Should mentally ill people be held responsible for their actions?

[Phoenix]

So I was reading this (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/01/hitchens200601) about Joseph Kony, and the article said that Kony may have multiple personality disorder.

And it got me thinking...

if a mentally ill person commits a crime, say murder or any crime for that matter, can they be held responsible for it?

Is the insanity plea really legitimate? Why or why not?

Disclaimer! I am not saying what Kony is doing is "right," merely using him as an extreme case.

[Tyler95]

It is completely subjective

Here is an example of a mentally retarded person who was not executed because of "cruel and unusual punishment" laws regarding mentally retarded people.

http://www.aclu.org/...sual-punishment

And here is an example of a mentally ILL person who was executed

http://www.jaapl.org...t/34/2/253.full

In the end, it is up for the court and jury to decide whether the accused is fit to stand trial. If they believe the person is not responsible for their actions due to a severe mental illness, they most likely will not execute them.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Tyler95

[timtamboy63]

I believe no matter what their disease, they should be held responsible. Punishment is not only a deterrence, it also serves to make society safer as a whole. So yeah, I definitely believe Kony, and similar people should be executed, mental illness or not.

[Wide Eyed Wanderer]

No, all mentally ill people should be killed, regardless of whether they committed a crime or not.

[Award Winning Boss]

They aren't usually but they have to get checked first, if someone pleas for insanity then the court isn't going to accept it straight away, otherwise everyone would be doing it.

Anyway, in the courts, people are assumed to be free moral agents thus being responsible for their actions. If they do have problems with their brain then they did not have control over their actions to a certain extent.

example(s): these three people kill an innocent woman walking down the street with a gun.

They wouldn't give a 7 year old a death sentence because their brain isn't matured enough.

They would give a death sentence to a person that has nothing wrong with their brain as they're in control of their actions.

They wouldn't give a death sentence to a person that has a tumor in their brain which clearly affects their decision making skills.

I think they should still be jailed because they could re offend again, which is harmful to the development of society.

I don't know what they'd do to Kony as I've never heard of that clap, if he's captured he'll probably be killed in a fight or something. There are a lot of other variables taken into account when judging the punishment for these things.

Nevertheless, he's a ****.

No, all mentally ill people should be killed, regardless of whether they committed a crime or not.

You're funny.

ps if I've got anything wrong please say, I know I've simplified everything lol

[Guest Positron]

The whole western justice system is based on the idea that because we are free to make decisions, we can be held responsible for those decisions and their consequenses. If given that a person is so severely affected by a mental illnes that they are "not in control" of themselves, (=not free to make decisions) they can't be held responsible for their actions. I know this might sound ridicilous to some people, but how can you hold someone responsible for something they didn't have control over? I'm not saying that they should be let out to freedom and face no consequenses. I think mentally ill people who have commited severe crimes should be put on involuntary treatment for however long it takes to "cure" them, if "curing" them is possible to begin with. But it's not right to punish one for something they weren't free to decide.

But of course there are also quite ridicilous cases as well. I think there was a case in the USA where the killer walked away, bacause "he had eaten so many high-sugar snacks that his mental ablities were diminished" or something like that...

Edited March 10, 2012 by Positron

[URA BOAT]

The whole western justice system is based on the idea that because we are free to make decisions, we can be held responsible for those decisions and their consequenses. If given that a person is so severely affected by a mental illnes that they are "not in control" of themselves, (=not free to make decisions) they can't be held responsible for their actions. I know this might sound ridicilous to some people, but how can you hold someone responsible for something they didn't have control over? I'm not saying that they should be let out to freedom and face no consequenses. I think mentally ill people who have commited severe crimes should be put on involuntary treatment for however long it takes to "cure" them, if "curing" them is possible to begin with. But it's not right to punish one for something they weren't free to decide.

thanks for posting..i will have to agree with you...

i was thinking about this and this kinda got my attention..those mass killers, after doing so much crime wont they them self sick. Won't your brainshut off its conscience and that inside voice that tells you that this is right r that this is wrong. Won't that classafy as mentaly sick when you can't distinguish between good and bad?

