If they go around killing folks, they are crazy.
I guess it comes down to what “crazy” means. I figure that anyone who runs about murdering people is crazy, but as we all know, some crazy people are quite rational, etc. For example, I worked on a spree killer’s appeal, and in all our conversations, not once there was there even a hint that he was crazy. He was an intelligent, clear thinking, pleasant person, but make no doubt about it, he was a cold blooded killer. Another commonly known example is a very senior member of our Air Force who was into raping and murdering, but no one, including his wife, had an inkling of what he was up to.
That’s why I’m more concerned about what a person does than whether the person is sane or not. If a sane person wrongfully and intentionally kills someone, then to me it’s murder. If the motivation includes trying to intimidate the public for some sort of cause or ideology, then to me it’s also terrorism. I could not care at all if the person was mentally ill provided that the person understood the actions he was taking, for to me the harm done to the victims (both those physically harmed and the our society as a whole) should take priority.
Should more resources be put into helping mentally ill people? Yes, but although that will help, that will not stop murders and will not stop of terrorism. No single thing will.
When it comes to terrorism, the trick is to identify and block potential terrorists before they act, but to do so without locking up all the people who are mentally ill, or bugging everyone’s conversations and intercepting everyone’s emails and texts, or creating a culture of fear and suspicion.
I’m very curious to see how our government handles this problem, and I very much hope it does not go overboard the way the USA has since 9/11.
For example, the fellow who shot his way into Parliament was known to the authorities, but he was not blocked prior to his attack. What could have been done differently, what laws would have to be changed or created (if any) to effect this, and what cost to our freedom would such changes make? It’s a very tough balancing act, so I hope the legislators thoroughly and calmly debate the matter without getting bogged down into exaggeration and partisanship.
On the enforcement side, I’m also concerned that we must not let the police get away with hauling people off on terrorism charges whenever a police officer is involved in a matter, e.g. when there are protests that get loud or violent, or at its extreme, if a person in an ordinary crime resists arrest and either says what he thinks of police, or assaults an officer.
I’m not into burying our heads in the sand, and I’m not into chopping off everyone heads. It’s all about finding a balance.
Muffin,
Why did the spree killer do it? Without breaking the usual rules, can you talk more about that case?
The root cause is the religious idea. Without that, these people would remain isolated, diffuse and unlikely to ever act.
Drug dealer owed him some money (gang stuff) so he shot him to death. Then he shot the drug dealer’s brother to death – no stated reason, but one assumes it was to limit finger pointing. Then on his way out of town he shot to death an entirely innocent and absolutely unrelated high school kid working at a gas station – no reason at all, given the murderer had a lot of money and did not rob the place – basically he did it because he felt like it. A psychopath if you ask me.
Did the killer rob the drug dealer after killing him? How much money was owed?
I ask because, except when one wants to make an example as a warning to others, it makes little sense to kill people who owe you money. Rob, torture, threaten, yes.
Nope, no robbery of the drug dealer. Just a person with no indication of mental illness other than being on a killing spree.
Religious idea?
The Tamil rebels that invented suicide bombing came from a population that was a mixture of Hindu and Christian and the actual members were secular.
The most violent members of the IRA tended to be atheist Marxists, disaffected ffrom the Catholic Church, whose identity as “Catholic” had more to do with politics than theology.
It’s not the religious idea, I don’t think. It’s an ill mind that is drawn to barbarism. Of any stripe. Had these people not been drawn to this sect of violence, it would simply have been some other violent and publicly loathed sect, making news, I suspect.
I am often reminded of the assassination of President William McKinley, as well as a number of other acts of violence, by “anarchists” in the late 19th/early 20th century. At the time, if you were a troubled loner who felt society had failed you, you joined the ranks of anarchists and grabbed a gun. There was no such thing as Islamism then, so you couldn’t have done that. Anarchists were the team for the mentally ill young man with a violent streak.
There is always some “troubled loner cause” and always will be. It was anarchists in 1901, communism or fascism in 1930, it’s Islamism today and it’ll be something else in 2040.
So, your contention is that these guys would have done this anyways? That they operate in a vacuum where no outside influence or ideas affect what they think or how they act? Because if a Tamil rebel had done this, I would make the claim that his being a Tamil had a little something to do with how he behaved. Same as if he was an IRA Marxist. I’d claim that their ideology had affected them as well.
And if this madman had self identified as Napolean?
What if he’d identified himself as a fundamentalist Christian? Would you be examining Christianity? I doubt it, no one would. Suddenly everyone would instantly see he’s just a nut bar, and taking his world for anything is beyond foolish.
Not many people running around the planet these days murdering people in the name of Christianity. (Although that was done in the past.) There are however plenty of people running around murdering people in the name of Islam.
You wouldn’t be interested in how his experience of Christianity led him to terrorist acts?
You wouldn’t want to look at who he was in contact with, that promoted these views? Who else of like mind might be planning something similar?
So the whole Charlie Manson thing had you taking a hard look at the effects of the White album? It was just nonsense blather then, and it’s all blather now.
Part of his crazy was being in the most hated group, to be taken as a serious threat, if this group hadn’t existed he’d have just glommed on to another.
Exactly. There’s some Christian Identity types who have killed in the past and are influenced by those people and theology. It’s best not to ignore it if there are some specific threats going on by certainly groups in certain religions or cults
Good to see people step up. - YouTube
Thanks Muffin! That’s the video I mentioned up thread.
Good to see indeed!
So that means they can’t be convicted of murder, right? If they kill people, they’re crazy, so they should be acquitted of murder on the basis of mental disorder.
If killing someone means they’re crazy, that means we should repeal the offence of murder, because no-one will be convicted under it.
You criticize the legal system, not my thinking someone who murders is insane. 
Psychopaths are insane and some have been convicted of murder and executed.