If We Hate Crimes, Not the Man

If We Hate Crimes, Not the Man
2005.08.25 22:09

If we hate crimes, and not the man himself, we ought to punish the man for his misconduct regardless of whether he is insanity or not. Current laws do not allow those who commit a crime to be punished if those who showed insanity.
So in some cases, if someone proves to be insane, he cannot be punishable.
Strange.
Similar cases. If those who commit the crime was minor -under twenty, they are less punishable than those whose age are over twenty.
Strange too.
We ought to punish the man who commit the crime only for his deed. No matter whether he is insane, no matter how old he is.
If we hate his crimes, responsibility ability doesn't matter, what matter is only what he did. Victim's sadness cannot be cured because the offender was mad, because offender was minor.
We ought to consider changing the criminal code.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
If We Hate Crimes, Not the Man Preferences Top 19 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 19 comments 0: 19 comments 1: 19 comments 2: 9 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Insanity(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.25 22:45 (#13396877) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
If someone is legally declared "Insane " then it is far different from a clinical diagnoses of a mental illness.The person is found in the legal sense to be not responsible for their actions , basically without control over their thoughts or actions which lead to the event .In essence they must have had no control over it which would allow the decision , the exception is if they caused the decision themselves intentionally , I.E being drunk.--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent
Re:Insanity(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.25 23:26 (#13397203) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
The problem is insanity has been used for the loophole of the crimanal code, if those who were proved to be insane, they would be free of charge, so even if they are not insane actually, if they were proved to be so they would be likely to be get away with punishment.
Even scientifically speaking it is quite ambiguous what is insane and what is not, and it varies as times from ancient to the future. As a matter of fact, those who were regarded as incurable insanity ancient times turned to be just patients who have got a disease that can be curable in medical means.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Insanity(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.25 23:45 (#13397339) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
I agree that it is often abused in the criminal court , the rules regarding it need changing.Those who are deemed to have that level of problem really still need to be kept in a secure environment as protection for us and them though , but prison is not the answer .They don't need punishment they need treatment , if they generally are ill and can be cured(and are not just evil bastards) then I am fairly sure that their conscience will dole out punishment .Scientifically speaking insanity can not be defined , Legally speaking though it can be.--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Insanity(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.26 0:33 (#13397713) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
I believe your idea forms still majority of society and in current law those who are insane cannot be punishable.
But I just wonder, suppose two people commited killing a man, one is diagnosed necrophilia, and having sadistic inclination. If those were regarded as symptom normal person can have, the man would be convicted guilty of murder.
The other was diagnosed autistic and a holder of multiple characters, probably schizophenic, then the one was free of charge because these are symptoms insane people have.
If we questioned there's or there's not a responsibility ability of those who committed the crime, those who drunk killed a man in their car are not likely to be asked responsibility on their deed under the influence. In this particular case whether they drink themselves doesn't matter. Whether they were under the influence, that matters. Since there are two cases in insanity - whether it's prenatal or acquired. If they were acquired their insanity from external experience after their birth, do they ought to owe the responsibility in their deed?
