posted
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. )
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?"
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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)."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
