The insanity plea.....

[Oxymoron]

Okay, i'm probably going to kick myself for starting this thread but here goes...

I was having a conversation with my Nana the other day. We were discussing murderers and people that submit the insanity plea as a defense.

Think about for one moment, what it would take, or what it must take for a person to just murder another person, say, in cold blood. I'm not talking about self-defense, or accidental death or anything else like that, i'm talking about cold blooded murder.

Just killing a person for no reason at all. I would like to imagine that most of us, can not really grasp this idea. Because we are normal. (whatever that means.) I would like to think that most people do not walk around with fleeting urges to just kill someone.

Now, if this is true, then is it fair to say, that anyone who does kill, is obviously insane? Wouldn't it take insanity to murder another human being for no reason at all. In cold blood.

Let me know what you all think. :)

[BPSCG]

Because we are normal. (whatever that means.) I would like to think that most people do not walk around with fleeting urges to just kill someone. Are you kidding? I get that urge about eighteen times every Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6:30 and 7:00 am, along interstate 95 going north between Alexandria, Virginia and New Carrollton, Maryland.

Now, if this is true, then is it fair to say, that anyone who does kill, is obviously insane? Wouldn't it take insanity to murder another human being for no reason at all. In cold blood.Mark Twain at his raw, jeering best, regarding a prominent murder trial:

But first and last, the splendid feature of the McFarland comedy was the insanity part of it. Where the occasion was for dragging in that poor old threadbare lawyer-trick, is not perceptible, except it was to make a show of difficulty in winning a verdict that would have won itself without ever a lawyer to meddle with the case. Heaven knows insanity was disreputable enough, long ago; but now that the lawyers have got to cutting every gallows rope and picking every prison lock with it, it is become a sneaking villainy that ought to hang and keep on hanging its sudden possessors until evil doers should conclude that the safest plan was to never claim to have it until they came by it legitimately. The very calibre of the people the lawyers most frequently try to save by the insanity subterfuge, ought to laugh the plea out of the courts, one would think. Any one who watched the proceedings closely in the McFarland-Richardson mockery will believe that the insanity plea was a rather far-fetched compliment to pay the prisoner, inasmuch as one must first have brains before he can go crazy, and there was surely nothing in the evidence to show that McFarland had enough of the raw material to justify him in attempting anything more imposing than a lively form of idiocy.

[Kerberos]

Okay, i'm probably going to kick myself for starting this thread but here goes...

I was having a conversation with my Nana the other day. We were discussing murderers and people that submit the insanity plea as a defense.

Think about for one moment, what it would take, or what it must take for a person to just murder another person, say, in cold blood. I'm not talking about self-defense, or accidental death or anything else like that, i'm talking about cold blooded murder.

Just killing a person for no reason at all. I would like to imagine that most of us, can not really grasp this idea. Because we are normal. (whatever that means.) I would like to think that most people do not walk around with fleeting urges to just kill someone.

Now, if this is true, then is it fair to say, that anyone who does kill, is obviously insane? Wouldn't it take insanity to murder another human being for no reason at all. In cold blood.

Let me know what you all think. :)
Well for no reason at all, yes, but I think that's pretty rare. Most murders happen for some reason. Usually one that makes at least a bit of sense. Not perhaps something most of us would kill for, but something that would piss of us, hurt us or something. Even the "insane" reasons are frequently not so much reasons that make no sense whatsoever, but just absolutely ludicrous overreactions.

[ponderingturtle]

Well for no reason at all, yes, but I think that's pretty rare. Most murders happen for some reason. Usually one that makes at least a bit of sense. Not perhaps something most of us would kill for, but something that would piss of us, hurt us or something. Even the "insane" reasons are frequently not so much reasons that make no sense whatsoever, but just absolutely ludicrous overreactions.

Exactly, there is never no reason, the reason might be "they are ploting with the leprechaun that lives in my sock draw to rape and murder me" but it is still a reason.

Also clinical and legal definitions of insanity are very different.

[Oxymoron]

Are you kidding? I get that urge about eighteen times every Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6:30 and 7:00 am, along interstate 95 going north between Alexandria, Virginia and New Carrollton, Maryland.

Oh without a doubt, I can understand that kind of rage. ;) The Long Island Expressway.:faint:


Well for no reason at all, yes, but I think that's pretty rare. Most murders happen for some reason. Usually one that makes at least a bit of sense. Not perhaps something most of us would kill for, but something that would piss of us, hurt us or something. Even the "insane" reasons are frequently not so much reasons that make no sense whatsoever, but just absolutely ludicrous overreactions.


