Diminished Responsibility and Insanity

[Bloodstain]

Oh, I found this funny too

 

2.) You're putting a hell of a lot of faith into an insane man. He claimed that he thought god spoke to him. Isn't it also possible that it was just a fabricated excuse to get him out of trouble?

 

I wouldn't call life in a mental institution getting out of trouble.

 

Oh, and for interest sake, here's some excerpts from the judge in the case

"These grotesque acts are appalling," Justice John Scurfield said in Thursday's ruling. "However, the acts themselves and the context in which they were committed are strongly suggestive of a mental disorder.

 

"He did not appreciate the act he committed was morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self defence and that he had been commanded by God to do so."

 

Both the Crown and the defence agreed that Li is a schizophrenic who was suffering a psychotic episode when he killed the 22-year-old McLean.

 

"The public needs to know that when a person is found not criminally responsible, it does not automatically follow that a person will be released into the community," Scurfield said in his ruling "People who are found not criminally responsible but who continue to pose a danger to the community may be kept in a locked institution for the rest of their lives."

 

Li's trial took only two days and heard from only two witnesses. Both were psychiatrists who testified Li suffers from schizophrenia. They testified Li heard what he thought was the voice of God last July, telling him to kill McLean or risk being killed himself.

 

Dr. Jonathan Rootenberg said Li was psychotic and was in no state to tell the difference between right and wrong.

 

"The attack was sudden and came as Li caught a glimpse of the sunlight and heard God's voice telling him that McLean was a threat," Rootenberg testified. "The voice said, `Do it now ... If you don't, he's going to kill you.'"

 

Legal analyst and criminal lawyer Steven Skurka says the decision shows that the Canadian criminal justice system is humane and recognizes that those in psychotic states cannot distinguish right and wrong.

 

"We can't simply look at the actions we have to look at his mental state. We don't punish people who don't appreciate the nature and quality of their actions. I think that's a very positive feature of our system," Skurka told CTV Newsnet after the decision was handed down.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090304/bus_verdict_090305/20090305/

[Zierro]

Agreed, which I never said it was effective. Except for the fitting place for a man who decaps people part. You seem to imply that he isn't worthy of rehabilitation, which is ridiculous.

 

I take that back. I wouldn't want him in jail because I'd fear for the lives of the other inmates. However, I will say that trying to fix this man will most likely be a huge waste of time, money, and energy.

 

I'm assuming you did not follow the case very closely/at all. He was an immigrant with a history of problems, it wasn't a one time thing. I also remember reading in our paper an article in which they mention an article that was run in the Edmonton paper (where he lived), in which it detailed an old Aboriginal mythical creature who would posses people. Surprise surprise, the way you got rid of it was by beheading it.

 

Yeah about his heritage.... I thought most Chinese people didn't believe in god, let alone mythical creatures.

 

How do I know he wasn't in the right state of mind? Do regular people talk to god? And again, for the part where you said he could have faked it, he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic by professional psychologists.

 

You misunderstood me. I was asking, "How do you know he wouldn't have done the same thing is he was in a normal state of mind?" Not, "How do you know he wasn't in a normal state of mind?"

 

As for faking it, I meant he used his schizophrenia as an excuse for his actions. (He was not hearing voices at the time of the attack, but he knew he could use it as an excuse to take the blame off himself, so he made up a fake story.) But he could have also faked his schizophrenic behavior during the professional testing. After I read the story, that seems more unlikely but you can't rule it out as a possibility.

 

Lol, I don't think I should be arguing with someone who has no grasp of the law.

 

Just because I believe there are flaws in the law and I demonstrate how things would be better doesn't mean I don't understand the law. If anything, I'd say I understand it more. Laws should be fair. Allowing the clinically insane to do whatever they want and then put them in daycare isn't fair for people who have done less but yet have to suffer even more. And yes, a mental institution is daycare compared to prison. You have people trying to rehabilitate you, hands-on. They don't just lock you in with a bunch of immoral men and expect you to fend for yourself. It's common knowledge to know about the horror stories of what occurs in jails, so I don't think I have to give examples.

 

My "moral code" is fine. Please, point out to me where I said it is OK to kill someone. All I've said is that the person should not be treated like a regular murderer if they were not in a right state of mind/mentally "disturbed" so to speak.

 

By saying he's not responsible for it, you're saying what he did is justified/excused.

 

Also, not to go off topic, but keeping dogs outside is stupid. Dogs have been bred for centuries to be companion animals, not wild animals.

 

Most people with outside animals still do care for them. They feed them everyday. That's not something you do to wild animals. They just don't think outside is the devil's playground like you seem to be implying. It's kind of silly to think dogs should have the right to be indoors. And before you bring up the dangers of outdoors, there are also indoor dangers that they can face such as fires, gas leaks, flooding, etc. By the way, I would consider this on topic. We're discussing morality. This is something you consider wrong, whereas purposely murdering an innocent person is something I consider wrong.

 

I think you are getting too hung up on the responsiblity thing. He DID kill the guy, and he is guilty of that. But he was real messed up at the time, and shouldn't be responsible for that because he wasn't in a regular, rational state of mind. In fact, the first/only thing he said to police after he was arrested was "please kill me".

 

Like I said before, if you go down that road then nobody is to blame for anything. Why did you bully him? Because I was bullied when I was younger. Why did you steal that? Because I was starving. Why did you hit her? Because she hit me. Now whether those excuses are right or wrong is debatable because sometimes things like that can be warranted, but my point is that they did not FORCE you to do said action, just like the bus murderer was not FORCED to kill the man. They had the ability to do otherwise, therefore they are responsible.

 

When it comes to responsibility, we have to distinguish the difference between an inability and an excuse. If it was possible for him to prevent himself from murdering the man, then he is responsible. If it was literally impossible, then I guess he's not responsible.

 

Someone who decapitates someone and then tries to eat parts of the body is not someone I would call mentally stable. Which also raises the question, if he were faking it or whatever you seem to be suggesting, why would he kill someone on a bus in full public view instead of abducting some random person no one will notice is gone?

 

I wouldn't call him mentally stable either, but he did know what he was doing. He knew that carrying a pair of scissors and a knife around would be useful to him. He knew that flaunting a head would scare the crowd. (Which goes to show that he knew murdering is wrong, since he knew everyone would be intimidated by it.) He knew that attacking the people holding crowbars would only cause himself harm so he tried avoiding them. He wasn't logic-less.

 

Another point I'd like to bring up is that you shouldn't take what psychologists say for face value. It's psychology. There are literally an infinite amount of factors to take into account. That's not to say we know nothing about why we do the things we do, but the study of psychology is in such an immature state. Psychologists find out one little thing then try to apply it to everything we do just to show off how important of a discovery they made. By this I mean how Freud believes that everything we do is because of our sex drives, and stuff like that. Then we have other professional psychologists refuting Freud's claims with another set of psychological laws. It's impossible for them to all be right, since they debate amongst themselves more than any other type of scientists. I guess my point here is that the field of psychology is far too vague to rely on as support for an argument on its own. You're going to have to find something else besides, "Professionals say..."

[warri0r45]

"The public needs to know that when a person is found not criminally responsible, it does not automatically follow that a person will be released into the community," Scurfield said in his ruling "People who are found not criminally responsible but who continue to pose a danger to the community may be kept in a locked institution for the rest of their lives."

 

Can't argue with that - I'd like to add this to my previous post. Obviously you're not going to just give an insane man a slap on the hand and let them go if they might do it again.

 

 

Brain chemicals make up who you are. If you plea innocent because your brain chemicals forced you to do the crime, then the judge can sentence you to prison time because his brain chemicals made him do it. It wouldn't be right to call the judge unfair - it's not his fault that his brain chemicals are that way. I don't see how brain chemicals should excuse behavior, otherwise nobody would be to blame for anything. It's a road that we just shouldn't go down. It basically negates the idea of human choice - something we as humans need.

 

The thing is, with some mental disorders your capacity to make rational judgments like anyone else is impaired. Take bipolar disorder for example. In a manic state, people with bipolar can behave impulsively and choose to do risky things which they wouldn't have done beforehand. Surely this should be some sort of defence against, say, driving your car through someone's fence? It's not as simple as reducing it to "we all run on brain chemicals so we're all equally in control of our behaviour."

 

Taking up on your other point, say a child who was bullied murdered his bulliers. Unless he had a mental disorder that screwed up his judgment, I don't think he should get off. However, his history could be used to argue for a lighter sentence, or perhaps a different approach to punishment (counselling, minimum security prison, some other form of rehab, combination of the above..). So in a way, his history is still a kind of defence to his actions. It really depends on the situation. Obviously a murderer who kills people and has no remorse or planned to do it shouldn't get off so lightly.

