The Insanity Plea

[JASKN]

In light of Andrea Yates judged to be not-guilty for the murder of her 5 children, I was thinking about the insanity plea that got her off. Is there any justice in such a plea, ever? Say someone blows up a small village, or part of the moon, or some other more catastrophic act than murdering your own children, nobody would excuse the person, just because of insanity. Why is someone not at fault for being insane? It's certainly not the fault of anyone else. Does the justice system consider insanity outside the realm of human control, like a volcano? I don't get it.

Can someone explain to me the moral validation or lack thereof of being excused for a crime due to fleeting or otherwise "insanity"?

[The Wrath]

I'll let other people handle the moral question, but I'd just like to mention that Andrea Yates will still be incarcerated for the rest of her life. It will just be in a padded room, rather than behind bars.

[Myself]

I'll let other people handle the moral question, but I'd just like to mention that Andrea Yates will still be incarcerated for the rest of her life. It will just be in a padded room, rather than behind bars.

Why should she even have that? No one is disputing the validity of her crime.

[JMeganSnow]

It's certainly not the fault of anyone else. Does the justice system consider insanity outside the realm of human control, like a volcano? I don't get it.

Yes.

I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist so I don't have a very valid opinion on the technical aspects of insanity. However, when someone is prone to even temporary fits of not just being unwilling, but actually unable to control his or her actions, it's not fair to the other prisoners to put this person in the same facility where they will be able to mingle.

Not-guilty by reason of insanity is not a free pass or get-out-of-jail card; a prisoner still has a modicum of rights and can expect to have them respected. A crazy person is a thing that can never expect to exercise judgement on its own behalf for the length of its continuation is existence.

Rightfully, it should be worse to face permanent incarceration in a looney bin, not better.

[DavidOdden]

Can someone explain to me the moral validation or lack thereof of being excused for a crime due to fleeting or otherwise "insanity"?

This has to do with what is known as scienter. For example, being in possession of someone else's property without permission is not what constitutes theft: you have to knowingly take with the intent to convert. That's why accidentally walking off with someone's pencil is not stealing the pencil. Ordinarily (following Ockham -- "Nec potest per ignorantiam excusari") it is assumed that people know what acts are right and wrong either because they are proper moral people (the common law approach) or because they have done their citizen's duty and have read the law (the statutory approach), and therefore the only question would be whether you know the "basic facts" of the act, e.g. who actually owned the pencil. A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.

Remember that law is a species of moral evaluation -- it's the judgment that a certain kind of act is so immoral as to deserve the use of force to correct. All moral evaluation pertains to free choices (note btw that if you are coerced into committing a crime, you also will not be punished), asserting that a particular choice is good or bad. An insane person simply either does not make choices at all, or cannot tell whether choices are good or bad, so they cannot be morally condemned (assuming a rational morality).

The main issue, IMOO, is not the validity of the insanity defense, but the requirements of proof of insanity. Based on what I recall about the case, I concluded that when Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted for snipping off her hubbie's Johnson on grounds of insanity, the jury was really saying "he had it coming". In the Yates case, it does seem to me that she's unhinged, although that's an amateur judgment on my part.

[LaszloWalrus]

Michael Hurd has an interesting take on this:

http://drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=show...amp;ucat=1&

[JASKN]

A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.

[...]

An insane person simply either does not make choices at all, or cannot tell whether choices are good or bad, so they cannot be morally condemned (assuming a rational morality).

[...]

The main issue, IMOO, is not the validity of the insanity defense, but the requirements of proof of insanity.

Ok, I agree with you that a person who cannot distinguish right from wrong by definition cannot be morally judged, and I appreciate the legal clarification. However, as JMeganSnow mentioned, a lifelong label of "insane" would be even worse, as that person could no longer be considered human. And we, as higher beings, so to speak, with still the ability to judge for ourselves, would be correct in either locking the insane person up or banishing him from our land, right?

I think that is no light decision to make, but it is a sort of win-win situation for everyone but the criminal, since an insanity plea is essentially condemning one's self to life as a sub-human or, if found to be sane, life as an incarcerated human.