Well, I agree. I suppose saying, "no reason at all" was a loose phrase. Yes of course there are reasons. I was thinking more along the lines that those "reasons" whatever they are, to a "sane" person wouldn't constitute murder. I also want to add that I don't believe these people should be excused on the notion of insanity. Just add them to the general population of inmates. They shouldn't get "special" treatment like put in an asylum because they're insane. Of course they are, they opted to kill someone. The whole thing is kind of a farse, as noted by BPSCG.

I just kind of think you would have to be insane in the first place, to kill someone in cold blood. :)

[Kerberos]

Well, I agree. I suppose saying, "no reason at all" was a loose phrase. Yes of course there are reasons. I was thinking more along the lines that those "reasons" whatever they are, to a "sane" person wouldn't constitute murder. I also want to add that I don't believe these people should be excused on the notion of insanity. Just add them to the general population of inmates. They shouldn't get "special" treatment like put in an asylum because they're insane. Of course they are, they opted to kill someone. The whole thing is kind of a farse, as noted by BPSCG.

I just kind of think you would have to be insane in the first place, to kill someone in cold blood. :)
Again not all murders are done in cold blood, probably a minority of them. If you come home and find you girlfriend (or boyfriend) in bed with some other guy(/girl) and kill either or both that's not evidence of insanity, only rage. People also murder for personal gain, a perfectly rational, if unsympathetic, motive. The person who murders because of the leprechauns told him to is. I'll grant you that there are perhaps people who pull of an insanity defence who shouldn't have gotten away with that, but to dismiss the concept of the insanity plea with the rather dubious postulate that "all murderers are insane" just doesn't hold water.

ETA: there are even murders done for reasons so "normal" and "rational" tha many nonmurderes will feel a high degree of sympathy for the culbrits, I recall a case where some children (grown or near to it) and IRRC their mother too killed the father who had systematically abused the family their whole life. They got a very light (suspended IIRC) sentence, but not becasue of insanity.

[Oxymoron]

Again not all murders are done in cold blood, probably a minority of them. If you come home and find you girlfriend (or boyfriend) in bed with some other guy(/girl) and kill either or both that's not evidence of insanity, only rage. People also murder for personal gain, a perfectly rational, if unsympathetic, motive. The person who murders because of the leprechauns told him to is. I'll grant you that there are perhaps people who pull of an insanity defence who shouldn't have gotten away with that, but to dismiss the concept of the insanity plea with the rather dubious postulate that "all murderers are insane" just doesn't hold water.

Okay okay, I concede. Poor choice in words. Jeez. Murderers do not kill for no reason. (or for the most part). But why doesn't it hold water? I don't think I could make the arguement, sane people kill people sometimes. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that have found cheating spouses etc, and didn't kill them. Or people that have been enraged, but didn't kill someone. Hell, i've been enraged before, but I never felt like murdering. This is where I have trouble with your view. Never-the-less I am completely open to seeing your side of it, if you can convince me. lol. :)

edit: BTW, how can murdering for personal gain be a rational thought?

[SteveGrenard]

Here's a very famous case defended by Clarence Darrow that touches are the subject matter:

Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb, Crime of the 20th century - Crime ...
Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb, two very rich and genius-level young men, cold bloodedly planned the perfect murder of a child for the thrill of getting away ...www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/index_1.htmlthe

following excerpted from:


http://www.prairieghosts.com/leopold.html

On an afternoon in May 1924, the sons of two of Chicago’s wealthiest and most illustrious families drove to the Harvard School for boys in Kenwood and kidnapped a young boy named Bobby Franks. Their plan was to carry out the “perfect murder”... a scheme so devious that only two men of superior intellect, such as their own, could accomplish. These two men were Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. They were the privileged heirs of well-known Chicago families who had embarked on a life of crime for fun and for the pure thrill of it. There were also a pair of sexual deviants who considered themselves to be brilliant -- a claim that would later lead to their downfall. When captured, the case became known as "the trial of the century".

http://www.prairieghosts.com/leopold.html

Leopold and Loeb are about as close as you can get to comitting murder for no reason at all ... at least not any of the reasons we think of for comitting murder. Leopold and Loeb killed Bobby Franks at random, simply because they could and felt the need to experience the thrill of getting away with murder.

[Darth Rotor]

edit: BTW, how can murdering for personal gain be a rational thought?
Greed. The steps to rational murder for personal gain are easily laid out. I don't understand why you assume someone is insane to think he or she can advance their position in life via murder. One first only need to be very self centered and selfish, and then not really give a crap about other people, or perhaps only one other person, who is seen as an obstacle to self promotion.

Look at some simple steps from any murder mystery, and even some real cases, of a lady marrying a man and either poisoning or killing him to inherit his estate.

