We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to “learn better” is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights.
So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.
You can be autistic, ADHD, have some horrible upbringing, have some other genetic thing… you can have any of those things, but you’re still accountable for your actions.
Knowing that someone has those things absolutely helps increase empathy and understanding and assist them with those things.
But a killer is still a killer, even if they did it while suffering with other issues.
Accountability? Yes, accountability is good. It’s proper and necessary to address harmful actions and ensure steps are taken to prevent recurrence. This is entirely possible, and likely more effective, without resorting to insult.
Insults are just punitive justice in a social context: a counterproductive way to discharge outrage rather than foster change. It is to temporarily soothe the egoic zealot lurking within the hearts of all. The research is clear: whether in criminal justice or interpersonal conflict, rehabilitative approaches (clear boundaries, restorative dialogue, support) reduce harm more effectively than punishment alone.
To believe that hate may be remedied with further hate is to mistake fire for water.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196268/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00938548251335322