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Insanity(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.26 0:52 (#13397960) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
Necrophilia and sadism would not classify you as legally insane ,schizophrenia as it manifests in 99% of cases would not get you classified legally insane.The defence of "The voices told me to do it" does not work , you still had the choice and made it.The correct defence would be "The voices must have done whatever it is that's supposed to have happened , I don't know" (obviously a bit more realistic) .You need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were not responsible for your actions that led to the crime.If you got drunk and killed someone in your car then that is culpable homicide, if you had a drink spiked with something and were unaware at the time ,the person who spiked the drink is the one that is guilty.Diminished responsibility is a wide and varied legal area and it is often lumped together , it really should not be--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Moo(Score:1)
by Chacham (981) * on 2005.08.26 1:38 (#13398491) (http://tkatch.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 1:19)
Another factor is the purpose of punishment. Is it to punish, or is it to prevent further similar acts. I do not think we have the right to the former, yet the latter can be abused and removes the severity. In truth, both views are needed.The question is, do we decide the punishment according to the law and then allow it to be tempered with situational factors, or do we prevent it from happening again, and then temper it with punishment.I think that explains a great deal of the differences.On another note, even those who allow compassion, do not allow it when the act is considered so dispicable that the person is considered a "bad person". For example, a homosexual of thirty years ago, or a pedophile today. People allow their feelings get in the way, and a mob mentality takes over, leaving no room for justice.On that note, if a person goes to another country, and has a locally legal intimacy with a child too young to be legal in the US, he can be arrested on return to the US. Who is the law protecting anyway?--Have you read my journal today? [slashdot.org]
Re:Moo(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.26 8:31 (#13402605) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
I have never been a big fan of punishment , well beyond really doing your best to make them see they were wrong and letting their conscience deal out the punishment.However people who are a danger to others need to be kept away from society till they are no longer a threat... a dehumanising experience such as we have with the current prison systems throughout the world is really not working in this regard .The law is such a complex thing built upon roots which intertwine and twist in so many ways that the whole system has become near impossible for anyone to really truly understand (beyond a couple of areas at least)As for society .... well its still fairly infantile . it was only 50 years ago that segregation laws were common place in many western nations .Racism was state funded and the moralists had Rock and roll , Black people and communists to moan about.We have destroyed the acceptability of racism , Sexism is slowly disappearing (though there are still a few feminists and macho men out there (yes i do see feminism as a bad thing in the same way that i see the male equivalent ))Sexuality is becoming increasingly less of an issue .I hope we make contact with Aliens soon , then the Moralists will be off protesting Human-alien couples and leaving my games alone ;)Sadly they will always find an issue , they always lose though and finaly have to accept the big bad *CHANGE* .. of course a lot of the time i do wish they would go form a new country and live like the Amish and leave us to get on with advancing things .Though pedophiliac behaviour is different from the other issues , it is taking advantage of children and should never become a societal normThe law is there to control , keep a lid on things and keeping the wheels a-turnin' ,Justice is rarely ever truly done in a court. Even less so in a mob .It is time we had a long hard look at total reform--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:1)
by Chacham (981) * on 2005.08.27 0:24 (#13407980) (http://tkatch.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 1:19)
The law is there to control , keep a lid on things and keeping the wheels a-turnin'Yeah, perhaps.Justice is rarely ever truly done in a court.DS9 had a strange take on this. Cardassian judges knew the verdict before the trial started, as the investigation took care of that. (Whether the investigation was correct or not is another story.) The purpose of the trial was only to get the accused to admit his wrongdoing and accept the punishment. All evidence was for the accused to see, and his "lawyer" merely advised him and the court, to help the accused accept his guilt and his fate.Strangely enough, that is what you just reminded me of. And there even is some merit to the idea.--Have you read my journal today? [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.27 3:09 (#13409586) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
No ,i just want reform not guilty till proven guilty ;)I just don't believe lawyers and judges are really very good at it and that the law has more loop holes than emerald hill zone._Legal proceedings should be about facts not technicalities ... but there is a nice idea that comes from that Cardassian thing . the investigation should be also on trial .. shake the police up a little ;)--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:1)
by Chacham (981) * on 2005.08.27 5:03 (#13410525) (http://tkatch.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 1:19)
I just don't believe lawyers and judges are really very good at itThey are very good at what they are supposed to be doing. Except some judges. Perhaps though, their jobs need to be re-defined.Legal proceedings should be about facts not technicalitiesI believe technicalities are for when everyone knows things should be otherwise, but the cold facts disagree. So a technicality saves the day. It's where common sense can do something.the investigation should be also on trialTrue. The only issue is, that investigators are less likely to do a good job when everything they do is scrutinized.--Have you read my journal today? [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.27 5:25 (#13410746) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
Technicalities are as with many things in the judicial process , one extremely sharp twin edged sword.. though I would rather a guilty man go free than restrict the freedom of an innocent.I don't know about the last point though ... it could be dangerous certainly but i believe it could be dangerous as some investigators could become rather good at faking it.Who investigates the investigators *ouroboros*--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:1)
by Chacham (981) * on 2005.08.29 22:00 (#13426512) (http://tkatch.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 1:19)
I just think it's something to bear in mind.--Have you read my journal today? [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 11:43 (#13413109) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
It is time we had a long hard look at total reform
I agree. We ought not to take it for granted that the current jurisprudence is the only absolute system, this system needs reparing, especially the ones related to responsibility for those who committed the crime.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 0:12 (#13407851) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
Thank you very much, you took pains to make a comment for my journal but I can't see your point.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Moo(Score:1)
by Chacham (981) * on 2005.08.27 0:18 (#13407902) (http://tkatch.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 1:19)
Wait, there's supposed to be a point? :)--Have you read my journal today? [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
"Victim's sadness cannot be cured"(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.29 21:03 (#13426242) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
True.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
It had just occurred to me...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.29 23:52 (#13427388) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Something bad must have happened to you, or to someone close to you.
