Erik tackles the insanity defense over at Brainville. Key quotes:
Legal insanity is defined as the inability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of criminal actions. Two psychiatrists diagnosed Malvo with a dissociative disorder which led to distorted visions of reality. Problem is, Malvo felt conflicted about the shooting of a thirteen year-old boy, saying that killing children was wrong, yet he still did it. He was told by Muhammad that if his conscience was bothering him, he "should lock it up in a box and throw away the key."Is that what led to is failure to distinguish right from wrong? His voluntary choice to listen to Muhammad, and suppress his moral feelings about his actions? This sort of "learned insanity" shouldn’t be considered insanity at all. If a person willingly submits themself to moral confusion, then they’ve made a perfectly informed choice.
[...]
Legal insanity also established a dangerous principle; that mental content and feelings are more important than the actions you take.
Unfortunately, that means they'd be less liable to face the responsibility for their actions in the context of current law. Hmm...
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
When was the criteria for defining legal insanity established?And what is the controversy surrounding the insanity defense?
Posted by: Joshua Hopkins on February 10, 2005 08:46 AMMr. Hopkins, I don't know the answer to the first. Google.com is your friend for that endeavor.
The second question is somewhat easier. The insanity defense is controversial because most people have an opinion on personal responsibility and those opinions can be broadly classified into one of two camps. Generally speaking:
One side says an individual cannot be held accountable (and therefore ought not to be punished like everyone else) for their immoral actions if they are mentally unable through severe mental defect or illness to distinguish right from wrong.
The other side disagrees and says that regardless of a person's (always disputed) ability to distinguish right from wrong, a choice was made and harmful action was taken, therefore the individual is guilty of a crime and should be punished, if perhaps not always in the same institution as other criminals.
The controversy revolves around, like most controversies, the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and how humans ought to act (ethics).
Posted by: Drizz on February 10, 2005 09:33 AMI am doing a pro/con paper on the isanity plea and I was wondering if you might have any ideas for the pros of the insanity plea. Thanks Erin
Posted by: Erin on March 15, 2005 12:34 PMA small group and I are doing a presentation on the pros/cons of the insanity plea and we were wondering if you could give us a few ideas to help support each side.
Posted by: Saesha Wallis on June 6, 2005 05:37 PMCOULD YOU HELP WITH SOME IDEAS OF THE PROS AND CONS OF THE INSANITY PLEA?
THANX
TANNAN
Pro's- you could get out of some sentancing
thats all
Con's- people would now and forever think you were crazy
you would have to go to a mental hospital w/ crazy peeps