Is violence a disease to be cured or a behavior to be managed?

Ideas & Philosophy · Published 14 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: If we call violence a 'treatment' issue, do we risk minimizing the harm of the perpetrator? This tension sits at the heart of modern psychology: whether violent behavior is an illness requiring healing, a choice demanding punishment, or a complex form of communication that requires a new vocabulary.

Professor Gwen Adshead explores the linguistic and philosophical friction inherent in using the word 'treatment' for violence. In clinical settings, treatment typically implies a patient facing a condition not of their choosing—a problem to be solved so they can feel 'better.' However, violent crime often carries the opposite social demand: that the offender should not suffer less discomfort or pain because they chose their actions. This creates a paradox where the justice system's goal of rehabilitation clashes with the public's desire for punitive suffering.

The distinction is further complicated by how different types of violence are categorized. For example, while prisoners generally receive 'interventions,' sex offenders may be offered specific 'treatment' programs. Adshead notes that violence is a complex human behavior and can be viewed as a form of communication—albeit a dangerous one. She argues that violence against known individuals differs fundamentally from violence against strangers, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all approach to 'treating' these behaviors may overlook critical nuances in human relationships.

Ultimately, the debate centers on whether we can treat human 'attitudes.' If violence is an unusual way for humans to express distress or break the law, clinical intervention must navigate the ethics of restoring a person to their 'normal' self without erasing the gravity of their choices. The goal is to determine if therapy can effectively reduce violence while acknowledging that the perpetrator's actions were not merely symptoms of a disorder, but deliberate expressions of intent.

Adshead’s work at Gresham College builds on a long tradition of public discourse dating back to 1597, where complex intellectual problems are laid bare for the public. By examining these conceptual implications, she seeks to move beyond simple labels toward a deeper understanding of how society can address harmful behaviors without compromising ethical standards.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Is violence an inherent human trait or a communicative act?
• Does society have a duty to reform the minds of the violent?
• Can psychotherapy treat violence rooted in ideology rather than emotion?
• Some violence is slow, quiet and built into how societies work
• Does justice require punishment, or can it be found through healing and dialogue?
• How do humans learn to read the intentions of others?
• Can a humble cuttlefish pass the famous Stanford marshmallow test designed for human children?
• Is cheating a moral failing or just an inevitable response to broken systems?
• Can the simple act of reading words subtly shift your future behavior and beliefs?
• Is the digital revolution helping or hindering the development of today's children?
• Why traditional budgeting fails and how to actually change your spending
• Can gratitude physically reshape your brain during a health crisis?

More in Psychology · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics