The supreme court is hearing a case today on the insanity defense. The case involves the killing of an Arizona policy officer by a 17 year old boy (Eric Clark) who had been previously diagnosed with paranoid sschizophrenia. The defendent was originally found incompetent to stand trial, but after 2 years lthe trial court reconsidered and he was tried and convicted of 1st degree murder. His family and lawyer had sought a verdict of "guilty except insanity". This verdict would have resulted in Clark being incarcerated in a psychiatric facility rather than prison.
Much of the evidence about the defendents mental illness was excluded from consideration because Arizona law only allows evidence that is related to proving the defendant did not know right from wrong. In Clark’s case, he understood right from wrong but was making that judgment in the context of an abnormal state of reality: He thought he was being tortured by aliens.
I see this case a multi-facited tragedy. Clark appears to have been an all America boy until he developed a severe mental illness that destroyed him. His family had sought help, even tried to have him committed without success. The police had previously arrest him for drunk driving and possession. At that time his family had tried to get charges filed so that he could be legally required to receive mental health treatment but the Police refused. They wanted to wait until he turned 18 so that they could seek a more severe penalty. The result is that one young man is dead and a second has lost any chance he might have had for recovery.
I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a person with serious mental illness sent to prison rather than a high security psych hospital.
To a greater and greater extent, our prisons are being filled with the mentally ill and disabled. Does this seem like justice to anyone?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Anyone who murders another is nutso whacko, with a nutso-whacko reason for having committed that crime. The only difference in this case is that the convicted was diagnosed before the murder.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, as they will be tormented in jail by larger, rougher prisoners which will make their problems even worse instead of being helped. *been watching too much oz* I think they should go someplace where they can get the help and treatment they need. Especially since they could also be a danger to other prisoners too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a person with serious mental illness sent to prison rather than a high security psych hospital.
My understanding is that in some states being sent to a hospital means that when the doctors decide you're OK, you get to go free. This means that dangerous people can be returned to society sooner if they're sent to a hosptial than to prison.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You are assuming that I don't favor locking up all murderers in psychiatric facilities; admittedly, many as permanent residents. As I have stated many many times before: I do not believe in imprisonment as punishment. Imprisonment should be used only to protect the public, and to give the prisoner some time to contemplate the error of his ways.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There's something I didn't think of. Or mental hospitals that close due to lack of funds so that the mental patients have no place to go but the streets.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a person with serious mental illness sent to prison rather than a high security psych hospital.
My understanding is that in some states being sent to a hospital means that when the doctors decide you're OK, you get to go free. This means that dangerous people can be returned to society sooner if they're sent to a hosptial than to prison.
The idea behind that, however, is that you are not considered dangerous anymore because it was the mental illness that directly led to the crime.
-pH
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Anyone who murders another is nutso whacko, with a nutso-whacko reason for having committed that crime. The only difference in this case is that the convicted was diagnosed before the murder.
Spoken like someone with no first-hand knowledge of mentally impaired individuals. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Cutting and pasting from Law & Order:
What if the person takes medication in the hospital, the medication "cures" him, and then he decides to stop taking his meds after he's released? He's dangerous again.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
So we should, what, hospitalize all mentally ill individuals for life?
I mean, if someone is admitted for being suicidal, he or she could conceivably become a danger to him- or herself again once released, if medication is stopped.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So we should, what, hospitalize all mentally ill individuals for life?
If they might be dangerous their whole life, it's something we should consider.
Being killed by somebody who is mentall ill leaves you just as dead as being killed by somebody who is evil.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Tell me of a sane reason to commit murder.
By treating the diagnosed mentally-ill murderer differently from the "normal"murderer, society is essentially telling the general public that those labeled as mentally-ill are more likely to commit heinous crimes than "normal"people. Which is flat-out false. If I could find the references I think I've run across, I would assert that the implication is the opposite of the real statistics. Similarly for lesser crimes and misdemeanors. Those diagnosed as mentally ill are far more likely to harm themselves but not others while "normal"people are far more likely to harm others but not themselves.
But when society tells anyone that they have a "good"excuse for committing antisocial acts, society makes it more likely that they will do so. And when society says "the mentally ill can't help but be anti-social": It is pushing the propaganda that "normal"people should fear those diagnosed with mental illness. It is harming those diagnosed with mental illness through projecting its own prejudices onto individuals who won't research the matter on their own; which pretty much describes most people.
[ April 19, 2006, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:What if the person takes medication in the hospital, the medication "cures" him, and then he decides to stop taking his meds after he's released? He's dangerous again.
Then we develop a system where the person is required to check in regularly with a case worker who makes sure he or she is still taking the meds. Heavily supervised probation is more cost-effective than prison or hospitalization, and for med-dependant but otherwise stable individuals could be just as effective.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, what dkw said. Require them to pick up their meds at a certain pharmacy so the case worker/parole officer can get reports on how often it's being re-filled. Have mandatory check-ups with a psychiatrist. Either random or regularly scheduled blood tests to insure the medication is still in their bloodstream, and if they're found to not be taking their meds - back to inpatient they go.
All this can be set up as conditional upon their release, and if they violate it, we can always re-commit them.
The case Rabbit is describing does sound tragic, I can't imagine being the parent of that boy. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There are other solutions; for instance releasing them only on condition that they remain under supervised outpatient care for their condition, possibly tracking them, and if they stop taking medication or going to treatment, re-confining them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Then we develop a system where the person is required to check in regularly with a case worker who makes sure he or she is still taking the meds. Heavily supervised probation is more cost-effective than prison or hospitalization, and for med-dependant but otherwise stable individuals could be just as effective.
That makes a lot of sense, but we don't have such a system in place. I was responding to the statement "I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a person with serious mental illness sent to prison rather than a high security psych hospital" and giving a reason why somebody would want to send a mentally ill person to prison instead of a hospital.
quote:Tell me of a sane reason to commit murder.
Murdering somebody out of anger or greed doesn't seen to fall under most definition of the word "insane". Of course, if you use a definition that includes such things...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We actually do have such systems in place in some areas. Most drug court diversion programs, for example, use heavily suppervised probation and random drug tests. The only difference would be the particular drug you're testing for (and the fact that you want a positive result).
Unfortunately, such programs are chronically underfunded. It seems that many people would rather pay higher costs for imprisonment than support community-based supervision programs. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: When society says "the mentally ill can't help but be anti-social"
Some of them CAN'T help it.
I don't think everyone here is using the same definition of mental illness.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see this case a multi-facited tragedy. Clark appears to have been an all America boy until he developed a severe mental illness that destroyed him. His family had sought help, even tried to have him committed without success. The police had previously arrest him for drunk driving and possession. At that time his family had tried to get charges filed so that he could be legally required to receive mental health treatment but the Police refused. They wanted to wait until he turned 18 so that they could seek a more severe penalty.
All too personally familiar.
However, involuntary commitment has a horrible record in the U.S. as a tool for repression and violation of individual liberty. I can't picture what a just system of civil involuntary commitment would look like, and I greatly fear the potential for abuse of a system with inadequate safeguards.
That said, the current system sucks, at least in the states I know about. So I want a change. I just don't know what the right change is.
quote:I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a person with serious mental illness sent to prison rather than a high security psych hospital.
I like the implications of "guilty except insanity." There's a continuum of personal responsibility for ones actions, from an action being one we would pretty much all agree is a voluntary choice made with full knowledge of the consequences (call this "fully responsible") to a someone suffering a full-blown psychosis who thinks bullets cure cancer ("not responsible at all"). The former should be punished. The latter should be treated and confined for the purpose of protecting the defendant and others, not as punishment.
The vast majority of mentally ill defendants fall into a range where some personally responsibility still remains. Some punishment is warranted, but treatment is absolutely necessary, too.
Ideally, we'd have highly secure mental hospitals as well as mental health programs in prisons, with a psychiatrist to determine for each defendant where they need to be.
quote:Then we develop a system where the person is required to check in regularly with a case worker who makes sure he or she is still taking the meds. Heavily supervised probation is more cost-effective than prison or hospitalization, and for med-dependant but otherwise stable individuals could be just as effective.
This brings up the whole issue of meta-punishment - what punishment is appropriate for those who do not comply with the terms of their probation. It raises hackles because the triggering event almost always seems smaller than the punishment needed - mostly because people think of the triggering event as distinct from the act of "violating probation."
Small corrections for every single violation seem like the way to go to me. Immediate consequences, but not consequences that set back recovery and treatment. Obviously, some rate of minor offenses has to qualify as noncompliance with the program and result in more serious sanctions.
A very important question that has to be answered is whether the original offense sets an upper limit on the amount of forced treatment someone can be subject to. For example, can a person who commits a misdemeanor assault be forced into treatment for 10 years? If treatment is the only goal, then we'd say yes. But basic proportionality suggests no. These lines have to be drawn in setting up such a system.
*********************************
I actually read a summary of the briefs submitted to the Court.
This is the next logical question after a case called Eglehoff which held that states can prohibit evidence of voluntary intoxication to prove the defendant could not form the necessary intent. The court basically held that the exclusion of such evidence amounted to the state defining intent in such a way top included actions committed due to voluntary intoxication and well within the states power to define crimes.
This case presents two questions. The first is whether the restrictions on evidence to knowledge of right and wrong listed by Rabbit are constitutional under due process. In the past, the Court has found that a state law that requires the defendant to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt has been upheld as constitutional.
The second is harder to explain. Most every crime contains a mental element, in this case intent. We can't usually judge intent directly, but we can infer it. For example, if I walk into a room, point a gun at someone, say "Goodbye," and pull the trigger, the jury can infer that I intended to kill that person. Such inferences are very common. In Arizona, the defendant cannot introduce mental health evidence to combat the inference that the defendant intended the common expected results of his actions. Although it seems very similar to an insanity defense, it’s not. It goes to directly refuting one element of the crime, not to proving the defendant isn’t responsible for committing the crime. As such, it goes to the very heart of the broad state power to define what a crime is.
(Wow, I just noticed how long this is. If you stuck with it, I thank you. )
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Tell me of a sane reason to commit murder.
Under common law, a person is sane if he/she is able to understand the nature and quality of the act and capable of understanding that the act is wrong (i.e. against the law). So a person who (perhaps for religious reasons) does not believe that murder is morally wrong, yet understands that it is inviolation of the laws and that they will be punished is legally sane.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The problem is that under that common law definition, EricClark is being punished.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For what it's worth, the common law definition of insanity is almost completely replaced now in the U.S.
There is another version, called the control test, which provides for a defense if the mental defect deprived the defendant of the ability to control his actions. There is a case directly on point which states that the control version of the defense is not constitutionally required.