...

Actually, as I read an article about Andrea Yates' ruling just now, it occurred to me that it may be right to release a previously insane person if competent doctors decided the person could now function normally.

I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while "insane" to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

[JMeganSnow]

Actually, as I read an article about Andrea Yates' ruling just now, it occurred to me that it may be right to release a previously insane person if competent doctors decided the person could now function normally.

If they can do it consistently on their own recognizance, maybe . . . you can't always trust schizophrenics to take their medication, and they are often completely impossible to handle without it. If someone has committed murder, etc. because of some mental condition they developed, can you really trust them to seek out help before it's too late?

I'd say, they can earn back the right to use their judgment on minor issues (in a case this extreme), but they can never earn the right to say "I don't want to take my medicine today" or "I don't feel like attending therapy".

[Bold Standard]

Michael Hurd has an interesting take on this:

http://drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=show...amp;ucat=1&

(First, I'll plagiarize Megan's disclaimer and use it for myself: "I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist so I don't have a very valid opinion on the technical aspects of insanity." But this stuff is interesting to me, so I'll go out on a limb and state my oppinions; take them for what they are..)

I've read several articles, such as this one, in which Dr. Hurd seems to take a position in which many types of mental illness, even severe ones, could be cured if only the victim would "take responsibility" and just shape up or something. Maybe I'm misreading him, or maybe he knows something I don't know. But it seems to me like he attributes too much to volition at times. I've only read a few of his articles, though. Does anyone else who's more familiar with him get a similar impression? (I know he's a prominent Objectivist, and I'm not trying to dismiss him, it's just that I want to know if I'm totally missing the point, or if it's just his style of writing, or what.)

Based on what I've gathered from following the Yates case, I don't see how it's in any way controversial to say that she was suffering from severe, probably organically originating delusions at the time of these murders.

I'd say there's a clear, qualitative difference between the moral status of someone who actually hears the voice of God or the devil ordering her to murder her children, vs (for instance) a terrorist who believes it is God's will for him to murder Jews, because of his ideology.

Both individuals are making a choice based on their evaluations of reality, but the first person is acting on an interpretation of reality that has been distorted by her body in a way she couldn't control, predict, or understand (and, in fact, from what I've heard she sought treatment and was institutionalized until her insurance ran out, prior to the murders), whereas the second person, through ignorance, prejudice, and evasion, (but possibly a faulty moral faculty, which might be organic, as is hypothesized to be the case in at least some "primary psychopaths" who have clear signs of brain damage, but this is not as of yet very well understood by scientists, and much less well by me), has chosen not to regard the rights of others.

A crazy person is a thing that can never expect to exercise judgement on its own behalf for the length of its continuation is existence.

Are you arguing here that crazy people haven't even a modicum of rights, as do (sane) prisoners? How are you defining "crazy person" here? Certainly mentally ill people are limited in their ability to judge, but is it necessarily true that they can never judge appropriately for themselves?

[DavidOdden]

I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while "insane" to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

You should have no trouble. Moral evaluation is meaningful only in terms of choice. If cats were conceptual, volitional being, you ought to be able to perform a moral evaluation of the actions of your cat. The fact of being human is not directly relevant -- what matters is a particular fact about humans. If cats had it, they could go to jail. When humans don't, they shouldn't go to jail.

[DavidV]

I'll let other people handle the moral question, but I'd just like to mention that Andrea Yates will still be incarcerated for the rest of her life. It will just be in a padded room, rather than behind bars.

Is this really the case? I'm not familiar with the details of the case, or the workings of insane asylums (is that term non-pc nowadays?), but I thought that the residents were periodically reviewed and released when “cured.”

[Bold Standard]

Is this really the case? I'm not familiar with the details of the case, or the workings of insane asylums (is that term non-pc nowadays?), but I thought that the residents were periodically reviewed and released when “cured.”

The residents are periodically reviewed, but from what I understand, Andrea Yates' lawyers, the prosecuting lawyers, and other experts have been saying in interviews since the trial that they think it's highly unlikely that she will ever be released, given her degree of psychosis.

