I have no moral obligation to be decent or compassionate to those who have shown they are not. The system has a legal obligation to do so, though, and I support that because not everyone in the penal system is factually guilty (or guilty of victimless crimes), and segregation from society solves 95% of the problems that arise from crime.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
I have no moral obligation to be decent or compassionate to those who have shown they are not.
[/QUOTE]
I guess that depends on your definition of morality. I give here a few quotes for you and I bolded one. Let me know if you don’t recognize where they’re from or if you can’t figure out why I bolded the one I did.
Pardon me, Monty.
I am sure you know this, but it bears repeating. There are of those of us who do not assign any moral authority to the Bible whatsoever, who still find Ludovic’s attitude morally repugnant.
I for one, struggle with the idea of having compassion for perpetrators of certain heinous acts, but try to do nonetheless, because I feel it is the right thing to do. And I would always treat them decently, because for me, it is the only thing to do.
We could take the scripture as read, since I just was not arsed to disclaimer it enough, although I should always count on someone in the group to bring it up.
There are many times when an understanding, loving worldview works. It is true that in many ways Jesus’s worldview is better than those at that time and has promulgated a better approach to living with one’s fellow man than other moral codes at the time that did not even hold the human life and psyche as something to be preserved. However, there are also times when it will get you nowhere and will lead to more evil, not less, in the world. Winners writing the history books and all that. The thing is to determine when to harden the heart and not and I don’t think anyone has the wisdom to determine that.
For those who think I am playing a game with pent-up rage trying to “win” against The Man, that’s is the really scary part. I’m not. This is a real situation with real people and I grok that. I’m not the rebel youth who wants to finally prove himself. When I hear of situations like this, I don’t imagine myself as the virile conqueror who Saves the Day and Kills the Inner Daemon.
I imagine myself as one who casually pulls the trigger, and me and everyone else goes back home and lives the rest of their lives just like before. No breakthroughs. No Ludo the Hero.
I just kill someone. And feel nothing emotionally. Just a transcendent moment of mental clarity. My pulse doesn’t even jump. That’s scary. (That is, when I do think about stuff like this, which is rare, due to its stunning non-productivity.)
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
There are many times when an understanding, loving worldview works.
[/quote]
Not really. Jesus’ view is like Marxism…good in theory, sucks in practice.
Are we still talking about the Elizabeth Smart case here? Or that other thing you mentioned? You need to clarify.
Actually, the Inner Daemon is where you should start. Get rid of (or make peace with) that part of yourself…otherwise, you will project that Daemon everywhere, and overreact to situations that don’t concern your life at all.
You’re not even paying attention to how your words come across, are you?? Well…for sake of argument, I’ve never killed anyone (nor have I ever had the desire to do so – I’m too peace-loving & dope-smoking to care) but if I did, for whatever reason, I sure as hell would want to feel it.
Becoming numb to your own pain leads to lack of compassion, which means you can’t feel anyone else’s pain, either. At that point, you’re just firing the gun at random shadows, you don’t even care what you kill anymore.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
I just kill someone. And feel nothing emotionally. Just a transcendent moment of mental clarity. My pulse doesn’t even jump. That’s scary. (That is, when I do think about stuff like this, which is rare, due to its stunning non-productivity.)
[/QUOTE]
Whoa.
For the life of me, I can’t see how having compassion on someone yet to be tried will create more evil in the world.
[QUOTE=Inigo Montoya]
You know, it was just the night before last as I was heading to my car after a fine day at work. Really it had been a good day. Just as I reached the car I was barely able to resist a sudden urge to just drop to the ground and cry my eyes out as if God Himself had come to me personally and told me that I wouldn’t be joining Him in heaven. A massive wave of depression you might call it. Lasted about 5 or 6 hours and eventually faded into a mild general malaise (and yeah–I’m drugged so it used to be worse). It was then that I had a mental illness epiphany, one that might be of interest to our Ludovic.
I feel safe in saying that almost everyone has used an excess of a drug at least once in their lives. Most commonly abused would be alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. Now you know that these drugs can affect the way you think, the way your senses react to their environment, and how you intepret your world. Someone who’s really drunk might become consumed by one emotion–anger, sadness, happiness–and still be able to think to himself, “woah…I’m a bit out of control here” and not be able to overpower that emotion and so the extreme behavior associated with the emotion–fighting, bawling, lovin&laughin’–continues. In my experience with a sometimes debilitating emotional disorder, it’s a very similar sensation. Only the “drug” comes from within and is applied without warning and without control. The result is, from my perspective, an unsettling and violent change in mood and perception that comes out of nowhere. What others see as moody or “wacky” is really a nightmare of uncertain reality, unpredictable moods, and often hallucinations.
