I disagree on your last point. Sane people commit murder. Sanity and morals are not the same thing. So, for example, whoever murdered Jimmy Hoffa was insane? (just pulling that example as someone who I suppose was murdered) I think not. Are you lumping insanity in with severe immorality? I think one can be sane, yet still commit murder, and have some psycho- or sociopathic traits. Still, not clinically insane.
:: Looks around ::
Jimmy Hoffa wasn’t murdered. I have proof. Wanna see? Have a look at this here baseball bat.
:: Whack! ::
The only way a murderer could even be remotely considered sane, the clinical definition notwithstanding, is if that person were doing it with the full knowledge that they will be caught, they will spend the rest of their lives behind bars, and they will face the possibility of execution. Do you know of anyone like that?
Like I said, anyone who kills and thinks that they can get away with it is looney tunes. That they do get away with it on rare occasions is more a question of luck than anything else, and I for one do not to things in the infinitesmally small hope that I will not be caught. You know why? That’s right, it’s not rational. QED.
Actually, just one super-dimwit with enough balls to stand firm in the face of 11 normal dimwits can cause a mistrial in the trial phase. That one super-dimwit can also prevent a death sentence in the penalty phase.
People do get away with it. Murderers are not always caught. Sure, most are, (I assume, and I hope) but I’ll bet my next paycheck that there are some (and I won’t even dare to guess a number) murderers out on the streets.
And to answer your question, yeah, I do know a guy who was convicted of murder. He served some (don’t recall how much) prison time, and he’s out. I don’t think he *should * be out, but he is. He knew what he was doing when he did it, and he basically thought, “Fuck it, I don’t care. Taking him out.” Years after, he told me about the remorse he felt, and his regrets, and the apologies he offered to the guy’s family. IMHO, not enough, and I think he should still be locked up. But he was quite rational about it, from the time he did it until he was released from prison.
Insane? Not by any definition that I’ve ever encountered.
If we are using a Webster’s definition of insane, then you are probably correct, ADUSAF. However, we’re talking about a clinical/legal definition which is indeed a very different beast altogether.
I can kill someone in a fit of anger and not be “insane”. Though my actions are clearly irrational-morally, to kill is just wrong, and to go against established social mores like that is clearly not rational-lack of rationality is not a sole indicator of insanity. Most of the time when people discuss legal or clinical “insanity” for the purposes of pleading insanity, the experts are looking for organic, or psychological reasons why their client might have been insane at the time, or why they might currently be still considered insane.
TV has done a great disservice to people who may be caught in a situation where their sanity has left them and they have done awful things. It is now a “catch-all” phrase for “scumbag trying to get over on the system after whacking someone”, and it’s really pretty sad that those who are truly in a position to use the defense are reduced to a cliche.
Sam
Ok, I accept that.
Understand though, that the insanity plea can be traced back to the 13th century. Also, there is a long tradition of mothers offering odd defenses of their incarcerated sons to the press.
I accept the prevalence of pre-medieval notions of justice within the modern conservative mindset. [1]
[1] Those following the link will note that this exaggerates matters somewhat. Basically, frothing lunatics have not been held responsible for their actions since the Renaissance. In 1843, the concept was extended to cover murderers, “…laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing was wrong.”
I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of murders go unsolved, and since those tend to make the news (or at least the local mythology), a lot of people would probably overestimate the number. It’s possible for a rational person to think he has a reasonable chance of not getting caught. Of course, to quote the guy from the state crime lab who spoke to us in med school, “95% of murders are committed in the heat of passion by people who aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.”
You hear about these defenses all the time, but you never hear of them working. My understanding is that even “legitimate” insanity pleas are almost never successful.
Of course you did. Look at just who’s running the country. They’re all vile lawyers.
There are quite a few who make it. Small in proportion to the total, perhaps, but still a non-trivial number. And many who kill simply aren’t worried about the consequences.
The bright side of this is that at least Nichols is coming clean. There have been an awful lot of unanswered questions about the bombing - it seems he is answering them.
murder clearence rates are 64% . note,too, that some murders are not reported (some are listed as missing persons, some don’t appear at all or may be wrongfully reported as accidents etc)
I’m not clear as to whether you are trying to make a broader point about society, such as “those wacky PC’s these days – trying to make no one accountable for their actions!”
If you are, like others have said, it’s the dudes’ mother, not the “liberal establishment”. If you’re just commenting about his mother, I’m with the others in that this is basically a “Dog Bites Man” story: big whoop, happens all the time.