I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while "insane" to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

I had it explained to me this way-- Have you ever had a dream, in which you did something you would never do in real life? Maybe something horrible? Someone who is criminally insane is like you are in that dream. They are controlling themselves (in some respects), but not really (in other essential respects). They are grasping what's going on, but not really. The horrifying difference is-- for them there are real life consequences. But in terms of the moral value of their decisions, in the context of their mind and what they're capable of knowing, they're similar to a person in a dream state.

That might be a better analogy than a natural disaster, for understanding the criminal's state of mind. The natural disaster (or a deadly disease, or old age) just shows you something that can actually kill a person without being morally responsible.

Edited July 31, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Drew1776]

The residents are periodically reviewed, but from what I understand, Andrea Yates' lawyers, the prosecuting lawyers, and other experts have been saying in interviews since the trial that they think it's highly unlikely that she will ever be released, given her degree of psychosis.

There is a huge difference between highly unlikely and never. Should a doctor determine she is safe for release there is only one person standing between her and freedom, a judge. There are judges who let rapists and child molesters go free. Personally, I think someone who commits such horrible acts should never be allowed to go free.

An insane person simply either does not make choices at all, or cannot tell whether choices are good or bad, so they cannot be morally condemned (assuming a rational morality).

If an insane person can't make moral choices and act in a moral manner then aren't they no more than brute animals? Putting a destructive a-moral human to death would be just the same as putting down a bad dog. Why should a person such as Andrea Yates be afforded any extra protection and pity.

It simply boggles my mind that there are people including objectivists that consider indefinite (meaning it could be a lifetime or only one year depending upon the whim of a doctor and a judge) confinement for multiple murders is an acceptable punishment. If you claim she cannot make rational decisions about right and wrong and therefore cannot be morally condemned fine. But if my dog, incapable of morally determining right from wrong, viciously attacks (or even kills) someone he is rightly put down. How is Andrea Yates any different from a vicious dog?

Edited July 31, 2006 by Drew1776

[psychotrope]

A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.

As I understand it, that is the key. The criteria for the plea is "Can the supposed insane person distinguish right from wrong?" However, what is not often mentioned is that you CAN be both insane and still able to distinguish right from wrong. And that's important because in Andrea Yates' case, she was clearly able to distinguish right from wrong, even in her state of delusion. Everything I've watched and read on the subject has reinforced to me that beyond any shadow of a doubt, she knew for sure that what she was doing was completely wrong. Note that it was Satan telling her to kill her kids, not God. And she knew the difference and knew which one was evil and which one was good.

Was she insane? Yes, probably. But could she tell right from wrong? Yes. Therefore, the insanity plea should not apply. I fear that the sympathy for sufferers of post-partum depression out of political correctness may have influenced the case.

Furthermore, I find her delusion only slightly beyond typical religious extremism. As I've pointed out in another thread, if you truly believe in eternal heaven and eternal hell, wouldn't we be justified in doing anything we could to ensure our kids end up in the right place for eternity? Nevertheless, she still knew what she was doing was wrong.

[skap35]

Here is something that really made me mad about this ruling: The definition of insanity is that you don't know that what you did was wrong. When Yates murdered her kids, she called 911 and said "I just did something bad." Call me crazy, but doesn't that indicate that she knew that what she did was wrong?

She admitted at the time of the murder that she knew it was wrong, yet somehow the court thinks she didn't know what she was doing.

[DavidOdden]

If an insane person can't make moral choices and act in a moral manner then aren't they no more than brute animals?

Your same question would go for a child as well. I recommend Don Watkins' essay on broken units. I recall that he has another essay (I forgot where -- presumably on Anger Management) which focuses on the distinction between the actual and the potential which is relevant. If a person is totally and irrevocably insane, then they do not have a rational faculty (they may have had one once, but it is gone). Barring that, like a child an legally insane person temporarily lacks the capacity to distinguish right and wrong. An animal, on the other hand, can never make the distinction.

