Insanity Plea

[Gunface]

Am I the only one immature enough to get a laugh out of

The Penal Code of the U.S. state of California states...

Yes? Okay. XD

 

[BodiSatva]

Yes. It is just a typo.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

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 believe that if there is any chance of curing the person, or at least allowing them to appreciate the work being done for them, then we should try to cure them. The bridge metaphor was apt; another example is one I found in a newspaper: a woman who sells her child to pornographers is evil, and should be punished. A woman who kills her child in an oven because voices told her to "bake the devil out of him" is crazy, and should be helped. It seems unfair to kill someone who was unaware of their crime.

 

[BodiSatva]

But isn't that person just as sane as a person that has "temporary insanity" or a person that we might just describe as having no morals? What is the difference? I say that it DOES NOT MATTER. It is, by its very nature, insane to murder another person. Since the act of murder requires an insane person, there should be no Insanity Defense. The legal definition of Murder should be altered so that it takes this into account.

 

[Dezaad]

But isn't that person just as sane as a person that has "temporary insanity" or a person that we might just describe as having no morals? What is the difference? I say that it DOES NOT MATTER. It is, by its very nature, insane to murder another person. Since the act of murder requires an insane person, there should be no Insanity Defense. The legal definition of Murder should be altered so that it takes this into account.

Your argument hinges on your belief that all egregiously irrational acts indicate insanity as follows:

1) Murder is an egregiously irrational act.
2) All egregiously irrational acts indicate insanity.
3) At least some people who commit murder were clearly capable of understanding the moral nature of their murderous act.
Therefore:
4) Insanity never indicates that a person was incapable of understanding the moral nature of their murderous acts.
Therefore:
5) There should be no insanity defense that leads to a not guilty verdict.

There are two places this argument can fall apart. One is at premise 2, the other is at conclusion 4, which does not necessarily follow. 4 can fail if it turns out to be the case that all murderers are indeed insane, but only some insane people can understand the moral nature of their acts. 2 can fail depending on how insane is defined.

You seem to define "insane person" as one who engages in egregiously irrational acts. Isn't it possible that insanity causes people to engage in egregiously irrational acts, but that some other people also engage in them?

 

[Dezaad]

The law recognizes insanity for the purposes of an 'insanity defense' to mean:

[the state of being] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [one's] acts

Bodisatva: Do you contend that the above defined state never exists in (adult) humans?

You have stated that Murder is so irrational that it is inherently insane. But, surely you are not saying that all Murderers fit the legal definition. Instead, you are saying that no Murderers and therefore, no Insane People, fit the above definition, correct?

You base your rejection of the possibility of the legal definition on what?

Is the following your argument? Because Murder is inherently vastly irrational, it is insane (meaning not of sound mind; mentally deranged). Some people who commit murder are able to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of one's acts. Therefore, legal insanity (meaning unable to appreciate the quality or the wrongfulness of one's acts) cannot exist.

This argument falls apart because it is possible that only some of the people who are "not of sound mind; mentally deranged" are also "unable to appreciate the quality or the wrongfulness of one's acts", and that the remainder are not. This remainder may be responsible for some of the murders.

The difficulty in understanding the failure of the argument is due to using two definitions of insanity in a single argument.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

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.

And so you contend that it is perfectly mentally stable to premeditate the murder of another? How normal is a mind which contemplates to the point of action the killing in cold blood of another human being.

I think it is a moral and a mental issue.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And so you contend that it is perfectly mentally stable to premeditate the murder of another? How normal is a mind which contemplates to the point of action the killing in cold blood of another human being.

I think it is a moral and a mental issue.

Sanity and morality are not synonyms. One can be quite sane and immoral.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Edify_Always_In_All_Ways
I believe that if there is any chance of curing the person, or at least allowing them to appreciate the work being done for them, then we should try to cure them. The bridge metaphor was apt; another example is one I found in a newspaper: a woman who sells her child to pornographers is evil, and should be punished. A woman who kills her child in an oven because voices told her to "bake the devil out of him" is crazy, and should be helped. It seems unfair to kill someone who was unaware of their crime.

Both of those women are Insane.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Dezaad
The difficulty in understanding the failure of the argument is due to using two definitions of insanity in a single argument.

You are operating on the Assumption that there IS a failure of the argument.

 

[disneydude]

Let me use an example:

#1 - Guy comes home catches wife in bed with another man. Guy becomes enraged and gets a gun and kills wife and man.

#2 - Guy feels screwed over by business partner, get a gun drives to work and kills partner

#3 - Guy suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Guy believes that his brain has been implanted with a computer chip and that aliens are controlling his actions. Guy believes that the only way he can stay alive is by drinking massive amounts of carrot juice. Guy comes to believe that wife is an alien and slits her throat killing her. When police arrive at location they find 7 50 lb. bags of carrot, numerous empty bags and 3 juicers in the sink. There is carrot pulp all over the kitchen.


