Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and Guilt Tendencies

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) describes dissociative identity disorder (DID) as "the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states, each with its own patterns of perceiving, thinking, and relating to the environment and self." In addition, the disorder is characterized by "at least two of these identities or personality states repeatedly controlling one's behavior," which is a key indicator of the condition. Additionally, the disorder is characterized by "at least two of these identities or personality states repeatedly controlling one's behavior" (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It has been recognized for an exceptionally long time that persons who suffer from dissociative identity disorder have numerous identities, and that each of these identities will perform differently not just on personality tests, but also on IQ exams. This is something that has been recognized and acknowledged for quite some time now. This hypothesis has been the subject of debate for a considerable amount of time. The research that was conducted in the 1950s is the research that came before this one in the chronological order of the research. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that identities may be differentiated from one another based on age, gender, interests, and even handwriting (Thigpen and Cleckley , 1954). If a person with dissociative identity disorder has several identities and one of those identities commits a crime, it is plausible to question the degree of legal culpability that person will have for the crime. This is since a person who suffers from dissociative identity disorder may have trouble differentiating between their several personalities. It is acceptable to question the level of legal accountability when one considers the huge differences that might exist across identities for a person who suffers from dissociative identity disorder, as well as the possibility that certain identities could be unconscious of the actions conducted by others. Another legal concern that emerges with DID is the question of whether the accused may be punished for their actions. There is no way to know for sure if the person who will serve as the focal point of the judgements will have a complete comprehension of all that will be debated and determined during the proceedings. It is not clear whether the person can fully comprehend everything that occurs during the trial because the judging process can cause minor identities to "reveal," but there is no awareness or memory of the dominant identity. As a result, it is unclear whether the person can fully comprehend everything that occurs during the trial. Because of this, it is difficult to tell if the individual is capable of completely comprehending all that takes place throughout the trial. It is possible that the individual in question is capable of being prosecuted in this scenario; however, this does not take into consideration the legal obligations that he must fulfill because of the offenses that he has done. If this is the case, then the individual's capacity for judgment may be called into doubt. When something like this happens, it's possible that there are questions regarding whether or not the individual can be brought to justice for their actions. This is referred to as having reasonable doubt.