2 Comments:

 Mike said...

David:

Insanity is a legal, not psychological, term. It simply means the inability to distinguish right from wrong in a given situation. So, technically, there are no "other types of mental illness" to be considered; rather, many types of mental illness - psychosis, mania, delusions - are argued to render the individual legally insane and thus not morally culpable for their actions.

There is, I think, a simple test for insanity; it is this: at the time of the commission of the crime, does the individual do anything to cover up what s/he has done or is there an attempt to escape? If someone truly does not know right from wrong, then there is no reason why they would attempt to flee, provide themselves with an alibi, or destroy evidence. If an individual is insane, they would continue about their business as though they had done nothing more than to stop and pick up a penny from the sidewalk.

The insanity defense is at once a much needed and much abused aspect of our legal system. The administration of it is what is critical and, I fear, too few judges have the wisdom to know when someone is insane or psychopathic.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:45:00 AM  

 DAVID C. PRICE said...

Thank you very much for your comments and for your clarification of terms.

I understand your position and distinction between legality and morality, though it seems to me that the legal term is an expression of the psychological state, therefore rendering the differentiation something of a technicality.

Are we not to say that to kill someone is not a crime? That is to say, for example, if a young child kills someone, they may not understand the full ramifications of what they have done, but is what they did wrong? It seems that we must, regardless of the state of the child, answer in the affirmative. Now, how we deal with that crime...with that wrong-doing...will be different than how we deal with a mass murderer. That doesn't change the fact that a crime has objectively been committed.

That, I believe, is Dr. Mohler's position and it is certainly mine. The most important part of this to me is not whether or not a person is charged to the fullest extent of the law, but what has been said of the action. In other words, it is important that we not relativize "wrongness" by saying someone is innocent by reason of insanity. They are, in fact, guilty by reason of insanity which should be considered in the sentencing phase of the trial.

One final thought regarding the test you propose: I believe it is possible for cold-blooded killers (psychopaths, as you state) with no sense of conscience and no sense of remorse to react in a similar way to the insane person in your test, thus rendering the test potentially flawed and certainly not worthy of being considered a litmus test. The lack of wisdom of the judges you refer to is, indeed, a problem with the system. Heck, we see it in the movies all the time ;-)

Thanks, again, for the comments.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006 5:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home