As Rabbit alluded to in her first post, many states now only allow introduction of psychiatric evidence as relates to knowledge of right and wrong, not nature of the act. Some states allow a defense with an either/or definition on the right/wrong and nature of the act prongs, but not many.
In most or all states, the burden is on the defendant to prove insanity. The common law standard was "clearly proved" which was ill-defined. Some states use preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), some use clear and convincing, and some use reasonable doubt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem is that under that common law definition, EricClark is being punished.
I don't think so - if Clark thought he was saving himself from being tortured by aliens, then he didn't appreciate the nature of his act. It's an either or test in favor of the defense.
Here's a direct quote from class, from some case I don't have the cite to:
"It must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."
Edit: the quote is from the M'Naghten rule, which is not the rule used in the M'Naghten case but rather the rule developed after wide-spread dissatisfaction with the outcome in the M'Naghten case.
The control test I mentioned above comes from the Durham rule, which used the phrase "irresistible impulse."
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: You are assuming that I don't favor locking up all murderers in psychiatric facilities; admittedly, many as permanent residents. As I have stated many many times before: I do not believe in imprisonment as punishment. Imprisonment should be used only to protect the public, and to give the prisoner some time to contemplate the error of his ways.
I agree fully with you that imprisonment should be used only to protect the public and not as retribution for the crime. However, punishment for crimes does protect the public when it serves as a deterent to crime.
For this reason, it makes complete sense to me that a persons reasons for killing someone should be considered when determining an appropriate sentence.
If a person killed another person because they were operating their car under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the sentence should be designed to prevent them and discourage others from driving under the influence. If they killed someone in order to steal their money, a completely different sentence would be required even if they were under the influence.
If a person kills someone because they suffer from a mental illness that is so severe that it influences their ability to understand the reality of their actions, then their disease needs to be treated.
mph is wrong, we do have mechanisms by which people can be followed and required to accept treatment. In most states, if it is deemed that a person's mental illness makes them likely to hurt other people, they can be committed to a mental health facility and required to accept treatement even if they have not yet committed a crime. We have mechanisms by which people can be committed to a locked psychiatric unit or forced to accept treatment. The idea that dangerously mentally ill people are more likely to end up back on the streets committing crimes if they receive a psych sentence than a regular prison term is a fallacy. Once a mentally ill person has served their prison term, they can not be legally held in prison even if they are dangerous. When a person is sentenced to a psych institution, they are generally held until their illness is under control, even if that is longer than the sentence they might have received.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In the AP article they mentioned a witness that testified Clark was talking about killing a police officer before it happened. That seems to indicate possible pre-meditation, and if he talked about the police officers as police officers, not aliens - then I can see why the prosecutor thought it might be premeditated murder.
If he indeed just wanted to kill a cop and set out to do that, then would we be having a discussion about whether or not he should be in prison? Should all people with mental illness be sent to hospitals even if they planned to commit murder while knowing murder was wrong?
I'm wondering if those of us that think he belongs in a hospital would still feel that way if we knew definitively that he killed a cop knowing it was a cop, not an alien, and that he planned it before hand and knew it was against the law and wrong.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I've only read the AP story, but I dunno...yes, he's clearly mentally ill, but he's violently mentally ill. The choice to react violently IS a choice. He had been erratic and violent before shooting the police officer. And he was using drugs on top of that.
It's not just a matter of him thinking that they were aliens...it's also a matter of him thinking that he had to kill the aliens to resolve his fear. Hindsight is 20/20, and it's clear that he was far more over the edge than his parents could probably realize, but it's also clear that he's violently insane and if I were living in that community, I'd be okay with life inprisonment over a possibly temporary commitment in a mental institute.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We need to decide whether prison, and our criminal justice system in general, have rehabilitation as a primary function, or if the function is closer to punishment. Or, perhaps, safety of everyone else.
I realize that a truly perfect system might accomplish all of those things, but in an imperfect world (in which we lack complete knowledge, fully effective treatments, and infinite resourcs), something has to take priority, and other things have to be secondary or tertiary considerations.
I personally think that we would be best served by a system that more strongly emphasized rehabilitation. There are few crimes (even murder) for which a person is imprisoned for life. Given that most prisoners are expected to return to society eventually, we would be best served by a system that encouraged them to re-enter society as productive, contributing members who have learned behaviors that help them to avoid committing crimes in the future. As part of that, we should also have re-integration programs that gradually bring the person back into society -- let's not be stupid about it and just dump them on an over-burdened parole officer (or have them go straight from prison to full freedom).
I submit that such a system would also be safer than what we have now. It wouldn't be THE safest possible, but it would improve on our current processing of former prisoners post-release.
I submit that punishment, in and of itself, is a tertiary consideration, at best. Socialization and reintegration, with all necessary assistance to the offender, is a better bet for improving overall safety of the general populace than is punish & release. Punishment may be a necessary component of a rehabilitation program, but it should not be a goal of our justice system, IMO.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: I've only read the AP story, but I dunno...yes, he's clearly mentally ill, but he's violently mentally ill. The choice to react violently IS a choice. He had been erratic and violent before shooting the police officer. And he was using drugs on top of that.
It's not just a matter of him thinking that they were aliens...it's also a matter of him thinking that he had to kill the aliens to resolve his fear.
Because he thought that THEY were trying to kill HIM. To him, it was clearly self-defense.
-pH
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Because he thought that THEY were trying to kill HIM. To him, it was clearly self-defense.
Where did you get that, pH? I don't read that into the article. If it were a matter of self-defense, I would think that would have been brought up as motive directly related to his mental illness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would think that would have been brought up as motive directly related to his mental illness.
The fact that he was prohibited from bringing it up is at the heart of the appeal.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
But where are you getting that he thought the aliens were trying to get him so he shot the police officer? The article specifically says that Eric hasn't said. It is an educated guess that that's what he thought, but it is by no means fact. We don't actually know why he did it. We just know that he's mentally ill, was known to be so before he committed the murder. We don't actually know the two are really related.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There's a continuum of personal responsibility for ones actions, from an action being one we would pretty much all agree is a voluntary choice made with full knowledge of the consequences (call this "fully responsible") to a someone suffering a full-blown psychosis who thinks bullets cure cancer ("not responsible at all"). The former should be punished. The latter should be treated and confined for the purpose of protecting the defendant and others, not as punishment.
The vast majority of mentally ill defendants fall into a range where some personally responsibility still remains. Some punishment is warranted, but treatment is absolutely necessary, too.
I have several questions relating to this post.
1. Why is punishment warranted for any crime?
I believe that the only defensible reason to punish any criminal is the deterrent effect of punishment. I consider criminal laws which focus on retribution for the crime over and above preventing more crime to be highly immoral. Prison sentence provide two types of deterrents for future crime, the first is the simply physical restraint of the criminal. Second, there are at least some people who won't commit solely or primarily because they're afraid of being locked up. I really don't think that punishment can deter patients who are seriously mentally ill, particularly those who are paranoid because the mental illness interferes with their rational fears.
2. What constitutes a voluntary choice made with "full knowledge" of the consequences?
Quite honestly, I don't think I have ever fully understood the consequences of any choice I've made. There is no consensus in our society about what if any actions are truly voluntary. Is homosexuality voluntary? If it is, is pedophilia voluntary? Is alcoholism voluntary? Are our religious beliefs voluntary? If they are truly voluntary, why do nearly all people on the planet practice the religion of their parents?
3. What means would you use to judge the degree to which an individual was personally responsible for their actions?
This question has a very broad spectrum of application and relates to why I believe society should never seek retribution for crimes. If a child is raised by Hindu parents and never hears of Christianity, is he/she personally responsible for not accepting Christ? How much information about Jesus is required before he/she becomes responsible? If you go to a foreign country and violate laws you’d never heard of, are you personally responsible. If a child’s parents taught him/her it was OK to lick his/her plate, would he/she be personally responsible for showing bad manners at a restaurant? What if the child’s parents taught him/her it was OK to use marajuana? What if the child grew up in a mob family and was taught it was OK to murder? I don’t know the answers to these questions. Unless its truly possible to see a man’s heart, I don’t think it is ever possible to know the degree to which he is personally responsible for any of his choices. Only God can know these things which is why he has commanded us to leave judgement, vengence and punishment to him. I am certain that God knows whether a mentally ill person (or a mentally healthy person for that matter) has personal moral responsibility for their actions, but I don’t think society can know, which is why I strongly believe that it is immoral for society to punish crime except when it is an effective deterrent.
4. How do we balance our moral obligation to care for and show compassion to the sick against criminal justice?
I know several people who suffer from serious mental illness. A couple of them are people who I grew up with and so I have seen how their illnesses have robbed them of themselves. Serious mental illnesses are horrifying diseases. The people who suffer from them need our compassion not punishment for crimes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I believe that the only defensible reason to punish any criminal is the deterrent effect of punishment. I consider criminal laws which focus on retribution for the crime over and above preventing more crime to be highly immoral.
Do you think that it's moral to mete out retribtion for crimes, as long as as much focus is put on prevention?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: It's also clear that he's violently insane and if I were living in that community, I'd be okay with life inprisonment over a possibly temporary commitment in a mental institute.
jeniwren, It is clear to everyone that this guy is dangerous and should not be released into any community. No one is suggesting that he be released to the community. The sentence he was given was 25 year to life in prison. So imprisonment in the normal system also has the possibility of being temporary. There is no reason to believe that commitment in a mental institute is more likely to be temporary than the normal prison sentence unless he is somehow miraculously cured from his mental illness. If that miracle were to happen, would he still belong in prison?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1. Why is punishment warranted for any crime?
I don't understand what you're asking here, due to the two possible uses of "any." Do you mean, "Why is punishment warranted for every single crime?" or "Why is there any crime for which punishment is warranted?"
I don't want to address this until that's cleared up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I believe that the only defensible reason to punish any criminal is the deterrent effect of punishment. I consider criminal laws which focus on retribution for the crime over and above preventing more crime to be highly immoral.
Do you think that it's moral to mete out retribtion for crimes, as long as as much focus is put on prevention?
No. Retribution should be left to the one righteous judge (God). Societies has neither the moral responsibility or right to punish people for there sins. It is however the right and responsibility of society to prevent criminal acts. Unless punishment is an effective deterrent for crime I can see no justification for it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:1. Why is punishment warranted for any crime?
I don't understand what you're asking here, due to the two possible uses of "any." Do you mean, "Why is punishment warranted for every single crime?" or "Why is there any crime for which punishment is warranted?"
I don't want to address this until that's cleared up.
My question is closer to "Why is there any crime for which punishment is warranted?" but perhaps it is better phrased
"Why is society ever justified in punishing an individual for crime?"