[kcabbe]

Mental illnesses and conditions are ways in which we categorize people in order to maintain the social norm and mainstream behaviour. Saying that a person is psychopathic should not be seen as some kind of curable disease that prevents them from making normal choices. It is merely a discriptor that helps us identify people whose behaviour differs wildly from the norm.

In the end a person is a person and you detract from one's humanity by placing their actions as under the 'influence' of a mental condition - as if they were intoxicated by some kind of drug. Objective justice doesn't adjust itself to suit someone's personality, so why does it adjust itself to suit the personalities of those labeled 'mentally ill'?

[Tony Stark]

It depends on the disorder. And, if they're dangerous enough to commit a serious crime, even if they're not held fully accountable, in the name of public safety something needs to be done - that's what Psych wards are for. Remember, the goal of the criminal justice system is meant to be rehabilitation, not retribution per se.

[Frizzy]

Honestly, this is an extremely sensitive subject. I don't think many of you here will agree with my views, as they are quite extreme.

First of all, I do truly believe that anyone mentally deranged should, assuming they are a threat to society, be detained indefinitely. However, I also believe that anyone who has been detained indefinitely should be executed (Note that this is not so much that I believe they deserve death, so much that it is my practical nature. It costs far less to kill someone than to feed, cloth, wash, and give space to them for the next 60-70 years). As such I believe that the mentally ill who are a constant danger to society should be removed indefinitely.

This also brings up ethical issues, of course. However I see practicality and efficiency as far more useful traits in the human race than sentimentalism and unneeded sympathies (There is also my issue with the human race. Generally speaking, I hate people. If a button to end the human race was right in front of me, I don't know whether or not I'd push it).

So my answer is both yes and no. They should not be held account for their actions, and every measure must be taken to cure them! In fact, if the mental issue causing the murders was both...

A) Existant at the time of the events

and

B) Cured

Then I believe they should be released back into the society without charge.

However, should it be the case that they did so and are in the position that they will never be replaced into society; then, unthinkable though it may be, they should be removed permanently.

I know I wouldn't want to have it happened to a loved one or myself. But in the end it will be for the betterment and progress of not just the human race, but also of science. As the less funds being spent on keeping criminally insane walking the more we have for research.

But I think I got a bit off-topic there.

[lynluna]

idk if y'all are still active, but I am very grateful for your opinions on this matter. I'm doing a report on whether mentally ill people should be convicted for their crimes, and there are rarely any opinions about it on the internet. I surfed the internet for a long, long time until I stumbled upon this. So thank you so much. Wherever you are, whoever you are, I hope you stay safe and live a good life!

Edited May 17, 2021 by lynluna

[EllaMilo]

For me, this topic hits very close to home, so keep this in mind as you read this response. You see, a few years back, when my older sister was attending, our school was the victim of an attack which left one student dead and another injured. 

The attacker claimed to be mentally ill, and for a while, the justice system agreed. He could not testify for a couple years because he was not deemed fit for trial.

However, upon being determined to be of a clear enough mind to testify, he showed no real remorse. He was focused on insisting that it was not his fault, that it was his illness which caused the incidence. 

I am no expert on such conditions, but this behaviour seems odd to me.

Whether he is truly mentally ill or not, he should be held responsible. If it was just his illness, then his illness makes him dangerous. People are routinely detained if they are considered to be a danger to themselves or others, while he has proven that he is. Regardless of criminal responsibility, the impact of the event must be considered. This was not a random attack. He didn't walk into the nearest store. He came into a school and assaulted two students as others look on. The community has never been the same. The teachers will never be the same. Lock down drills have a new edge to them. You cannot google my school without there being mention of this incident. Those students, who have all graduated by now, who saw, or simply heard the violence will never be the same. 

I agree with those who have said that this issue is subjective. I believe that it should be. I hope, those of you who feel that the mentally ill should not be held responsible for their crimes will read this account and understand my position. In some circumstances, it is unthinkable to relieve these people of that responsibility, for it weighs on all those affected by it regardless.