1. Marry man
2. Fall out of love, or not be in love in the first place.
3. In the will
4. Greedy
5. Dislike and resentment feed greed and motive.
6. Poison in the soup, "car accident" "accidental shooting" "heart attack when making whoopie"
7. Inherit the dough
8. Rich, and perhaps happier, and possibly no feelings of guilt since "that bastard deserved it anyway, since he made me unhappy, or didn't make me hapy enough."
9. Live happily ever after. (Until Mike Hammer shows up, or Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Perot, Matlock or whomever.)

That is a rational process. Callous? Sure. Selfish? Sure. Irrational? No.

I'll also point out that strong emotion (be it negative or positive) does not equal insanity. Though it may not be 100% rational, emotion works in harmony with the rational mind to set up the above deed, particularly once the perp has convinced herself that she'll get away with it.

DR

[fuelair]

Are you kidding? I get that urge about eighteen times every Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6:30 and 7:00 am, along interstate 95 going north between Alexandria, Virginia and New Carrollton, Maryland.

:

You must be going to heaven 'cause you HAVE served your time in Hell!!!:D :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

[Oxymoron]

Greed. The steps to rational murder for personal gain are easily laid out. I don't understand why you assume someone is insane to think he or she can advance their position in life via murder. One first only need to be very self centered and selfish, and then not really give a crap about other people, or perhaps only one other person, who is seen as an obstacle to self promition.

Look at some simple steps from any murder mystery, and even some real cases, of a lady marrying a man and either poisoning or killing him to inherit his estate.

1. Marry man
2. Fall out of love, or not be in love in the first place.
3. In the will
4. Greedy
5. Dislike and resentment feed greed.
6. Poison in the soup.
7. Inherit the dough
8. Rich, and perhaps happier, and possibly no feelings of guilt since "that bastard deserved it anyway, since he made me unhappy, or didn't make me hapy enough."
9. Live happily ever after. (Until Mike Hammer shows up, or Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Perot, Matlock or whoever.)

That is a rational process. Callous? Sure. Irrational? No.

I'll also point out that strong emotion (be it negative or positive) does not equal insanity. Though it may not be 100% rational, it works in harmony with the rational mind to set up the above deed, particularly once the perp has convinced herself that she'll get away with it.

DR


I happen to write murder/mysteries. Well attempt to write them I should say. I can see how the process of thought is rational. But the result however is not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming anything here. Insane or sane. I'm trying to see both sides of the arguement. I'm just thinking out loud, and thought it would make a good thread.:)

Yes, to pre-meditate or plan out anothers demise, may be a rational thought process. Just like planning out my budget for the next few months, but to come to the conclusion that murder has to be the end result and overall goal of said process just doesn't jive with me. Sure someone can plot out a murder, so carefully they believe they can get away with it, but isn't that very idea, some what insane? Or out of touch with reality?

Take the Scott Peterson case, just about everyone is familiar with this one. Could you say he was sane while he planned the murders and when he executed the plan. I don't know. I'm just not convinced that you can be of sound mind and commit such a heinous act. But, as I noted before, I'm open to anyone who can convince me otherwise.:D

[Oxymoron]

Here's a very famous case defended by Clarence Darrow that touches are the subject matter:

Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb, Crime of the 20th century - Crime ...
Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb, two very rich and genius-level young men, cold bloodedly planned the perfect murder of a child for the thrill of getting away ...www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/index_1.htmlthe (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/index_1.htmlthe)

following excerpted from:



Leopold and Loeb are about as close as you can get to comitting murder for no reason at all ... at least not any of the reasons we think of for comitting murder. Leopold and Loeb killed Bobby Franks at random, simply because they could and felt the need to experience the thrill of getting away with murder.


Interesting post. Isn't there a saying, something like...there is a fine line between genius and insanity?

[BPSCG]

..."they are ploting with the leprechaun that lives in my sock draw to rape and murder me" They're in your drawers, too? :jaw-dropp


Do yours sing, too? :jaw-dropp
"Time to go to work! Work all night!
Search for underpants hey!
We won't stop until we have underpants!
Yum tum yummy tum hey!"

[Dancing David]

Okay, i'm probably going to kick myself for starting this thread but here goes...

I was having a conversation with my Nana the other day. We were discussing murderers and people that submit the insanity plea as a defense.

Think about for one moment, what it would take, or what it must take for a person to just murder another person, say, in cold blood. I'm not talking about self-defense, or accidental death or anything else like that, i'm talking about cold blooded murder.

Just killing a person for no reason at all. I would like to imagine that most of us, can not really grasp this idea. Because we are normal. (whatever that means.) I would like to think that most people do not walk around with fleeting urges to just kill someone.

