Raising a false alarm

Raising a false alarm means reporting an emergency or danger that is not actually happening or exaggerating the severity of a situation beyond what is accurate or reasonable. This can cause unnecessary panic, disrupt the normal functioning of emergency services, and potentially waste resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Examples of raising a false alarm include falsely reporting a fire, falsely reporting a crime, or exaggerating the symptoms of an illness. Doing so can result in legal consequences, such as fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the situation.

It is important to only report emergencies or dangerous situations that are actually happening, and to do so accurately and with as much detail as possible to assist emergency services in responding appropriately. If you are unsure whether a situation is an emergency or not, it is best to err on the side of caution and report it to the appropriate authorities for assessment.


The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) is a psychological test designed to measure traits associated with psychopathy or sociopathy. It was developed by Michael R. Levenson in 1995 and is based on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R), which is considered the gold standard for assessing psychopathy.

The LSRP consists of 26 items that assess both primary and secondary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy includes traits such as callousness, lack of empathy, and manipulativeness, while secondary psychopathy includes traits such as impulsivity and a tendency towards antisocial behavior.

Participants rate themselves on a 4-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” in response to statements such as “I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings” and “People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it.”

The LSRP has been found to have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and has been used in a variety of research studies examining psychopathy and related personality traits. However, it is important to note that the LSRP is a self-report measure, which means that individuals with psychopathic traits may be motivated to present themselves in a socially desirable light, which could potentially impact the validity of the results. As with all psychological tests, it is important to interpret the results of the LSRP in conjunction with other clinical information and assessments.


“Impasse and Interpretation”

Herbert Rosenfeld was a British psychoanalyst who made significant contributions to the understanding of personality disorders. In 1987, his book “Impasse and Interpretation” was published, which focused on the psychoanalytic treatment of patients with severe personality disorders.

In the book, Rosenfeld describes his theory of the “psychotic organization,” which refers to a state of mind in which the individual’s ego and internal object relationships are severely disturbed. He argues that patients with severe personality disorders, such as borderline and narcissistic personality disorder, often have this kind of organization, which makes them resistant to therapy.

Rosenfeld emphasizes the importance of the therapist’s ability to tolerate the patient’s intense emotional reactions, which are often expressed in the transference. He argues that the therapist must work to interpret the patient’s unconscious anxieties and defences, while also being careful not to overwhelm the patient with too much interpretation too quickly.

Rosenfeld also discusses the importance of the therapist’s countertransference, arguing that the therapist’s own emotional reactions to the patient can provide important clues to the patient’s unconscious conflicts.

“Impasse and Interpretation” has been influential in the field of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, particularly in the treatment of patients with severe personality disorders. However, Rosenfeld’s ideas have also been subject to criticism and debate, particularly around the potential for therapist abuse of power and the use of interpretation in the context of severe transference and countertransference difficulties.

Adultification Antisocial Personality Disorder Borderline Personality Disorder Dark Triad Delusional Disorder DESTRUCTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER Empath Enabler Greed Histrionic Personality Machiavellianism Malignant Narcissism Narcissism Narcopath NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) Oedipus Complex PARENTAL ALIENATION Pathological Lying PERSONALITY DISORDERS predators Projection Psychopath Psychopathic style PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS Sociopath

Parents with personality disorders routinely display extreme behaviors.

  • Parental alienation tends to occur in divorces when one parent repeatedly displays extreme words and behavior about the other parent.
  • People with personality disorders tend to have a pattern of repeating hostile and unpredictable behavior in the presence of their children.
  • When parents repeatedly display extreme emotion and behavior, children tend to develop emotional problems, which may include parental alienation.


The test for the existence of mens rea 

The test for the existence of mens rea may be:(a) subjective, where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (for purposely, knowingly, recklessly etc) (see concurrence);(b) objective, where the requisite mens rea element is imputed to the accused, on the basis that a reasonable person would have had the mental element in the same circumstances (for negligence); or(c) hybrid, where the test is both subjective and objective.

The court will have little difficulty in establishing mens rea if there is actual evidence – for instance, if the accused made an admissible admission. This would satisfy a subjective test. But a significant proportion of those accused of crimes makes no such admission. Hence, some degree of objectivity must be brought to bear as the basis upon which to impute the necessary components. It is always reasonable to assume that people of ordinary intelligence are aware of their physical surroundings and of the ordinary laws of cause and effect (see causation). Thus, when a person plans what to do and what not to do, he will understand the range of likely outcomes from given behaviour on a sliding scale from “inevitable” to “probable” to “possible” to “improbable”. The more an outcome shades towards the “inevitable” end of the scale, the more likely it is that the accused both foresaw and desired it, and, therefore, the safer it is to impute intention. If there is clear subjective evidence that the accused did not have foresight, but a reasonable person would have, the hybrid test may find criminal negligence. In terms of the burden of proof, the requirement is that a jury must have a high degree of certainty before convicting, defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the United States and “sure” in the United Kingdom. It is this reasoning that justifies the defenses of infancy, and of lack of mental capacity under the M’Naghten Rules, an alternate common law rule (e.g., Durham rule), and one of various statutes defining mental illness as an excuse. Moreover, if there is an irrebuttable presumption of doli incapax – that is, that the accused did not have sufficient understanding of the nature and quality of his actions – then the requisite mens rea is absent no matter what degree of probability might otherwise have been present. For these purposes, therefore, where the relevant statutes are silent and it is for the common law to form the basis of potential liability, the reasonable person must be endowed with the same intellectual and physical qualities as the accused, and the test must be whether an accused with these specific attributes would have had the requisite foresight and desire.

In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework within which mens rea is assessed. It states:A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offense,(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Under s8(b) therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intention or foresight (for the purposes of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence.


Mens rea

The levels of mens rea and the distinction between them vary among jurisdictions. Although common law originated from England, the common law of each jurisdiction with regard to culpability varies as precedents and statutes vary.

England and Wales[edit]

  • Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It’s his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death).
  • Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a ‘virtual certainty’ of the defendant’s actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.
  • Knowingly: the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur.
  • Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not.
  • Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences.

Alienated children Alienation Parental Alienation PA PERSONALITY DISORDERS

When They Won’t Own Up to Their Bad Behavior

If you’re able to grasp how easily some people are taken hostage by their psychological defense mechanisms, it makes perfect sense that the only way you can reach them is, paradoxically, to validate them in what you can’t help but regard as their wrongheaded perspective. Yet at the same time you need to get across to them that you don’t—and can’t—agree with what they did.

Appropriately executed, what such ironically supportive corroboration does is not have you actually concur with their viewpoint but acknowledge that it feelsgenuine to them. Erroneous or not, it’s held with sincerity and, more than likely, with considerable conviction too. In a word, from their mindset, it’s authentic . So to the degree that addressing a person in this sympathetic way accurately reflects their reality, they’ll be left with very little to defend against. And as a consequence, taking such an accommodating approach will increase the possibility that they’ll eventually admit to something that otherwise they’d stubbornly refuse to.