RE: Charles Manson, dead at age 83
November 21, 2017 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 12:41 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
I've watched either a dateline or 20/20 (can't remember which) episode before where they showed parts of his interviews.
I'd say prison is for keeping society safe from dangerous criminals that can hurt people, steal from people, etc.
Mental hospital is for treating people with severe mental illness... those that may or may not be a danger to society.
So what happens if someone has a mental illness and has commited a crime? Where do they go?
That depends on whether the mental illness was severe enough to deem that person innocent of the crime they commited. If so, they go to a mental hospital. If not, they go to prison. Why? Because it wasn't the mental illness that forced them to do the things they did. It was their own free choosing. So the mental illness becomes irrelevant in the sense that treating it wont make them not be violent/law breaking people... because their crime is independent from their illness.
I think putting every criminal with a mental illness in a hospital instead of prison may be a nice thought. But I don't think it's either realistic, nor necessary, nor beneficial to society. It's a waste of resources because I don't see it really helping anything, considering these people are criminals independent of their mental illness. I can get behind getting them the necessary mental health care while in prison (psychotic drugs, counselling sessions, etc), but having them all stay at a mental hospital when they are not innocent for reason of insanity? No.
I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, to be honest. We both agree that Manson shouldn't have gotten an innocent for reason of insanity verdict. If you really thought he had no control over his actions, or that he didn't realize he was doing something wrong, I dont see how you could think it's justifiable to give him a guilty verdict.
Also, as i said earlier. Psychopaths don't feel empathy and don't have a conscience. But unless there is something else extremely severe going on in their brains, they still know that killing innocent people in their homes is deemed wrong and illegal by society.
I'd say prison is for keeping society safe from dangerous criminals that can hurt people, steal from people, etc.
Mental hospital is for treating people with severe mental illness... those that may or may not be a danger to society.
So what happens if someone has a mental illness and has commited a crime? Where do they go?
That depends on whether the mental illness was severe enough to deem that person innocent of the crime they commited. If so, they go to a mental hospital. If not, they go to prison. Why? Because it wasn't the mental illness that forced them to do the things they did. It was their own free choosing. So the mental illness becomes irrelevant in the sense that treating it wont make them not be violent/law breaking people... because their crime is independent from their illness.
I think putting every criminal with a mental illness in a hospital instead of prison may be a nice thought. But I don't think it's either realistic, nor necessary, nor beneficial to society. It's a waste of resources because I don't see it really helping anything, considering these people are criminals independent of their mental illness. I can get behind getting them the necessary mental health care while in prison (psychotic drugs, counselling sessions, etc), but having them all stay at a mental hospital when they are not innocent for reason of insanity? No.
(November 21, 2017 at 12:02 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(November 21, 2017 at 11:56 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What? I'm not excluding the possibility of mental illness. I'm talking about whether the mental illness was severe enough to deem a person innocent of the crime they commited.
What makes ASPD or NPD a mental illness then? Both are partly characterized by lack of empathy (and lack of conscience in the case of psychopathy), which indicates there is an important element that is absent in moral thinking, and that absence may be a reason for why some people do horrendous stuff, even when they plan the act in a calculating matter. Just because they know how/when/where to kill or whatever, doesn't mean they morally know what they're doing.
I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, to be honest. We both agree that Manson shouldn't have gotten an innocent for reason of insanity verdict. If you really thought he had no control over his actions, or that he didn't realize he was doing something wrong, I dont see how you could think it's justifiable to give him a guilty verdict.
Also, as i said earlier. Psychopaths don't feel empathy and don't have a conscience. But unless there is something else extremely severe going on in their brains, they still know that killing innocent people in their homes is deemed wrong and illegal by society.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
