Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It depends on your definition of mental illness. Sociopathy is a mental illness. It's not quite 'insanity' in the same way schizophrenia for example is. You can't use it as n excuse in court. However it IS an illness - its lacking a normal level of empathy that humans typically have.
Having a mental reason behind a crime doesn't necessarily mean a 'voices in your head' type thing. They can be perfectly reasonable and aware of their actions, however the desire to commit the crime can still be driven by the illness: severe depression is an illness, substance addiction is an illness, narcissism is an illness. None of these absolve the criminal of responsibility for their actions.
There is a basic assumption that a completely mentally and emotionally 'healthy' person is a functional member of society, is empahtetic, and does not wish to harm others. Anyone who shows a deviation from that is then considered not healthy, and a conscious desire to harm someone, particularly without a clear motive, is deemed a sign of mental illness.
You don't know whether he was mentally ill or not. For all you know, the voices in his head were telling him that Satan must be beaten out of the boy. If that is what happened, then he did belong in a mental institution. Maybe the mother should have been the one who ended up in jail for standing by and letting it happen for years.
I can't have sympathy for someone who beat a child and made him have brain damage. Although I agree with you about her. She should have said something to someone.
Everyone except for you and I suffer from some form of mental illness. Mental illness is seldom a cause for evil deeds.
The main concern is sanity, which is a legal not medical term and refers to the ability to know right from wrong.
while it is possible the perpetrators of a horrendous crime suffers from mental illness. That is not the factor to look at, the criteria is if the person can distinguish right from wrong and acts out of free choice.
An Insanity plea does not necessarily seek exemption based upon Mental Illness. Although it often is a factor.
I disagree that Hitler and Stalin did not have mental illness. There was definitely something malfunctioning in their brain process. Wires were badly crossed somewhere along the line.
And I respectfully disagree with you. They were creatures of particular economic and cultural times. They did not rise to power in a vacuum, but were put there by people who believed the same things. If you like, the culture itself was not "sane" in these extreme cases.
Were the 2 million Hutus mentally ill when they collectively slaughtered their Tsutsi neighbors in Rwanda? No, and a whole bunch of them went to jail and are still there.
Nor have I ever heard of an insanity defense being used to acquit someone in the Hague...
A lot of times mental illness or drug addiction is blamed. Mentally ill people in this country do not always get the help they need and end up on the wrong side of the law even if they wouldn't have done things they did with the proper mental help. Other people claim mental illness or drug addiction or anything they can to get a lighter sentence or more sympathy or whatever.
I think many people have great difficulty accepting the idea of evil, and it is more comfortable to obscure it with the cover of "mental illness." We need to believe that evil is a matter of some unnatural glitch in the human being, i.e. insanity.
This thread opens up some very large cans of worms. First, what exactly is evil? What exactly constitutes an evil person? Does a "good" person automatically get tossed into the "evil" box if they commit a serious crime and are found legally sane? I don't see good vs. evil as that clear cut. Good people commit evil acts. Evil people commit good acts. That's because good and evil are on opposite ends of a continuum, and no individual is all one or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
I think that the OP has it backward. In the U.S., at least, mental illness is rarely a convincing defense in major crimes. Sometime it is, for sure, but most of the time, I don't think so.
In the legal system, insanity is generally considered the ability to tell right from wrong at the time of the alleged incident, and to be able to assist in your own defense. If you can meet both criteria -- and most defendants in serious criminal cases cannot -- then your lawyer can try to get you off by virtue of insanity. But if you can't meet those two conditions, then your actions are the result of intent (evil) and not disease (mental defect or insanity) as far as the jury that convicts you is concerned. The insanity defense is a tough burden to prove most of the time, juries are often skeptical, and good defense lawyers shy away from it.
A person who is found insane at the time of a serious crime doesn't "get off" on the crime. They have to be confined to a mental institution, usually for years, very often for a lifetime. Being confined in a state mental institution is another form of punishment that also includes treatment. It is certainly no vacation just because it is not a traditional penitenitiary.
It depends on your definition of mental illness. Sociopathy is a mental illness. It's not quite 'insanity' in the same way schizophrenia for example is. You can't use it as n excuse in court. However it IS an illness - its lacking a normal level of empathy that humans typically have.
Having a mental reason behind a crime doesn't necessarily mean a 'voices in your head' type thing. They can be perfectly reasonable and aware of their actions, however the desire to commit the crime can still be driven by the illness: severe depression is an illness, substance addiction is an illness, narcissism is an illness. None of these absolve the criminal of responsibility for their actions.
There is a basic assumption that a completely mentally and emotionally 'healthy' person is a functional member of society, is empahtetic, and does not wish to harm others. Anyone who shows a deviation from that is then considered not healthy, and a conscious desire to harm someone, particularly without a clear motive, is deemed a sign of mental illness.
If she was a poor single mom who did this to her kids nobody would have tried to say"it was mental illness". Their would be no lawyers,because she would not have the money if she was poor.
I notice the rich get labeled as "mentally ill" more often....i wonder why.
Poor people go to jail.
Rich people get labeled "mentally ill" and sent o a mental institution or rehab.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