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Rabbit, I think for me, the fear is that some doctor would medicate him to the eyeballs, get him stable and say "Yep, he's good to go." and the kid would be out without anyone saying much of anything. Thing is, he's not innocent. He still made a choice, and it's not clear how much the mental illness played a part in that choice. I go back to that guy from A Beautiful Mind. He chose not to let the halucinations control his choices.
There is no perfect justice. I don't know how possible it is to know how much the mental illness influenced his decision to kill. He still made the choice no matter how much the illness influenced, though, and to that degree, he is responsible for his actions.
I relate it to my children. If my daughter is overtired and cranky, I make some allowances for her behavior. But she still makes her choices and there are consequences for them even when she's tired and cranky. If she comes up and smacks me, she'll still have consequences for that action -- because there are some things that cross the line of responsible behavior. In my house, hitting is one of them. In our society, willful killing is way beyond the line of responsible behavior. It's just wrong. Doing drugs and stealing a car in the middle of the night, blaring loud music is beyond that line. There should be consequences taking into account the degree to which the mental illness had influence. That means, IMO, jail time and treatment for the illness while incarcerated. He chose.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
jeniwren, Have you ever known anyone who suffers from a serious mental illness?
Comparing serious mental illness to being tired and overcranky is like comparing firecrackers to nuclear war heads.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No. Retribution should be left to the one righteous judge (God). Societies has neither the moral responsibility or right to punish people for there sins. It is however the right and responsibility of society to prevent criminal acts. Unless punishment is an effective deterrent for crime I can see no justification for it.
I think a lot of people will disagree with you on this point.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:He chose.
What makes you believe that he had the ability to choose? If he chose to kill the cop because he believed he was an alien who was out to get him and that belief was caused by a disease, how can he be at all responsible for that choice?
Suppose you were at an amusement park and you went to one of those booths where you shoot BBs at moving ducks and shot a few ducks. But it turned out that this all a deception. The gun was really a high powered riffle and there were children behind the ducks who you killed. Would it be fair to say you made a choice to fire the gun and so you should be incarerated for killing the children.
Now you could argue that any reasonable person should be able to tell a high powered rifle from a carnival BB gun. But what if the deception were really that good. Imagine some incredible Sci Fi virtual reality where you really couldn't tell the illusion from the reality -- That is what serious mental illness is like.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No. Retribution should be left to the one righteous judge (God). Societies has neither the moral responsibility or right to punish people for there sins. It is however the right and responsibility of society to prevent criminal acts. Unless punishment is an effective deterrent for crime I can see no justification for it.
I think a lot of people will disagree with you on this point.
I know that a lot of people disagree with me on this point which is why I asked the question. Why do you believe that society has either the responsibility or right to punish people when they have done wrong?
Most people in the US, believe that individuals don't have either the right or the responsibility to punish criminals -- hence we reject vigilanty justice. If someone steals your car, you don't have a right to beat him to a pulp or lock him in your cellar for a year. At least most Americans will agree that you don't have that right.
This is the basis of my question. Who do you believe has the moral right and/or responsibility mete out retribution for evil and why?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:jeniwren, Have you ever known anyone who suffers from a serious mental illness?
One of my favorite cousins is bipolar, does that count? My mother suffered depression to the point of being hospitalized several times, does that count?
addited: Oh, and there was the time my ex-husband stopped sleeping and developed paranoia and depression. He decided I was trying to kill him. His father helped him commit himself to the hospital before he became a danger. I think that probably counts, as he was armed at the time and it was only a matter of time before he would have been dangerous.
quote:Suppose you were at an amusement park and you went to one of those booths where you shoot BBs at moving ducks and shot a few ducks. But it turned out that this all a deception. The gun was really a high powered riffle and there were children behind the ducks who you killed. Would it be fair to say you made a choice to fire the gun and so you should be incarerated for killing the children.
This is not a direct comparison to what Eric did. We don't, in fact, know why he did what he did. You're comparing playing a game and accidentally killing with someone who took a gun he knew had bullets in it and willfully killed a living creature with it. We don't know if he thought it was an alien, but if he did, it's clear he thought it was okay to kill it. His intent was to kill. It wasn't a game.
He chose. It was a bad decision, and his mental illness probably had influence, but we don't know how much and he's not saying.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My question is closer to "Why is there any crime for which punishment is warranted?" but perhaps it is better phrased
"Why is society ever justified in punishing an individual for crime?"
...
I believe that the only defensible reason to punish any criminal is the deterrent effect of punishment.
Here we just flat out disagree. I strongly believe in the idea of a temporal moral debt, which involves both compensating those wronged and payment for the fact of wrongdoing itself. Of the four traditional purposes of punishment (retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation), I think all four must be present for a punishment system to be just. And there are situations where only the third matters at all – hardened recidivists who have proven themselves dangerous (and, no, I don’t mean three strikes and your out for stealing a bicycle).
quote:I really don't think that punishment can deter patients who are seriously mentally ill, particularly those who are paranoid because the mental illness interferes with their rational fears.
I agree, nor do I think those who had no volition should be punished at all.
quote:2. What constitutes a voluntary choice made with "full knowledge" of the consequences?
If you or I walk into a room, pull out a gun, check to make sure it's loaded and that the bullets aren't blanks, fire a test shot at a vase, see the vase shatter, point the gun at a person's head, pull the trigger, and say, "Good, I finally killed <Person's full name>," I have no problem saying that either one of us made a voluntary choice with full knowledge of the consequences.
quote:3. What means would you use to judge the degree to which an individual was personally responsible for their actions?
It's difficult for sure, and I'm not going to give a detailed mechanism. We need a better understanding of the human mind, addiction, and development. But we are not prevented from carrying out punishment until we can do so perfectly. There’s no great injustice to putting in prison someone who kills a little girl while trying to kill a rival drug dealer, even if it turns out that certain types of upbringings make such an event more likely than others.
By and large, temptation to do something does not mean one can't choose not to do it. Even if pedophiles are truly suffering from mental illness, most of them know it's wrong and have the capacity to not do it when, for example, they might get caught.
quote:I don’t know the answers to these questions. Unless its truly possible to see a man’s heart, I don’t think it is ever possible to know the degree to which he is personally responsible for any of his choices. Only God can know these things which is why he has commanded us to leave judgement, vengence and punishment to him.
I agree we can’t do it perfectly, but I think it is a moral obligation of society to do it as well as possible. Strong preference should be given to erring in favor of letting the guilty go.
The problem you pose for retribution also exists for deterrence. Some people flat out can’t be deterred. Further, some people will not commit a crime again and don’t need to be deterred. Neither set of people can be identified with 100% accuracy. Errors in either direction can lead to harm. In both situations, seeking deterrence can lead to errors under your preferred mode of punishment.
Further, retribution can limit punishments in ways that a deterrence-only model cannot. If there is an idea of a due penalty (which I admit we can’t identify perfectly, just as we can’t identify deterrence mechanisms perfectly), then the total punishment can be capped, even if further punishment would improve the deterrence outcome.
quote:4. How do we balance our moral obligation to care for and show compassion to the sick against criminal justice?
I know several people who suffer from serious mental illness. A couple of them are people who I grew up with and so I have seen how their illnesses have robbed them of themselves. Serious mental illnesses are horrifying diseases. The people who suffer from them need our compassion not punishment for crimes.
I'm not sure why you would think I don't know this after reading my post. I know such people exist, and I advocate taking great pains to treat such people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: You're comparing playing a game and accidentally killing with someone who took a gun he knew had bullets in it and willfully killed a living creature with it. We don't know if he thought it was an alien, but if he did, it's clear he thought it was okay to kill it. His intent was to kill. It wasn't a game.
You admit that we don't know what he was thinking, and then in the same sentence maintain you knew his intent was to kill. The truth is we do not know what was going on inside his head at all. For all we know, he might have though it was a game. If we don't know what he was thinking, then we don't know what he was thinking. You can't have it both ways.
But you missed the point of my argument all together. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with a better analogy.
If a person makes a choice, but that choice is based on information that is a convincing illusion, how can you hold the person responsible for their actions. In our society, we think its justifiable for people to shoot fake ducks in amusement parks. We also believe its justifiable for people shoot other people under certain circumstances such as self defense or war. We don't know what this kids mental state was when he shot the police office, we can't know. But we do know that he suffered from a psychotic mental illness that made it impossible to tell reality from illusion.
We don't know whether or not he believed the police officer was an alien who was trying to kill him, but imagine for a moment that it happened that way. If Eric Clark believed that the police officers were aliens who were trying to kill him, would it have been justifiable for him to shoot? Remember, this is a what if question. If aliens were trying to kill you, would you consider it self defense and therefore justifiable to shoot? If Eric Clark couldn't tell the difference between human police officers and aliens who were trying to kill him, isn't that information relevant to his trial? Shouldn't the law have allowed such argument? That is the question before the supreme court.
quote:He chose. It was a bad decision, and his mental illness probably had influence, but we don't know how much and he's not saying.
Once again you are right, we can not know with certainty what Eric was thinking that night which is why would should avoid judging whether or not he is responsible for his actions and limit our actions to those that will best protect all of society, including Eric.
By all accounts, he suffers to severely from mental illness to be a reliable witness. In fact for 2 years following the crime his mental state was so bad that he was judged unfit to be tried. The best explanation we have for his behavior is, however, that he was in a psychotic state caused by paranoid schizophrenia. He says he believes that all 50,000 people in flagstaff were aliens. We don't know if he really thought he was being attacked by an alien when he was stopped by the police, but we also don't know his that his intent was to kill. We simply don't know.
We do know that Eric Clark suffers from a severe mental disease. We know that this disease changed virtually everything about his personality. We know that this is one of the most horrible destructive diseases we have in our society. We have a moral obligation to show compassion for the sick. That doesn't mean that we should let this guy free in the community to continuing killing or hurting people. He is clearly dangerous and we need to ensure he won't continue hurting people. But none of that obviates our moral obligation to him as a desperately sick human being who deserves compassion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Here we just flat out disagree. I strongly believe in the idea of a temporal moral debt, which involves both compensating those wronged and payment for the fact of wrongdoing itself.
I also that those who commit crimes should compensate those wrongs and pay for the wrongdoing itself. To me those are important parts of repentence, but I don't see that they have particularly efficacy if the criminal is compelled by others to do them. To truly repay the moral debt, the payment must be made freely.
I also don't see that society has the right or responsibility to mete out this retribution and this is where I think we disagree. As I see it, the question isn't whether such retribution is just in abstract theory but rather who has the rights and responsibilities to mete it out. No punishment can be just unless one has the moral right and/or responsibility to administer the punishement.