[Bloodstain]

Yeah about his heritage.... I thought most Chinese people didn't believe in god, let alone mythical creatures.

 

That is quite a broad and stereotypical statement.

 

 

You misunderstood me. I was asking, "How do you know he wouldn't have done the same thing is he was in a normal state of mind?" Not, "How do you know he wasn't in a normal state of mind?"

 

As for faking it, I meant he used his schizophrenia as an excuse for his actions. (He was not hearing voices at the time of the attack, but he knew he could use it as an excuse to take the blame off himself, so he made up a fake story.) But he could have also faked his schizophrenic behavior during the professional testing. After I read the story, that seems more unlikely but you can't rule it out as a possibility.

 

You can't just "fake" schizophrenia like that, and if he did, respond to my previous statement: If he is such a mastermind that he could learn enough about schizophrenia, fool everyone, and continue to fool everyone for the rest of his life, why would he murder someone on a public bus in front of dozens of people with no possibility of escape?

 

 

 

Just because I believe there are flaws in the law and I demonstrate how things would be better doesn't mean I don't understand the law. If anything, I'd say I understand it more. Laws should be fair. Allowing the clinically insane to do whatever they want and then put them in daycare isn't fair for people who have done less but yet have to suffer even more. And yes, a mental institution is daycare compared to prison. You have people trying to rehabilitate you, hands-on. They don't just lock you in with a bunch of immoral men and expect you to fend for yourself. It's common knowledge to know about the horror stories of what occurs in jails, so I don't think I have to give examples.

 

The purpose of the law isn't to treat everyone the same, that is not fair. You may not be in direct interaction with as many criminals, but an institute is much the same as a prison. Deprivation of liberty, goods, told what to do, etc.

 

 

By saying he's not responsible for it, you're saying what he did is justified/excused.

 

Yes, I suppose I am saying he is in a way excused.

 

 

Like I said before, if you go down that road then nobody is to blame for anything. Why did you bully him? Because I was bullied when I was younger. Why did you steal that? Because I was starving. Why did you hit her? Because she hit me. Now whether those excuses are right or wrong is debatable because sometimes things like that can be warranted, but my point is that they did not FORCE you to do said action, just like the bus murderer was not FORCED to kill the man. They had the ability to do otherwise, therefore they are responsible.

 

When it comes to responsibility, we have to distinguish the difference between an inability and an excuse. If it was possible for him to prevent himself from murdering the man, then he is responsible. If it was literally impossible, then I guess he's not responsible.

 

People who kill bullies are in a correct state of mind to form a mens reus of the offence, their mind is for the most part in a rational state. They can think clearly, they can determine the consequences of their actions. Someone like Li could not, his thoughts were that killing this person would be good because the man is evil, as god told him. He wasn't thinking that the man's family would be grieved, or that he isn't an evil being. His mind was completely messed up beyond rational thought.

 

I wouldn't call him mentally stable either, but he did know what he was doing. He knew that carrying a pair of scissors and a knife around would be useful to him. He knew that flaunting a head would scare the crowd. (Which goes to show that he knew murdering is wrong, since he knew everyone would be intimidated by it.) He knew that attacking the people holding crowbars would only cause himself harm so he tried avoiding them. He wasn't logic-less.

 

When he got on the bus with the scissors and knife he was in the same messed up state of mind as when he killed the guy on the bus. I doubt he knew that flaunting the head would scare the crowd, considering he thought god told him to kill the guy because he was he evil. Though we will probably never know what exactly went through his head.

 

 

 

 

Another point I'd like to bring up is that you shouldn't take what psychologists say for face value. It's psychology. There are literally an infinite amount of factors to take into account. That's not to say we know nothing about why we do the things we do, but the study of psychology is in such an immature state. Psychologists find out one little thing then try to apply it to everything we do just to show off how important of a discovery they made. By this I mean how Freud believes that everything we do is because of our sex drives, and stuff like that. Then we have other professional psychologists refuting Freud's claims with another set of psychological laws. It's impossible for them to all be right, since they debate amongst themselves more than any other type of scientists. I guess my point here is that the field of psychology is far too vague to rely on as support for an argument on its own. You're going to have to find something else besides, "Professionals say..."

