- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,081
- Reaction score
- 49
- Location
- Bodega Bay, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sauwan
I think you think too highly of the morality of other human beings. Just because you feel it may be morally impermissable to take another's life does not mean others do. With that lack of a strong moral system, they can be perfectly sane while still commiting murder.
Unless you want to say anyone without your same morality is insane...in which case I think you're mistaken.
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?
BodiSatva said:It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally.
Would you mind defining insanity? I don't think your and mine match up.I think that it is Irrelevant what others think, or even the majority of people think, about taking a person's life. You hit the nail on the head while glazing over the real issue...the Moral System. It is irrelevant what the "Moral System" of the society IS. Morals are Morals and regardless of what a society "feels" is Moral...Morality remains constant. People "wish" to justify Morality, when it is really simple. People try to "justify" why people do what they do and find Politically Correct reason to explain why things happen so as not to offend people....but reality is that **** happens and murderers are Insane simply because they murdered a person...
Why are mental defects incurable? Syphilis is known to cause these defects and is also known to be relatively easy to treat.By claiming that the crime was committed under the influence of mental defect, the accused is practically guaranteeing that it will occur.
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?
It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally. I am a reasonable and compassionate individual. I would NEVER MURDER a person. Murder...Pre-Meditated...
To Pre-Meditate the Killing of a person... in my opnion, is Insane.
IF I was to go onto a Jury and they claimed that the Murderer did it, but should be let off with less than the Max Whatever just becuase they were insane...well, I would laugh in their face.
What do you think?
This is a TOPIC STARTER and does not encompass ALL OF MY BELIEFS for all of you retarded nimrods that like to find a flaw with an INITIAL STATEMENT...unable to deviate from that intial attack platform.
To the rest...what do you think? Is the Insanity Plea Legitimate or are those that commit MURDER already Insane, making the whole point mute?
What do we do with Insane people then?
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?
It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally. I am a reasonable and compassionate individual. I would NEVER MURDER a person. Murder...Pre-Meditated...
To Pre-Meditate the Killing of a person... in my opnion, is Insane.
IF I was to go onto a Jury and they claimed that the Murderer did it, but should be let off with less than the Max Whatever just becuase they were insane...well, I would laugh in their face.
What do you think?
This is a TOPIC STARTER and does not encompass ALL OF MY BELIEFS for all of you retarded nimrods that like to find a flaw with an INITIAL STATEMENT...unable to deviate from that intial attack platform.
To the rest...what do you think? Is the Insanity Plea Legitimate or are those that commit MURDER already Insane, making the whole point mute?
What do we do with Insane people then?
I have to give this kind of a weasel answer.
Insanity is defined by the majority; none of us perceive reality in quite the same way, but we share enough elements of that perception that we can communicate and relate to one another. It is impossible to objectively state how far a person may deviate from the common perception to qualify as insane, since we cannot tell just how much a certain individual deviates. For instance, if you and I share certain moral views -- murder is bad, family is good, compassion is swell, etc. -- you may not realize that I see you as a giant centipede with a thousand purple eyes, and I myself am, well, my avatar.:smile: After a conversation on our shared morality, you'd think I was just a stand-up guy. The same problem expands to include every individual, and every conversation. We have no idea what else is lurking in the head of those we speak to, and so a judgement of one person being insane has to be based on a subjective set of criteria: these views, if they deviate from the norm, define insanity. Which views, and how deviant, is a subjective choice.
Therefore, if society has deemed that a person who sees other people in this way, say, he thinks all other people are simply programs in the Matrix and he himself is Neo, then that person is insane. Whereas the person who sees other people in that way, say, they are chumps with money and he is the clever man who fights the system by shooting them and taking their money, then he is not insane. In both cases, their views deviate from our subjective, apparent "norm," but neither is provably more or less deviant than anyone else.
So the insanity plea is as logically consistent as is any other judgement of people, as long as we as a society think it is.
Personally? I think that our goal should be, as Korimyr said, to stop repetitions of the original crime. If treating the deviant perception would guarantee that, I'm all for it. If we were smart enough to treat the "chumps with money" guy, I'd be all for declaring him insane, and treating him, as well. If treatment to prevent recidivism is not an option, then lock him up -- whatever his own personal view of the world may be.
Sauwan
Would you mind defining insanity?
I don't think your and mine match up
The 'definition' "Doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results" doesn't exactly pertain here.
I think of it as taking action in a way that is rationally unjustified. So if someone were to commit murder, rationally understanding the consequences and weighing the options, they would be sane in doing so.
