Seriously thoughtful Men and Women who Kill - True Crime Discussion

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But if you are not responsible for your actions, should you be "punished" at all? Suppose you have 'flu, and you unwittingly pass on the virus to someone, and they die. Should you be charged with "murder" for that?

Mental illness is just as much an "illness" as 'flu. Yes, I know that there are many cases where people falsely claim mental illness as a defence against murder, but that does not change the fact that there are perfectly genuine cases where people really cannot be held responsible for their acts.

Did you read Simon Winchester's "The Professor and the Madman", which was a recent "MR Book Club" entry? It tells the true story of the role played in the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary by a army officer (whose name escapes me for the moment) who, while living in London, suffered paranoid delusions of persecution. One night, he thought that there was someone in his room, chased the (imaginary) person out of the house, and shot, and killed, a perfectly innocent passer-by, thinking that he was the intruder. He was (quite rightly) found innocent of murder, but sentenced to be held in Broadmoor hospital for the criminally insane, where he spent the rest of his life. Let us suppose that he had been able to be cured of his illness. Can you say that he deserved to be "punished" for killing the passer-by? I think that any reasonable person would say "no", because he could not be held accountable for his actions.

I believe that no matter what, there would always be "guilt by hand", even if there is no "guilt by mind".

It doesn't necessarily follow that all circumstances are the same though, but I don't like the idea that it can completely excuse someone. The thing has been done.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ea

I believe that no matter what, there would always be "guilt by hand", even if there is no "guilt by mind".

It doesn't necessarily follow that all circumstances are the same though, but I don't like the idea that it can completely excuse someone. The thing has been done.

But is the same not true of the example I used of passing a virus onto someone? The person is dead, whether you intended them to be or not. Most people would, I think, accept that the person concerned cannot be held responsible for that, though.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But is the same not true of the example I used of passing a virus onto someone? The person is dead, whether you intended them to be or not. Most people would, I think, accept that the person concerned cannot be held responsible for that, though.

I don't think the analogy with influenza is so good. For one thing it's extremely rare - given the number of people who gets the flu - that someone dies from it, and you would not be able to show that it was passed on from one specific person.

However, what my main point was, that there is guilt, no matter what, because she did the act. Also, she did not take her medication as regulerly as she should, and she continued to live in circumstances that enhanced her problems.

In our time and place we usually decide not to punish such a deed as this because of the condition the women were in, and I actually agree on that. I just don't like the idea that she is somehow innocent or "absolved".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ea

However, what my main point was, that there is guilt, no matter what, because she did the act.

That is strange. You really have to define what you mean by a person having guilt here. I really cannot see any definition that makes this statement correct but I am curious if there is any.

Also, she did not take her medication as regulerly as she should, and she continued to live in circumstances that enhanced her problems.

This makes the situation more complicated and I really do not know what my opinion is here. In Sweden there was a case were a person went up into a tower and shot a lot of people (he was a military officer so had easy access to a suitable weapon). He had drunk alcohol and had a known problem with psychiatric sickness caused by alcohol. The courts "solved the problem" by using the fact that he willingly drank alcohol knowing what could happen and sent him to jail. There was much debate about this and some suspicion that the courts tried to satisfy the public's "need" for revenge.

[HarryT]

"Public retribution" is, of course, one of the purposes of the penal system, but I really don't think that it should be an element in cases where there is clear evidence that the person was not in control of their own actions. If, however, that lack of self-control is self-induced, then it certainly does "muddy the waters".

[Ceili]

This is a hard situation to discuss I think, because while none of us would want to see an innocent person do time.... it can be rather hard to accept that she was innocent due to her state of mind.. or rather, guilty due to her state of mind, but otherwise innocent.

The deed was done, the kids are dead....now, if she had taken her own life, there wouldn't be much of a discussion... but she (and others like her) don't do themselves in, they kill their kids/spouses/random innocent folks in the street. This makes people cry when they watch the news....and it makes them want to make sure that it can't/won't happen again. Public opinion tends to bring a lot of "power" to what an elected person decides to do.

Maybe it is because I have no personal knowledge of mental illness (short of what I have experienced at work). I have found it difficult to believe the insanity defense in most of the cases we see it used. I do believe there should be a prison sentence to follow whatever mental health program is ordered for someone in cases like this.

My thoughts are twofold: one, they will not be able to come out and do it all over again and two, and a hope at best is that it will prevent a similar crime from being committed. Maybe another family will see the signs and get their person help, maybe someone else will see themselves in her story and get better help before it goes tragic.