Understanding the nature of kleptomaniacs

Kleptomania is an impulse control disorder characterized by a recurrent failure to resist stealing. You might have experienced living in a dormitory wherein people will always complain about things getting lost. You might have encountered losing money when youre in school or even inside the house. This is caused by kleptomaniacs who cant fight the urge of getting something that is not theirs. Unlike shop lifters, kleptomaniacs are sometimes unaware of what they are doing. It is often seen in patients who have a co-existing disorder like bulimia nervosa, anxiety disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The cause of kleptomania is unknown however there is a possibility that this disorder is inherited. Wrong upbringing, unstable relationships and depressions can also cause this. Kleptomaniacs usually steal items that they do not really need. They get items that they can afford like sunglasses, wallet, earphones and so much more. Usually, they are not aware that they steal and are often surprised when they see things in their room that are not theirs. These items are disposed by them, given to someone else or secretly handed back to the rightful owner. The people with this disorder feel tension before stealing. They do the act out of anger, anxiety, depression or remorse but are guilty after stealing.

SYMPTOMS 1. Repeated theft of objects that they do not really need 2. Feels tension before stealing 3. Feels satisfied after stealing 4. Feeling of guilt after stealing Ways to help a loved one who is a kleptomaniac 1. Do not scare him. Tell him that you care for his health 2. Tell him that there are available medications that can help reduce the addiction 3. Tell him that you understand that it is hard to resist and that youre willing to help him 4. Tell him that you care so much and you still accept them for who they are Treatment Kleptomania is very difficult to handle on your own that is why when you know of someone who has this disorder, you can advise him to seek help. Medications are available or psychotherapy. People with this disorder can take anti depressants, mood stabilizers or addiction medications. It is still better to ask help from a psychiatrist first before taking any medicines. If someone close to you have this disorder, it is best that you talk to them and convince them to seek help because it will only get worse if not treated immediately.

Even though it is very hard to accept people like this in our society, they are still human. We should not hate them because they are sick and they are different. Instead, we

should show them how much we care for them and that we will still love them for who they are. When we are with them, it is best to be mindful of our belongings and as a good friend, sister or companion, the best way to show how much you love them is to help them and encourage them to seek help from a doctor.

Shoplifting in the United States costs retailers approximately $10 billion annually [source: Grant]. Professional thieves do some of the damage, but amateur shoplifters do the most. Most amateur shoplifters steal for personal use rather than resale, but a small percentage feels a compulsive need to steal. An addiction to stealing items not for personal use or monetary gain characterizes a behavior known as kleptomania. While shoplifting has been a problem for centuries, kleptomania was first described as a psychological disorder in the early 1800s and has been only intermittently recognized by the American Psychiatric Article System Association as a type of mental illness since the 1950s. Psychiatrists continue to debate whether kleptomania is a distinct mental illness or a manifestation of some other psychological disorder. Although there has been little research on the neurobiology of kleptomania, some studies have provided biological clues, and some have attempted pharmacological treatment of this condition. There are many reasons for shoplifting: resale, supporting a drug habit, personal use and "just for the thrill of it." However, most of these reasons fit stealing, but not kleptomania. Kleptomania is characterized by an impulsive need to steal, and many kleptomaniacs are first discovered in the act of shoplifting. The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) has outlined the following criteria for a diagnosis: 1. The individual repeatedly fails to resist the impulse to steal items that are not needed for personal use or monetary value. 2. The individual experiences tension before stealing. 3. The individual's tension is relieved or gratified by the act of the theft. 4. The theft is not due to anger, revenge, delusions, hallucinations or impaired judgment (dementia, mental retardation, alcohol intoxication, drug intoxication). 5. Other psychological disorders can't account for the individual's stealing behavior (like manic episodes and antisocial behaviors).