Now, if this is true, then is it fair to say, that anyone who does kill, is obviously insane? Wouldn't it take insanity to murder another human being for no reason at all. In cold blood.

Let me know what you all think. :)


It might or migght not, a person who pleads NGRI (and in Illinois still ends up doing time) will have a reason , like paranoia or temporal lobe seizure making them think the person is trying to kill them.

Sociopathy is different.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm just not convinced that you can be of sound mind and commit such a heinous act.
Oh, very much so. The emotion and reason ebb and flow like the tides. Given the detail he went into in order to get away with it, I'd say he was very much of sound mind. That his act was heinous isn't in dispute. Where's a hanging when one is needed, anyway? That he controlled any revulsion he may have felt in the process, in order to cut off her head, etc, indicates to me a strong resolve to see his act through to completion. Reason over emotion.

You seem to be measuring someone else's wheat by your bushel. Insanity is not defined as "someone who thinks differently from you."

People have been killing one another for a very long time. The "honor killings" that come up when discussing some old school Muslim practices, or the stoning laws in the OT, are hardly a matter of insanity. It is a rational, lawful (under that law) activity. You seem to have been culturally indoctrinated otherwise. That is fine, and IMO, a preferred school of thought.

Why do you think that is abnormal behavior? It is anti-social, certainly, and illegal in most cases I can think of, but that does not make it irrational. Robbing a bank is also legally wrong (and I suppose morally, but let's not open that can of worms) but it is a rational approach to getting one's hands on what is in the bank.

DR

[Oxymoron]

I'm not posting this to belittle anyone, just so you know, I decided to look it up and this is what came up. Exactly my point here. People should not be excused from murder just because they're insane. ;)

Definition provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information here (http://web.smarterchild.com/ct?3838276/0).

insanity:

Noun
Inflected forms: pl.in·san·i·ties 1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use. 2. Law a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility. b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed. 3. a. Extreme foolishness; folly. b. Something that is extremely foolish.
Synonyms
insanity, lunacy, madness, mania, dementia
These nouns denote conditions of serious mental disability. Insanity is a grave, often prolonged condition that prevents a person from being held legally responsible for his or her actions: was judged not guilty for reasons of insanity. Lunacy often denotes derangement relieved intermittently by periods of clear-mindedness: yelled wildly in a moment of utter lunacy. Madness often stresses the violent aspect of mental illness: a story about obsession and madness. Mania refers principally to the excited, or manic, phase of bipolar disorder: prescribed drugs to control the patient's periods of mania. Dementia implies mental deterioration brought on by an organic brain disorder: underwent progressive stages of dementia.

[Oxymoron]

You seem to be measuring someone else's wheat with your bushel. Insanity is not defined as "someone who thinks differently from you."
People have been killing one another for a very long time. Why do you think that is abnormal behavior? It is anti social, certainly, and illegal in most cases I can think of, but that does not make it irrational. Robbing a bank is also legally wrong (and I suppose morally, but let's not open that can of worms) but it is a rational approach to getting one's hands on what is in the bank.

DR


Okay. So then, what separates you and I from someone who can murder another? :boggled:

[marksman]

There is a serious difference between clinical insanity and legal insanity.

Not every person with an emotional or mental disorder can murder with impunity.

In order to be declared legally insane, your condition must require that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts"

So having an antisocial disorder isn't a defense. Having anger management issues doesn't get you free. Being a schizophrenic is not necessarily a defense.

We're talking people who think God is commanding them to act due to a quantifiable illness. We're talking people who think the mailman is an alien from Saturn come to such his brains.

Successful insanity defenses are exceedingly rare. Let's remember that Dahmer was unable to use it. Neither could Charles Manson. Were these people clinically insane? You betcha. Was it a defense to their crimes? No.

Here's (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/insanity/11.html) a good article on the subject.

[Oxymoron]

Nice point. I guess that's what i'm kind of leaning toward. Maybe I'm not articulating my thoughts too well. A few conclusions I have come to so far:

A) really don't think people should be able to use the insanity plea to escape responsibility
B) I have this idea that murdering someone is just insane regardless of the motivation
C) there is a difference between plotting to kill someone, thinking about killing, feeling the urge to kill and actually committing the act.

:faint:

Be gentle, really. I'm a delicate flower. LOL.:p

[billydkid]

Now, if this is true, then is it fair to say, that anyone who does kill, is obviously insane? Wouldn't it take insanity to murder another human being for no reason at all. In cold blood.

Let me know what you all think. :)

No, it's not fair to say. People seem to forget that there are genuinely evil people in the world. It could be argued that anything anybody does is the result of what is going on in their brains and for that reason none of us is responsible for what we do. I think the insanity plea should be reserved for those people who genuinely do not have a clue what they are doing - people who are delusional.

