Why They Are Guilty?
2005.08.26 23:55

It is their fault as to they were unable to have an integrated character whether it is derived from their disease or not doesn't matter, it does matter for them who showed this inconsistency in their character but it has nothing to do with the rest of us. For us it only concerns what they did -if they did harm us that's what matters us, whether they were out of their mind is their matter, not our matter.
Therefore they all who committed crimes are responsible for what they did regardless of their state of mind.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Why They Are Guilty? Preferences Top 16 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 16 comments 0: 16 comments 1: 16 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.
Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.27 0:29 (#13408047) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
The crime of Murder, for example, is seen as being considerably worse than that of Manslaughter, and it is premeditation and intent that make the difference.
Personally, I would consider it extremely unjust were I to be charged with murder had I intended no such thing, so to me the state of the mind of the perpetrator is extremely important.
Plus: if punishment is meant to deter and rehabilitate, how can it do any such thing when there was no intent to commit a crime? How can you act in advance to avoid punishment? What can it teach you after the act? The answer is that there is simply nothing that you can do. Therefore, punishment for a crime without intent is simple cruelty.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 0:50 (#13408262) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
Welcome back from the retreat.
Intent - only does have meaning in offender's side, so even if offenders do have intent to do harm others, they would insist that they would not have intent to do harm others, if their insistence were admitted -remembrer 'give him the benefit of the doubt', are they likely to be free of charge?
Remember 'intent' has something to do with subjective truth, but unfortunately 'intent' has nothing to with objective truth -truth that he violated the criminal code.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.27 4:30 (#13410243) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
You can't understand till your in a position like that .There is a good reason for culpable homicide and second degree murder laws ,These crimes are not always committed by harden criminals , people with mental problems or fanatics.Sometimes there is a thin line between self defence and second degree murder.Especially if the act is in defence of someone else.The mind is a many complex thing , a simple whack on the top of your head could irrevocably change your personality or it could alter it temporarily.Imagine this happened to you , imagine you in a moment of insanity brought on by cranial trauma you killed someone .. perhaps you were hallucinating and thought they were attacking you ,in your mind you did what anyone would do .. eventually you recover ... too late for the person that got murdered .One life lost in a senseless tragedy ... why should it be two--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 11:24 (#13413050) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
Here in Japan too, many cases of murders have been reported, not all but sometimes murderers are found and caught in custody. It is not strange almost all murderers 'caught' show strange similarity - almost all are phychopath. Some are suffered from multiple-character disorder and others are diagnosed irregular cranial persons, none of them are regarded as 'just normal' as the rest of us. So in many cases they are going to phychopathological medical check and many are going to hospital but never be the criminals of the murders. To put them in a mental hospital is as good as being convicted as murder but no, in some cases they are out of the hospital after sometime spent detained in a hospital.
I am not talking about 'self-defence' or 'emergency escape' where no related law can be applied, but the cases someone 'pretend to be insane' in order to achieve their 'extremely weird' sexual inclination.
This is a serious problem in our society, the dead has no voice but the alive though committed murder does have a voice, we are inclined to ignore the right of the dead or those who victimised but the voice of the alive regardless of whether they are criminals or phychopaths. I think it is unfair. When your shadow hide the signal, you are responsible for your shadow, since you were the one who made shadow, you had intent or not is another matter.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.27 16:08 (#13413966) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
Someone who is psychopathic has no defence in their condition .. well should have no defence with their condition.A psychopath has control over their actions and will understand the difference between lawful and unlawful ..perhaps just wont care. They still have the mental capacity to know about it thoughPeople who try to fake a condition in order to get a reduced sentence should have a few extra years added .It is important we show compassion for those who are genuinely ill , lest we become as bad as those we convict. Though the process relating to it really needs tightened and changed so we can be sure to catch those out who both are and those who are faking it--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 21:13 (#13414655) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
Generally speaking I am agreed on your entire point, but there are some cases that are thought to be controversial, for example, -there are many criminals in which some are genuinely ill and should be treated more leniently than the cases committed by normal criminals.
This statement contradicts itself. Normal criminals commit relatively less severe crimes as opposed to psychopathetic criminals who are inclined to commit less lenient crimes repeatedly. Considering the fact that the normal criminals should be punished less leniently for their less severe wrongdoings, psychopathetic criminals are likely to be punished less severely for their less lenient crimes, kind of reverse case occurs.