These are all three real cases that I have handled.

The first one is a classic "Heat of Passion" which reduces Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter due to lack of premeditation/deliberation and a recognition that the individual was overcome by extreme emotion.

The second is classic murder in the first degree

The third was an NGI - Not guilty by reason of insanity. It was clear that the guy was so mentally deficient that he wasn't acting with malice but rather was acting on a delusional belief.

What most people don't understand is that the law punishes similar acts differently based upon the mental intent of the individual. I think most people would agree that a person who coldly calculates and plans to kill someone deserves a greater punishment than an individual who kills based on emotional outrage or on a delusion caused by mental illness.
That is what insanity is about in a nutshell.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

Sanity and morality are not synonyms. One can be quite sane and immoral.

No one contended that they were synonomous.

You didn't address the most significant part of that post. Can a stable mind contemplate to the point of action the murder in cold blood of another human being?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No one contended that they were synonomous.

You didn't address the most significant part of that post. Can a stable mind contemplate to the point of action the murder in cold blood of another human being?

Absolutely. Doesn't your faith allow you the justification if your god commanded it? Didn't your Saint Thomas Aquinas say that heretics should be put to death?

Immorality is not necessarily the result of mental instability. A human being can build a nuclear bomb and still think he's going to get those 72 virgins.

 

[BodiSatva]

Dezaad

What are you? A Lawyer? :lol:

I studied Law and I don't even talk as Lawyerly as you do!

I appreciate your questions. I don't get on as much lately and when I do, I am exhausted. It is night-night time for me 30 minutes ago. 2 little kids and work and all that stuff... :roll:

Haha, just joking, I love it, but I am tired. Here goes, I am not sure how rational my thinking is though...

Dezaad
You seem to define "insane person" as one who engages in egregiously irrational acts.

Essentialy...yes.

Dezaad
Isn't it possible that insanity causes people to engage in egregiously irrational acts, but that some other people also engage in them?

No. Any person that engages in egregiously irrational acts is Insane on some level. Whether it is torturing a cat, shooting racoons for fun, sticking your finger up your butt to stop a stomach ach, beating your wife, rooting for the Red Sox, killing a person intentionally... All of these acts and many more that I could describe describe an insane person to a varying degree. But once a person has reached ANY degree of Insanity, they are Insane.

Dezaad
[the state of being] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [one's] acts

Bodisatva: Do you contend that the above defined state never exists in (adult) humans? Yes

You have stated that Murder is so irrational that it is inherently insane. Yep But, surely you are not saying that all Murderers fit the legal definition. Yes, I am Instead, you are saying that no Murderers and therefore, no Insane People, fit the above definition, correct? I cannot even fathom what this means, that seems like the complete opposite, and in my tired state, that seems to make no sense at all.

You base your rejection of the possibility of the legal definition on what? I don't. I think that it should be enhanced to include All Murderers or Abolished so that a new definition can be attributed to Murder.

Is the following your argument? Because Murder is inherently vastly irrational, it is insane (meaning not of sound mind; mentally deranged). Yes Some people who commit murder are able to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of one's acts. Irrelevant. Therefore, legal insanity (meaning unable to appreciate the quality or the wrongfulness of one's acts) cannot exist. Legal Insanity might not exist, I am not sure what you are getting at there...but the Insanity does exist...

This argument falls apart because it is possible that only some of the people who are "not of sound mind; mentally deranged" are also "unable to appreciate the quality or the wrongfulness of one's acts", and that the remainder are not. This remainder may be responsible for some of the murders. That is just it. Responsibility is Irrelevant. It is understood that they are Insane for committing such an act and therefore understood that they are Insane. Appreciating their crime or understanding the wrongfulness of it is Irrelevant. They did it. It is done. They are Insane. They Murdered another. They should be punished accordingly...

The difficulty in understanding the failure of the argument is due to using two definitions of insanity in a single argument.

There is no failure to the argument since I am re-writing the rules.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

Absolutely. Doesn't your faith allow you the justification if your god commanded it? Didn't your Saint Thomas Aquinas say that heretics should be put to death?

Immorality is not necessarily the result of mental instability. A human being can build a nuclear bomb and still think he's going to get those 72 virgins.

He's not my saint. And it is unbiblical to kill people for heresy inspite of what misguided people did in times past who drug the name of Christ and Christianity through the mud.

"For though we walk in the flesh we do not war after the flesh:For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down of IMAGINATIONS and every high thing that exalteth itself against the KNOWLEDGE of God..."
II Cor. 10

Our battle ground is the mind. Our weapons are reason and conviction- the impartation of the knowledge of the truth. This is how our converts are made- not by threats of death.