The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of theRevised Penal
9

Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances under Article 310 is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
10 11

any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

12

Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of P797,187.85 taken does not belong to petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner took it without VCCIs consent and with grave abuse of confidence by taking advantage of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. The prosecutions evidence proved that petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or Viva by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. She deposited the said checks to the joint account maintained by VCCI and Jefferson Tan, then withdrew a total of P797,187.85 from said joint account using the pre-signed checks, with her as the payee. In other words, the bank account was merely the instrument through which petitioner stole from her employer VCCI. xxx We find no cogent reason to disturb the above findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA and fully supported by the evidence on record. Time and again, the Court has held that the facts found by the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the CA, are as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court in the absence of any showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, none of the exceptions to the general rule on conclusiveness of said findings of facts are applicable. The Court gives weight and respect to the trial courts findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial courts appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.
13 14 15

Moreover, we agree with the CA when it gave short shrift to petitioners argument that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be convicted of qualified theft. As correctly held by the CA, the subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property. In any event, as stated above, the factual findings of the courts a quo as to the ownership of the amount petitioner stole is conclusive upon this Court, the finding being adequately supported by the evidence on record.
16

However, notwithstanding the correctness of the finding of petitioners guilt, a modification is called for as regards the imposable penalty. On the imposition of the correct penalty, People v. Mercado is instructive. Pursuant to said case, in the determination of the penalty for qualified theft, note is taken of the value of the property stolen, which is P797,187.85 in this case. Since the value exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period, that is, eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor.
17

To determine the additional years of imprisonment to be added to the basic penalty, the amount ofP22,000.00 is deducted fromP797,187.85, which yields a remainder of P775,187.85. This amount is then divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less thanP10,000.00. The end result is that 77 years should be added to the basic penalty. However, the total imposable penalty for simple theft should not exceed 20 years. Thus, had petitioner committed simple theft, the penalty would be 20 years of reclusion temporal. As thepenalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher, the trial court, as well as the appellate court, should have imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua."

Understanding kleptomania
By DR. JOSE S. PUJALTE JR. February 13, 2010, 9:02pm Let's make it clear that indubitable, textbook kleptomania (Greek for craze for stealing) is rare. W e seem to have this habit of calling everyone and anyone who steals a klepto. But this is irresponsible. Neither politicians/government officials who steal nor shoplifting teenagers are kleptomaniacs. And while the legal consequence of being caught stealing is the same for all thieves, the motive of a kleptomaniac is gratification in the act of stealing, not for economic benefit. Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Kleptomania is also known as compulsive theft behavior disorder or simply pathological stealing. It is a manifestation of a larger psychiatric entity called obsessive -compulsive disorder. We all have our little rituals, superstitions, and daily habits. These are normal adjustments to make our lives familiar and

