kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/16/86)
From: Michael C. Berch <mcb%lll-tis-b.ARPA@lll-tis-gw.arpa>
I'm with you most of the way, but I'm wondering about the sort of
cases where:
1. X is dangerously crazy, presents a clear and immediate danger
of committing a violent crime, but has not yet committed the
crime.
If he doesn't commit a crime then he shouldn't be locked up. If he
is acting bizarre enough, the police may want to keep a close eye on
him. But locking people up just for acting strange opens a Pandora's
box. That is what they do to dissidents in the Soviet Union.
2. X commits a crime while insane, pleads "guilty but insane" (or
whatever), and after his statutory period of incompetence is still
dangerously crazy. Should he be let out?
Yes. Aren't 'regular' criminals let out when their time is done,
even if they are still dangerous criminals? Perhaps more severe
sentences should be given for serious crimes. But I don't see why
a nutty person should be more severely punished for his wrongdoings
than a coldly calculating person.
I worry less about the civil impediments of incompetence (lack of
capacity to contract, consent to risks, etc.) than about
dangerously crazy people wandering around since the state has no
right to protect them "from themselves."
I worry far more about the power of the state than about the power
of individuals. When the state can find someone incompetent simply
because they made an unsecured loan to an unpopular political party
(LaRouche's) I really worry.
Of course the state seems to find all of us at least partly
incompetent. Otherwise why the plethora of laws against sale and
ownership of guns, pornography, drugs, etc? Why the law about maximum
allowed donations to political candidates?
...Keith
-------