Another example based on true court cases.
A man committed a murder of three people. He had a record of mental illness - schizophrenia, and still he was consulting a doctor. He was thought to be delirium at the time of crime. But he was judged to be able to carry a responsibility and sentenced to death, then executed after a few months.
A man committed a serial murder of three people. He was diagnosed as sufferer of multiple-personality disorder and he was judged his another personality committed a murder at the time of crime and he was judged not guilty, -he was now in a mental hospital.
Many cases are examined case by case basis, but almost all cases of murder are related to mental illness or alike. But I must say, his another personality is not different from himself, so I am insisting he has to be responsible for whatever he did. His another personality is his subjective truth, we are unable to tell he is subject to being different from him, his objective truth includes both his character and his another character.
If he changed his appearance too, no one would notice Mr Jykill was Dr Hyde, so in this particular case, Mr Jykill has to be caught and sentenced to death. No one knows where Dr Hyde disappears.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:2)
by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on 2005.08.27 21:58 (#13414809) (Last Journal: 2005.10.02 1:31)
Hitler is believed to not have had any mental problems that would constitute a mental illness , which is really very strange to think that a normal person could sanction acts like that..I am not a supporter of the prison system or capital punishment.. baring my exception that i believe capital punishment should be given as a choice to the convict(which stems from my very strong sense of freedom , I would rather die than be incarcerated ).--Non illigitamus carborundum, Graviora manent [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.30 15:35 (#13433593) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
Hitler is believed to not have had any mental problems that would constitute a mental illness , which is really very strange to think that a normal person could sanction acts like that..
That's right, if we ever read his biography, we would notice he is not insane.
War crimes ought to be dealt with other than ordinary criminal cases that's why all they were judged under court martial, anyway this is another story.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.29 19:53 (#13426014) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Welcome back from the retreat.Thank-you. As you can tell, I'm here a lot less now. But I'm still here!
I need to get on with aspects of my life other than Slashdot, including a book that I want to get on with writing...
Intent - only does have meaning in offender's side, so even if offenders do have intent to do harm others, they would insist that they would not have intent to do harm others, if their insistence were admitted -remembrer 'give him the benefit of the doubt', are they likely to be free of charge?"Reasonable doubt" is not all doubt. The proscecution need only show that any resonable person would infer the prescence of intent. The exercise of individual judgement, although imperfect, is essential to achieving a resonable outcome.
If I accidentally knock a stone over the edge of a cliff and it hits someone and kills them, few would wish to convict me of murder. At the worst, they would wish to convict me of criminal negligence (as I should have taken more care), but I expect that the jury would realise that there is little that can be done to change the fact of the person's death, or make future deaths less likely: it was, after all a mistake.
Remember 'intent' has something to do with subjective truth, but unfortunately 'intent' has nothing to with objective truth -truth that he violated the criminal code.Intent has a real meaning. The brain chemistry and wiring are different. The word "subjective" here refers to a lack of knowledge in the viewer, rather than in the abscence of an underlying reality.
Besides, why should the system be better because it only deals with commonly agreed facts? Consensus is not itself reality, but is simply our shared distortion of it. Our experience of life is individual, not shared, so a system which has the purpose of improving our well-being needs to pay attention to the individual, rather than the "objective". Yes the individual is flawed: we misjudge people and situations all of the time, but the consistent bias given by agreed fact would in fact create a consistent distortion in the outcome. At least with jury trails, different jurors can make their minds up by picking upon a different set of pertinent facts, and apply their experience to what these facts imply.
Not only is the outcome distorted, but in addition, the fact that intent is in fact being judged is obscured. Instead of the juries who have the facts to hand judging intent, it ends up being the lawmakers. The pressure on the lawmakers is not to achieve an outcome that would be seen as just, but to play the crowd: thus being "tough on crime", or making a strong stance against rape would be met with strong laws. But sometimes what was consentual sex leads to false accusation. The facts are sex and later accusation; would you wish to automatically pronounce "rape" in such circumstances?--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:Interestingly, the law does not agree...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.30 19:50 (#13434386) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
Remember 'intent' has something to do with subjective truth, but unfortunately 'intent' has nothing to with objective truth -truth that he violated the criminal code.
I think my statement shows lack of logic, the latter half should be changed to ..objective truth that he did some misconduct.
