Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can/should the state encourage rationality?

Rate this topic


Old Geezer

Recommended Posts

Justice should be done to the man who rights have been violated by a schizophrenic
suv

This discussion is not about what should be done if a mans rights have beeen violated, but rather when they are highly likely to get violated.

" If murder is excused, in a court of law, under the excuse of schizophrenia, it won't be long before a host of other criminals, including inethical businessmen, will be citing schizophrenia to get lighter sentences or fines"

As it applies to schizophrenia, that argument is simply untrue. Schizophrenia as a diagnosis has been around since the late 1800's. I challenge you to find a case of malingering that was sucessfull in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then a schizophrenic's rights shouldnt't be violated. He should be left alone. Further, who is to decide whether a person is a "schizophrenic" ( a person who should be forcibly put in a mental institution) or not. It could lead to spate of State-arrests by bureaucrats.

A person has every right to be a scizophrenic, but no right to take away other's rights. And till he has actually done that, he should be allowed to enjoy life as a schizophrenic. Ofcourse, the State and other people are free to post ads., spread awareness etc...I don't know...maybe have a patrol intercept every stranger, the man approaches, just to inform him that our dude is a nut-case :dough:....w'ever.

As it applies to schizophrenia, that argument is simply untrue. Schizophrenia as a diagnosis has been around since the late 1800's. I challenge you to find a case of malingering that was sucessfull in court.

I said IF Schizophrenia is held as valid reason for mitigating justice, it will set an unwholesome precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I said IF Schizophrenia is held as valid reason for mitigating justice, it will set an unwholesome precedent. "
suv

It has been "unwholesome precedent" for 150 years; I challenge you to find one single succeessfull case of malingering by a business man or a theif or a rapist who used shizophrenia as an excuse. (other mental illnesses would be incredibly easy, but I doubt for schizophrenia)

"The M'Naghten rule says defendants may be acquitted only if they labored "under such defect of reason from disease of the mind" as to not realize what they were doing or why it was a crime. Some call it the "right-wrong" test."

"A person has every right to be a scizophrenic, but no right to take away other's rights"
All the more reason to use the idea of the "least restrictive environment" and make their release from custody contingent upon taking medication.

" Further, who is to decide whether a person is a "schizophrenic" ( a person who should be forcibly put in a mental institution) or not.."

There is no Blood Test For Diabetes, but an MD Decides it based on the symptoms... In any case thats why we have an adversarial justice system.

"Ofcourse, the State and other people are free to post ads., spread awareness etc...I don't know...maybe have a patrol intercept every stranger, the man approaches, just to inform him that our dude is a nut-case ....w'ever."suv
Sure they are, but Seroquel/Haldol are much more effective and much less expensive then either education or incarceration.

"What ought government do regarding a sleepwalker with a chainsaw?"

Either wake them up or lock them up.

"you most certainly do disagree with my contention above regarding government. "

You are gonna have to prove that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ought government do regarding a sleepwalker with a chainsaw?

Either wake them up or lock them up.

On what philosophical grounds? Whom have they injured and whose rights have they violated? Again, "more likely" versus "less likely" is not a philosophical principle. Now answer the question.

you most certainly do disagree with my contention above regarding government.

You are gonna have to prove that.

"Lock them up" proves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On what philosophical grounds?"
Just as with someone with a severe concussion can not be negotiated with as a human until volition/rationality are restored, neither can a sleepwalker. Yet the presumption that they will at some point recover a level of volition and rationality is what keeps one from say shooting them.

Lock them up" proves it.

On what "philisophical grounds?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your answer doesn't answer the question at all. Firstly, it is a red herring: we are discussing ethical government action. Secondly, it's not the grounds I was looking for. Thirdly, who is negotiating? who restores reason? who presumes? who is about to shoot whom? why does such a presumption effectively block this shooting?

Answer the question. Government should trample the rights of all people who are not fully or at all (pick one) using reason to guide their actions (as judged by whom?) because ... ?

Or don't, because this discussion is becoming a waste of time. I want it based on principles, whereas you want it based on pragmatism and practicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, it is a red herring: we are discussing ethical government action
as was I

Secondly, it's not the grounds I was looking for

you will have to be more clear about the "grounds you are looking for" if you expect my answer to meet them.

Thirdly, who is negotiating?
Nobody negotiates anything if it is not clear if the dangerous person is volitional/rational at the time . (as would be the case with an unmedicated schizo or a 'sleepwalker with a chainsaw') They must either be removed from society until such time as justice has been served AND we believe they will not initiate force again. (incarceration) or they must be killed.

who restores reason?

When the government has determined if justice has been served, (for instance, after serving the appropriate sentence for throwing fecal matter at someone ) its next decision is whether it will be able to fullfill its contract with people to protect them from force if the person is released. (essentially it becomes a tactical decision)

If the amount of time for the fecal matter throwing was appropriate than the only way in which justice enters at that point is the justice of keeping a person detained forcefully. Since PS presumably experience moments of lucidity and volition, the government would be taking an awfully large risk of violating the PS rights, the Doctrine of the "least restrictive environment" presumably applies.

However, if the person is still at times perceiving things that do not exist (such as auditory or visual hallucinations) at times, and is not always able to discern between hallucinations and reality, the government can not release them.

By no means is the government obligated to completely "restore reason" or volition, and is free to allow charity groups, guardians , the PS , etc to do that.

But it does have the option recognizing the possibility that the PS is volitional/reasonable by adhering to the Doctrine of Least Restrictive Environment. It also has the option of fiscal responsibility by choosing the most cost effective option after Justice has been served. (for instance after the 'sentence' for fecal matter has been served...it wouldnt make much sense to keep them detained for another 20 years) It also has the option of maintaining a secure state.

If medication as a condition for release meets those conditions, what is lacking?

I will answer your other question in a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...