You still haven't explained why you think society should implement retribution for crimes, only that you do. Of the four traditional purposes you list for punishment, I have agreed with all but one -- retribution.
My reasons for rejecting retribution as a legitimate societal aim are religious.
In the new testiment Paul teaches
quote:If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. "
In the Old Testiment, God says
quote:To me belongeth vengeance and recompence.
And in the LDS scriptures we are told that we are required to forgive all men. The message of this is quite clear to me. God has reserved the right of retribution to himself. We humans can not righteously mete out retribution for crimes because we lack the intimate knowlegde of what goes on inside peoples heads which would be required to make truly just judgements and because we lack the power needed for truly just retribution.
If it is not moral for an individual to mete out retribution, why would it be moral for a group of humans, a society to mete our retribution?
The society has an obligation toward the safety and security of its citizens so I see the need for punishments that deter, incapacitate and/or rehabilitate criminals.
Still I have seen no reason given why society should mete out retribution for crimes that does not meet one of those ends. All I have heard so far is that it is traditional and that lots of people think society should do it but no one has told me why.
[ April 19, 2006, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The problem you pose for retribution also exists for deterrence.
Yes the problems still exist. But there are compelling social reasons for deterring and preventing crime. As I've stated several times, I believe society has the responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens. To the extent that criminal punishments prevent or deter more crime, they have a clear benefit to society that justifies our trying to justly execute punishments even though we can never do it perfectly.
In contrast, punishment that serves as retribution for crimes but does nothing to prevent or deter future crimes has no clearly benefit to society. There is no reason for society to do it at all, so the fact that we can't do it in a perfectly just manner is very important.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If it is not moral for an individual to mete out retribution, why would it be moral for a group of humans, a society to mete our retribution?
Quite simply because God wants us to have societies that are as just as we can make them. This tradition is very old.
Jewish Law contains detailed instructions for punishments to be me meted out by human beings, including due process protections as to when those punishments can be meted out.
One of the Noachide laws is that civil structures be put into place to enforce the other Noachide laws.
Contemporary Catholic teaching recognizes this. While not, as far as I can tell, ever justifying punishment aimed solely at retribution, it recognizes the legitimate purpose of retribution.
From the Catechism, 2266: "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime." Gravity of the offense is a retributive calculus, one that focuses on the moral discord created by the commission of a criminal act, not a detrrence calculus.
It then makes it clear that retribution cannot be the only purpose of punishment: "In this life, however, penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the era of retribution; rather, they are meant to be corrective by being conducive either to the reform of the sinner or the good of society, which becomes more peaceful through the punishment of sinners."
quote:we lack the intimate knowlegde of what goes on inside peoples heads which would be required to make truly just judgements and because we lack the power needed for truly just retribution.
But we also lack the intimate knowledge of what goes on inside people's heads to deter without error and we lack the power needed for true deterrence.
quote:Still I have seen no reason given why society should mete out retribution for crimes that does not meet one of those ends.
I haven't advocated any retribution that does not meet one of those ends. In fact, I stated the opposite quite clearly: "I think all four must be present for a punishment system to be just. And there are situations where only the third matters at all – hardened recidivists who have proven themselves dangerous (and, no, I don’t mean three strikes and your out for stealing a bicycle)."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In contrast, punishment that serves as retribution for crimes but does nothing to prevent or deter future crimes has no clearly benefit to society.
Once again, I've advocated no such thing and have explictly stated so. (Edit to remove something that sounded snarky when I reread it.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:4. How do we balance our moral obligation to care for and show compassion to the sick against criminal justice?
I know several people who suffer from serious mental illness. A couple of them are people who I grew up with and so I have seen how their illnesses have robbed them of themselves. Serious mental illnesses are horrifying diseases. The people who suffer from them need our compassion not punishment for crimes.
I'm not sure why you would think I don't know this after reading my post. I know such people exist, and I advocate taking great pains to treat such people.
I knew you understood this and it was evident in your previous posts. I'm sorry I some how implied that you didn't. But my question is still a very serious one.
How do we balance the need for criminal justice against our moral obligation to provide care and show compassion for the mentally ill?
I don't see that there is a clear answer to this question, but I know that part of the answer must mean more liberal consideration of mental illness in criminal trials than was allowed in this Arizona court case.
There are means to protect society from people who have violent mental illness besides sending them to prison and I believe we have a moral obligation to the sick that demands we use those means more liberally.
I believe that abandoning attempts to mete out retribution and instead focusing on preventing future crimes is an important step in balancing societal needs for safety and security against our moral obligation for compassion.
[ April 20, 2006, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I knew you understood this and it was evident in your previous posts. I'm sorry is I some how implied that you didn't. But my question is still a very serious one.
Thank you. I've been spending an enormous amount of thought and energy on this topic lately.
quote:How do we balance the need for criminal justice against our moral obligation to provide care and show compassion for the mentally ill?
I don't see that there is a clear answer to this question, but I know that part of the answer must mean more liberal consideration of mental illness in criminal trials than was allowed in this Arizona court case.
There are means to protect society from people who have violent mental illness besides sending them to prison and I believe we have a moral obligation to the sick that demands we use those means more liberally.
I agree with all of this, 100%, although I suspect we might differ somewhat on the specific contours of how to implement this.
quote:I believe that abandoning attempts to mete out retribution and instead focusing on preventing future crimes is an important step in balancing societal needs for safety and security against our moral obligation for compassion.
I agree there's too much emphasis on retribution. Too many people in this country think sexual assault and rape are legitimate parts of prison and suitable punishment. But I don't think it can or should be entirely excised from criminal punishment, nor do I think it's necessary to do so to restore the proper balance.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote from aspectre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Anyone who murders another is nutso whacko, with a nutso-whacko reason for having committed that crime. The only difference in this case is that the convicted was diagnosed before the murder. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Spoken like someone with no first-hand knowledge of mentally impaired individuals. "
Thank you, TheHumanTarget, sincerely. My mistake is one of the few that I've seen on Hatrack that completely&fully deserves the That sentence should have read: The only difference in this case is that the convicted was diagnosedas mentally ill before the murder.
Hopefully, my follow-up answers clarified my position to one less distasteful. Again, thank you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, I think we are much closer to agreeing on this you think. Although I am not Catholic and give little heed to the Catechism as a source for moral guidance, I largely agree with the Catholic church on this issue.
God wants us to have just societies, but even more than that he wants us to be merciful people.
I think God wants us to have just societies because there is overall less suffering in a just society. Punishments that are perceived as proportionate to the severity of the crime, tend to promote respect for the law which is perhaps the most powerful deterrent to crime. When people perceive that they are being treated fairly, they are generally much more likely to treat others fairly. What goes around does indeed come around.
I've never argued here that society shouldn't seek just punishments for crimes. My argument is that any punishment society imposes which is sought with the intent for retribution is not morally justifiable.
This brings me back to my original question, "Why is society ever justified in punishing an individual for crime?"
And the answer I think we've landed on is that society is justified in punishing people for crimes when the punishment deters or prevents future crime and perhaps when it promotes a sense of fairness and justice among the citizens.
I think that you and I have already agreed that punishment is unlikely to be effective at deterring mentally ill criminals. Confining them to treatment facilities is likely to be as effective (possibly more effective) than sending them to prison at preventing future crimes.
As for promoting a sense of fairness in society, I guess that question is still up for debate. There are people, like jeniwren and the family of dead police man, who seem to feel that sending this seriously ill man to prison is just. Then there are those like me who feel that this would both unjust and uncaring. To me, the fact that our prison is populated with the mentally ill is a sign of gross injustice.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Rabbit, I think for me, the fear is that some doctor would medicate him to the eyeballs, get him stable and say "Yep, he's good to go." and the kid would be out without anyone saying much of anything. Thing is, he's not innocent. He still made a choice, and it's not clear how much the mental illness played a part in that choice. I go back to that guy from A Beautiful Mind. He chose not to let the halucinations control his choices.
If you think that people with mental illnesses can just CHOOSE not to be affected by them...
...I find myself unable to finish this sentence.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
jeniwren: he managed to choose not to after several decades of homelessness and vagrancy, only able to survive because a closeknit network of friends kept close tabs on him, including calling in favors with various governments, in order to keep him safe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I think we are much closer to agreeing on this you think. Although I am not Catholic and give little heed to the Catechism as a source for moral guidance, I largely agree with the Catholic church on this issue.
Rabbit, I've been thinking it over, and I think you're right in the sense that our views likely have similar policy outcomes. From things posted in this thread and the past, I'd guess (emphasize the guessing) I'm likely to favor a more skeptical means of reviewing reformation as a condition of early release than you would be, and I think I would tend to factor rescidivism more heavily in second and subsequent sentences.
But the emphasis on standard punishment would be on separation from society for the protection of society while separated, specific deterrence once released, and creation of general deterrence based on a perception that punishments will be proportional to the offense.
I'd be interested for your thoughts on meta-punishment. If we have a probation-heavy system, which I think we both prefer, there has to be some kind of threatened punishment backing up demands for compliance. Typically, probation violations lead to jail time. In my mind such punishments are motivated much more by retribution (that is, payment for wrongdoing - specifically, failure to submit to authority) than non-meta-punishments.
Do you agree, or do you see such punishments still serving deterrence effects (or, maybe, allowing the original punishment to serve its deterrence effect)?
quote:And the answer I think we've landed on is that society is justified in punishing people for crimes when the punishment deters or prevents future crime and perhaps when it promotes a sense of fairness and justice among the citizens.
I think this is fair, although I think we mean something different with the "when it promotes" phrase. I think the inclusion of the retributive calculus - including proportionality - will have that effect, so the when phrase is a statement of consequence. I think (and would welcome clarification if I'm wrong) that you are saying that a sentence that does so promote that sense of fairness and justice is serving a non-retributive purpose.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I go back to that guy from A Beautiful Mind. He chose not to let the halucinations control his choices.
jeniwren, You are drawing an inaccurate conclusion based on a movie which does not tell the full story. John Nash gradually recovered from Schizophreny over a period of about 25 years. Recovery from Schizophreny is not common in the US, but it is in many parts of the world. In the movie, when they show John Nash choosing to ignore the halucinations, what they are showing is that his mind is healing. He is recovering from Schizophrenia. The fact that he was able to make this choice as he began to recover from Schizophrenia, does not mean that he could have made the choice 30 year earlier. When you break a leg, you cannot simply choose to walk on it until it has healed. The same is true for severe mental illness. You may be able to recover, but you can't simply choose not to have the disease.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, Some of the questions you ask are simply beyond my realm of knowledge. I know very little about the probation system and so its difficult for me to form an opinion about whether meta-punishments are retributive or preventative in nature. I do know that parole boards are routinely criticized for releasing criminals who then commit additional serious crimes and think many of the seemingly harsh penalties for routine parole violations are intended to address recidivism and not necessarily intended as retribution.
