A Schizophrenic Murderer

[A Tripolation]

So, a man comes home from work to see his wife tied up and being raped. This man shoots and kills the unarmed rapist.

 

Should this man be killed?

 

 

Indeed, let's keep all criminals locked up forever.

 

 

Yes, how could I forget that our military is defensive rather than offensive? Wait a minute......

 

1. No. He was defending his family.

 

2. I think statistics show most criminals reoffend after being "rehabilitated".

 

3. I hardly see attacking a sect that has openly declared war on your civilians as being "offensive".

[ydoaPs]

1. No. He was defending his family.

He was a violent offender. The rapist was unarmed and there is no reason to believe the woman's live was in danger.

 

2. I think statistics show most criminals reoffend after being "rehabilitated".

So, we should do it better. With that attitude, we'd never have any progress. "well, it doesn't work THAT well....so let's just give up!"

 

3. I hardly see attacking a sect that has openly declared war on your civilians as being "offensive".

You know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, right? You know that the vast majority of our military occupations have nothing to do with 9/11, right? You know that the evidence shows that most suicide terrorism is in response to occupation, right?

[rigney]

1. No. He was defending his family.

 

2. I think statistics show most criminals reoffend after being "rehabilitated".

 

3. I hardly see attacking a sect that has openly declared war on your civilians as being "offensive".

 

It's a lose lose situation Trip. ydaoPs dances to a drum beat that neither you nor I hear. That is, until something happens to hm. Then all hell will break loose and you'll hear every sound allowable in the universe.

[ydoaPs]

It's a lose lose situation Trip. ydaoPs dances to a drum beat that neither you nor I hear. That is, until something happens to hm. Then all hell will break loose and you'll hear every sound allowable in the universe.

Nice baseless assertion there.

[A Tripolation]

He was a violent offender. The rapist was unarmed and there is no reason to believe the woman's live was in danger.

 

 

So, we should do it better. With that attitude, we'd never have any progress. "well, it doesn't work THAT well....so let's just give up!"

 

 

You know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, right? You know that the vast majority of our military occupations have nothing to do with 9/11, right? You know that the evidence shows that most suicide terrorism is in response to occupation, right?

 

1. It's not violence if it's defense. And rape is classified as an attack. That's...you know...a law. It's actually considered a violent crime, even if perpetrated without weapons. Show me a legal precedent where that isn't the case.

 

2. Psychology is mostly shots-in-the-dark attempts at analyzing the brain. Progress is unlikely.

 

3. I know all of those things. However, 9/11 was an open attack on US soil, against US civilians. Any society would take that as a declaration of war.

 

And it's nice to know that if I ever wanted to rob you, I can anticipate no use of violence against me. How easy twill be!

Edited November 12, 2010 by A Tripolation

[rigney]

Learn to use the quote feature.

Why?

 

Nice baseless assertion there.

Was it really?

[divagreen]

2. I think statistics show most criminals reoffend after being "rehabilitated".

 

I assume you will be able to cite your source.

[rigney]

I assume you will be able to cite your source.

 

This may not the best answer, but it is off the internet.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/354644/once_a_criminal_always_a_criminal_rehabilitation.html

Edited November 12, 2010 by rigney

[HerpetologyFangirl]

You can ask me as many questions as you like, but I believe that there isn't a single circumstance which would make it aceptable for me to take another person's life, whether it was in self-defence, the defence of one of my loved ones or a stranger, whether I was ordered to by an important person, like if I was a soldier, or anything else. I might not live very long having these beliefs, but at least I am confident that I will die with clean hands and a clean conscience. I will die without fear of whatever is coming next, and without regrets, even if my inability to kill resulted in others being hurt, and prevented me from helping other people. That is my unwavering opinion on the matter.

[A Tripolation]

You can ask me as many questions as you like, but I believe that there isn't a single circumstance which would make it aceptable for me to take another person's life, whether it was in self-defence, the defence of one of my loved ones or a stranger, whether I was ordered to by an important person, like if I was a soldier, or anything else. I might not live very long having these beliefs, but at least I am confident that I will die with clean hands and a clean conscience. I will die without fear of whatever is coming next, and without regrets, even if my inability to kill resulted in others being hurt, and prevented me from helping other people. That is my unwavering opinion on the matter.

 

Even though I disagree with every aspect of your thoughts, and think inaction in some situations is the same as killing the people you didn't protect, I greatly respect your dedication to your ideology. Not many people have that.

[rigney]

Even though I disagree with every aspect of your thoughts, and think inaction in some situations is the same as killing the people you didn't protect, I greatly respect your dedication to your ideology. Not many people have that.

That's the beauty of life Trip, most of us are allowed to slue around many times before setting a true course.

Edited November 15, 2010 by rigney

[HerpetologyFangirl]

Even though I disagree with every aspect of your thoughts, and think inaction in some situations is the same as killing the people you didn't protect, I greatly respect your dedication to your ideology. Not many people have that.

 

 

Thank you. Respect is all I've ever wanted. It's one of the main reasons I'm planning on getting my Ph.D. You can probably tell I was bullied all through grades 1 to 12. I'm impressed that you have enough character to be comfortable with 'to each their own', and not trying to force me to see things your way. That shows me that you're a good sort of person.