My point is, I live my life in MY world, and my world changes in hundreds of tiny ways every day depending on what my brains are up to. And quite frankly, in the midst of a psychotic episode, I will do what I KNOW to be right…but “normal” folks will view those actions as less than appropriate. Can you punish, even torture, someone who thought that the actions they took were appropriate when they took them? How about if those actions included a solid paranoia-based belief that brain candy drugs like Prozac, lithium, M&Ms, etc…are really mind-control drugs? Ever taken them? It’s CREEPY when you notice their effects. That creepiness alone is pretty convincing when you’re entertaining the thought that maybe they’re mind-control drugs. What SANE person would willingly take mind-control drugs that would allow them to be manipulated by some potentially nefarious entity?
This is a tough problem for most people, not just Ludovic. Because it means that they must make the decision between relaxing their grip on their own reality long enough to understand where the “criminal” is coming from, or admitting to themselves that they really care nothing for anyone’s thoughts but their own. Really. because the person that cries out for horrible retribution to avenge a third party is doing so ONLY because it makes HIM feel better about the whole event.
So in this particular case, the only difference between the punished and the punisher is which side of the bars each one is on.
[/QUOTE]
If you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong, you need to be in segregated from society.
Martin Hyde- Inigo was saying that sometimes he might make inappropriate choices (not “wrong” choices) about his own medical care because of his mental state. That is vastly different to saying that he cannot tell the difference between right and wrong.
[QUOTE=Monty]
For the life of me, I can’t see how having compassion on someone yet to be tried will create more evil in the world.
[/QUOTE]
If you believe that forcing medications is “evil” then it could be. I don’t know where I stand, honestly, on forced treatment.
[QUOTE=Daithi Lacha]
Does no-one find it exceedingly odd that husband and wife are now insane, and yet at the time the kidnapping occured, both were on the ball enough to leave very little in the way of clues, and keep the child hidden for nine months, while on the move? That must have meant they knew the difference between right and wrong, and were able to communicate cohererently with each other, to be able to plan and implement those plans. What are the chances that both would now suddenly be incompetent?
:dubious: to the 9th power
[/QUOTE]
I used to work downtown Salt Lake City. Prior to the kidnapping, these two were very visible as one of the local street kooks. Let me assure you, they certainly appeared insane everytime I saw them.
Being mentally ill, even to the point of incompentency, does not equal stupid.
BTW - she was raped.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
If you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong, you need to be in segregated from society.
[/QUOTE]
Technically, there’s no such thing as absolute “right” and “wrong”. Except, in the sense of reaching your goal – for example, if I was driving to Best Buy and went south on the 101 instead of north, I would have made a “wrong” turn. But there’s nothing immoral about that.
What is important, however, is maintaining the social compact. We have laws, which each individual inherently agrees to just by existing in the free world. Violate those laws, and you are punished. This doesn’t mean the laws themselves are moral and just, civil disobedience is also an option. (Although few people advocate the kidnap & molestation of Mormon teenage girls…well, maybe NAMBLA does.) My point is, it’s all about obeying the law, and accepting the consequence of violating the law. If a person can’t recognize the social compact, then you’ve got a problem.
KGS, NAMBLA wouldn’t advocate kidnapping of girls. Young Mormon boys, maybe.
(Why oh why couldn’t they have taken Donny and Marie instead?)
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
KGS, NAMBLA wouldn’t advocate kidnapping of girls. Young Mormon boys, maybe.
(Why oh why couldn’t they have taken Donny and Marie instead?)
[/QUOTE]
(Snort!)
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
If you believe that forcing medications is “evil” then it could be. I don’t know where I stand, honestly, on forced treatment.
[/QUOTE]
In this case, I feel that the judge made an appropriate decision. The accused can’t participate in her own defense due to a mental illness. Society, IMHO, has a legitimate interest in determining, via a criminal trial, if the accused was responsible for her actions during the commission of the crimes of which she has been accused. There are a few possibilities that can come out of this:
- The treatment does not succeed in enabling her to participate in her defense.
- The treatment does succeed and during the trial it is determined that she was not responsible at the time of the crimes.
- The treatment does succeed and during the trial it is determined that she was responsible at the time of the crimes.
- The treatment does succeed and during the trial she is acquitted.
I don’t see #4 happening. For the other three, she will then be institutionalized and receive treatment for her current mental illness.