Sending a person to prison for failing to attending a meeting (a minor parole violation) could seem like a punishment that was disproportionately severe compared to the offense. If, however, you consider the prison time a punishment for the original crime and parole as a merciful action predicated on adherence to strict rules, then the punishment is not necessarily unfair.
As I said, I do not know exactly how the system works. If society is saying, "We believe that 10 years in prison is a proportionate punishment for the crime you committed. We are willing to be merciful and keep you in prison for only 2 years if you will agree to abide by the following rules." Then I would see rules that would send the individual back to prison for the remainder of the 10 years as reasonable and not necessarily retributive. If, however, the individual were sent back to prison for more than the original 10 years, that would seem retributive and unjust.
Perhaps it helps if I reduce this to philosophical terms. Somethings which we desire are "goods of first estate". These are things which we want for their direct value to us. For example, bread is a good of first estate. We want bread in order to eat it and not as a means to some other end. Bread provides us directly with the nutrition we need for our health and well being. Farms tools, on the other hand, are a "good of second estate." We obtain no direct benefit from farm tools. They don't directly contribute to our health and well being. We want farm tools so that we can raise crops to make bread, which is what we really wanted in the first place. Understanding the difference is important because it tells about the relative worth of things. It would be foolish trade bread for farm tools unless we were confident that the farm tools would ultimately bring us more bread.
Now back to criminal justice. What we (or at least I) are really seeking is to maximize the well being of everyone in society. To that end, safety and liberty are "goods of first estate". They are things which people want for themselves and not as a means toward any particular end. Justice, on the other hand, I see as a good of second estate. It is something which is important because it contributes to peoples safety and liberty and not as an end in and of itself. In that vane, the goals of deterence, incapacitation and rehabilitation are essential to a good temporal justice system because they contribute to directly to improving the safety and liberty (goods of first estate) of people in the society. Retribution on the other hand does not contribute directly to producing any good of first estate. It doesn't directly make bring any one more liberty or security. Under some circumstance it can contribute to creating a good of second estate (i.e. deterrence) but it can never lead to a good of first estate. Retribution always hurts people so it is only a good of any kind if it actually provides tangeble benefits that out weight the harm. This is why I believe its immoral to consider retribution as a primary goal in criminal justice. Unless we are confident that retribution benefits society by promoting the safety and security of many people, its a bad thing. If we use retribution as a goal at all with in the temporal justice, we have a moral obligation to verify that our choice is indeed promoting peoples safety and security and to modify our choices as well as our views of what is fair and just if it does not.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Recovery from Schizophreny is not common in the US, but it is in many parts of the world.
And I have to wonder why that is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
jeni, I've heard 2 main hypotheses both of which seem plausable but neither of which has been clearly demonstrated in sound scientific investigation. Regions which have a high recovery rate, also tend to be areas that have intact traditional communities with functioning multi-generational families. The first hypothesis is that this cultural environment provides emotional and physical support that promotes healing of the underlying physical disease.
In regions with very low recovery rates, the mentally ill are more likely to end up isolated from friends, family and community. They are also more likely to be treated with anti-psychotic drugs. Although anti-psychotic drugs have immediate beneficial effects, they all have serious long term side effects on the central nervous system.
The second popular hypothesis is that poor recover rates in the developed world are a side effect of anti-psychotic drugs. Although they reduce symptoms over the short term, they may contribute to degeneration of the nervous system over the long term and thereby increase the severity of psychosis.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm taking a sociology class on murder this quarter. According to my professor, about 2% of murders (in Washington state) are caused because the offender is psychotic.
There seemed to be dispute earlier in the thread about when a murderer is psychotic and when not. Just thought I'd supply the official answer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
While looking into this issue I found that the insanity defense is used in about 1% of US murder trials and is successful about 25% of the time.
In contrast, the American Psychiatric association estimates that 1 in 5 US prisoners suffered from serious mental illness and that 5% are actively psychotic at any given moment.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Cutting and pasting from Law & Order:
What if the person takes medication in the hospital, the medication "cures" him, and then he decides to stop taking his meds after he's released? He's dangerous again.
My Dad has diabetes, when it is under control he's fine, but when he forgets to eat, or his body chemisty gets off because of stress, he can be a danger to others. If he is driving, or is somehow responsible for another's safety and he gets low on sugar and begins to become mentally altered, accidents could happen. Should my father not be allowed to live a normal free life because there is the potential that his sickness might make him dangerous?
When he gets mentally altered from low blood sugar, he doesn't know the difference between what judgement is good and what is bad, he doesn't have normal control over his emotions or his senses, and he has a lack of proper judgement.
It is his responsibility to accept treatment, but it isn't his fault if he's sick, we have to help people who are sick to function normally, when they can't help themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While looking into this issue I found that the insanity defense is used in about 1% of US murder trials and is successful about 25% of the time.
In contrast, the American Psychiatric association estimates that 1 in 5 US prisoners suffered from serious mental illness and that 5% are actively psychotic at any given moment.
I definitely think that the range of mental illnesses that should support an insanity defense should be fairly limited.
However, I think treatment for those illnesses that do not qualify for the defense should be the primary focus of the sentence.
I'm still chewing on your previous post - thanks for the thoughts.
My short reaction to it is to think we're using the wor "retribution" very differently. To me, any talk of proportionality means that retribution is being invoked. I also think that retribution can be a good of first estate, but I need to explain this more fully later.
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
For along time the mentally ill, or even people who were a little "off" could be committed by virtually anyone who found them a nuisance at any time with very little recourse, particularly in the case of minors. This resulted in a lot of abuse, for instance, children with no mental illness but perhaps a few emotional problems were locked up. As a kid I knew a few kids who said this had happened to relatives of theirs, and I believed it.
Sometime in the 1970s, to save the states money, the powers that be decided the mentally ill had the "right to be crazy if they wanted" and decided to "dump 'em on the feds." I refer to this as "the time they opened up all the looney bins and dumped the inmates at the Greyhound bus stations."
I immediately changed my main fear from being unjustly incarcerated without due process, to being attacked by some looney unjustly liberated.
As for the medications, yes, sometimes they help and people should take them, but as for people who call the meds "poison," although some of these people are paranoid I am still not at liberty to disagree. I knew someone who was on one medication for years and developed Parkinson's-like symptoms. They switched her to another and it KILLED her--possibly quicker because her health was weakened by the first one. The doctors lied and said this person, who had never entertained a suicidal thought in her life, committed suicide! NO ONE was held responsible or accountable. Because the person was mentally ill, the medical staff and drug company were allowed to get away with murder. Please, be VERY careful regarding medications!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
This is something of an aside from the topic of mental illness and crime, but regarding the purposes of punishment (retribution/rehabilitation/incapacitation of the assailant for the protection of others/deterrence of similar crimes) I wanted to broach the topic of war crimes.
By the time a defendant in a war crimes trial is brought before a court, their ability to repeat such a crime is most likely already nullified and unlikely to return. The scope of such crimes makes the rehabilitation of such a person unlikely, in as much they are unlikely to ever return to the society from which they came with the perception of them as a normal civilian. And the magnitude of such crimes generally comes from such unusual conditions that deterrence may not be effective.
(And yes, I recognize there are questions about this premise and these conditions arguably don't apply to all war crimes.)
At this point, arguably all that is left for such a conviction is retribution. Consider that Adolf Eichmann's court felt the dignity of his victims demanded his execution...
Is it really acceptable that some crimes go unpunished because of the unliklihood of their repetition?
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
No doubt. The fact that Hitler was freakin' crazy doesn't make him innocent.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I strongly believe in the idea of a temporal moral debt, which involves both compensating those wronged and payment for the fact of wrongdoing itself.
Maybe you can explain to me what a moral debt is supposed to be. I don't understand the concept, at least not if it's the sort of thing that can justify punishment.
It seems almost self-evident to me that it's morally bad to harm people. This badness can be outweighed by the good that could come of it; that's why we fight just wars, and why we kill in self-defense. But you seem to be saying that harm all of a sudden becomes good instead of bad, if the person being harmed has done something morally wrong.
As I said on the other thread, I don't see how doing harm (and accomplishing nothing else thereby) can make the world a better place. Since morality is about making the world better, it can never be moral merely to harm someone, unless you're serving some other purpose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is what is meant by retribution: the creation of a state of being in which punishment is warranted. A system of punishment without an element of retribution is amoral at best.
The idea that the commission of a moral wrong places the actor in a different state of being is very old. It's also inherent in almost all ideas of punishment as rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Suppose it were possible to predict, with say 95% accuracy, whether someone would commit a particular offense. Most people would oppose the application of forced "treatment" prior to the commission of the act unless there was evidence that the person could not choose to not commit the act.
Why? Because it is the commission of the act which grants society the authority to use it's coercive power. It would be immoral for a society to deprive a person of their basic liberties and force him into treatment to "fix" whatever caused him to commit crime - or to simply cause him enough suffering to make him not want to do it again (which is what deterrence is) or to separate him from society to prevent commission of the crime - if the crime had not been committed. This is true even if the chances of future offenses is exactly the same between the person who has committed the crime once already and the person who has not.
What provides society with the justification for imposing mandatory punishment on people? The fact that the person has, through virtue of the commission of an immoral act, sacrificed some of the rights and freedoms that we by default have in our society. The very ability to coerce someone to stand trial stems from the idea that we as a society have the right to determine if a moral debt exists.
The exception to this idea that coercion is not justified prior to an act is civil commitment of the mentally ill. What are the requirements? Generally, danger (physical danger) to the patient or to other people (not property) that is due to the patient's inability to choose otherwise. Further, not all harms for which we punish are within the domain of civil commitment. We don’t force someone into treatment because we think they have an uncontrollable urge to saw the heads off parking meters until they’ve actually committed the act.
The very language of criminal law is loaded with moral judgment. Guilt or innocence. Culpability. Responsibility. Duty. All of this points to the idea of the moral debt being the basis for authorizing the punishment.
So why is it important to say that one of the purposes of punishment is retribution? Why can’t we merely say that it is the creation of the moral wrong which grants us the authority to use force to obtain the utilitarian outcomes of rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation?
Because if criminal punishment is based only on those three elements, then there is no inherent limit on the type of punishment that may be meted out. The ability to judge the gravity of a crime - that is, the size of the moral debt it incurs - places an upper limit on the amount of punishment that may be meted out.