[Oxymoron]

No, it's not fair to say. People seem to forget that there are genuinely evil people in the world. It could be argued that anything anybody does is the result of what is going on in their brains and for that reason none of us is responsible for what we do. I think the insanity plea should be reserved for those people who genuinely do not have a clue what they are doing - people who are delusional.


With all respect, not sure I can agree with you. "Evil" is an idea that it seems to me, founded by a biblical definition. Sure there are really screwed up people out there, really screwed up people, but evil? I'm not sure. Hope i'm not nitpicking your use of the term.:blush:

Serial killers for example. Do sane people think chopping up other people and eating them or storing their parts in the freezer is okay? Not sure about that one. I would like to think i'm sane, and that doesn't sound like a nice Sunday afternoon to me.:)

[Skibum]

Okay. So then, what separates you and I from someone who can murder another? :boggled:


Is there really a difference? IMO most people probably have a point at which they would be willing to kill another person.

[ponderingturtle]

Nice point. I guess that's what i'm kind of leaning toward. Maybe I'm not articulating my thoughts too well. A few conclusions I have come to so far:

A) really don't think people should be able to use the insanity plea to escape responsibility
B) I have this idea that murdering someone is just insane regardless of the motivation
C) there is a difference between plotting to kill someone, thinking about killing, feeling the urge to kill and actually committing the act.

:faint:

Be gentle, really. I'm a delicate flower. LOL.:p

You seem to be using a bit of a circular definition of insanity here. Anyone who can carry out a murder is insane, so all murders must be insane. You need to define sanity and insanity first and then see how those definitions fit those who have committed murder.

The way you are doing it is similar to how homosexuals or atheist or anyone who thinks and feels differently from some arbitrary standard are insane. So saying "I can't imagine how anyone sane could commit murder so all murders are insane" is the same fundamental process that says "I can't imagine how any man would want to have sex with another man, so all homosexuals are insane" which was a common professional view point until relatively recently.

[BPSCG]

Okay. So then, what separates you and I from someone who can murder another? :boggled:

Is there really a difference? IMO most people probably have a point at which they would be willing to kill another person."Kill" <> "Murder." So, yes, there is a difference.

[Oxymoron]

Is there really a difference? IMO most people probably have a point at which they would be willing to kill another person.

Well crap. I hope there is a difference. Or we're all in trouble. Killing in true self defense I suppose is one thing. But doing it for another reason. I don't know, seems like muddy water here. Plus, if you've ever seen a victim after they have killed in self defense, for the most part they're pretty shaken up. In therapy for years I would imagine. Doesn't that kind of support the notion that there is a difference between us and them.

[Oxymoron]

You seem to be using a bit of a circular definition of insanity here. Anyone who can carry out a murder is insane, so all murders must be insane. You need to define sanity and insanity first and then see how those definitions fit those who have committed murder.

The way you are doing it is similar to how homosexuals or atheist or anyone who thinks and feels differently from some arbitrary standard are insane. So saying "I can't imagine how anyone sane could commit murder so all murders are insane" is the same fundamental process that says "I can't imagine how any man would want to have sex with another man, so all homosexuals are insane" which was a common professional view point until relatively recently.


I didn't realize it, but you're correct. I am using a circular definition here. Can you say that murder is sane?

(for the record, I don't think homosexuals and athiest are insane.):p

[Skibum]

"Kill" <> "Murder." So, yes, there is a difference.

Legally yes, but both involve the taking of a life.
It boils down to when a persons personal threshold of whether or not they would be able to kill someone is lower than what societies acceptable threshold is.

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't realize it, but you're correct. I am using a circular definition here. Can you say that murder is sane?

It depends on what you define as murder and what you define as sane.

Would you count assisted suicide? Legally it would be, but I don't think many would automatically class any one who helped as insane.


(for the record, I don't think homosexuals and athiest are insane.):p

I didn't think so but the argument works for all X

"I can't imagine anyone doing X and being sane, therefore all who do X are insane"

X can include

Honor Killings
Murder
Homosexuality
Playing Roleplaying games
Being in a non-monogamous relationship
reading scifi
believing in god
disbelieving in god
Going to church
not going to church
having premarital sex
saving their virginity for marriage

I would feel comfortable saying everyone fits into some category that someone else feels in unthinkable, so everyone is insane, so all murders are insane because they fit into the group of everyone.

QED.