It simply boggles my mind that there are people including objectivists that consider indefinite (meaning it could be a lifetime or only one year depending upon the whim of a doctor and a judge) confinement for multiple murders is an acceptable punishment.

To follow Burgess' tradition, let me say that I'm not familiar with objectivism, though I do know of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. You seem to not have understood the point about moral evaluation and perhaps you don't correctly grasp the nature of punishment. A person who is incapable of distinguishing right and wrong is deserving of no punishment. Confinement for umpteen years is not about punishment, it is about containing a potential threat.

[Drew1776]

A person who is incapable of distinguishing right and wrong is deserving of no punishment. Confinement for umpteen years is not about punishment, it is about containing a potential threat.

I haven't read your article yet but I will be sure to look into it. However for arguments sake lets say I accept your claim. I would absolutely agree with you that the issue then becomes containing a potential threat but I disagree with your characterization of the problem. First off there is no "potential" threat but in fact an actual threat. There are plenty of people in this world who are mentally disturbed but they don't necessarily act on their impulses. Andrea Yates has demonstrated quite clearly that she is an actual threat.

So then I come to the issue being one of containment. Why stop at containment and not death. Clearly such a person as Andrea Yates is a very destructive person whether by choice or not. It is therefore imperative that she be removed from society (I'm sure you agree) so why not put her to death?

Perhaps we're differing on our views of justice and punishment. Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime. In fact the very notion of "Innocent by reason of Insanity" is a contradiction in terms. She killed her children whether or not she is insane doesn't matter. Were it not for her the children would be alive. She perpetrated the act and is consequently responsible for that act.

Like I said before I have yet to read your liked article but because you brought up children I'm compelled to respond. I don't think that children lack the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. Certainly you and I and everyone else on this message board had opportunities to do horrible things in our childhood. Perhaps it was knowing where dad’s gun was (and that guns kill people) or being able to reach the butcher knife (and know it causes pain) yet even as a child (which according you means the inability to distinguish right from wrong) I never shot anyone and I never stabbed anyone. Why? Because even as a child I can recognize what causes pain and what death means and what it would mean to inflict that on someone else and that that is wrong.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Perhaps we're differing on our views of justice and punishment. Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime. In fact the very notion of "Innocent by reason of Insanity" is a contradiction in terms. She killed her children whether or not she is insane doesn't matter. Were it not for her the children would be alive. She perpetrated the act and is consequently responsible for that act.

Being the "but for" cause of someone's death doesn't alone mean someone is culpable or responsible in a legal or moral sense however. For example, imagine a person who picks up what he thinks is a toy gun, points it at a man and pulls the trigger, only unknown to him it is actually a real gun and the man is killed. The person is certainly the "but for" cause of the man's death. In a real sense he killed the man. But it would be strange to say that he is culpable or responsible for the man's death.

This is why the criminal justice system is so focused on intent, rather than simple "but for" causation. You need intent PLUS causation to be culpable in most cases, and these requirements are found in the definition of the crime. For instance, the crime of murder might require "knowingly, intentionally or willfully causing the death of a person." If you didn't have knowledge/intent of your actions, even if a person was killed, by definition you didn't commit the crime of murder.

[DavidOdden]

I would absolutely agree with you that the issue then becomes containing a potential threat but I disagree with your characterization of the problem. First off there is no "potential" threat but in fact an actual threat.

Since the thread is more general -- it's not just about Yates -- my comments were more general. Any actual threat is, of course, also a potential threat. So not only should a potential threat be confined, an actual one should be. I have not seen the trial transcripts or any of the factual evidence presented at the trial, so I have no basis for judging Yates' mental state, now or at the time.

So then I come to the issue being one of containment. Why stop at containment and not death.

The question is when it is proper for the state to execute a person: that's a complex question. If you're up for a separate thread where you argue some position about the right of the state to execute people, go for it. Until I see your reasoning, I've got nothing.

It is therefore imperative that she be removed from society (I'm sure you agree) so why not put her to death?

Why put her to death when it is not necessary?

Perhaps we're differing on our views of justice and punishment.

