Harry v. Tom (was: LV never loved anyone)

[anthyroserain]

No: HPFGUIDX 110564

Julie:
 > The pivotal question to me is whether Tom/Voldemort is a
> pyschopath/sociopath. I believe JKR says he is. He is also
> intelligent, and like other pyschopaths he can intellectually
> distinguish between right and wrong (what is morally acceptable to
> society and what is not). The problem is, a psychopath just doesn't
> CARE. He has no conscience. He can't feel sympathy, compassion, or
> love, so he can't feel good or bad about his behavior. His only
> compass for his behavior is doing that which gives him some sort of
> gain, be it power, money, etc...
[snip]
> One thing I would ask is, if Voldemort is a psychopath, and has 
been
> one since Tom Riddle was very young, did he really *have* a choice?
> Once a small boy's brain/personality turns psychopathic, can that 
be
> undone? In the most technical sense, Tom/Voldemort could have 
decided
> at any point to start behaving morally, even without being able to
> care about others. But is there any reasonable expectation that a
> person with the twisted logic of a psychopath can really see or 
fully
> understand that choice, or perceive any value in it as a normal 
human
> being would? 


Katie, now:

Hi, I'm coming out from lurkdom because this discussion intrigues 
me. As I've read so many excellent responses from those well versed 
in psychology, I thought I'd approach this from a legal viewpoint. 
Hopefully y'all don't think I'm being completely redundant here :)

Something that is important to this discussion is that the fact of 
mental illness (or, even less so, personality disorder) does NOT 
excuse one from fault for criminal activity. It may act as a 
mitigating factor, but it is not a blanket excuse. The American 
justice system in particular usually considers antisocial 
personality disorder categorically insufficient to justify lack of 
guilt, because almost anyone who would commit gross crimes against 
humanity could be said to suffer from it. It recalls the archaic 
term "morally insane". 

I would second the first part of what Julie says above. Sociopaths 
do know the difference between right or wrong, and we are speaking 
intellectually here. You can't evaluate on a legal basis someone's 
moral impulses, but you can evaluate his intellectual understanding. 
Voldemort/Riddle certainly has a basic grasp of morality. He doesn't 
care; in fact, he has contempt for it. 

We have to remember that Tom Riddle was brought up in an orphanage. 
An uncaring, loveless orphanage, probably, but he was not brought up 
in a solitary, isolated hole in the ground. If he read books and had 
some contact with people who weren't completely despicable, he 
cannot be said to be brought up without any understanding of right 
and wrong. At some point he must be judged responsible for his 
actions. Voldemort is an *adult*, not a ten-year-old boy.

To Del and all others who think V. cannot be held responsible for 
his actions: how far would you carry this justification? Can all of 
us, no matter how uncaring or cognizant of our actions, claim to be 
pure products of our upbringing and not responsible for our 
behavior? Can the "Riddle defense" be sufficient for any murderer 
who was chronically abused or neglected as a child? When does the 
abuse/neglect become insufficient to explain the crimes?

- Katie 
 who loves the giant-sex conversation, by the way