By Reason Of Insanity

[jw5]

It is semantics here. If someone of unsound mind runs amok and start killing everyone on sight, then what will you call it? He escapes the death sentence but the victims are dead. Will it be too bad for the killer or too bad for the victim for being at the wrong place at the wrong time?

In the case u cited, he would probably get a relatively light sentence being of unsound mind and it would be too bad for the victims that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What I'm saying is that he should get punished for committing murder. As for the fact that he was of unsound mind, that's too bad for him. Of course, it's still too bad for the victims, no change there.

 

[jw5]

If you could commit rape, you couldn't be of unsound mind, just of criminally lustful mind and acted on it.

They won't plead unsound mind, but they would get diagnosed with some kind of disorder and try to use that as mitigation.
Especially in cases where young kids are abused, is there anyone of sound mind who would rape kids?
Yet, it appears that everytime there is such a case, the inevitable disorder diagnosis mitigation plea will be used.
My bottomline is this: If you kill or rape someone, no unsound mind or mental disorder mitigation or defence.

 

[Ramseth]

What I'm saying is that he should get punished for committing murder. As for the fact that he was of unsound mind, that's too bad for him. Of course, it's still too bad for the victims, no change there.

In ancient Chinese law, a death caused by an act was a death caused. There needn't be question on mentality nor intention. There was no distinction between murder and manslaughter except at war, in line of duty or self-defense. It was like, oh that chap was so unlucky killed by someone insane or accidentally. The court verdict would be, oh this chap by insanity or accident still have to pay life for life. Unlucky also for this chap, death sentence. Following that law, many motor vehicle drivers would have be executed already.

 

[jw5]

The court verdict would be, oh this chap by insanity or accident still have to pay life for life. Unlucky also for this chap, death sentence. Following that law, many motor vehicle drivers would have be executed already.

In my book, accidental killing would not be murder, including motor vehicular killing.
However, there should be a special punishment for drivers who kill someone while driving drunk.
Simply cannot accept that a person can have a teenage lover and induce the lover to kill her husband, but can then later plead a mental disorder. In that case, all killers and rapists would be able to plead some kind of disorder, and it would probably be true, since you would not expect someone of sound mind to kill or rape.

 

[groober2011]

In my book, accidental killing would not be murder, including motor vehicular killing.
However, there should be a special punishment for drivers who kill someone while driving drunk.
Simply cannot accept that a person can have a teenage lover and induce the lover to kill her husband, but can then later plead a mental disorder. In that case, all killers and rapists would be able to plead some kind of disorder, and it would probably be true, since you would not expect someone of sound mind to kill or rape.

I do agree with you on this case and as I said before, each case has it's own merit. There are people who are mentally ill and there are those who are not but use this condition as an excuse for their criminal acts.

 

[Cranial Blowout]

Arseburgers...my arse!

McKinnon has become a cause celeb in Britain, where he was arrested, and a martyr figure among members of the Asperger’s community.

McKinnon’s lawyers say that his Asperger’s influenced his actions and that he shouldn’t be charged as a terrorist in the U.S.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/08/24/aspergers-criminal-defense