manageable, even pleasurable. But theres a limit. Once these behaviors become uncontrollable and seem to take over ones thoughts, feelings ones life in fact, there is reason to suspect a brain malfunction called obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). It is NOT a persons fault OR the result of a weak, spineless, unstable personality. Investigators are proving that in OCD, information processing in the brain suffers as the communication between parts of the brain (cortex and basal ganglia) fails. Serotonin, a neurotransmitter or chemical messenger in the brain, is insufficient in OCD patients. Obsessions are thoughts, images, impulses that occur over and over to a point that the person feels out of control. Whats significant is that there is recognition that these obsessions are a nuis ance and do not make sense. Consequently, the person is disturbed and overwhelmed. Compulsions are intimately connected to obsessions because these are the acts performed to make obsessions go away. Criteria. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed (DSM-IV), the bible of mental health professionals, states that the symptoms of kleptomania are * Recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal objects that are not needed for personal use or for their monetary value. * Increasing sense of tension immediately before committing the theft. * Pleasure, gratification, or relief at the time of committing the theft. * Stealing is not committed to express anger or vengeance and is not in response to a delusion or hallucination. Obviously, most thieves dont exhibit any of these. In fact, just after a handcuffed thief in the police precinct is mauled by his victims, he usually says, I was hungry or My son is sick, and so on. There is always a mot ive for stealing. Indeed, the alternative list for kleptomania starts with criminal behavior. Malingering is pretending to have kleptomania when arrested for theft but thats very hard to prove when youve been caught stealing cellphones and not underwear. Shoplifters, usually teenagers, will admit that peers had dared them. Professional shoplifters, the ones with passport pictures posted on store walls, do it for profit. None of them are kleptomaniacs. Treatment. While family members and loved ones can form a strong support group, it is necessary to see a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Two effective treatments have evolved: CBT or cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy and medication with SRIs or serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In the acute treatment phase, the therapist aims to end a current episode of OCD. In the maintenance phase, the goal is to prevent or minimize further OCD occurrences. These may be accomplished through education (of both patient and family members), psychotherapy and medication. Some examples of these drugs are fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), and paroxetine (Paxil). OCD is a waxing and waning disorder and so response to treatment may be hard to gauge. However, patients are kept on medication for at least one year and if OCD episodes are noted to be few and far between, the medicine is tapered off. Now that we know the strict criteria for kleptomania, all others are just plain thieves. Fact/Factoid. You will still get fat on low fat food if you eat too much of it. Dr. Pujalte is an orthopedic surgeon. E-mail jspujalte@yahoo.com webpage http://www.orthopedicspujalte.com

http://www.mb.com.ph/node/243408/under#.UO6KkmHRDQ4

Kleptomania: No Universal Cure Found

Mar. 19, 2007 A small clinical trial of a medication to treat kleptomania has failed to find any conclusive benefit for patients with the impulsive stealing disorder, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Share This:

Related Ads: Drug Treatment Cure Depression Mental Health ADHD Medication

See Also: Mind & Brain Depression Behavior Mental Health Psychiatry Addiction Anger Management

Reference Double blind Hyperactivity Placebo effect Nocebo - Placebo

But the results leave open the possibility that some medications, including the one in the trial, may still be an effective treatment for certain patients. More than 1.2 million people in the United States are thought to suffer from kleptomania, the guilt-ridden, impulsive stealing of inexpensive and unneeded items. The condition differs from shoplifting, in which the action is usually planned and motivated by need or monetary gain. People suffering from kleptomania often fail to seek treatment for fear of legal repercussions. The medication in the trial was escitalopram, marketed as Lexapro. The drug belongs to a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and earlier studies have suggested that SSRIs can be effective in treating some impulse control disorders, such as skin picking. In an earlier, nonblinded open-label phase of the kleptomania study, when trial participants were aware that they were taking escitalopram and not a placebo, 78 percent of the patients responded to the drug. In the second phase of the study, conducted as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the benefit was not seen. "When we randomized people to drug vs. placebo, the same proportion of people relapsed on drug as relapsed on placebo, suggesting that it was really a placebo response in the initial phase of the study," said Lorrin Koran, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and first author of the study, which will be published in the March issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

In the double-blind trial, 15 subjects were assigned to receive either a placebo or escitalopram. For both groups, the relapse rates were effectively the same, with three of seven patients on the drug relapsing, compared with four of eight on the placebo. Koran says that the small number of subjects in the study makes it impossible to know with certainty whether the results of the trial are really indicative of the effectiveness of escitalopram. "For some people, I think these drugs really do work. And for others, maybe not, but until you have large studies you can't tease that out," he said. Koran emphasized that the results of the clinical trial are not definitive, and some people may be helped by therapy involving medication. For others, receiving psychological treatment, perhaps in combination with medication, may prove most effective. But regardless, he said, "People with this disorder should definitely seek treatment." This study was funded by Forest Laboratories, which makes and markets Lexapro. Koran has served as a paid speaker for Forest Laboratories, as has second author Elais Aboujaoude, MD, clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of Stanford's Impulse Control Clinic. Nona Gamel, clinical research manager, was also a co-author on the study.