Within two or three years a book made of paper would disappear. In stead many people carry e-book, there they can download writtings of a book with some charge. We don't have to buy as many books as we want to read, just one e-book is fine.
Aside from that it's a very good idea to publish a book. A book related to math? I guess.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Book(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.30 20:33 (#13434563) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Within two or three years a book made of paper would disappear. In stead many people carry e-book, there they can download writtings of a book with some charge. We don't have to buy as many books as we want to read, just one e-book is fine.At the moment, the book is in pen and ink. It's not even reached the computer, and won't for a long time yet. I need the calm of careful inking to give the book the care and attention that it needs. Given its nature, I expect that it will be more valuable on paper than in electronic form. It is not aimed at the technophile.
Aside from that it's a very good idea to publish a book. A book related to math? I guess.If you knew what my book was, you would probably find it extremely arrogant. Yet it is a book that I feel needs to be written, and I can't think of anyone else who'd write it if I didn't. You would almost certainly find it to be in apparent opposition to the rational me that you know. You might even think that it was a weird thing to do in the modern world.
Suffice to say: it is not a maths book. I had an idea for a mathematical work, but it is on the back-burner for now: the mathematics involved are likely to be too hard for me to tackle at the moment. I'll tell you about the maths book, for I don't want to talk about my other book online at the moment.
My maths book is (would be) a work in theoretical physics. Since, especially in the course of my breakdown, I have experienced a good deal in the way of synchronicity, I've decided that I would like to demonstrate how the phenomenon that we call synchronicity follows naturally from existing physics. I feel that this is an important thing to do, since those who are familiar with advanced physics are already prejudiced by their earlier teaching (notably of Newtonian physics), and an extreme conservatism that is presented as scepticism. The approximations made in conventional pre-quantum physics amount to missing an entire, and important phenomenon.
There is also a religious angle: it replaces many experiences of 'god' with physics. It naturalises our world-view, and as such forces us to take responsibility for our values and their outcomes, rather than accepting them as absolute and god-given, to be pursued regardless of the consequences. It promotes intelligence above received knowledge, but does so in a manner that is strongly social: synchronicity is a holistic phenomenon, so, unlike say Darwinism (which incidentally I believe to be true, if not always beneficial as a belief), it promotes 'good atheism'.
Maybe, it might even help science and paranormalists meet halfway: certainly, some of it is (only) in the mind, but there are also real phenomena...--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
My thoughts(Score:2)
by Henry V .009 (518000) on 2005.08.27 3:43 (#13409909) (Last Journal: 2005.09.29 2:05)
I read an account of a ~50-60 year-old doctor whose entire personality changed out of the blue one year. He started littering his speech with profanities, and he actually attempted to sexually assault a woman who worked for him.It turned out that he had a brain tumor. When it was removed, his personality went back to normal.But it usually isn't like this with mental problems. Most of the time, they are hard to diagnose and impossible to cure. So I think, that unless there is an obvious and workable cure, crazy people who commit the crimes of murder or rape should be put down the same way we put down mad dogs.--Recent Slashdot journals by all users [slashdot.org]
Re:My thoughts(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 12:32 (#13413331) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
I think you are right. Men are responsible for what they did whatever wherever whenever.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
But should he be punished?(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.29 20:24 (#13426102) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
If you're going to be strictly logical about it, yes people are responsible [the cause] of what they do.
But punishment? How do you justify that? Punishment occurs after a crime, so it's to late to prevent it. Unless you invoke intent, so that punishment can reform or deter, punishment is pointless, and indeed meningless.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:But should he be punished?(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.30 2:06 (#13428514) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
The real aim of punishment lies in its prevention of crimes, so no physical or mental punishment could cure the criminals. All punishment suffers crimals, because of fear that might being suffered from it, normal people stayed before committing the crimes, and those who committed the crime intend to run away from responsibility they ought to take -I mean it's punishment.
Punishment ought to work as such.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:But should he be punished?(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.08.30 2:32 (#13428710) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
The real aim of punishment lies in its prevention of crimes...
Punishment ought to work as such.So how can it prevent a crime that was never intended?
A crime without intent cannot be prevented by fear of punishment, as the fear can only work by preventing criminally intended action, so your own argument (that punishment deters) makes it void for crimes without intent.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]