I think they are morally very wrong in committing that action.
Under your apparent definition of insanity, the taking of another's life is an act that in itself dictates insanity.
In that case, wouldn't taking that persons life through the death penalty dictate societies collective insanity?
Jamesrage
I think the mentality of a individual should not matter because it does not change the fact that individual committed the crime.
Thanks. I'll try to use yours now.in·sane - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-seyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.
I think that there is only one definition for insane…and that is a mental disorder affecting judgment.
Hah, sorry, wasn't referring to anything of yours...I am not sure what comment of mine you are referring to.
Herein lies the problem. You're begging the question here with your assumption that murder is not rational. I can think of millions of rational reasons to take another's life. None of them, I feel, would be justified...but someone else might feel that one may be justified. They do not actually have to be justified, just mistaken. If that's the case, they can easily be confused, but not insane. For example, in much the same way Richard Dawkins might say the Pope is mistaken in his justification of a "god", it does not make the pope insane to believe there is a God.But murder is not rational. A person might have “a reason” to kill another, but “A reason” can’t be justified unless it is specific…self-defense or something, but then it is not murder. See, people try to “justify” murder. “Oh, that guy knew what he was doing when he killed his wife for the money”…blah. That is insane. IT is not rational.
I disagree. Like I mentioned before, a person with untreated syphilis could have a medical inability to understand the difference between right and wrong. With a little attention and help, this person could quickly and easily be admitted back into the world with absolutely no potential for a repeat.Society, in its effort to be Politically Correct...conjurs up Justifications for why people do things. By doing this, they absolve people of responsibility. Any person that murders should be tried of murder.
And there are multitudes of medical sources where people lack rationality or moral judgment. If someone does not have the capacity to make these choices, they should not be tried in the same fashion as someone who did.The reason is not in good sense and the conclusions derived are not sound. Look at these definitions…
ra·tion·al - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
rea·son - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-zuh n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
Sane people have a "Sound Mind" and form "Rational Conclusions"
But there are plenty of irrational ones.That is the point. Morals do not bend. Morally, there is no justifiable or rational reason to murder a person.
That is the point. Morals do not bend. Morally, there is no justifiable or rational reason to murder a person.
But there are plenty of irrational ones.
And there are multitudes of medical sources where people lack rationality or moral judgment. If someone does not have the capacity to make these choices, they should not be tried in the same fashion as someone who did.
Well in that case, someone who kills someone because they are insane is not murdering someone. They are just killing them.Irrationality can not be justified. Justifiable homicide is NOT murder. Wanting to murder a person is not rational for there is no just reason to do so. IF a guy is holding my daughter at gunpoint and says he is going to kill her, and I quick draw on him and kill him, that is not murder. There are lots of justifiable reasons to kill somebody, but they are not murders.
Murder cannot be justified.
Murder is not rational.
Murder is not reasonable.
Easy there tiger.I disagree. I don't care one squirrel **** why a person rapes and murders my kid. They did it and they had syphilis and can be cured? Who gives a ****. Seriously. That person should die, plain and simple. Fried. Done.
That would be murder, and unjustified.What if they were put in a hospital and I went and killed him? Would that be murder, once he was cured and happy and re-united with his family? Would it be justifiable for me to put a bullet in his head?
Well in that case, someone who kills someone because they are insane is not murdering someone. They are just killing them.
Easy there tiger.
I get the feeling that there is something more here than just a hypothetical, so I apologize if I am saying anything that upsets you.
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?
in order to plead insane, you have to first be sane.
Well it's not like that XD When you plead insane, it's pleading that you were insane at the time of the crime, not all the time.The plea of insanity is used all to often in murder cases. A plea of insanity buys you less jail time, and sees you sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison.
I once read a funny thing - in order to plead insane, you have to first be sane. You must know what you are pleading to, and why you are pleading the way you are. So anyone who pleads insanity is not actually insane at all.
Gunface
Well it's not like that XD When you plead insane, it's pleading that you were insane at the time of the crime, not all the time.
Actually it IS like that. :2razz:
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (U.S.)
"the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."
“The Defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
That is close, but not entirely accurate...
Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty when her defense argued that an Irresistible Impulse led her to hack the crank.
Irresistible Impulse is not Insanity, and Temporary Insanity is something else entirely...
They cahnged the law though, since Bobbitt committed her act. The Penal Code of the U.S. state of California states (2002), "The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished ... there shall be no defense of ... diminished responsibility or Irresistible Impulse..."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?