[Kerberos]

Okay okay, I concede. Poor choice in words. Jeez. Murderers do not kill for no reason. (or for the most part). But why doesn't it hold water? I don't think I could make the arguement, sane people kill people sometimes. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that have found cheating spouses etc, and didn't kill them. Or people that have been enraged, but didn't kill someone. Hell, i've been enraged before, but I never felt like murdering. This is where I have trouble with your view. Never-the-less I am completely open to seeing your side of it, if you can convince me. lol. :)
Yes some people have found cheating spouses and not killed them. Perhaps they didn't get quite as furious as our murderer, or perhaps they had a stronger aversion to hurting other people. Or perhaps both.

The point is that even if you chose to define any murderer as insane, a definition that is inconsistent with the usual understanding of the word, that does not actually support you position that people who are actually insane according to standard criteria should be treated the same as those who are only insane according to your definition. It just does not follow.

There are people in the world who are mentally equivalent to small children, who have severe delusions or any number of other mental problems. You should really consider what the purpose of throwing people in prison is: Is it deterrence? You can't deter people who talk to pixies or who are actually mentally incapable of understanding what the law is and such. Taking them of the street? A closed institution does that too. What purpose does throwing such people in prison serve?

edit: BTW, how can murdering for personal gain be a rational thought?
How can it not be? You're allowing your ethics to interfere with your rationality ETA: What Darth Rotor said essentially. Ethics are not true or false, and not one set of ethics is no more rational than another. If you consider another person’s life sacred then it might be irrational to kill him, even if you gain by it. If on the other hand you don't attach such importance to it then it's not irrational. Certain other cultures or our own culture in the past have do or have done things we'd consider murder today. Was everybody in the Middle ages insane?

[Skibum]

Plus, if you've ever seen a victim after they have killed in self defense, for the most part they're pretty shaken up. In therapy for years I would imagine. Doesn't that kind of support the notion that there is a difference between us and them.

Actually I have, and not everyone reacts the same way. Some don't have a problem, some lose it. Depends on personality.


Same goes for many situations, some people freak out at the sight of blood yet others have no problem being up to their elbows in it.

[Oxymoron]

It depends on what you define as murder and what you define as sane.

Would you count assisted suicide? Legally it would be, but I don't think many would automatically class any one who helped as insane.



I didn't think so but the argument works for all X

"I can't imagine anyone doing X and being sane, therefore all who do X are insane"

X can include

Honor Killings
Murder
Homosexuality
Playing Roleplaying games
Being in a non-monogamous relationship
reading scifi
believing in god
disbelieving in god
Going to church
not going to church
having premarital sex
saving their virginity for marriage

I would feel comfortable saying everyone fits into some category that someone else feels in unthinkable, so everyone is insane, so all murders are insane because they fit into the group of everyone.

QED.

Point taken, hence the smiley with the tongue sticking out. :D

I don't mean murder in the legal sense of the word. I mean quite literally, taking anothers life because one can. Regardless of the motivation. You could open up a whole other arguement here on assisted suicides, etc. But the meat of my question is really whether or not an individual would have to be insane in order to commit murder. I don't want this to get too fuzzy, with, what about this circumstance or that. How about these scenarios:

A) Person likes the idea of putting on others peoples skin, so...person goes out and kills other people in order to obtain this skin.

B) Person has a bad temper, gets cut off in traffic, person proceeds to run other individual off the road gets out of the vehicle and beats the individual to death.

C) Person feels inferior to others, feels like an outcast. Compiles list of targets and methodically shoots each individual on the list.

D) Person likes snuff films. Decides to make one, finds a victim and proceeds to kill individual while taping the incident.

E) Person (a) steals watch from person (b). Person (b) as a result, seeks out person (a) and stabs person (a) 50 times.

Just off the top of my head, but I'm sure many more examples could be thought of. Question: Are any of these people insane? Or are they perfectly normal well adjusted human beings? Would any of these people have to be insane in order to commit these atrocities? Not just the process of reasoning that went into planning some of these crimes, but also the act of committing them.


Just curious.:covereyes

[roger]

It depends on what you define as murder and what you define as sane.Yes. A big problem is that both are legal definitions, but have many nonlegal connotations in collequial use. Reasoning while using these words is very difficult - it's easy to be lead astray.

All murder means is to kill somebody deliberately and unlawfully. While our laws often mirror our ethos, they certainly do not always do so. To have this discussion and get anywhere, I think we need to avoid using the words insane and murder unless specifically discussing a legal technicality.

For example, I can think of cases where I think killing is justified, yet illegal in certin jurisdictions. This does not, in itself, reflect on my mental state, empathy, etc. If I did it in one jurisdictionI killed, if in another I murdered (hypothetically, dear friends! :)). Doesn't make sense that in one jurisdictionI was mentally disturbed, and in another I was mentally stable; it was the same act regardless.

