I keep wondering why the law allows for the defensive move to plead insanity when one has committed a murder. Why is insanity a softening circumstance? When a dog bites someone because he has rabies, he is put to death. It is not considered responsible to let him live. But if a human commits a violent crime out of insanity, he is spared the harsh punishment of a sane criminal.
The comparison might be imperfect for several reasons but the policy does not make sense to me. If someone is murderous and insane, is this really a reason to take it easy on him?
A few reactions: 1) it is very uncommon for this defense to work 2) If there was a way to treat a dog who had rabies who had bitten someone, I would be in favor of not putting that dog down. 3) If someone is judged insane, they can still be sent to a mental institution. They don’t really fit in with murderers. They have also engaged in some other kind of act. Perhaps they thought their wife was telling the Pope secrets about them. They didn’t kill her to get her money. To me my reaction tends towards pity in a way that doesn’t happen with sane murderers. Putting a dog down who has rabies has no losses. The animal is suffering and will die, we are not safe. An insane person, however, can be treated and treated fairly gently potentially. It doesn’t mean they should pop out in the streets again with no changes.
People who are insane don’t get special treatment when they murder, for example they cannot be given parole in my country unless they are considered sane, they are liable to face a whole life sentence in a secure mental institution unless they get better, and frankly as many serial killers have proven they just don’t. People who are sane and murder will eventually get out, it’s guaranteed by the EU constitution, being mad tends to wave that right. You would therefore be better off being sane, at least in my neck of the woods.
i think part of the goal, although probably not very effective, is rehabilitation
punishment ‘works’ for normal people… anyone with a brain would think twice about committing it again (lets say when life sentence/death is not the penalty)
and looney bins are the best we have for the crazies
I tend to think most anti-social/criminal behavior is driven by what could be considered questionable sanity, or the U.S. prison system would not be so overcrowded. I have the opinion it is a system that is not metered equitably across racial and socioeconomic differences, and that, over time, will eventually create the very behavior in a society, the penal system was intended to prevent.
Perhaps it is our notion of what is sane that should be considered before that sanity is used or not in prosecution.
But hey, I admit I ain’t like most in my thinking. I already question my own sanity, problem is most criminals don’t.
On the other hand, and to answer your question, I have yet to meet a truly sane person. You speak of the “sane murderer”… how insane is that?
But as mentioned, it is an issue of separating the “cold hearted” from the “confused hearted” and handling them accordingly. Besdies if they merely kill the obviously insane, where will they get any subjects for their insane experimentation? Without understanding all of the ins and outs of insane behavior, causes and effects, how can they ever expect to produce it on demand?