The "why" is different-- I just flat out don't trust groups of people. Take about ten minutes to look up "homeowners associations" for really good examples of why I distrust the... beneficent tyranny of groups. (I mean, really: if you wouldn't trust one random person, why would you trust fifteen of them more than yourself?) Anyways, Sleeping Beastly also asked:
I wonder: do you also think that crimes should not be prosecuted any differently when the perpetrator is shown to be insane?
I've got to pull up one of my favorite quotes:
If you mean whiskey, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pits of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being. However, if by whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it. This is my position, and as always, I refuse to be compromised on matters of principle. ~ Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr, 1952 "Whiskey Speech"Insane?
Insane how?
Insane as in not being in a state of sanity, that is, a mental state free of disorders and derangements?
I am not sane, by that measure-- claustrophobia. I've only blacked out once-- nearly punched a chief while I was at it, for added fun. My mind is disordered in that, when confronted with high temperatures, dark and close areas, high humidity, constricted movement or even a couple of these, it "tells" me that I cannot breath and triggers a panic response. Would I have been fully responsible for hitting that chief, if I'd managed it? Nope-- beyond the blackout, and not knowing I was actually claustrophobic, I wasn't even trying to hit anyone.
However, the flip side of that freedom from responsibility is a new burden-- instead of being punished for an action I couldn't control, I've got to avoid things that cause that action. I got pulled off of the fire team, and I am very careful to avoid responsibility-bearing situations that might trigger the same response. Now, if I went and killed someone, that mental disorder would not be a consideration at all-- I should be treated just like anyone else.
If by insane, though, you mean "clearly not responding to any identifiable objective reality"-- well, that one depends on how that disorder effects what they're being punished for.
First off: the treatment should not be preferable to the punishment for a sane person.
If the person is getting the chair if they don't make folks think they're insane, the shouldn't be treated and released because of insanity. They're a proven risk. (Also, it channels Arkham.)
That poor woman who killed her children because "God told her to" shouldn't be lose in public-- for her safety and that of others. With a lot-- and I mean a WHOLE LOT-- of protections for everyone involved, cases like that (along with the classic mumbling street person) is why I support the return of mental institutions. (There are abuses in foster homes; that doesn't mean we turn all the kids who don't have natural families out on the street.)
If by insane, you mean "believes some objectionable thing"-- such as that humans, once they are past breeding age, should be killed, or that children before the age of reason aren't really human, or that women dressed in X manner should be physically assaulted in an obscene manner, or that other people are food animals: heck no, the insanity shouldn't matter for their punishment. They have a belief, they acted on it, and it's unlikely that being locked in a room being told they're wrong will change their beliefs. (It's even less likely that we'd want to give the gov't the ability to decide that X belief is proof of insanity-- we've already got enough idiots that are ready to label philosophical disagreements into mental disorders.)
Alright, the very short version: Insanity should be considered in punishing a crime only insofar as it effected culpability at the time of the crime, and in consideration of direct culpability if the crime should have been avoided, given the knowledge of the accused.
First time I swung at chief: not culpable.
If I put myself in the same situation, knowingly and willingly, and hit him: culpable.
You *really* don't want to get me started on the topic of mental retardation and culpability-- at the far extremes, it's cut and dried; when we start to talk about Asperger's making you not responsible for murder....
2 comments:
It's good to see some pragmatism on the matter. I've never understood the idea that a murderer who doesn't know right from wrong merits a lighter sentence than one who does. I'd think we need to be protected equally from both.
It's kind of like hate-crime laws.
Like I'll be any deader if they kill me because I was there than if they kill me because I'm Irish?
But I'm the same nut that thinks we should ask the Japanese about jail design, so oh well.
I may be mistaken, but even the gov'ts right to kill depends on pragmatism-- as with the right to kill in self defense. The goal isn't a dead man, it's stopping him.
Post a Comment