Interview with the Iceman - Essay Example

?Psychology “Iceman Interviews.” The film of the interview with the “Iceman” is a very useful example of how difficult it is to deal with suffering from very series types of neurosis or personality disorder. What is striking about the conversation between client and psychiatrist is that the tone of voice and general manner of speaking on both sides is very calm and steady, with even a few smiles and jokes, despite the truly horrific subject matter that is discussed. The client’s obvious lack of emotion is extraordinary and this is a key to the kind of intervention that might be best in this case. He seems perversely proud of the fact that the killings do not bother him or upset him, in the beginning at least. He is able to talk about his crimes, including distressing details about torture and dismemberment using a variety of different tools, without in the least being affected in any emotional way. He seems to have dissociated himself from these actions, and to have no feelings, but at a later point he admits that he was upset after the first killing. This shows that with persistence, it is possible to persuade the client to modify his stock responses and actually come face to face with the issues that he so successfully represses from his conscious mind. Since the client appears to suffers from a serious personality disorder, possibly sociopathic with perhaps comorbid borderline or narcissistic personality disorder, there is no obvious or easy therapeutic intervention that springs to mind. Some kind of long term psychotherapy might be the best approach to adopt with this client. It would allow the client to build up trust with a professional, and this could be the basis for some deeper level talking that does tap into the emotions of the client. This therapy would need to be with the same therapist over a period of months, on a basis of meetings at least twice weekly. There could be an element of note taking, preferably by the client, so that a picture can be built up of the way he grew up as a child. The therapy should involve hypnosis and working through what actually happened to him. Following this there should be work on different scenarios, thinking through what alternative choices might have been possible. One area to be explored is the issue of control and dominance. It is clear that the client felt in some way compelled to be a killer, and that he ideally would have liked to have been different than the way he turned out. Through the opportunity to go back and think, or more accurately, feel, his way through early childhood there is a possibility that some of the early concepts that he has built up could be challenged and modified. It will important to help the client to understand the steps that led to his choice of violence as a means to eliminate threats. There may also be potential to suggest forms of strength that are positive, rather than destructive. The client was functioning as a husband and father, without resorting to violence in that context, and so the area to focus on is situations where the client feels under pressure or open to criticism. This therapy has to be undertaken with extreme care, and due regard to the safety of medical staff, because the client displays signs of hypersensitivity to criticism, and the discussion of difficult spells in his past could trigger violent reactions. A useful goal in this therapy would be for the client to begin to understand himself as a child, and to revisit the time before he made his early conclusions about using violence to remove danger and gain a sense of authority and respect from others. The goal would be to empathize with that child, and start to rebuild a different path from that point. If he can re-engage with this child self, he might be able to envisage a life in which he is neither victim nor perpetrator. The role of the therapist will be crucial in getting past the layers of protection that the adult client has built around his vulnerability. In the interview situation the approach of the psychiatrist, Dr Deitz, was very well thought out. His manner was gentle, and he managed to persuade the client to speak, even when there was reluctance to go into details. At times it seemed that the client was inventing things, or just going along with what the psychiatrist was suggesting. There is a possibility that the client was trying to manipulate the psychiatrist, for example by playing a role of being bored by the violence that he initiated. Dr Deitz was probably very aware of this, and just pushing to see how far the client would go in agreeing, for example with the psychiatrist’s estimates of the number of murders that had been committed. It was notable that the client was evasive at times, and instead of answering directly, he made off the cuff comments and implied that his crimes were a logical development of his own exclusion from wealth and status. When the client appeared to be playing this kind of game with the psychiatrist, Dr Deitz just played along. This is probably because there was a need for them both to develop a level of trust. I wondered at times why Dr Deitz didn’t challenge the client more but this may be a function of the stage in therapy that the interviews represent. Dr Deitz was careful to avoid pushing the client too hard, and appeared to place himself on a respectful but friendly level with the client. The client at times could repeat things that the psychiatrist had told him in a previous conversation, and that is evidence that the therapist was at least managing to get some alternative views across to the client. In summary, then, the film showed a lot of material that is interesting for criminologists and psychiatrists, but apart from the evidence of a functioning relationship with the psychiatrist, there is not much evidence that the interviews were having any therapeutic effect on the client. The film showed a promising first step towards treatment in this respect, but the prospect of any effective intervention in this particular case, even with sustained and long term psychotherapy, does not look good. The client is insufficiently engaged with the process, and seems unable to see things from any view other than his own. He lacks any sense of moral responsibility or any perception that he needs to change, and this makes it hard to envisage a recovery plan that would work. Reference: Interview with the Iceman: film. Read More