Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosN-No you don't. Most people agree that rape is bad, and lock them up for it, but they still rape, and there are still rapists. So obviously that doesn't work.
You stop them from doing thinks that you don't like. I can't even being to imagine where that question came from.
Originally posted by queeqI told you this would happen!
Wow... this thread has grown. I thought it'd die out in no time.
Originally posted by dadudemonKillers aren't mentally stable? Oh god, this kind of weak-minded ignorance could only come from that of a religion. Anyone can have a change of mind you dolt, it's not as if anyone who does something you don't like is from a different planet and nothing like you. Someone commited murder, okay, we've all thought about killing people, this person was brave eough to actually do it, he's not mentally unstable.
And that is why you are wrong. I never argued that. My original argument was about RJ getting ideals pinned on him that he wasn't arguing about. I also agreed that your point on the interpretation of insanity.You missed the point of my question to you about killers and their mental stability. Do you know why I asked you that question now or do you need me to explain it?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Killers aren't mentally stable? Oh god, this kind of weak-minded ignorance could only come from that of a religion. Anyone can have a change of mind you dolt, it's not as if anyone who does something you don't like is from a different planet and nothing like you. Someone commited murder, okay, we've all thought about killing people, this person was brave eough to actually do it, he's not mentally unstable.
The military has found that most people cannot kill other people even in times of war. It takes a special type of training to over come this natural tendency to not kill. There are other things that can lead a normal person to kill, and mental illness is one of them. However, there are others like stress, or frustration. You do not know if he is mentally unstable or not.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The military has found that most people cannot kill other people even in times of war. It takes a special type of training to over come this natural tendency to not kill. There are other things that can lead a normal person to kill, and mental illness is one of them. However, there are others like stress, or frustration. You do not know if he is mentally unstable or not.
Sigh, this is not that simple a subject. First you have to bring up the way a person was raised, that civilization and so on (which allows for certain standards and blah blah).
That's as far as I'm willing to go into this convo
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonTrue, but it's possible for him to not be. He could have just overcome the nature of not killing like you said happens in the millitary.
The military has found that most people cannot kill other people even in times of war. It takes a special type of training to over come this natural tendency to not kill. There are other things that can lead a normal person to kill, and mental illness is one of them. However, there are others like stress, or frustration. You do not know if he is mentally unstable or not.
Originally posted by queeqDamnit man, you're a mod. You should know not to be positive.
Yeah, I was being positive again, and look what happened.
Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh, this is not that simple a subject. First you have to bring up the way a person was raised, that civilization and so on (which allows for certain standards and blah blah).That's as far as I'm willing to go into this convo
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There are theories which aim at the idea that sanity is a social construct. For example, in many tribal societies it would be perfectly acceptable to kill any kind of rival, over practically anything. The trouble is that sanity is in ways a man made phenomenon. I'm sure I'll get all the psychology brigade screaming at me about enlarged ventricles and excess dopamine levels, but when it boils down to it - what's sane and insane is entirely dependant on societal structure and shared morals.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Killers aren't mentally stable? Oh god, this kind of weak-minded ignorance could only come from that of a religion. Anyone can have a change of mind you dolt, it's not as if anyone who does something you don't like is from a different planet and nothing like you. Someone commited murder, okay, we've all thought about killing people, this person was brave eough to actually do it, he's not mentally unstable.
😆 😆 😆
Yup...you're either an idiot or you didn't read any of the other posts in this thread...Come back to me when you know what I'm actually talking about. You should then apologize for your douche-baggery. 😐
Originally posted by lord xyz
N-No you don't. Most people agree that rape is bad, and lock them up for it, but they still rape, and there are still rapists. So obviously that doesn't work.
B- but the rapists that are killed/jailed stop raping (or at least rape "persons of limited rights" rather than innocent people). Besides you seemed to be interested in the intent of extreme penalties for crimes.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There are theories which aim at the idea that sanity is a social construct. For example, in many tribal societies it would be perfectly acceptable to kill any kind of rival, over practically anything. The trouble is that sanity is in ways a man made phenomenon. I'm sure I'll get all the psychology brigade screaming at me about enlarged ventricles and excess dopamine levels, but when it boils down to it - what's sane and insane is entirely dependant on societal structure and shared morals.
Insanity has a specific definition in terms of criminal law. An insane person is not fit to stand trial or unable to understand that a crime was being committed. If mental disorders are social or not (I think they are) doesn't matter when determining insanity for practical purposes.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Insanity has a specific definition in terms of criminal law. An insane person is not fit to stand trial or unable to understand that a crime was being committed. If mental disorders are social or not (I think they are) doesn't matter when determining insanity for practical purposes.
Criminal law is also different within different societies.
Also, insanity is not actually determined by the law, the law agrees with a professional's opinion or analysis on the subject. Insanity as a whole is a very strange and varied field, especially in criminal cases.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Criminal law is also different within different societies.
Fine.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Also, insanity is not actually determined by the law, the law agrees with a professional's opinion or analysis on the subject. Insanity as a whole is a very strange and varied field, especially in criminal cases.
But in this case it isn't about how odd the person is it is about how well a person understands what is happening. At least that's the impression I've gotten.
My point was that whether sanity is social or not competence to stand trial on grounds of mental disorder is meant to be as objective as possible.
A mother drowns her child while trying to teach it how to breath water. It's an extreme example, of course, but the mother would be insane in the eyes of most legal systems because she didn't understand that she was killing her child.
Obviously the line blurs for more complex cases but the basic concept remains the same. Correct?
My point is that the social aspects of people being weird (even extremely or clinically so) are not supposed to effect criminal cases involving insanity by my understanding, only understanding and competence.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But in this case it isn't about how odd the person is it is about how well a person understands what is happening. At least that's the impression I've gotten.My point was that whether sanity is social or not competence to stand trial on grounds of mental disorder is meant to be as objective as possible.
A mother drowns her child while trying to teach it how to breath water. It's an extreme example, of course, but the mother would be insane in the eyes of most legal systems because she didn't understand that she was killing her child.
Obviously the line blurs for more complex cases but the basic concept remains the same. Correct?
My point is that the social aspects of people being weird (even extremely or clinically so) are not supposed to effect criminal cases involving insanity by my understanding, only understanding and competence.
I'm not too sure on what the system is, but I believe you'd be correct, yes.
Though my point never actually coincided with my opinion, (one I'm yet to post), my point was that insanity, in itself is defined by the society which deals it out. I agree that the criminal law system in the USA has a direct definition of insanity, I however do not agree that this opinion is shared. This, no matter how you dilute or explain it, makes it slightly redundant. Surely, the same principles of mental stability should stand for all people, should they not?
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I'm not too sure on what the system is, but I believe you'd be correct, yes.Though my point never actually coincided with my opinion, (one I'm yet to post), my point was that insanity, in itself is defined by the society which deals it out. I agree that the criminal law system in the USA has a direct definition of insanity, I however do not agree that this opinion is shared. This, no matter how you dilute or explain it, makes it slightly redundant. Surely, the same principles of mental stability should stand for all people, should they not?
Well yes the US opinion is probably not shared universally (or even anywhere else for all I know).
The only way the same principles could apply to everybody would be if the was a single government. The DSM is supposed to standardize the opinions of psychologists on such matters, but again there is a huge bias toward the US.
Across borders there are different cases that have set policy over time. I doubt it would be possible to smooth that over (as reasonable as it would seem) without overhauling the criminal justice system of every nation on Earth.