We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quotes of the day – hold people responsible for their actions Already, the Golders Green terrorist is being explained away as “he suffered from mental health issues”.
As a therapist, I’m sick of this.
It is circular.
Only someone seriously unhinged could commit such a heinous act.
Hold people responsible for their actions.
– James Esses
—
And for added context…
—
It’s worth remembering that the man who stormed a kosher supermarket with a knife in 2024 received only a suspended sentence
– Ed West
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I am a bit confused.
For starters, Is James Esses being sarcastic in the 1st sentence?
I ask because i believe that sentence to be true.
And what about the 2nd sentence? Does he mean that people should be punished for their actions, irrespective of their mental conditions?
I ask because i believe that they should. For deterrence.
If someone believes that if they kill Jews and are then killed themselves they will go to heaven and be given 72 virgins, are they mentally ill? I would think they’d have to be.
So maybe we need a new examination of what “mentally ill” means in our legal systems.
@bobby b
So maybe we need a new examination of what “mentally ill” means in our legal systems.
I guess it depends on the goal of the justice system, and I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that it is trying to do several different things. There is a place in the justice system for vengeance, where the state vents the outrage of the victim on the perpetrator so that we aren’t all doing that independently. And in a sense I am not sure how your mental state affects the need for vengeance against someone who has seriously injured you or even killed you. Another part is protecting the public — and if your mental illness prevents you from managing you actions then that mental illness is a BIGGER reason to lock you up rather than a mitigation. There are other issues like punishment and rehabilitation where mental state may well have an impact, and of course restoration, but usually these sorts of people have no resources to restore with.
One has to ask — is some madman killed your loved one would you be any less desirous of seeing them swing a from a rope compared to someone who was in his right mind? Some people would distinguish between the two, I’m not sure I would, though I have never had to find out thankfully.
Its weird, if a person kills another because the voices in his head told him to, he will be considered insane, locked up in a mental institution and medicated against his will in an attempt to rectify his mental illness. And potentially released within a short period of time if considered ‘cured’. However if someone kills someone because his belief in an invisible supreme being tells him he should, he is considered entirely sane and he gets chucked in a normal prison, and no attempt is made to alter his mental state of mind. And some people do utterly horrendous things (like Axel Rudakubana did) but don’t bother to claim any justification from any exterior source and are thus considered ‘sane’ too, despite to all intents and purposes seeming utterly batsh*t insane.
Personally I think there’s no point trying to determine whether someone who commits heinous crimes is ‘evil’ or ‘mentally unwell’, and then treating them differently depending on the conclusion, because the dividing line between the two seems entirely arbitrary. Just execute the lot of them and let God (if there is one) sort things out in due course.