I didn’t say anything about the “liberal establishment”. Your political bent is irrelevant to me. Just stop making excuses for criminals. I don’t care why they did what they did, with few exceptions (I’d be lenient to a shoplifter in a supermarket if they were starving to death, for instance).
Again, who is making excuses for criminals? Depending on whom you are addressing makes your OP superfluous or stupid. And these bolded quotes in particular:
certainly imply that you perceive there are people out there with the tendency to explain away every criminals actions. These, while extant in nearly every age and society, are certainly Pittable, are unfortunately not addressed by your OP.
OP’s, if unaddressed, are understood to be referring to one of these:
– The person referred to in the link
– Members of the SDMB
– Society at large
Since you mention “we” I must infer that you are not referring to Nichols’ mother. Who are these mythical bleeding-hearts of the SDMB or society at large? I can’t find support in this thread for being soft on run of the mill insanity, and as others have pointed out, the courts, as society’s proxy, aren’t soft on ordinary insanity either.
There’s a difference between acknowledging that there are some whose mental condition, for whatever reason, prevents them from being culpable for crimes they commit and not following the idea of “crazy person loose in the general population” to its logical conclusion.
I don’t have a problem with acknowledging that in some cases, those who commit crimes are mentall retarded, mentally ill, or just batshit insane. It’s a viable defense. However, that doesn’t mean that we should find them innocent, pat them on the back, and then send them back out into the world. Any person so ill that they cannot discern the wrongness of killing 168 people needs to be taken out of the general population and committed to an institution where they can be studied and treated for their condition.
That’s what gets missed. Some people use the excuse of mental illness or retardation or what have you to crowbar defendents out of the judicial system and set them free. Uh, no. If the defendent can be proven to do it and there is a mental defect involved, then they need to be put away where they can no longer hurt others.
I know of very few cases where this is the case. Most people who are found to be not competent for trial, or “innocent” due to “mental disease or defect”, do not get a pat on the back and get sent back out to the world.
Many people found insane or incompetent are sentenced to hospitals for treatment, and I guarantee you , it’s no “pat on the back”, and rarely is it a brief stay. Mentally ill patients who are sentenced to prisons for the mentally ill don’t generally spend a month or two in custody, either. They’re there for treatment or management and if they’re still ill and a danger to society, they generally don’t get released.
There’s always a few instances where someone who’s ill is released in a “technicality”(another big modern-day TV word for “scumbag getting over on the system”), but for the most part, it doesn’t happen that way.
Sam
I agree. As I noted earlier, this principle was laid down in the 13th century: it pre-dates the Magna Carta.
In Roman Law, according to this website, “the insane offender was treated with leniency, on the basis that the madness itself was sufficient punishment (satis furore ipso punitur). This was a morally acceptable solution to the problem of the mentally abnormal offender, based on the Greek moral philosophy (particularly Aristotle) and Hebrew law.”
If this last website is accurate, then Airman’s stated position might be consistent with pre-350BC mores; I’m not sure.
I apologize for not giving Ancient Rome and Greece sufficient credit in my previous post.
I have Asperger’s Syndrome.
As someone living with this, my opinion is that it does not present a severe enough deficiency in reasoning to justify actions of the type taken here. People with AS typically do not suffer from a deficiency in moral reasoning of the type displayed in this case. However, I can say that I find it plausible, if he does in fact have this condition, that he did not in fact ask what the bomb was to be used for. I am uncertain as to what this means for his legal situation, but morally, I’d still hold him responsible.
As an aside, if this guy becomes the first person most people hear of with AS, I’m not looking forward to my future employment prospects. It may be time for me to pursue a more self-directed career.
Revenge killers, maybe? I think if someone killed my (hypothetical) mate or children in cold blood I’d consider murder a viable option. I don’t think that would make me insane, either.
As for the original post/article, I think it’s just another case of a mom trying to save her kid any way she can. It’s a desperate act. I don’t think he’s going to get off on it–Asperger’s Syndrome isn’t even a mental illness, and it doesn’t affect someone’s ability to know right from wrong as long as those morals are instilled by society (which it was in Nichols’ case; he didn’t grow up in a cave). I really don’t like the fact, though, that the insanity defense is now being used to cover cases where the murderer is retarded or has an illness that does not impair their moral compass (aka sociopaths, who know what they are doing is wrong and don’t care). Using it for such cases weakens its legitimacy (and yeah, I think if someone is compelled to kill because they think the victim is a goblin and they need goblin blood to defeat the tiny people living in their kitchen sink, the insanity defense is legitimate) and opens the door for it to be stricken down entirely, which is something I don’t want to happen.
No, he fell in with bad company.