These kinds of things can distort our sense of judgement.
What you are suggesting is a really bad idea. To see why, consider a doctor who has to choose whether or not to operate on a dying patient. They have a 20% probability of living. The operation will make them live, but they have a 40% chance of surviving the operation.
Ethically, you should probably operate, although maybe you should ask them, or if you cannot, a close relative, first. But what if you operate, and they die? If you've caused the death, and intent (to heal, in this case) counts for nothing, you've committed murder. 25 years for doing your best as a healer? To me that sounds a little harsh.
Intent matters. If it were not to be accounted for, we would have no doctors, no hospitals, no health system, either private or public.
For whatever happened to you or your friend, I am sorry. But I have to ask: just how much does revenge really help?
We spend our lives trying to get more equal than one another. We need to learn to make our own lives good, and others' also. Sometimes at a risk to ourselves, as the doctor does in my above example. Despite the risk of being sued, we still have an army of professional healers. Isn't that an inspiration?--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:It had just occurred to me...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.30 1:41 (#13428345) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
No, not at all. It is one of the rarest things of me to act or say something sentimental out of my experience even if I were suffered from personal mishaps. These kinds of behaviour cannot be allowed from my normal standard of judgement. So whether I've got a personal mishaps doesn't matter at all. But believe me, my life doesn't change at all, I mean no mishaps.
Intent does matter in the case of normal people. As long as those who are involved are normal, their profession doesn't matter, in the case of normal, I mean mentaly healthy people, whether they had intent at the time of incident should be examined very carefully. According to whether they've got an intent or not, they ought to be defined just an accident, manslaughter, murder, etc. As the degrees of their intent, the quantity of punishment ought to be defined. There are some cases that are uncertain intent that their act might lead to serious matters, those should be regared as the same as having had an intent.
However in the case of mentaly ill people, the concept of intent deems to go ambiguous, they might have had an intent to commit crime under the different character, under the influence of drugs, alcohol, delirium, etc., then I was asking whether they are free of charge.
As for revenge, punishment is not a revenge, but a responsibility for those who commit the crimes, many murderers tend to get away with capital punishment being taken their personal reasons -psychological factors that led to the crimes into consideration. I was just insisting that they are extremely unfair.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:It had just occurred to me...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.30 3:07 (#13428962) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Intent does matter in the case of normal people. As long as those who are involved are normal, their profession doesn't matter, in the case of normal, I mean mentaly healthy people, whether they had intent at the time of incident should be examined very carefully. According to whether they've got an intent or not, they ought to be defined just an accident, manslaughter, murder, etc. As the degrees of their intent, the quantity of punishment ought to be defined. There are some cases that are uncertain intent that their act might lead to serious matters, those should be regared as the same as having had an intent.I'm glad that we agree on this.
However in the case of mentaly ill people, the concept of intent deems to go ambiguous, they might have had an intent to commit crime under the different character, under the influence of drugs, alcohol, delirium, etc., then I was asking whether they are free of charge.This is a good question. In fact, this is the right question. You appear to have been saying that they should be considered as guilty, regardless, and I have to disagree here.
I would have to ask whether the degree of difficulty of overcoming their condition should be taken into account. I think that this is pretty key: is nearly impossible different from absolutely impossible? I would say that it is, a little, but what are the person's beliefs? Fears? If they're more scared of being caught by the (imagined) secret police, say, then deterrence just isn't going to work. It might even feed their psychosis: imagine that someone imagined that they were in The Matrix. Any intended deterrence would feed their fantasy that you were the enemy, and might indeed make it more likely that they commit the crime. This is the opposite of deterrence.
Another question that is worth posing is this: if another personality committed a crime, should you really punish an innocent personality? Surely this is simply guilt by association?
Imagine that you woke up in a cell for a crime that you never (consciously) committed, and in fact would never dream of committing, and had 15 years left to serve. How could the person in that cell (not the alter-ego that committed the crime) have done anything differently to avoid it? How could they possibly have been deterred from doing something they they didn't infact do, but another personality sharing the same body committed instead?--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]