Any religion that would use threats of death to make converts is a religion of insanity.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

He's not my saint. And it is unbiblical to kill people for heresy inspite of what misguided people did in times past who drug the name of Christ and Christianity through the mud.

Any religion that would use threats of death to make converts is a religion of insanity.

And in Luke 19:27 did Christ not say to kill the unbelievers?

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

One needs to look no further than the Bible itself, to find mud. Need I remind you of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy of the Old Testament. You can't pick and choose the nice passages and then in the next breath call yourself a fundamentalist.

Either the book should be taken literally and you're insane, or you commit the Theologically bankrupt practice of cherry-picking.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

And in Luke 19:27 did Christ not say to kill the unbelievers?

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

One needs to look no further than the Bible itself, to find mud. Need I remind you of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy of the Old Testament. You can't pick and choose the nice passages and then in the next breath call yourself a fundamentalist.

Either the book should be taken literally and you're insane, or you commit the Theologically bankrupt practice of cherry-picking.

Your comments display your sore lack of understanding of the Bible.

The passage in Luke is a parable illustrating what God himself will do on Judgment Day to all who arrogantly refuse Him and his love and the sacrifice of His Son for their sins. It is not a passage comanding the followers of Christ to kill unbelievers. For you to insinuate that illustrates your horrible lack of biblical understanding.

The words you type on this forum are not the words of a person who is neutral or is in pursuit of the truth. They are the words of someone who is bitter at God. It forces me to wonder what happened in your life that caused you to feel so antagonistic toward your Maker.

 

[Flea]

Please take your bible talk to the appropriate forum. Thanks.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

I was unaware that the Bible is inappropiate anywhere- especially in a free society.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Please take your bible talk to the appropriate forum. Thanks.

If you're going to concern yourself with what I post, and make requests of that nature, "Please" attempt to check the post in which my "bible talk" is a relevant rebuttal to.

He claimed that one could not be sane and immoral, I put forward the fact that one could build a nuclear bomb and still believe he's getting those 72 virgins.

It was not bible talk, it was an example of immorality.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Your comments display your sore lack of understanding of the Bible.

The passage in Luke is a parable illustrating what God himself will do on Judgment Day to all who arrogantly refuse Him and his love and the sacrifice of His Son for their sins.

Actually, you're mistaken. This parable is about a austere noble who is hated by his citizens. After he deals with this "reap what you sow" lesson with his servants who makes something out of the money he gave them, he states that all those who refuse to be ruled are his enemies, and shall be executed in his presence.

Is that supposed to be behavior that we are supposed to get our morality from? Its okay to kill citizens who refuse to be ruled by a hated tyrant?

Or perhaps you're right and God plans to execute all heretics at judgement day... Because that makes so much sense...:roll:

This could not apply to judgement day, because heretics don't necessarily know your god exists to hate him. Nor have they been given an opportunity to be ruled. There is no evidence that your god has ever issued such a declaration for us to defy.

It is not a passage comanding the followers of Christ to kill unbelievers. For you to insinuate that illustrates your horrible lack of biblical understanding.

Well please enlighten me. What lesson was intended by the idea that those who refuse to be ruled must be killed?

The words you type on this forum are not the words of a person who is neutral or is in pursuit of the truth. They are the words of someone who is bitter at God. It forces me to wonder what happened in your life that caused you to feel so antagonistic toward your Maker.

Bitter at god? Don't flatter yourself. Your god gets no more special attention than Jupiter or Poseidon.

You're the one who is opposed to science, and you want to call me anti-truth.

 

[Flea]

Thank you Lachean, I missed that part and it is indeed relevant. You may proceed. :lol:

 

[Flea]

What does appropriate have to do with freedom? Nothing.

I am free to walk into a park and start preaching from the top of the monkey bars about the immorality of couples that aren't married, but that is not appropriate when there are children playing in the sandbox next to me.

So Yes, Noah, the bible is, in fact, inappropriate in certain situations. Don't delude yourself now. :roll:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Thank you Lachean, I missed that part and it is indeed relevant. You may proceed. :lol:

No problem at all, sorry if I was too hostile. Admitting error earns you a place on my "oh he posted something" cool list.

I was unaware that the Bible is inappropiate anywhere- especially in a free society.

Is the Koran appropriate everywhere? How about Harry Potter? How about playboy? (Do you see my point?)

 

[Noah's Hammer]

No problem at all, sorry if I was too hostile. Admitting error earns you a place on my "oh he posted something" cool list.



Is the Koran appropriate everywhere? How about Harry Potter? How about playboy? (Do you see my point?)

It's a parable about the severity of Judgment Day. No real Bible student thinks any different.

What science have I opposed in any post of mine. Theory is not proven science. Real science doesn't claim as fact which has not been proven. Therefore you are the one who is opposed to science dear friend.