This means that punishments that would have greater utilitarian effect - better rehabilitation, more deterrence, or longer incapacitation - cannot be administered in a punishment scheme which includes retribution if that punishment exceeds the moral debt owed by the defendant.
Finally, at least some of the rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation that occurs works through the recognition of the moral debt by the defendant and by society. and subsequent submission to or acceptance of the punishment. However, since this could be construed to merely mean that forms of punishment which create the suffering to allow for such acceptance are really rehabilitative or deterrent, I won’t pursue that line any further.
Any act which can lead to criminal liability has been condemned by society in a very unique way. The grading of offenses by seriousness is a means of further differentiating the moral weight of various acts. We do not want people to not commit crimes merely because of deterrence - that is, merely because the cost of doing so outweighs the cost of behaving lawfully. We want them to eschew crime because it is wrong. And one of the ways we convey the wrongness is by the seriousness of the penalties associated with it. The entire process of grading - even to the extent of criminalizing some acts while not criminalizing others - introduces the concept of moral seriousness, and thus retribution, into the criminal justice system from the very beginning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought of a simpler way to sum up the response to this:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: I strongly believe in the idea of a temporal moral debt, which involves both compensating those wronged and payment for the fact of wrongdoing itself.
Maybe you can explain to me what a moral debt is supposed to be. I don't understand the concept, at least not if it's the sort of thing that can justify punishment.
There are really two choices when considering when coercive "treatment" can be administered: either it is limited to after a wrongful act is committed, or it is not.
If it is limited to aftet the commission of the wrongful act, then it seems to me that you believe that the temporal moral debt created by a wrongdoer is limited to the obligation to submit to deterrent, rehabilitative, and incapacitating treatment. But you still believe in the moral debt itself.
If coercive treatment can be imposed prior to the commission of the wrongful act, assuming there exists a reliable predictor for future wrongdoing, then there doesn't have to be the idea of a moral debt. But I would consider such a system to be immoral.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This is what is meant by retribution: the creation of a state of being in which punishment is warranted. A system of punishment without an element of retribution is amoral at best.
The idea that the commission of a moral wrong places the actor in a different state of being is very old.
Obviously I agree that committing a wrong changes the status of the wrongdoer. Certain evaluative attitudes might become appropriate, like blame and resentment, and feelings of guilt on his part. What I don't see is how his status could change so radically that his pain, suffering or death becomes a good thing rather than a bad thing. More about this below.
quote:Suppose it were possible to predict, with say 95% accuracy, whether someone would commit a particular offense. Most people would oppose the application of forced "treatment" prior to the commission of the act unless there was evidence that the person could not choose to not commit the act.
This is false. In practicality, there are some situations in which we might know that someone has a very high chance of committing a wrong, but has not yet done so. For example, he might have declared his intention to commit the crime, or be sneaking up behind his intended victim. In these cases we are indeed justified in applying force, not just to prevent the immediate danger but to restrain and rehabilitate him.
quote:The very language of criminal law is loaded with moral judgment. Guilt or innocence. Culpability. Responsibility. Duty. All of this points to the idea of the moral debt being the basis for authorizing the punishment.
I agree that this is the basis for our actual laws. It's too bad that our justice system was founded on an incoherent concept, but fortunately it works fairly well anyway.
quote:The fact that the person has, through virtue of the commission of an immoral act, sacrificed some of the rights and freedoms that we by default have in our society.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand what it is to "sacrifice a right," especially to sacrifice some but not all of one's rights. (I understand what it is to lose legal rights, of course, but not what it is to lose moral rights.)
Let's say that I have the absolute right to my life, but that I come at you with a knife intending to kill you. You would say that I have lost my right to life, since it's now permissible for you to kill me in self-defence. But that doesn't seem to accurately describe the situation. Suppose you have a tranquilizer gun in your right hand and a normal, lethal gun in your left. You know the tranquilizer gun can bring me down. Then it's immoral for you to kill me in this situation, even though it would be perfectly moral to kill me if you only had the lethal gun and not the tranquilizer.
Does my losing the right to life depend on how well-armed you are? Of course not. Obviously I must have the same rights in both situations. The only way I can explain this example is to conclude that I still retain my moral right to live -- it's just that taking away my life is a means to achieving other goods (such as your right to live and be free, etc).
(You might object: rights are absolute, so how could one right take precedence over another? But although many people think rights must be absolute, they cannot be. Let's suppose that you are obligated to respect my right to life no matter what -- no considerations can outweigh it. Does this mean you can't do something that you know has a 0.05 percent chance of killing me, even if you can accomplish something morally significant by doing it? Of course not. But what about something that has a 50 percent chance of killing me, or a 99 percent chance? If rights are absolute, we have no way of drawing the line. It must be that our rights are very important, but not strictly speaking inalienable.)
quote:We do not want people to not commit crimes merely because of deterrence - that is, merely because the cost of doing so outweighs the cost of behaving lawfully. We want them to eschew crime because it is wrong.
I absolutely agree. But I would think the only way to achieve that end is through moral education. Punishment can teach us which acts we are supposed to do and not do -- we learn what brings pain and hardship on us, and what relieves these things, pretty well. But that can't be the same as understanding the moral reasons why one should not do these things.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If coercive treatment can be imposed prior to the commission of the wrongful act, assuming there exists a reliable predictor for future wrongdoing, then there doesn't have to be the idea of a moral debt. But I would consider such a system to be immoral.
You know, I wouldn't.
I mean, what counts as coercive treatment anyway? Our reaction to Minority Report (which I'm assuming you've seen, let me know if not) is largely due to the fact that the punishment is so terrible. The system in that movie is far more coercive than necessary.
But what if they just locked the pre-criminals up for a day, then let them go? That's still coercive. You've still done a bit of harm to the pre-criminal, preventing him from doing what he wanted to do that day. But far from being immoral, such a system would seem incredibly just to me. There would be no violent crime at very little cost to the citizens.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is false. In practicality, there are some situations in which we might know that someone has a very high chance of committing a wrong, but has not yet done so. For example, he might have declared his intention to commit the crime,
In many cases declaring an intention to do so is a wrongful act. For example, if the person is present and the speaker has the ability to carry out a threat of bodily harm, it's assault. It would even be possible to make statement of intent a crime - we consider agreement to commit a crime conspiracy. Either way, I think the case can be made that a moral debt is incurred by the statement and it is this which justifies intervention.
quote: or be sneaking up behind his intended victim.
In this case he would almost certainly be guilty of attempt - a crime. So it doesn't contradict my theory.
quote:In these cases we are indeed justified in applying force, not just to prevent the immediate danger but to restrain and rehabilitate him.
You have added "immediate," which often is an element of a crime - either a crime involving threats, or an attempt. Further, I'm hard pressed to see how "immediate" could be judged without an act of some kind - buying the gun, picking up the knife, etc.
quote:I agree that this is the basis for our actual laws. It's too bad that our justice system was founded on an incoherent concept, but fortunately it works fairly well anyway.
It's not fundamentally incoherent.
quote:I cannot, for the life of me, understand what it is to "sacrifice a right," especially to sacrifice some but not all of one's rights. (I understand what it is to lose legal rights, of course, but not what it is to lose moral rights.)
You have the right to not be put in prison. This is a general right most of us share. Those who don't have this right have sacrificed it through their commission of things we call "crimes." Your distinction between legal and moral rights doesn't make sense to me here. I'm aware of the difference between the two, but we are positing restrictions on state action - by definition, a legal right.
quote:Does my losing the right to life depend on how well-armed you are? Of course not. Obviously I must have the same rights in both situations. The only way I can explain this example is to conclude that I still retain my moral right to live -- it's just that taking away my life is a means to achieving other goods (such as your right to live and be free, etc).
No. you sacrifice your right not to be shot by attempting to take my life. I, however, only have the moral right to use lethal force if I have no other way to stop you. Your right to life doesn't depend on how armed I am, though. It depends on your actions. My right to use lethal force depends on how armed I happen to be.
I think the heart of this disagreement (heightened by your post below the one I'm responding to here) is that you seem to think physical outcome is the most important part of a moral calculus. I don't.
quote:I absolutely agree. But I would think the only way to achieve that end is through moral education. Punishment can teach us which acts we are supposed to do and not do -- we learn what brings pain and hardship on us, and what relieves these things, pretty well. But that can't be the same as understanding the moral reasons why one should not do these things.
And part of moral education is the promulgation of the social consensus of which crimes deserve which punishment. This provides knowledge of the relative severity of the wrongful acts and a tangible scale upon which it can be measured.
quote:You know, I wouldn't.
Then we have a fundamental, irresolvable difference in moral philosophy. A system which imposes such treatment, absent moral culpability or lack of choice, is fundamentally amoral to me.
quote:I mean, what counts as coercive treatment anyway?
Treatment which the person is not free to refuse.
quote:Our reaction to Minority Report (which I'm assuming you've seen, let me know if not) is largely due to the fact that the punishment is so terrible. The system in that movie is far more coercive than necessary.
That might have been your reaction. It certainly wasn't mine. Over-punishment, while wrong, is not the moral question being explored by the movie.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It would even be possible to make statement of intent a crime - we consider agreement to commit a crime conspiracy. Either way, I think the case can be made that a moral debt is incurred by the statement and it is this which justifies intervention.
This seems like a strange position. Clearly the intent to commit the future wrong is what makes my declaration of intent morally bad. If I had kept my mouth shut, I would still have the same intent.
Let's say I write in my diary that I plan to kill Bill tomorrow. The act of writing this down is clearly not morally or legally wrong. But if you find the diary and read this page, you have every right (and indeed an obligation) to try to prevent me from killing Bill. This will probably involve using force, and it might be easier for you to act before I have the sword in my hand.
Do you disagree?
quote:You have added "immediate," which often is an element of a crime - either a crime involving threats, or an attempt.
A rhetorical move. Remove the word "immediate" and I stand by my claim. We are justified in acting to foil the plans of a man who we know is plotting to kill someone next week, even if this involves some coercion.
quote:No. you sacrifice your right not to be shot by attempting to take my life. I, however, only have the moral right to use lethal force if I have no other way to stop you. Your right to life doesn't depend on how armed I am, though. It depends on your actions. My right to use lethal force depends on how armed I happen to be.
So wait, your right to use lethal force and my right to life are separate rights?
This doesn't fit my understanding of what rights are supposed to be. I understand "rights" to mean negative rights. A negative right is a claim one has to a certain sort of consideration from others -- my right to property entails that others can't do what they please with my things unless I allow it. The right to life also has this structure.
