such cases of stalking, including the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and the Protection from Harassment Act, 1997. Yet, the number of cases of
stalking has not seen a dip. A key problem is also related to the reporting of such activities,
which remains low. Despite this, the figures of such offences have climbed. This furthers the
confidence of such perpetrators as they are not stopped on time. The recently brought stalking
protection orders have led to several campaigners worrying that it could result in an increased
number of murders in the nation. This stems from the notion that only putting the perpetrators
behind the bar could save the victims and that a protection order would not do much (Townsend,
2020).

7
7. The ‘rape myth’
There are various false notions and belief held by people regarding the sexual assaults, where the
sole purpose is to shift the blame on the survivor from the perpetrator. The rape myths, despite
the level of awareness that exists in the present day and age, are still high in number. These false
notions hurt the general knowledge of community regarding these crimes of stalking, sexual
assault and dating violence, along with humiliatingly putting the victims in to silence (CARE,
2020).
One of the most common rape myths is that it only happens to women. Rapes, on men, albeit
underreported, are a reality and a large section of men have been raped. This is not done just by
other men, but also by women (Rape Crisis, 2020). Another rape myth is that only specific types
of women are raped or that a particular woman called for it. The truth is that no one wants to be
raped and no one calls for it to be done. No one wants their body to be tormented and breached
without consent. Rapes also happen to all kind of women and there are no labels to what kind of
woman would be raped or not (CARE, 2020).
Marital rapes are another contribution to rape myths, where people believe that every intercourse
during marriage is a consensual one. There have been cases where intercourse between married
couple have been non-consensual, making them rape. Another related myth is that rape cannot
happen in a middle of sexual intercourse. A person has the right to say no when they deem it and
the other person needs to respect it. Not doing the same again results in rape (CARE, 2020).

8
8. Personality Disorder
A personality disorder is deemed as a kind of mental disorder which is marked by characteristics
of unhealthy thinking patters, rigidity, and unnatural behaviour and functioning. The individuals
who have a personality disorder often have problems relating to other people, situations and have
perception troubles as well. This thus results in major problems in having a “normal life” as they
face challenges in having relationships and even in conducting social activities (Mayo Clinic,
2020).
There are three key clusters of personality disorders. The first one covers paranoid, schizoid, and
schizotypal personality disorders. The second one includes antisocial personality disorder,
borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, and narcissistic personality
disorder. The last one covers avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder
(Mayo Clinic, 2020). Despite these large classifications, or to say because of these numerous
classifications, it is often difficult to distinguish between which personality disorder a person
suffers from. This is because of similarity between the character traits of these disorders. As a
result of the complexities surrounding the individuals having personality disorders, the
significance of correct classification becomes crucial. The present day categorical classification
have seen criticism owing to it overlooking the personality’s dimensional nature, along with the
notion that it may be missing the disturbances inn sub-threshold personalities that are of clinical
importance (Karukivi, Vahlberg, Horjamo and Korkeila, 2017).

9
9. Reasonable Person Test
The reasonable person test is a well renowned test, particularly used in cases of tort law of
negligence. As per this test, the conduct of a person is to be judged based on how a reasonable
person would have acted, had that person been in the same situation as that person who’s
conducted is being judged, and was being faced with the same factors. This reasonable test is
also applied in cases of how a reasonable person would have foreseen a situation to decide on the
judgements of person in question. Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467 is a leading case in
this matter in which the conduct of the defendant was judged based on the standards of a
reasonable person. In this case, it was held, that the best judgement of the defendant was not
enough, and that a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of fire owing to poor
ventilation.
However, a major criticism for the reasonable person test comes into play when deciding upon a
conduct of a child or a person having mental disorder. There are some cases in which courts have
applied a modified version of reasonable person test for children where they decide matter on the
basis of how a reasonable person of same intelligence, age and experience would act in such
cases (Find Law, 2018). Though, there are various factors that affect the thinking of a child and
to consider them same as another child is unfair. This is because the learning of two children
should not and cannot be compared.

10
10. Violence vs Aggression (Distinction)
Violence and aggression are two terms which are used interchangeably by people. Despite their
similarities in terms of relation to physical harm, there are quite a lot of distinctive factors
present between the two terms. Aggression denotes the intent of harming another individual and
such other person is motivated to avoiding such harm. This harm could include hurt feelings,
physical injury and even damaged social relationship. Violence on the other hand is caused by
aggression. Violence can be deemed as a reactive aggression. This is the reason why policy
makers, criminologists and political scientists treat it as being different from aggression. Every
aggression does not result in violence and the same true vice versa as well (Allen and Anderson,
2017).
The distinction between the two terms is crucial in criminological field. There are times when the
perpetrators of violence have range of mental health issues, including the likes of antisocial,
borderline or narcissistic personality. Even though these do not indicate violent behaviour but a
single breakdown in dealing with these issues could result in violent or aggressive behaviour.
Passive aggression does not have violence as its feature, and instead is just an obscured criticism
of acts of another person. This does not mean that a person showing signs of passive aggression
cannot be violent. Such variations make it difficult for the psychiatrists to predict if an otherwise
aggressive person would indulge in violent acts or not. Though, it is often seen that people
showing aggressive traits are put in therapy to avoid any unpredicted violent acts (Good
Therapy, 2019).

11
11. Frustration – Aggression Hypothesis
In 1939, scholars brought forth the frustration- aggression hypothesis that is based on catharsis’
psychodynamic explanation. In view of Freud, the aggression drive had similarities in drive for
food. There was thus only a single way to bring down aggression in people and this was by
taking part in such activities that brought it down. The hypothesis stated that a person becomes
aggressive owing to their experience of frustration. So, in a way, aggression was just a cathartic
release of the frustration that has built upon inside a person. By bringing forth this hypothesis,
the aim was to help in easing aggression in people by releasing the inhibited frustration.
However, a key problem with this hypothesis is that solving the frustration is not always
possible. So, if a person is frustrated because a girl does not love him or that they have less
money, cannot be helped out (Taylor, 2011).
The defence mechanisms under this hypothesis are found in sublimation as is found in sports
where aggression is deemed acceptable, and in displacement, where the aggression is directed
somewhere else. Owing to the shortfalls in earlier version of this hypothesis, a revised one was
brought forth by Berkowitz in 1969 where it was stated that aggression is not always caused by
frustration. Rather, it was present only in some cases characterised by specific cues. He further
stated that aggressive behaviour was marked by personal attributions and negative environment,
which is more appropriate than earlier scholars’ version (Shaffer, 2008).