Now, to address the OP, no, people should not be able to use mental illness as a defense, and they cannot (successfully - many certainly try). The insanity defense is quite narrow, and when use, justified. Imagine for an instant that you are driving down the road, have a heart attack, cross the line and kill oncoming drivers. It's not your "fault"; you did not do this on purpose. When you got into your car and drove off you did not know or understand that it would have lethal consequences. I don't think any of us would want that person to be put in prison or otherwise punished. Well, if it is my head that went screwy instead of my heart, why shouldn't I be treated the same? If I was truly unable to access my behavior, why do I deserve punishment.

This is different from a sociopath. A sociopath doesn't care that he is ending a life and breaking the strictures of society, but he surely understands that the person will be dead, what death entails, and that society frowns on this behavior. He understands his acts and their consequences, and chose to do them despite knowing the rest of society will not accept such behavior. The legally insane person does not have that knowledge, and at the time had no way of getting the knowledge.

[Kerberos]

Well crap. I hope there is a difference. Or we're all in trouble. Killing in true self defense I suppose is one thing. But doing it for another reason. I don't know, seems like muddy water here. Plus, if you've ever seen a victim after they have killed in self defense, for the most part they're pretty shaken up. In therapy for years I would imagine. Doesn't that kind of support the notion that there is a difference between us and them.

And do you actually think that murderers never feel bad about what they've done? I would think that most of them do.

[Oxymoron]

Yes some people have found cheating spouses and not killed them. Perhaps they didn't get quite as furious as our murderer, or perhaps they had a stronger aversion to hurting other people. Or perhaps both.

The point is that even if you chose to define any murderer as insane, a definition that is inconsistent with the usual understanding of the word, that does not actually support you position that people who are actually insane according to standard criteria should be treated the same as those who are only insane according to your definition. It just does not follow.

There are people in the world who are mentally equivalent to small children, who have severe delusions or any number of other mental problems. You should really consider what the purpose of throwing people in prison is: Is it deterrence? You can't deter people who talk to pixies or who are actually mentally incapable of understanding what the law is and such. Taking them of the street? A closed institution does that too. What purpose does throwing such people in prison serve?



How can it not be? You're allowing your ethics to interfere with your rationality ETA: What Darth Rotor said essentially. Ethics are not true or false, and not one set of ethics is no more rational than another. If you consider another person’s life sacred then it might be irrational to kill him, even if you gain by it. If on the other hand you don't attach such importance to it then it's not irrational. Certain other cultures or our own culture in the past have do or have done things we'd consider murder today. Was everybody in the Middle ages insane?

I see your point. And I see the problem with labeling insanity across the board when it comes down to murder.

Look at the Spanish inquisition and the Salem Witch trials, etc. Mass dillusion. Couldn't you argue that these groups of people were led to be irrational by superstition which is irrational in the first place? Am I making any sense here?:blush:

And I think you're right about my ethics interfering with my rationality. Murder by disassociation. hmmmm. You're certainly winning the arguement here, but something is still holding me back from concession. I'm trying not to project my own morals and ethics onto the notion of insanity vs. murder, but I find it incredibly difficult since I'm living in, what most believe, a civilized world, steeped in moral values and the idea that a life is sacred in some way. (mind you, not speaking religiously)

Actually I have, and not everyone reacts the same way. Some don't have a problem, some lose it. Depends on personality.

Of course.


Same goes for many situations, some people freak out at the sight of blood yet others have no problem being up to their elbows in it.

I work in an Emergency Room, blood doesn't phase me. But I know others who can't handle it. Good point. Can we apply this disassociation to committing murder? Not sure about that.

[Darth Rotor]

Okay. So then, what separates you and I from someone who can murder another? :boggled:
The decision to do it, and the will to carry it out.

DR

[gnome]

The difference here is not really to discern universal truths about the nature of insanity, but to describe what is the appropriate corrective action. Someone that kills due to legal insanity (incapable of determining right from wrong) has no use for punishment (and nor does society for punishing such people). If the condition still exists, obviously for the protection of society they should be isolated from doing harm, but of what use is a moral judgment of punishment against someone who is unable to make moral distinctions?

On the other hand, if a person IS capable of knowing morality and commits the deed anyway, punishment teaches them (and others) that they must use that knowledge of morality to adjust their behavior, or they will come to harm, loss, or isolation by society's judgment under the law.

[Darth Rotor]

With all respect, not sure I can agree with you. "Evil" is an idea that it seems to me, founded by a biblical definition.

Serial killers for example.
Evil is not an idea solely embraced by Christians. Your "biblical" is off the mark.

DR

[Oxymoron]

Yes. A big problem is that both are legal definitions, but have many nonlegal connotations in collequial use. Reasoning while using these words is very difficult - it's easy to be lead astray.

