kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (07/31/86)
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 86 16:01:55 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Crooks
To: fair@UCBARPA.BERKELEY.EDU
cc: KIN%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Erik E. Fair)
What is your presumption about people who commit crimes? Are they:
to be rehabilitated (this assumes that anti-social acts are
acts of individuals who are not completely sane or normal by
the standards of the society, but that offenders are
potentially useful members of the society at large)
to be punished (this assumes that anti-social acts are acts of
responsible individuals who choose to be anti-social, and need
to be punished [which in itself is also intended as a further
deterrent if the offender is ever released from punishment])
By 'crimes' I am excluding victimless crimes, which should not be
considered crimes at all.
It should be decided by the court on a case by case basis. I think
the wrongdoer should be held responsible in the vast majority of
cases, even if he is mentally ill.
Just because a wrongdoer is responsible does not mean that he is not
a potentially useful member of society. And just because a wrongdoer
is NOT responsible for his actions does not necessarily mean that he
could ever be a potentially useful member of society.
Also, I wouldn't equate sane with normal. It is definitely not
normal to rape and murder. But does that mean that anyone who does so
is automatically absolved from his crimes on the grounds that he must
be insane?
The Hinckley jury made this mistake, it's a common one. Insane
means that the person didn't know what he was doing. It doesn't just
mean that he is acting crazy.
The traditional legal test for this is the "policeman at the elbow"
test. Would the person have done what he did if there was a policeman
watching close by? If not, then he is judged to be sane enough to
know right from wrong, and thus held responsible. (Of course it is
often impossible to answer the policeman-at-the-elbow question, but
that is a question of fact, not of law. There is no question that
Hinckley, for instance, took pains to hide his actions. He knew
perfectly well that the authorities wouldn't approve.)
...Keith
-------