So... I feel this might be an interesting discussion and do hope everything stays civil.

Firstly though, I made this thread after watching a season finale of Criminal Minds (we recently got a season set type of thing of the show) and well... The person doing the actual killings was highly mental (autism and mental retardation disorders I believe they said) and from the sounds of it... He was doing the crimes not knowing what he was doing is actual wrong (due to his brother's teaching).

So the topic on my mind (and for this thread) is... What do you think is best course of action against a criminal who actually didn't really knew what they were doing? Should they be arrested and brought to justice? Should they be brought in for proper teaching? In some cases, brought in for medical reasons and help? Or even just simply "put down" (mercy killing, some would say)?

This is a tough subject, I know, but I think it would be an interesting discussion and do wish to hear what others have to say. Please, like I said, keep it civil and friendly. Obviously follow all forum rules as well.

Note: This topic is for anybody is unknowingly doing any possible crime. It doesn't really have to be someone who has a number of disabilities.

Well for normal instances ignorance of law is not excuse for innocence. However the insanity plea is often used in scenarios where the crimin is psychologically incapable of understanding the code quenches if their own actions. In which case it is treated as an illness and are in theory supposed to be treated and rehabilitated.

iirc

Lock them in The Elizabeth Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane

Well, legally speaking, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. However, in the cases of mental disability or illness where a strong case can be made that they were not in control of their actions, an insanity plea can be made. They won't go to jail, they'll go into long-term inpatient psychiatric treatment.

At least, in the US legal system.

Ignorance is no excuse. You've proven to be a threat to society and must face the consequences. If you're mentally ill then you belong in a mental institution where you will get the help that you need and drink all the Pepsi you want.

I don't know about other nations, but here in Canada we have "The Mental Health Authority" for such cases (i did a project on them for a Law course i took in my senior year)

basically, when the Individual is brought into the Court Room where the charges are read and they have to make their plea, their Lawyer can request a Mental Health Evaluation.. if the Crown prosecutor agree's, they are sent to that Provinces Mental Health Authority for one month.. its basically a Minimum security facility where an Assigned Doctor gives them an evaluation..
If after that one month they are deemed as "Not Criminally responsible" or "not mentally fit to stand trial", they are admitted to that mental health authority until such time as a review board (consisting of various Doctors and Lawyers) deem they can leave..
that Review Board can either keep the Individual in the facility Indefinitely, release them on a "Conditional Discharge" which I basically parole, or on rare occasions an "Absolute Discharge" which is basically them saying "we have no idea why you were even admitted, you are in a better mental state than half our employees.. we are so sorry.."

I read a book a while back called "Broadmoor Revealed", about Britain's first criminal psychiatric hospital. It explains how the idea of being criminally insane fist came about. Basically mad people kept trying to assassinate Queen Victoria, and the law at the time did not permit punishment if the person was insane, however it was felt that something had to be done, and hence people who committed crimes due to insanity could then be detained indefinitely until they were sane again. Broadmoor was initially built for that purpose, and developed the concept of trying to treat the insane, and giving them enriching activities and a wholesome natural environment in Bracknell Forest, instead of just keeping them locked away from the public.

So the question of "should we just euthanise the mad" was considered out of the question even 130 years ago...

never heard of that novel, sounds fairly interesting though

I think that should be on a case by case basis. Everybody and every situation is different.

Put down. If we are willing to kill a dog who bit a person (non-fatal) when it wasn't "trained" properly then why shouldn't we put down a person for killing If they weren't "trained" properly

Right. Because there's no difference between a dog and a man.

It was an obvious bait. Surely no one in their right mind would compare a dog's life to that of a human's.

The criminal should be punished. If what he thinks is right. Behavior can be controlled through the use of rewards and punishments. Prison would be the punishment and good behavior in prison should be rewarded. You would also need somebody who can actually make conclusions on his feelings/beliefs through his behavior (psychologist). I guess you could just kill the person to save some money. No comment on Justice, when I think that is more relevant to the victim/relations. Though putting the criminal in a prison with other 'killers' - 'rapists' won't undo behavior. He/she would be around that environment constantly. There is more than just being normal (law follower and society acceptable) and disturbed. Those who are disturbed need to be in a mental institution. Those who are normal and just try to take advantage of the system is another (gangsters, scammers) would fall in this group. Than there are those who were trained to think a certain way. They would need a sort of inbetween of institutionalization and imprisonment.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you break the law, you must be brought to justice. No exceptions.

Yes, ignorance and mental insanity are no excuse.

Proper teaching? No. If you kill five people, then there's no 'teaching' them because they don't get it or don't care and should be sentenced to death for their crimes of murder.

Well, given some of what I've seen on this forum, assuming someone is in their right mind is a bit of a stretch.

It's a history book, not a novel. I got it free on kindle a few years ago but it looks like it's a paid download now. Some real characters amongst the criminally insane, like the guy who hallucinated people coming through the walls and floors to torture him every night, and he wrote a theory that explained it. Apparently there was a civilisation of people who live in the spaces between floors and in wall cavities who would viciously torment him, and these people were also responsible for abandoned buildings burning down. He refused to sleep in a room that had dark spaces or anything anyone could hide in.

For someone who hates lawyers, you seem to have far less compassion than a Victorian judge.

You would be wise to assume that everyone is a hoodlum until proven otherwise.

mental disorders have nothing to do with being "trained"

more often than not, its the persons brain either over or under producing Chemicals and certain electrical impulses.. most Anti-psychotics serve to try and stabilize this..


and Humans are not dogs.. this is why putting a dog to sleep is legal, but the majority of western nations no longer have the death penalty

see, the Canadian government does not share this view you have.. they believe it is inhumane to punish someone who is either incapable of knowing what they did is wrong, or is in such a fractured mental state that they are not able to withstand a trial..

as such, these individuals are sent to a mental health authority for "rehabilitation".. many of which actually become productive members of Society (not many are aware, but a few years back Halifax had an MLA who was once in such an institution a few years prior, and St Thomas University had an Arts professor who was once in such an Institution)

I have little love for lawyers who use technicalities and loopholes to get people are an open secret criminal but by the laws of the land and loopholes within have not been prosecuted. In general, I don't despise lawyers as much as do a lawyer who is a liar looking for their next paycheck. They besmirch the name of laws. I don't pretend all laws are infallible, but in a case where they have all the evidence and the truth is blatantly there, but one single thing throws the entire thing out because of a loophole, it upsets me and disgusts me. I'm a hardliner about laws, but that's because they are what are meant to hold up a society. What good is a law if swindlers, crooks and killers are just going to slither through legal exploits. However, I'm digressing into deep seated belief and getting overly rigid and heated over something I deeply despise, so I'll respectfully go silent.

Mental or not, if someone commits a crime, they know what they are doing and should be punished severely. If they were mentally ill, then they would NOT be able to tell the law that they were suffering from mental retardation or any other illness, because they do not know what is going on and wouldn't be able to say huge words.

This is M'aiq's opinion... You wanted his opinion and you got it.

Believe me I have no love for criminals, but this is precisely why we have such a large and complicated body of statutes and caselaw. protecting the innocent and the vulnerable is important, and sometimes that includes people who end up on trial for what would normally be a crime. The insanity principle is not a loophole, it's a heavily researched concept to protect those who have no mental element to their crimes, and thus there would be no value to the punishment, as nobody would benefit, and the insane are not deterred by harsh penalties.

Really? I know many people with ADHD, Aspergers and depression who have a very eloquent vocabulary.

as do I



this is probably going to get locked fairly soon.. its on the verge of becoming a large political debate

M'aiq doesn't consider those illnesses. He considers those disorders.