So the lady who bashed her three kids' heads in with a rock was acquitted by reason of insanity, and I don't doubt she was/is legally insane. Fine.
But I'm not exactly clear on the reason we don't execute insane people who kill. Why try to "cure" them, even assuming that's possible? Most of the time dangerous psychotics aren't treatable and will never be able to be released from custody anyway, so why waste the time and money trying? Because they aren't "responsible" for their actions? Then who is? Are insane people akin to amoral "forces of nature" that have to be tolerated and contained?
Don't get me wrong -- I think treating the mentally ill and keeping them away from society is an important, and neglected, function of government. Once someone kills with no justification, however, their life should be forfeit and it seems right and logical to execute them.
Agreed. At one time, there was a furious movement for exactly this approach to insanity: "Yes, you're mentally ill, but you're also an intolerable danger to those around you. For the sake of others, we cannot allow you to live." Look up the famous case of multiple murderer Robert Irwin for a good snapshot of the debate.
Misplaced tenderness, plus a misconception of what the justice system is there for, gave us the current perversities, in this regard as in so many others.
FP: Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out. I never knew it was controversial!
Once one accepts the premise that a person was too mentally ill to know what he was doing, the rationale for killing him as punishment is gone, and the rationale for killing him as a defensive move is no better than that for killing other psychos who haven't killed anyone, but are likely to do so in the future, if left to their own devices.
I like Arizona's rule which, rather than find a defendant "not guilty by reason of insanity," instead finds him "guilt except insane," and then sentences him to the same amount of time in a mental ward as he would otherwise have spent in prison.
Michael,
If you don't believe that Christ can change someone, why are you a Christian? If you were arguing only from the justice angle and/or public safety, I might agree with you (that is, if I supported the death penalty, which I don't).
Also, there are women who have post-pregnancy psychosis. Would you make no disinction in that case? Post-pregnancy psychosis actually has a fairly favorable prognosis.
I might favor the idea of "guilty but mentally ill" used by several states IF they actually treated people thus convicted. As it often works, those who are "guilty" and those "guilty but mentally ill" are often sent to the same prisons, with little psychiatric treatment being offered. In fact, there are often as many as 1,000 inmates needing pyschiatric care for each state-employed or contracted psychiatrist.
In non-murder cases (and even some cases of murder) there are actually people who are confined longer after a successful insanity defense than they would have been if they had been found guilty.
As to the case you referenced, I'm not convinced from what I read that the women was truly insane (not knowing right from wrong). She was clearly mentally ill, but most of the mentally ill who commit crimes know that what they are doing is wrong.
X: Good points....
JT: I'm not a fna of government programs, but I do think our society needs to spend more money and effort on treating the mentally ill, even if that means more money for private hospitals (and far better oversight).
Joel,
I have to agree with you here. I've never understood why any Christian would support the death penalty. Doesn't that rob the executed of their only chance to find Christ? What worldly person has the authority to take that away from the person to be executed? I know if I believed in salvation, I would think twice about robbing another of it, no matter what their crime was.
Thought provoking post, Michael.
Dast: God endorses the death penalty, so there's really no further discussion to be had on the matter from a Christian perspective. You may think it's bad policy, but there's no substantial Biblical objection.
Michael: I'm no Biblical scholar, so I can't argue against that point. I suppose He must certainly be okay with the death penalty if He had His only Son executed so that all of you might have a chance to reconcile your detachment from Him. It still seems a bit scary to me to think that we are wise enough to take away what only God (if you believe such) has the power to give. Who among us is that wise?
Seems like a pretty lot in life for God to have gone to all that trouble to give everyone that opportunity to make good with Him only to turn right back around and give falible humans the authority to take that gift away.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I happen to agree with your fundamental assumption that the woman's argument of insanity in no way removes her responsibility for her actions, regardless of the punishment we decide to give out.
"pretty rough lot in life" even.
Dast: Check out Romans 13. Man is fallible, which is why we need Godly wisdom to make these serious life and death decisions.
what is with letting a person who has just committed a crime such as rape and murder go on a basis of insanity, if they are capable of pulling a trigger than they know what they are doin