Your right "to use lethal force" sounds like a positive right -- something that a libertarian, for instance, would not believe in.
quote:I think the heart of this disagreement (heightened by your post below the one I'm responding to here) is that you seem to think physical outcome is the most important part of a moral calculus. I don't.
So what do you think is most important?
quote:And part of moral education is the promulgation of the social consensus of which crimes deserve which punishment.
Ah, but this begs the question: is punishment ever deserved?
quote:This provides knowledge of the relative severity of the wrongful acts and a tangible scale upon which it can be measured.
If I understand this correctly, you seem to think there's no notion of how severe a moral wrong is, except the notion of what punishment is appropriate. But I can think of several other ways to quantify this. For example, how much resentment or anger I am justified in feeling toward the wrongdoer. Or how hard I should work to prevent people from performing the wrong act.
quote:Over-punishment, while wrong, is not the moral question being explored by the movie.
Obviously not, but it is a way that the movie manipulates the audience's reaction to the central moral question. Likewise for the fact that the precogs do turn out to be fallible. If the movie didn't manipulate its audience this way, I think the typical viewer would reach a different conclusion about pre-crime.
Do you really think that no amount of force, however small, would be justified in stopping pre-criminals? That seems like a case of you bending over backwards to make your judgement in this case conform to your principles.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This seems like a strange position. Clearly the intent to commit the future wrong is what makes my declaration of intent morally bad. If I had kept my mouth shut, I would still have the same intent.
My primary distinguishing factor has been choice. A person who has made a statement of intent has made a choice. I'm comparing this to a theoretical construct where we know what a person will do but they haven't chosen to do so yet.
quote:Let's say I write in my diary that I plan to kill Bill tomorrow. The act of writing this down is clearly not morally or legally wrong. But if you find the diary and read this page, you have every right (and indeed an obligation) to try to prevent me from killing Bill. This will probably involve using force, and it might be easier for you to act before I have the sword in my hand.
Again, there is the element of choice already made here.
There are many acts that can be taken to prevent the killing that are not coercive. Increasing the protection around Bill, for example.
There are other actions which are coercive, and these are not justified prior to some overt act.
quote:A rhetorical move. Remove the word "immediate" and I stand by my claim. We are justified in acting to foil the plans of a man who we know is plotting to kill someone next week, even if this involves some coercion.
Yes, it was a rhetorical move you made. I'm glad you recognize it.
Planning is more than a statement of intent. Once planning has begun, there are actions against which that intent may be judged.
Remember, my primary differentiating factor is volition or choice. Planning clearly indicates choice.
quote:So wait, your right to use lethal force and my right to life are separate rights?
Of course they are.
quote:This doesn't fit my understanding of what rights are supposed to be. I understand "rights" to mean negative rights.
Then you are only dealing with a subset of rights. I make a contract with you and do the work I promised. You withhold the pay you promised. I have the right to that money, and that is not a negative right.
Leaving that aside, my right to shoot is really my right to shoot without later suffering criminal liability. So it still is a negative right - the right to do something includes the right to not be punished for doing it.
quote:A negative right is a claim one has to a certain sort of consideration from others -- my right to property entails that others can't do what they please with my things unless I allow it. The right to life also has this structure.
Yes, it does. And attempting to kill another person means that you forfeit the right not to have your life taken during the attempt.
quote:Your right "to use lethal force" sounds like a positive right -- something that a libertarian, for instance, would not believe in.
Good thing I'm not a libertarian then. (Actually, I doubt many libertarians would agree with your statement. I believe most would say a person has the right to use lethal force to defend their own life but not the right to be given a gun with which to do so.) Further, my "right to use lethal force" is of the exact same kind as your right to speak, except that ther circumstances in which I may exercise the right to use lethal force are more limited. Either way, the right entails not being prevented from carrying out a specific action by the state and also not suffering subsequent penalty for carrying out that act.
quote:If I understand this correctly, you seem to think there's no notion of how severe a moral wrong is, except the notion of what punishment is appropriate.
Then you don't understand it correctly. The punishment levels represent society's consensus (not unanimous opinion, but the end results of a means by which society comes together to judge such things). It's an indication of how bad society thinks something is, not the actual measure.
quote:Obviously not, but it is a way that the movie manipulates the audience's reaction to the central moral question. Likewise for the fact that the precogs do turn out to be fallible. If the movie didn't manipulate its audience this way, I think the typical viewer would reach a different conclusion about pre-crime.
I disagree.
quote:Do you really think that no amount of force, however small, would be justified in stopping pre-criminals? That seems like a case of you bending over backwards to make your judgement in this case conform to your principles.
Only because you are continuing to apply your judgment to my positions.
If a person has not chosen to act wrongfully, then coercion (actual coercion, not the coercive effect of knowing punishment is likely) is not justified. I don't think this is a particularly novel concept, nor am I unique in holding to it, so I don't think that your incredulity well-grounded.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:My primary distinguishing factor has been choice. A person who has made a statement of intent has made a choice.
Ah, I see. It wasn't clear to me before that this was the distinguishing feature for you.
This is an interesting position, but I see a lot of potential problems. For one thing, there are many morally wrong acts for which we can punish people, but which involve no element of choice.
Negligence is a prime example. Suppose I run a red light. Not because I wanted to -- indeed, I wanted not to -- but because I just didn't see the light turn red. I didn't choose to run the light, but still I have done wrong and am liable for it.
Also, it seems like there are plenty of cases where someone can choose to do wrong and yet not be liable. A friend of mine recently became very angry with his girlfriend and declared that he would do some nasty, undeserved things to her. If she had been around then, he'd have done these things. He had, at that time, chosen to do them. But I knew that in fact he would change his mind before he had a chance to commit the wrong. I think in this case we would say that my friend was not culpable.
quote:There are many acts that can be taken to prevent the killing that are not coercive. Increasing the protection around Bill, for example.
There are other actions which are coercive, and these are not justified prior to some overt act.
Of course I'm asking you to suppose, as is the case in rare examples, that there are no non-coercive methods available if you want to stop the wrong from happening.
quote:I make a contract with you and do the work I promised. You withhold the pay you promised. I have the right to that money, and that is not a negative right.
An ethical libertarian like Robert Nozick would say that it is a negative right, since the money became your property when your end of the contract was fulfilled.
quote:Leaving that aside, my right to shoot is really my right to shoot without later suffering criminal liability. So it still is a negative right - the right to do something includes the right to not be punished for doing it.
I would think that your right not to be punished would just be explained by a right you mentioned earlier -- the overall right not to be imprisoned that you believe is forfeit in some cases of wrongdoing. Or is the picture here that I have a whole bunch of separate rights -- the right to shoot without imprisonment, the right to take a pee without imprisonment, etc? That seems weird to the point of being unbelievable.
quote:Then you don't understand it correctly. The punishment levels represent society's consensus (not unanimous opinion, but the end results of a means by which society comes together to judge such things). It's an indication of how bad society thinks something is, not the actual measure.
OK. So now I say to you, there are many other scales by which we can measure the severity of a wrong. Why is punishment necessary in order to educate people morally?
Also, I deny that punishment provides an accurate measure of how wrong an action is according to society. Willful theft seems, in many cases, more wrong than negligent killing. If I make a mistake and kill someone while driving, that doesn't mean I'm a bad person. But the punishment is more severe.
Moreover, telling a vicious lie or betraying a friend's trust can be terribly wrong, even in cases where these acts are in no way illegal.
quote:If a person has not chosen to act wrongfully, then coercion (actual coercion, not the coercive effect of knowing punishment is likely) is not justified. I don't think this is a particularly novel concept, nor am I unique in holding to it, so I don't think that your incredulity well-grounded.
But I am incredulous. What about if the situation were more serious than mere murder -- what if the precogs told you that someone would soon choose to commit an act of nuclear terrorism that would kill millions? Would you oppose forceful intervention prior to choice in this case?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is an interesting position, but I see a lot of potential problems. For one thing, there are many morally wrong acts for which we can punish people, but which involve no element of choice.
Negligence is a prime example. Suppose I run a red light. Not because I wanted to -- indeed, I wanted not to -- but because I just didn't see the light turn red. I didn't choose to run the light, but still I have done wrong and am liable for it.
Not true. The choice to act without due care is a choice. In the case of running a red light, you chose to drive, making an implict agreement to pay attention. You failed to do so.
Note that we take this into account in grading. Premeditated murder is worse than killing in the heat of passion, which is worse than negligent homicide.
quote:Also, it seems like there are plenty of cases where someone can choose to do wrong and yet not be liable. A friend of mine recently became very angry with his girlfriend and declared that he would do some nasty, undeserved things to her. If she had been around then, he'd have done these things. He had, at that time, chosen to do them. But I knew that in fact he would change his mind before he had a chance to commit the wrong. I think in this case we would say that my friend was not culpable.
I disagree. He was culpable of something, just not physically harming her. But the more imminent his ability to cary his intent out, the greater force is justified.
quote:I would think that your right not to be punished would just be explained by a right you mentioned earlier -- the overall right not to be imprisoned that you believe is forfeit in some cases of wrongdoing. Or is the picture here that I have a whole bunch of separate rights -- the right to shoot without imprisonment, the right to take a pee without imprisonment, etc? That seems weird to the point of being unbelievable.
If you give a speech denouncing the war and are imprisoned for it, your right to free speech was infringed.
quote:Why is punishment necessary in order to educate people morally?
I didn't say it was. I said moral education was a good obtained through the inclusion of retributive concepts in the criminal punishment system.
quote:Also, I deny that punishment provides an accurate measure of how wrong an action is according to society. Willful theft seems, in many cases, more wrong than negligent killing. If I make a mistake and kill someone while driving, that doesn't mean I'm a bad person. But the punishment is more severe.
I didn't say it provided an accurate measure of how wrong an action is. It provides a measure of how wrong society thinks an action is. If the law were as you stated, then society has said that it finds involuntary killing to be worse than theft.
The law isn't as you stated, however. In Virginia, for instance, involuntary manslaughter is punishable by 1-10 years. Grand larceny (theft of $5 or more from a person, $200 or more not from a person, or any firearm) carries a sentence of 1 to 20 years. Burglary can carry a life sentence. So many instances of wilfull theft are treated more seriously than involuntary manslaughter.
quote:Moreover, telling a vicious lie or betraying a friend's trust can be terribly wrong, even in cases where these acts are in no way illegal.
Of course it is. I never claimed the punishment scale represented a complete scale of wrongdoing. I said it represented a societal judgment, one society has a duty to educate about.
quote:But I am incredulous. What about if the situation were more serious than mere murder -- what if the precogs told you that someone would soon choose to commit an act of nuclear terrorism that would kill millions? Would you oppose forceful intervention prior to choice in this case?