 

You haven't taken many psychology courses have you? Freud's theories are often criticized for various reasons, including no possible retestability. Lots of Freud's ideas aren't really taken as truth by a lot of psychologists. Psychology has a lot of great ideas and impacts. Are you trying to question the validity of a schizophrenia disorder or something? Otherwise I don't really see the point of what you said here.

[Zierro]

That is quite a broad and stereotypical statement.

 

Ironic nonetheless.

 

You can't just "fake" schizophrenia like that, and if he did, respond to my previous statement:

 

Uh oh, not another of these "scientists never make mistakes" people.

 

If he is such a mastermind that he could learn enough about schizophrenia, fool everyone, and continue to fool everyone for the rest of his life, why would he murder someone on a public bus in front of dozens of people with no possibility of escape?

 

You seem to be implying that just because you are a mastermind, that means that your top priority is not getting caught. There are plenty of insane people (who were also fairly intelligent) that committed crimes in front of everyone. You can't expect me to answer why though. My guess would be publicity, proving a point to society, I don't know. He seemed to get kicks off of doing it in front of everyone though, judging by the story. He couldn't show off the decapitated head in an empty room.

 

Also, I never called him a mastermind. I was just making a point of how easily you could get off the hook, so long as you blamed the crime on your condition. It doesn't take a mastermind to do that.

 

The purpose of the law isn't to treat everyone the same, that is not fair. You may not be in direct interaction with as many criminals, but an institute is much the same as a prison. Deprivation of liberty, goods, told what to do, etc.

 

Yes, and you can tell me what apples and oranges have in common all day, but they're still two separate things. It's a pretty stupid thing to argue about though because whether you like prison or mental institutes better is just a preference, and I don't think either of us have been to them so we're not the best judges of that.

 

People who kill bullies are in a correct state of mind to form a mens reus of the offence, their mind is for the most part in a rational state. They can think clearly, they can determine the consequences of their actions. Someone like Li could not, his thoughts were that killing this person would be good because the man is evil, as god told him. He wasn't thinking that the man's family would be grieved, or that he isn't an evil being. His mind was completely messed up beyond rational thought.

 

That's nice that you pointed out the flaw in the law, but how exactly does that refute my claim on how things should be? It was not impossible for Li to go against his thoughts. He was responsible. Was his responsibility diminished? Yes, in the same way that your responsibility is "diminished" when you see a hot girl and want her. There is a reason the word "diminished" is used, as in the responsibility is still there, but it's just not as strong. If you had the ability to make the right choice, then you are to blame. There are these things called urges, and then there are these things called actions. You are what dictates your actions. If you disagree with that, then you're telling me it was an involuntary action or an accident.

 

Yes, I suppose I am saying he is in a way excused.

 

When you come up with excuses for mutilating innocent people who showed off the fact that they did it to the crowd and police with the decapitated head (Oh yeah, no guilty mind there!), you're spitting in the face of humanity. [cabbage] like that should NEVER happen. How you people can even defend something like that makes me sick. He did it because he was in an irrational state of mind. So what? Since when has being irrational been a justification for being irrational? That's circular logic. Shouldn't we, um, be against irrational thinking? Whether the excuse is brain chemicals, a bad environment, whatever, nothing changes the fact that he still shouldn't have done it.

[Bloodstain]

 

Yes, I suppose I am saying he is in a way excused.

 

When you come up with excuses for mutilating innocent people who showed off the fact that they did it to the crowd and police with the decapitated head (Oh yeah, no guilty mind there!), you're spitting in the face of humanity. [cabbage] like that should NEVER happen. How you people can even defend something like that makes me sick. He did it because he was in an irrational state of mind. So what? Since when has being irrational been a justification for being irrational? That's circular logic. Shouldn't we, um, be against irrational thinking? Whether the excuse is brain chemicals, a bad environment, whatever, nothing changes the fact that he still shouldn't have done it.

 

You're walking down the street. You randomly black out. You wake up with a dead body next to you, covered in blood and holding a knife. Should you be held responsible?

 

I'm going to stop posting, as we're just going around in circles and saying the same things over and over

[Zierro]

You're walking down the street. You randomly black out. You wake up with a dead body next to you, covered in blood and holding a knife. Should you be held responsible?

 

If you went on a killing spree and then took some pills, forgetting the entire night, yes. If somebody drugged you and planted a knife and a body next to you, no.

 

That's a very bad example. I'm pretty sure the bus guy remembers what he did.

[Bloodstain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEXyqe85cuA Edited March 2, 2010 by meol
Embedded video.