No question about it. That's why I'm encouraging you to consider the general principles of justice and the role of punishment in achieving justice. I imagine that we agree on the matter of reparations -- a person should pay for the damage that they cause (even without scienter). Then the question is, under what conditions is it proper for the government use additional, non-reparative force? Why is it right to punish? That really should lead to the answer as to when execution is justified.

Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime.

I'm curious whether you think that (innocently, non-negligently) causing a traffic accident that results in a death is committing a crime. I presume that you are aware of the vast numbers of perfectly proper acts that are nevertheless crimes, for example failure to file or pay federal income taxes, possession or sale of vast numbers of controlled substances, manufacturing or selling pharmaceuticals without a license, cutting hair for money without a license (and the list goes on). Is your argument a narrow legal one about the wording of the homicide statutes in Texas, that the scienter requirement should be explicitly part of the definition of homicide? I'm just confused about the relevance of bringing up the issue of an act being a crime. Or are you simply saying that causing the death of another person is murder?

I don't think that children lack the capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

Nor do I, in general. However, they do have diminished capacity to make rational judgments, which is why there is no such thing as volitional intercourse with a child under 15 (give or take a couple of years depending on jurisdiction), and they cannot be contractually bound at age 8. A child of about 3-4 years old is sufficiently incapable of grasping the notions of right and wrong (generally, even if they have learned specific instances of the concept "wrong") that it would be quite a miscarriage of justice to execute a 3 year old for killing a person. Would you define justice in death-related cases as executing any person who acts lead to the unlawful death of another? This all comes down the the central question "What is justice; how does punishment relate to justice?".

[DavidOdden]

Was she insane? Yes, probably. But could she tell right from wrong? Yes.

I haven't read any of the factual material surrounding that, and they didn't have a blow-by-blow on TV up here. So exactly what evidence was brought out for and against?

[Groovenstein]

In fact the very notion of "Innocent by reason of Insanity" is a contradiction in terms.

No, it isn't, even if you're implying that all crimes be strict liability, i.e. without intent requirements.

Involuntary intoxication is a form of insanity. If you slip a crazy powder into my drink, and I start shooting at cars because I think they're vampires trying to exterminate the human race, are you really going to hold me responsible for murder?

If you would say yes, i.e. that people who are involuntarily intoxicated are responsible for their actions, I wonder if you would also say that a girl who had been slipped a roofie could "consent" to sex. If you think this is different, why so?

[Dismuke]

Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime. In fact the very notion of "Innocent by reason of Insanity" is a contradiction in terms. She killed her children whether or not she is insane doesn't matter. Were it not for her the children would be alive. She perpetrated the act and is consequently responsible for that act.

Nobody disputes that she killed her children. I suspect that your stumbling block here is the word "innocent." How can "innocent" ever be used in connection with such a horrible act?

Keep in mind that what she was on trial for was whether she was guilty of murder - which in a court of law has a much more narrow and specific meaning that it does in daily usage. And even in daily, common usage, not all instances of killing a person constitute murder.

For example, if a bear, tiger or some other wild animal, attacked and killed a child - that child would be just as dead as the Yates children are. But nobody would say that the animal "murdered" the child. Murder presupposes a rational faculty that has volitional control over itself. An animal does not have such a faculty - and for that reason animals are considered "innocent" in that they merely behave according to their nature and lack any ability to behave otherwise. Human beings do have that ability - thus making the very concepts of "guilt" and "innocence" possible .

People who are truly insane have rational faculties which are impaired to such a degree that they lack awareness and/or full volitional control over their behavior and, as such, are in a similar position as a wild animal. That such impairments can and do exist is a fact of reality - and, as such, is something that courts need to take into consideration when it is, indeed, a relevant fact.

Even when it comes to people who are fully sane, not all instances of killing another innocent person and other rights violations are considered murder. For example, people sometimes kill others by accident. And sometimes people destroy other's property by accident. When that happens, unless there was gross negligence which lead to the accident, no crime is considered to exist - though it is possible that one might be held responsible for civil damages.

