If a person has a psychotic episode due to an undiagnosed mental illness and attacks someone, should they be thrown in jail or treated?
I don’t think that the existence of victims is what makes the difference, but rather our understanding of the underlying cause of the act.
It’s not unreasonable to put someone in jail to protect society if there’s no other option. However, it seems likely to me that some of the vile crimes we punish today are a result of either mental illness or neurological damage. While it is appropriate to take steps to prevent harm to others, we should not just automatically assume everyone who commits crime is irretrievably evil, even if our current understanding effectively makes that true.
Personally, I would rather see all crime as a disorders to be corrected rather than merely acts of evil people.
By way of support for my attitude, I refer you to this radiolab podcast episode:
I addressed your point on drug addiction, so you dropped that for a different pivot.
And guess what? Your new pivot is equally as bad.
Pleading innocent by reason of insanity is a very risky legal defense. This is because it’s an admission that the defendent did commit the act. After that point, instead of the state having to prove guilt, the defendent then needs to prove inability to personally control themselves.
Either way, the defendant will be incarcerated, the only difference is whether they’re going to a psychiatric hospital or prison. The only deciding factor is whether they can prove they were insane.
But I doubt you’ll care actually care about my point. You’ve already demonstrated that you’re more than willing to argue in bad faith. Buh bye
I think you need to pay closer attention to who you’re talking to. I’m not the original poster. Therefore, you couldn’t have addressed my point previously, because I didn’t post in this thread previously. Also, I neither set nor moved any goalposts.
I was responding specifically to your point that the difference between Brand and a drug addict was the existence of victims. I don’t think that is the case. My example was to address just that one point.
I also wanted to point out my belief that most crime is related to some form of mental or neurological disorder. I did not suggest that criminals should plead innocent by reason of insanity, but rather that some future, more enlightened society could ideally treat criminals rather than punish them.
I think I offered pretty good support for my position, but I’m guessing you didn’t take the time to listen to the podcast episode I linked. Assuming that’s the case, here’s the TLDL for you:
The person who was the subject of the podcast had surgery to stop seizures. After the surgery, he had a sudden desire for CSAM. He was ashamed and too horrified to tell anyone. He got caught, and he was going to be thrown in prison. Then his neurosurgeon heard about his case and intervened to point out that it was all caused by neurological damage resulting from the surgery and it wasn’t his fault.
I can’t think of many things more vile than CSAM, but that was a case of a person who had no previous interest suddenly experiencing a horrible warping of his personality as a result of neurological damage. In his case he was lucky enough to have a surgeon who understood what was happening and could intervene. Think about how many people just go to rot in person, hated by everyone they know, because no one knew they had a neurological disorder causing their behavior.
If a person has a psychotic episode due to an undiagnosed mental illness and attacks someone, should they be thrown in jail or treated?
I don’t think that the existence of victims is what makes the difference, but rather our understanding of the underlying cause of the act.
It’s not unreasonable to put someone in jail to protect society if there’s no other option. However, it seems likely to me that some of the vile crimes we punish today are a result of either mental illness or neurological damage. While it is appropriate to take steps to prevent harm to others, we should not just automatically assume everyone who commits crime is irretrievably evil, even if our current understanding effectively makes that true.
Personally, I would rather see all crime as a disorders to be corrected rather than merely acts of evil people.
By way of support for my attitude, I refer you to this radiolab podcast episode:
http://www.wnycstudios.org/story/317421-blame/
Way to move the goalposts.
I addressed your point on drug addiction, so you dropped that for a different pivot.
And guess what? Your new pivot is equally as bad.
Pleading innocent by reason of insanity is a very risky legal defense. This is because it’s an admission that the defendent did commit the act. After that point, instead of the state having to prove guilt, the defendent then needs to prove inability to personally control themselves.
Either way, the defendant will be incarcerated, the only difference is whether they’re going to a psychiatric hospital or prison. The only deciding factor is whether they can prove they were insane.
But I doubt you’ll care actually care about my point. You’ve already demonstrated that you’re more than willing to argue in bad faith. Buh bye
I think you need to pay closer attention to who you’re talking to. I’m not the original poster. Therefore, you couldn’t have addressed my point previously, because I didn’t post in this thread previously. Also, I neither set nor moved any goalposts.
I was responding specifically to your point that the difference between Brand and a drug addict was the existence of victims. I don’t think that is the case. My example was to address just that one point.
I also wanted to point out my belief that most crime is related to some form of mental or neurological disorder. I did not suggest that criminals should plead innocent by reason of insanity, but rather that some future, more enlightened society could ideally treat criminals rather than punish them.
I think I offered pretty good support for my position, but I’m guessing you didn’t take the time to listen to the podcast episode I linked. Assuming that’s the case, here’s the TLDL for you:
The person who was the subject of the podcast had surgery to stop seizures. After the surgery, he had a sudden desire for CSAM. He was ashamed and too horrified to tell anyone. He got caught, and he was going to be thrown in prison. Then his neurosurgeon heard about his case and intervened to point out that it was all caused by neurological damage resulting from the surgery and it wasn’t his fault.
I can’t think of many things more vile than CSAM, but that was a case of a person who had no previous interest suddenly experiencing a horrible warping of his personality as a result of neurological damage. In his case he was lucky enough to have a surgeon who understood what was happening and could intervene. Think about how many people just go to rot in person, hated by everyone they know, because no one knew they had a neurological disorder causing their behavior.