Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Substantial impairment of the mind?


Question: Substantial impairment of the mind!?
I'm studying first year law and we have just done substantial impairment of the mind as a defence!. But it seems to me that if a mind is capable of commiting murder then it could be considered substantially impaired!. OR at the least extremely resisting to social dogma!. We get brought up being constantly told that murder is one of the most heinous crimes and yet people do it - does that lack of recognition of this crucial ethical lesson mean that ANYONE who kills has a substantially impaired mind!? Thanks!.Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
The ultimate question is if murder is as heinous to ones mind as we all have been told to believe!. Would one have to be "substantially impaired" to consider taking another's life or is there more leniency in moral thought!. For example, is anyone who willingly signed up for military service substantially impaired!? Obviously not!. There in lies the question!. What are the extenuating circumstances, whether they be differences in the way a person was raised, or in the circumstances that led a person to hate or feel threatened by another!. Many of our families, and in deed almost all countries were created by men and women who saw no problem with taking the lives of others seen as different as them!. The question isn't why would one kill another, but why doesn't it happen much more!. We seem to be predisposed as a race to kill one another!. It remains one of the few constants in an ever-changing world!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Diminished_!.!.!.

The flaw in the argument: the assumption that social dogma is evenly inculcated among all citizens in a given culture, hence, "resistance" to said inculcation is prima facie insanity!.

Au contraire, other human emotions, such as greed, envy, lust, anger, revenge, etc!., may at any stage supplant the inculcation, not necessarily indicating insanity--unless greed = insanity, etc!.

Thus "resistance" is not insanity, but perhaps moral turpitude!. Your argument has validity, iff you assume any immorality is insanity!.

If any immorality or crriminality is insanity, thus all criminals are to be treated as psychiatric patients!. This may be more the position in the future, with genetic and biochemical factors being more known!. However, that argument still suffers the same type of weakness as does the "poverty" or other such conditioned-based exculpatory arguments: i!.e!., people have limited free will, know the penalties, and if they continue in their evil-doing, are subject to prosecution based on their voluntary behavior!. That each person probably has different limits, arising from genetic, familial, societal, and genetic factors, as to what contributes to their criminality, is perhaps why judges are properly given a range of sentencing options!.

Thus, the law presently recognizes a spectrum or range of causation, which implies that criminality is not necessarily caused by factors other than election based on greed, etc!., which latter type of factors' influence are not necessarily mainly genetically predetermined, etc!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Why might a person kill another person, and how is that person different than you, who I would assume wouldn't kill another person!?

I think it all comes down to their genetics and their life experiences!. Should you punish people for their genetics or experiences!? What makes people guilty!?

There are truly evil people in this world, and it's important to have laws in place!. But if we really understood the person to whom our vengeance is directed, we would be far more understanding!.

If a person kills another person, we need to find out why and fix the person!. If the person is not fixable, then we should prevent that person from harming another person by restraint or prison if needed!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!.

Substantial impairment of the mind means the killer can't tell the difference between right & wrong, or is completely unaware of society's rules!. This is different than a person who understands the rules, but chooses to commit murder anyway!.

People kill for all sorts of different reasons!. The degrees of murder and associated penalties depend entirely on the killer's intent!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

insane at the time this can happenWww@QuestionHome@Com

Who would you be arguing for!? The state or the defendant!. If your argument is for the presecution well there is no such thing and the guy should get the chair because he knew beforhand the consequences and no one should be above the law!.
And if your trying to defend the person from going to the chair well, sounds pretty good!.!.!. If it is clear he did the act, any argument that will get him off the hook and your paycheck in the mail will do!.
Anything in between like mental capacity etc are arguments that may or may not be to your best advantage when it comes to a jury but then again a prosecuter may have problems convincing a jury and will accept the argument if it will bring in some sort of plea!.
Now, if you want an opinion as to whether the person is sick and in need of help!. Who isnt!?
But, what if the guy is clearly ill but pays you a substantial amount of money to keep him out of the hands of anyone who may try to probe into his mind and help him!? What happens to your opinion then!?
You may think of the person as what he is, a real messed up individual!. But you are paid to keep him out of jail even if you dont like the guy!. Www@QuestionHome@Com