To put the issue in Objectivist terms - context is everything. It is not just enough to demonstrate that the actions of person A resulted in the death of person B. One has to take context into consideration - and since insanity is a context that sometimes does play a role in the death of one person at the hands of another, it is necessary for the legal system to take cognizance of it and act appropriately.

Now, as to what exactly what should and should not constitute insanity, to what degree it should be taken into consideration and what the legal system should do in instances when it can be proven - well, I really have no specific opinion as I am neither a psychologist or a legal scholar. Nor do I have any particular opinion about the Yates case (other than I have always found the subsequent behavior of the husband/father to be very creepy) as I have simply not paid enough attention to it. My only point is that, because insanity is a fact of reality and because it is an impairment on a person's volitional, and therefore, moral, faculty, it is a context that our legal system does need to take cognizance and make provisions for.

The fact that many people in today's rotten popular culture find a need to excuse and rationalize away every evil is, I admit, disgusting and obnoxious - but it has little bearing on the underlying legal issues involved.

[Drew1776]

I'm curious whether you think that (innocently, non-negligently) causing a traffic accident that results in a death is committing a crime. I presume that you are aware of the vast numbers of perfectly proper acts that are nevertheless crimes, for example failure to file or pay federal income taxes, possession or sale of vast numbers of controlled substances, manufacturing or selling pharmaceuticals without a license, cutting hair for money without a license (and the list goes on). Is your argument a narrow legal one about the wording of the homicide statutes in Texas, that the scienter requirement should be explicitly part of the definition of homicide? I'm just confused about the relevance of bringing up the issue of an act being a crime. Or are you simply saying that causing the death of another person is murder?

A non-negligent homicide such as a car crash is an accident. I might accidentally hit and kill someone and there may be a monetary or some other punishment for that. On the other hand if I intentionally hit someone that would be murder. Holding five children’s head’s under the water until they are dead is no accident. I think there is a clear difference between that and accidentally striking someone with your car. As far as your other examples I'm discussing moral issues / issues of life and death. When the law is illegitimate no crime has been committed. I am characterizing something as a crime if it is an act which is not an accident that results in a loss (in this case death).

No, it isn't, even if you're implying that all crimes be strict liability, i.e. without intent requirements.

Here is the definition of guilty from dictionary.com (and yes I realize it’s not the best dictionary in the world)

"Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable"

Andrea Yates or and "crazy" person who commits a crime is responsible for the act. They perpetrated it intentionally it is not an accident.

Involuntary intoxication is a form of insanity. If you slip a crazy powder into my drink, and I start shooting at cars because I think they're vampires trying to exterminate the human race, are you really going to hold me responsible for murder?

Of course not. Clearly, the person who did something immoral to the you, by slipping you a drug to alter your mental state, is responsible.

People who are truly insane have rational faculties which are impaired to such a degree that they lack awareness and/or full volitional control over their behavior and, as such, are in a similar position as a wild animal. That such impairments can and do exist is a fact of reality - and, as such, is something that courts need to take into consideration when it is, indeed, a relevant fact.

First of all the fact that such impairments "can and do exist" is something I have difficulty buying. However for the sake of argument let’s assume I agree with you. If such a person lacks that ability they would seem sub human; a creature to be treated as the "wild" animal it is. Let it go about its daily life as it wishes but don't think twice to put such a beast down when it has demonstrated that it is a killer (of humans).

Even when it comes to people who are fully sane, not all instances of killing another innocent person and other rights violations are considered murder. For example, people sometimes kill others by accident. And sometimes people destroy other's property by accident. When that happens, unless there was gross negligence which lead to the accident, no crime is considered to exist - though it is possible that one might be held responsible for civil damages.

See my response to another similar question.

Now, as to what exactly what should and should not constitute insanity, to what degree it should be taken into consideration and what the legal system should do in instances when it can be proven - well, I really have no specific opinion as I am neither a psychologist or a legal scholar.

One doesn’t need to be a psychologist or legal scholar to determine if insanity is a valid plea or not, in a moral sense (which is what I’m interested in).

