I WAS POSED WITH THIS TOPIC, QUESTION, WHATEVER:
If a woman suffering from a severe psychological disorder loses touch with reality and commits a crime, shoul she b punished? Present an argument for and against punishment. What if a chemical imbalance in a man's brain is linked to his aggresive behavior, which id later results in a homicde? Should that man be held accountable for his actions? What should happen to these people, and who should decide their fate? A jury? A judge? A clincal psychologist? Provie arguements supporting each of these three as the appropriate decision maker" FORGIVE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, AS IT IS JUST COPIED AND PASTED, HOWEVER.... this is my response. -ahem-
Should a woman, or any person be treated differently merely because a lawyer "proves" them to be suffering a severe psychological disorder? Not in the slightest, killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit, or fun. If someone takes a life, a life is expected to be taken in return. However, ‘an eye for an eye’ is an outmoded philosophy, carried by a religious doctrine that has been all but forgotten. The truth of the matter is, a mentally unstable person does have control over their actions, over what is done. Their competence of right and wrong is subjective, and an abstraction.
To prove that they’ve done wrong, it would be necessary to prove, without the shadow of a doubt that there is a right or wrong. If any one person disagrees with something, it is automatically wrong, which raises the question, is anything that is done right? Murder, rape, cannibalism, all these things, in some cultures are perfectly normal, it all depends on the local customs. If a woman, or a man, is convicted of cannibalism, and it is perfectly normal in their country, then should they truly be on trial? Perfectly sane individual, comes from a cannibalistic tribe in Northern Africa, comes to the US and eats their neighbour, who may or may not already be dead, but did not in the slightest struggle. Should they be arrested, tried, sent to the electric chair, if they disagree with our sense of right and wrong? If they have been raised to believe having human flesh for dinner is perfectly acceptable?
Now, should a chemically imbalanced man be held accountable for homicide? Yes, he should, he should be held accountable, because once again, murder is murder. If a murderer is not held accountable, who will be? The abstract construct of “insanity” is a poor, poor excuse to let someone off with murder, and it is being used as a cheap scapegoat more and more in America today. The “insanity” plea is a cheap response to the problem, and the more it is used, the less it means.
The same with these “anti-depressant” drugs being handed out like candy. The crux of the problem is not insanity, it’s the inability for anyone to accept that not everyone is the same, that there are sick and violent people, and there always has been. Prime example; Josef Mengele – one of Hitler’s chief scientists – a truly perverse man, using human flesh as a lamp shade, did he have a chemical imbalance? No, he was just a sick, sick man, however, it has been reputed that Hitler had contracted syphilis, so maybe his was a chemical imbalance – he was a vegetarian painter, after all.
The fact of the matter is this; violent behaviour is not a new invention. Plain and simple, case closed – and using such an abstract construct as chemical imbalance, does not, nor will ever, prove ones innocence. Tests can be fudged, the person under scrutiny could tell a thousand lies to be proved imbalanced, there is no solid, undeniable proof of insanity, or sanity for that matter.
The problem, therein, lies in accountability. No one seems to be held accountable anymore, for anything they do. They blame the parents, the system, the drugs, et al, and the mass collective agrees, and refuse to blame the person behind these atrocities. Why not just accept that the human breed is inherently violent, and imprison the whole lot of us; if we’ve not perpetrated violence, we have surely thought of it, and wanted to do it, to one extent or another.
Now, why do some do it and others do not? Fear. The fear of the repercussions, however, some are able to let go of that and just kill. Some could say, even, that those individuals are the freest of us all – they have no fear of the consequences, so who is the sanest? Those who live with no fear, or those who cower in the shadows, unable to focus on anything because they’re trembling with the thought that they could go to Joliet for life, also, think about this – in prison, people are promised the proverbial “three hots and a cot” (i.e. Three hot meals and a bed to sleep in). Some men join the military, to kill, rape and pillage, for the exact same reason – “three hots and a cot.” Murder is murder, whether done for the government, or ones own amusement, there is no chemical imbalance needed to explain it, either; it is in our nature to kill. We have done it since we were spawned from the oceans. Chemical imbalance is merely a cheap excuse to subjugate prison time.
The people with supposed mental disorders, aside from mental retardation, should be held just as accountable for their actions as someone dubbed ‘sane’ by the whole of society. However, if they’re proven incompetent, that is a different story altogether, but these people are not being proven incompetent, merely crazy¸ and that’s beyond relative. They should be brought to trial before a judge and their “peers” and suffer the outcome of said trial, be it conviction or acquittal. Anyone could be considered under severe psychological disorder, or chemically imbalanced, it is simply a matter of perspective. However, a clinical psychologist could be a justified ‘decision maker’, as they have some abstract understanding of the human mind. Then again, they’re dealing with something that cannot be defined, categorised, or easily referenced. The human mind is the most complex object in our limited understanding, and would take a massive evolutionary step to understand, something this belligerent breed, homosapien, has not undergone. So, to deem someone guilty or innocent, sane or insane is a moot point – we are far too backward, in a state of arrested development, to make such a judgment.