There are many illegal choices before nuclear terrorism can be carried out, and intervention can occur at any of them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Not true. The choice to act without due care is a choice. In the case of running a red light, you chose to drive, making an implict agreement to pay attention. You failed to do so.
Surely it's sometimes possible for me to be attentive and to make a mistake. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to characterize negligence as a choice. It's not like I ever say to myself "I've decided to be negligent for the next few minutes." In fact, I might fully intend to pay attention and still fail to do so. I decided to pay attention, and I tried to, but my attention wavered for a moment and I made a mistake. Our minds aren't fully under our conscious control.
It seems wrong to say that I can ever choose to do something without intending to do it. But unintentional wrongdoing is possible, as the case of negligence shows. So clearly the moral significance of actions is not, as you say, necessarily connected to the notion of choice.
quote:I said moral education was a good obtained through the inclusion of retributive concepts in the criminal punishment system.
Right, and what I'm saying is that if moral education could be accomplished through non-harmful means (I'm not saying it always can be, but suppose it could be), then the non-harmful education would be more beneficial than punishment.
quote:I didn't say it provided an accurate measure of how wrong an action is. It provides a measure of how wrong society thinks an action is.
So society doesn't think it's at all wrong to lie or betray someone's trust when there's no money involved?
Seems more likely that the severity of punishment measures something quite different from the severity of moral wrong -- to wit, how much of society's effort should go into deterring people from committing certain acts.
quote:There are many illegal choices before nuclear terrorism can be carried out, and intervention can occur at any of them.
Dag, we're talking ethics here. You have to be able to deal with some idealized thought experiments. (And I know from your thread about the two guys and the bear that you're quite comfortable doing this. )
Let's suppose you know that, by the time the prospective terrorist decides to carry out the act, there will be nothing you can do to stop him. Your only chance to prevent the bomb from going off is to act before his choice. Your view entails that it's morally wrong to use any amount of coercive force to stop him. I find that impossible to accept.
[ April 22, 2006, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Surely it's sometimes possible for me to be attentive and to make a mistake. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to characterize negligence as a choice. It's not like I ever say to myself "I've decided to be negligent for the next few minutes." In fact, I might fully intend to pay attention and still fail to do so. I decided to pay attention, and I tried to, but my attention wavered for a moment and I made a mistake. Our minds aren't fully under our conscious control.
You chose to drive and you chose - by going through licensure and driver's ed - to accept the risks associated with inattentive driving.
quote:But unintentional wrongdoing is possible, as the case of negligence shows.
But you stole chose to commit the negligent act - you just didn't realize it was negligent at the time. The choice to perform the act was present.
quote:Right, and what I'm saying is that if moral education could be accomplished through non-harmful means (I'm not saying it always can be, but suppose it could be), then the non-harmful education would be more beneficial than punishment.
This was the last of several points I made to support the idea of moral debt in punishment. I didn't say it alone justified this. I said it's a benefit that occurs because of it.
quote:So society doesn't think it's at all wrong to lie or betray someone's trust when there's no money involved?
No. It means such wrongs will be treated as private wrongs, and that the coercive force of the state will not be used to punish such acts.
quote:Seems more likely that the severity of punishment measures something quite different from the severity of moral wrong -- to wit, how much of society's effort should go into deterring people from committing certain acts.
Which is what brings about draconian penalties for crack while cocaine dealers can sell 100 times more before reaching the same level of punishment - the desire to deter an act outside the scope of the moral wrong caused by the act. Without the concept of moral debt, punishment becomes merely getting people to do what we want them to do.
Of course, that happens. The point is that it shouldn't happen.
quote:Dag, we're talking ethics here. You have to be able to deal with some idealized thought experiments. (And I know from your thread about the two guys and the bear that you're quite comfortable doing this. [Smile] )
Let's suppose you know that, by the time the prospective terrorist decides to carry out the act, there will be nothing you can do to stop him. Your only chance to prevent the bomb from going off is to act before his choice. Your view entails that it's morally wrong to use any amount of coercive force to stop him. I find that impossible to accept.
Not all ills can be prevented. Why do you think people debate whether going back in time to kill Hitler would be a good thing? Because it's a hard question, and it's not at all obvious to the human conscious that all choices which prevent death are good.
If you had the knowledge of the bomb plot, and you couldn't convince anyone else, would you kill this person and then confess to doing so?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I still think you're wrong about negligent acts being intentional.
quote:But you stole chose to commit the negligent act - you just didn't realize it was negligent at the time. The choice to perform the act was present.
Now we're getting closer to the real issue. If I don't know that an action of mine will bring about some bad consequence, is it wrong for me to do it?
Seems like it depends. Let's say that I'm a paramedic and I inject someone with a drug that, totally unbeknownst to anyone, he's allergic to. The patient dies. Seems I'm not responsible for this. Although I chose to inject him, I didn't choose to kill him and I couldn't be expected to know that he would die.
But now let's say I'm driving and I step on the gas; unbeknownst to me, this causes me to run a red light and hit another car. I didn't choose to run the light or hit the car, but I do seem responsible. Why? Because I should've known that stepping on the gas would cause me to run the red light.
So it seems that what I'm culpable for is not my choice to run the light, but my ignorance. And we've stipulated that I didn't choose to be ignorant. I was trying to pay attention. My normal faculties just happened to fail me on this one occasion.
quote:Without the concept of moral debt, punishment becomes merely getting people to do what we want them to do.
Ideally: not what we want them to do, but what they should do, and for the right reasons.
Note also that I've never committed myself to the view that punishment is justified whenever it will deter future wrongdoing. I just believe that it is never justified unless it will deter future wrongdoing.
quote:If you had the knowledge of the bomb plot, and you couldn't convince anyone else, would you kill this person and then confess to doing so?
Yes, if there was no other way to stop him. Except I probably wouldn't confess if I thought I'd be found guilty. No point in my getting in trouble for doing the right thing.
The examples could get worse and worse, by the way. It has to be permissible to use coercive force against the innocent in some cases. What if someone is carrying a plague that will wipe out the human race? Isn't it my duty to incarcerate him if that will prevent the spread of the disease?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Seems like it depends. Let's say that I'm a paramedic and I inject someone with a drug that, totally unbeknownst to anyone, he's allergic to. The patient dies. Seems I'm not responsible for this. Although I chose to inject him, I didn't choose to kill him and I couldn't be expected to know that he would die.
If you didn't ask him if he were allergic (assuming he was lucid) or if you failed to check his medalert bracelet, you would have chosen to not follow your duty of care. If you did those things, then you weren't negligent.
You've postulated negligence. Negligence is the failure to meet the standard of care. There are many situations where one causes a bad outcome where one is not negligent, and generally no culpability attaches.
quote:So it seems that what I'm culpable for is not my choice to run the light, but my ignorance. And we've stipulated that I didn't choose to be ignorant. I was trying to pay attention. My normal faculties just happened to fail me on this one occasion.
No. What your culpable for is not following the appropriate duty of care, which states that you should know conditions before proceeding.
quote:Ideally: not what we want them to do, but what they should do, and for the right reasons.
Note also that I've never committed myself to the view that punishment is justified whenever it will deter future wrongdoing.
Then what puts that upper limit on what is justified? I submit that it is the amount of moral culpability in the act - something that is measured as part of the retributive element of punishment.
quote:Isn't it my duty to incarcerate him if that will prevent the spread of the disease?
His choosing to go into populated areas where he could infect people would be a wrongful act. Therefore he can be prevented from doing so. If he doesn't know he has the disease, then he can be informed.
You keep skipping over the choice part. It's not his fault he's infected (presumably). It is his fault if he knows he's infected and doesn't take steps to not spread the disease. And at the time of fault, or when it is imminent, then coercive force is justified.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sorry I wasn't clear, the paramedic case wasn't supposed to be an example of negligence. It was supposed to be a case where you chose to do something that turned out to be harmful, but you did it in ignorance like in the case of running the red light. The moral difference between the two cases is that in the red light case you're to blame for your ignorance -- you should've known that you were running the light.
quote:What your culpable for is not following the appropriate duty of care, which states that you should know conditions before proceeding.
That sounds much like what I'm saying. I didn't know the light was red, and I thought I knew it was green, so my culpable ignorance (and not my choice) is what explains the wrongdoing.
quote:Then what puts that upper limit on what is justified?
Roughly, the fact that society can't justly demand heinous sacrifice from anyone, including criminals, unless there is some overwhelming good (like saving a nation or the world) that can't be achieved any other way. This is also why I think the death penalty is wrong. It's one thing to demand, in service of the Greater Good, that you submit to imprisonment, and quite another to demand your life.
quote:His choosing to go into populated areas where he could infect people would be a wrongful act. Therefore he can be prevented from doing so. If he doesn't know he has the disease, then he can be informed.
Dag, again, these are thought experiments. I can stipulate that the guy doesn't know he's sick, and I have no way of convincing him quickly enough to save humanity. Suppose he's already on his way to a populated area and it's crucial that I act immediately.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, again, these are thought experiments. I can stipulate that the guy doesn't know he's sick, and I have no way of convincing him quickly enough to save humanity. Suppose he's already on his way to a populated area and it's crucial that I act immediately.
Yo! You've got a plague that will kill humanity. Stop.
*doesn't stop*
*use minimum necessary force to stop plague bringer with perfect justification*
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
My point exactly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, and at that point he's made his choice to act wrongfully.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
No, because as I've stipulated, he's ignorant of the facts that make his action wrong, assuming he doesn't believe you that he has the plague.
I assure you, there are ways to adjust the example such that the only way to prevent the extinction of the species is to harm a blameless person. He might have cotton in his ears. He might be in a car with the windows shut and the radio off. He might just not be in the habit of taking it seriously when someone says "Yo! You've got a plague that will kill humanity." Whatever.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Assume that the guy with the plague does not understand any English. He does not understand you when you say "plague", "kill", or "stop". If he does not understand, he has not made a conscious choice to ignore the warning. He has not chosen to act wrongfully. Unless you have invented a moral obligation to understand English, or a moral obligation to verify that you are free from disease before interacting with other humans, this man has not made a wrong choice.
This isn't far fetched or concocted, its done regularly. If I were to visit some country outside the US and there was an outbreak of Typhoid (for example) while I was visiting, I would prevented me from returning to the US until I could prove that I was not carrying the disease. In essense, I would be considered guilty of carrying the disease until proven innocent. Such quarantines are unquestionably a restriction of peoples rights and it is generally considered a just action.
Which leads me back to my original contention. Societies have a right and responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their citizens. This societal right must be balanced against the rights of individuals. It is this balancing which necessitates considerations of the severity of crime and not a moral obligation of retribution.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)