All murder means is to kill somebody deliberately and unlawfully. While our laws often mirror our ethos, they certainly do not always do so. To have this discussion and get anywhere, I think we need to avoid using the words insane and murder unless specifically discussing a legal technicality.

For example, I can think of cases where I think killing is justified, yet illegal in certin jurisdictions. This does not, in itself, reflect on my mental state, empathy, etc. If I did it in one jurisdictionI killed, if in another I murdered (hypothetically, dear friends! :)). Doesn't make sense that in one jurisdictionI was mentally disturbed, and in another I was mentally stable; it was the same act regardless.

Now, to address the OP, no, people should not be able to use mental illness as a defense, and they cannot (successfully - many certainly try). The insanity defense is quite narrow, and when use, justified. Imagine for an instant that you are driving down the road, have a heart attack, cross the line and kill oncoming drivers. It's not your "fault"; you did not do this on purpose. When you got into your car and drove off you did not know or understand that it would have lethal consequences. I don't think any of us would want that person to be put in prison or otherwise punished. Well, if it is my head that went screwy instead of my heart, why shouldn't I be treated the same? If I was truly unable to access my behavior, why do I deserve punishment.

This is different from a sociopath. A sociopath doesn't care that he is ending a life and breaking the strictures of society, but he surely understands that the person will be dead, what death entails, and that society frowns on this behavior. He understands his acts and their consequences, and chose to do them despite knowing the rest of society will not accept such behavior. The legally insane person does not have that knowledge, and at the time had no way of getting the knowledge.

Good point, as well. I think the reason I'm having a problem with this thought, is the use of language, as you noted above. And I understand what you're saying about a persons brain going screwy. What about the serial killer? There are a few that sought NGRI and didn't get it. I understand your example of the sociopath who doesn't care for another's life. But just that idea in itself, doesn't that support the idea that something is a bit screwy in their head? Like my examples before, you chop up 20 people, I thinks somethings not quite right about you.

And do you actually think that murderers never feel bad about what they've done? I would think that most of them do.

A lot of serial killers do not show remorse. If these murderers do show remorse it would be highly suspect. Their freedom has been taken away, and maybe their up for parole. (I'm not blanketing all murderers here, I'm sure some may show genuine remorse.)

just a thought.:)

[Oxymoron]

Evil is not an idea solely embraced by Christians. Your "biblical" is off the mark.

DR


Pardon me. I should have said "religious" founding. Obviously "evil" is not limited to Christian beliefs. :blush:

[Darth Rotor]

Pardon me. I should have said "religious" founding. Obviously "evil" is not limited to Christian beliefs. :blush:
Susa-no-wo and Set thank you for not leaving them out of the picture. If you later Photoshop(TM) them out, have a care where you sleep. ;)

DR

[Dancing David]

Okay. So then, what separates you and I from someone who can murder another? :boggled:

Empathy, concern for others and fear of consequences.

[Oxymoron]

Susa-no-wo and Set thank you for not leaving them out of the picture. If you later Photoshop(TM) them out, have a care where you sleep. ;)

DR

Wow, one extreme or the other! If not by land, then by sea.:) (Good thing I don't spend much time in the desert.)

[Kerberos]

I see your point. And I see the problem with labeling insanity across the board when it comes down to murder.

Look at the Spanish inquisition and the Salem Witch trials, etc. Mass dillusion. Couldn't you argue that these groups of people were led to be irrational by superstition which is irrational in the first place? Am I making any sense here?:blush:
Sure, Witch prosseses could fairly be called mass delusions but that's only one exampleof things we'd call murder from that time. You could probably be killed in many countries for what we would today consider normal political debate.

And I think you're right about my ethics interfering with my rationality. Murder by disassociation. hmmmm. You're certainly winning the arguement here, but something is still holding me back from concession.
It's still you morality, go out and strangle a puppy and you'll see my point.

I'm trying not to project my own morals and ethics onto the notion of insanity vs. murder, but I find it incredibly difficult since I'm living in, what most believe, a civilized world, steeped in moral values and the idea that a life is sacred in some way. (mind you, not speaking religiously)
Regardinf ones own values as natural or universal in some sense is very normal. Almost anybody does it to a greater or lesser extend

A lot of serial killers do not show remorse. If these murderers do show remorse it would be highly suspect. Their freedom has been taken away, and maybe their up for parole. (I'm not blanketing all murderers here, I'm sure some may show genuine remorse.)

just a thought.
ohh, quite, but serial killers are a very special case. While I might not think that a serial killer is insane by definition, I'd agree that most likely nearly all serial killers do in fact suffer from some sort of mental disorder or another.