My only point is that, because insanity is a fact of reality and because it is an impairment on a person's volitional, and therefore, moral, faculty, it is a context that our legal system does need to take cognizance and make provisions for.

While you claim you are not a psychologist or a legal scholar and consequently can’t form an opinion on the matter it seems as though you do have an opinion. You certainly seem to accept, without question, that a person’s volition can be 100% impaired, from time to time and for some reason, and therefore they are not morally responsible for their actions. I suppose those people are lucky. While you would condemn “normal” individuals for their acts you would give a blank check to a “crazy” person. She killed 5 kids but that’s ok, she’s crazy it’s not her fault. I assume you would call that justice.

The fact that many people in today's rotten popular culture find a need to excuse and rationalize away every evil is, I admit, disgusting and obnoxious - but it has little bearing on the underlying legal issues involved.

On the contrary it has a great bearing on the moral implications of people’s actions. In no way am I trying to argue within the context of any legal issue I’m talking about the principle of the matter. What of people who grow up in an abusive household? What about a kid who is mercilessly teased and grows up to be a murderer? It would seem they should be protected as well. They had a tough life growing up you know. They didn’t know any better. We must take pity on them it’s not their fault.

And that is the root of it. You (and many others) wish to free people from the blame they justly deserve. Society didn’t kill Andrea Yates’ kids and neither did the devil nor her husband. It was her. She did it. She is at fault and deserved to be punished for the senseless slaughter that she committed.

Assuming that a person can slip in and out of a state where they cannot make a moral judgment, which is a notion I consider completely ridiculous, and they kill people in these states they are a real and actual threat. In their lack of respect for human life they have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not fit to live among humans. It is necessary that they be destroyed for their deliberate, as opposed to accidental, crimes as a matter of justice. The second component is also that in death they are denied the ability to ever kill again (which is something they are apparently capable of).

[DavidOdden]

A non-negligent homicide such as a car crash is an accident.

I don't see why that is relevant to your position (which, I admit, I don't understand in the least). Killing is killing, so why would it matter if it is an accident?

I am characterizing something as a crime if it is an act which is not an accident that results in a loss (in this case death).

Since your definition of crime depends fundamentally on the notion of "accident", you need to define accident. Do you believe in random uncaused events -- is that what you mean by "accident"? How open-ended are you on the concept "loss" -- do you mean only certain kinds of loss, or any kind of loss. Apart from unclarities about accidents and what a loss is, you have given no justification whatsoever for your redinition of crime, nor have you shown that it has any relationship to justice or morality at least within an Objectivist context. Do you have any argument in support of your idea? Your definition still leaves you a criminal because of the loss that you cause, if someone slips you a psychosis-inducing drug.

Anyhow, your redefinition of "crime" is simply wrong. Words have objective meaning, and you have not given the correct defintion of "crime". You are confusing the meaning of the word with the idea of principles which determine proper law. You've conflated crime and tort. Crime is simply violation of the law: that's why your argument based on the fact of being a crime is entirely unpersuasive in the context of a society where laws are largely improper. (Hey, Matt -- has anyone ever quantified the number of good versus bad laws? I admit, it's just an informal impression that I've gotten, but it does seem to me that well over half of all statutes are totally improper.)

Oh, BTW if you kill someone accidentally, there may be some legal reparations that you have to make, but compensation is distinct from punishment.

[Shinokamen]

While it is true that a bear which killed a child may not be "guilty" in a legal sense, park rangers or whoever may legally kill the bear in order to protect other people from it. How is this any different from a person who is lacking cognitively?

I have always subscribed to the notion that anyone who actively injures someone else, without prior action from that person to injure them, means that the person is insane, and because of this they should either be put somewhere where they will not be a danger to anyone except themselves or executed.

In regards to the Yates case, I believe that she "owns" her children in a very real sense and, although killing them was not right or justified, I believe that since her husband, who did not seem to blame her for the death of the children which were half his, does not care, and so long as she does not exhibit any actions that could be concieved as dangerous to anyone else, that it is her husband's responsibility to decide what a proper punishment is for her. After all, when she lacks the ability to make decisions for herself, her husband gains that right, correct?