[random]

Yeah this is definitely turning into a personal ethics debate and therefore nothing productive is coming out of it. It seems many are unwilling to show any form of empathy or compassion at all. Rather they are stuck on how their opinion is perceived by people they will never meet off line. Supposed to be a forum for intelligent conversation and debate but it seems the people allow emmotion to overide structured thinking. Several have admitted acceptance to what they believe is "justifiable" homicide hmmmmm. So........... It's perfectly o.k. for an individual of sound mind to kill for a reason society considers protective or out of neccessity but it is unacceptable for the mentally ill to kill for what their disorganized thinking and delusional frame of mind considers reasonable ?. Not to mention the stable person was clearly coherent but their defence will argue some form of temporary mental incapacity as present to justify the actions.

Seems that in many cases of "justifiable" homicide the only reason the person is allowed to escape or minimize punishment is with the vague "temporary insanity" plea. Therefore society does not even consider such acts as acceptable and it therefore places your opinion of "justifiable" as just that, a personal opinion. So I believe I have just provided a good argument as to why your thinking is flawed and hypocritical and now I await your reply.

[Marat]

The reason in legal theory why a schizophrenic murderer isn't punished is as follows: In ancient law, people were punished purely for what they did, regardless of what their intention or mental state was. If you accidentally tripped, bumped into another person, and the other person fell over and knocked someone over the edge of a bridge, you were guilty of murder because your action was wrong. But modern law advanced several centuries ago to appreciate that legal guilt should be a matter of two factors: the wrongful act and the wrongful state of mind of the offender. So now, in order to be guilty of murder, you not only have to kill someone but also you have to know what you are doing when you kill them and do it deliberately. These two elements which are necessary to convict anyone of any serious crime are called the 'actus reus' (the thing done) and the 'mens rea' (the mental attitude). Both have to be present for criminal guilt to exist.

 

In the case of a schizophrenic who does not know what he is doing when he kills someone, lawyers say that 'his mind does not go with his act,' because when he killed someone he thought (perhaps) he was just lopping the head off a daisy. He is really no more guilty of murder than someone tripping and causing someone else to fall off a bridge. The McNaugton rules (from an 1842 ruling) used in most common law jurisdictions clarify this point by stating that a criminal must know 'the nature of his act and the fact that it is wrong' before he can be criminally liable for it.

 

That said, being imprisoned in a state mental hospital is no picnic and is in many ways a worse punishment than going to a regular prison, where at least there are decent recreational and rehabilitative programs, as opposed to forced feedings, electroshock 'therapy,' abusive imposition of psychiatric 'medications,' and the company of violent and dangerous lunatics.

[imatfaal]

So now, in order to be guilty of murder, you not only have to kill someone but also you have to know what you are doing when you kill them and do it deliberately. These two elements which are necessary to convict anyone of any serious crime are called the 'actus reus' (the thing done) and the 'mens rea' (the mental attitude). Both have to be present for criminal guilt to exist.

Out of curiosity, I would like to see a source for the type of case that has someone convicted for completely accidental occurrence. The intent required for a murder conviction is very rarely limited at a desire to kill, it normally also includes an intent to seriously injure and in the past other things (any deliberate act within the commission of a felony etc). For those interested in the derivation of words/phrases "actus reus" and "mens rea" translate as "culprit's act" and "culprit's mind" which shows an interesting prejudgment.

In the case of a schizophrenic who does not know what he is doing when he kills someone, lawyers say that 'his mind does not go with his act,' because when he killed someone he thought (perhaps) he was just lopping the head off a daisy. He is really no more guilty of murder than someone tripping and causing someone else to fall off a bridge. The McNaugton rules (from an 1842 ruling) used in most common law jurisdictions clarify this point by stating that a criminal must know 'the nature of his act and the fact that it is wrong' before he can be criminally liable for it.

The M'Naghten rules (not McNaughton spelled different sounds the same) clarify nothing - they are an incredibly poor set of guidelines that cause more trouble than they solve. Most modern courts tend to acknowledge the M'Naghten rules, but then within the constraints come up with a more sensible set of ideas. Fitness to plead is often seen as a useful mechanism for removing those from the criminal justice system who do not have the competence to be there.

[Marat]

If you look through ancient and medieval law, there are countless examples where all sorts of injuries were punished as wrongs regardless of the actor's intent or mental state. The wrong was the negative act, pure and simple. This is why there was even judicial punishment of animals and inanimate objects if they were associated with injuries, such as an oak tree into which someone ran his wagon and was killed being chopped down by the public executioner. Evans, 'The Judicial Punishment of Animals' (1907, but available in modern reprint) has many examples of these incidents.

 

If you notice, I began my post by saying that this was the approach taken "in legal theory." I am not saying that the M'Naghton rules are sensible, just that those are what are used in many common law jurisdictions. The absurdity of those rules is that they require an insane person to have the right type of delusion for him to be innocent. Thus if a schizophrenic believes he is shooting someone in self-defense because the person is lunging at him with a sword (but is in fact merely pointing with a pencil) then he does not have criminal responsibility. But if he believes he is shooting someone because he is the King of Siam and deserves to die for dancing poorly with Julie Andrews in 'The King and I,' then the schizophrenic is guilty, because this type of delusion doesn't make his act justifiable in self-defense. Something more sensible should be substituted, such as a defense of 'global disorientation of the intellect.'

[imatfaal]

You seemed to say that the M'Naghten rules clarified matters - and I took issue with that point. Your subsequent post is more in line with my thinking, although I would add that anything other than case by case investigation is bound to lead to injustice. On the point of purely accidental homicide being adjudged as murder - I have looked through much ancient and medieval law and those sorts of cases are not numerous; the inanimate object point is a little marginal as not only is it not similar but also many of these accounts are apocryphal and/or the court is acting deliberately perversely.