lulu wrote:That was basically DCP's testimony in the Mitchell case. He said that just because Mitchell had religious visions, it did not mean he was insane.
A capital criminal defendant's sanity comes up at 3 points. And the legal standard is not the same as the medical one.
1. At the time of the crime could the defendant understand the nature and consequences of his acts?
2. At the time of trial, is the defendant's mental state such that he can assist his attorney.
3. At the time of execution, does the defendant understand what is happening to him and why?
I think the reasons for #1 and #2 are obviously deduced. I don't see the reason(s) for #3.
I'm probably at the end of what I know, but I think 3, and that is what this case appears to be right now, comes from the punitive argument for sentencing (as opposed to the retribution, restitution, protect society arguements.) If the defendant is not in a mental state to know he is being punished, should he be punished?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Sethbag wrote:Granted, Harold, but how can you tell? Is the government really capable of being in the business of differentiating which religious beliefs are literally bat**** crazy from those that are only metaphorically bat**** crazy?
How should they do it?
Well that' open to debate, but my opinion is insane or not if you do the crime you pay the time. Psychology shouldn't be a differentiation when it comes to whether you suffer consequences or not. That might sound harsh but that should be an important part of what makes laws effective.
Look at James Holmes who's pleading insanity right now, guy was a brilliant neuroscience major applying to med school. It's common knowledge which signs psychologists look for to judge insanity, they even tell us. You think he doesn't know how to create evidence of those signs? Doesn't need to fool a judge, jury, attorneys, or anyone anymore, an aspiring scientist who studied neuroscience only needs to fool counselors in a related field. It's too risky, and seeing as laws and punishments like this are intended to protect society, they need to be absolute so situations like this can't be potentially exploited. He can get back on the streets eventually to even quickly, that's a problem with our legal system.
So no the government shouldn't be in the business of figuring out people's psychosis in determining punishments, judging people will never produce accurate results. It should be absolute.
To what extent is religious belief compatible with societal parameters?
Allowing individuals to express their beliefs in a higher power (god) and an afterlife doesn't really trigger a needed response from society. Listeners themselves may have their thoughts provoked, disagree or even agree without the simple expression of belief posing a danger to others.
If these beliefs cause the individual to live life differently, as long as it does not pose a danger to others or a danger of a cost to society, 'live and let live.'
If these beliefs are hawked as a way to gain money, particularly by those that do not 'live what they preach' like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, then it begins to be a scam. (One of the troubling facts for me about Mormon history is that JSJr allowed the Article on Marriage to stand as an LDS position all the time he was privately behaving contrary to it. Hypocrisy? Yes. Fraud? Since the Article on Marriage likely had an effect on people's decisions to contribute to and let their young teenage daughters cavort with JSJr, I think the circumstantial evidence points that way.)
When beliefs cause individuals to do things to others, particularly restrain others against their will, inflict harm (like blood atonement), etc., then I think that society needs to step in and decide that the person's religious beliefs cannot be tolerated by society.
If society does that under the ruse that the beliefs that cause one to harm another are 'insane', I'm okay with that.
HuffPo wrote:Ferguson was convicted of shooting eight bound and blindfolded people execution-style in South Florida in 1977, then killing a teenage couple months later in 1978 after they left a church event planning to get some ice cream. He has previously been ruled mentally competent to be executed, and over recent days federal judges in Florida, Georgia and Washington have wrestled with his appeals over that issue.
The execution was scheduled after the Florida Supreme Court this month upheld a lower court ruling based on testimony by a panel of psychiatrists appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. The state justices wrote that "Ferguson understands what is taking place and why."
The latest ruling from the federal appeals court said it would explore whether the Florida Supreme Court's decision was an "unreasonable determination of the facts" based on Ferguson's documented history of mental illness.
His lawyers have argued that Ferguson lacks rational understanding, because he suffers from delusions that he's the "prince of God" and that God is preparing him to return to Earth after his execution to save the United States from a communist plot.
Ferguson was found to be mentally competent and suitable for execution, because his messianic claims fall within the range of normative religious beliefs. That is to say, Ferguson’s strange beliefs are not signs of insanity, but a normal manifestation of Christian religious belief. Shortly after the ruling, religious scholars from Florida State University John Kelsay and David Levenson filed an Amicus briefarguing that Ferguson’s beliefs were not consistent with any form of Christianity, which helped the 11th circuit issue a last minute stay of execution pending a review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
What I find interesting here is that this directly questions whether religious beliefs actually can count as actual delusions. While I think this glosses over a lot of complexity about human psychology and belief forming process, this does potentially give ammo to those who like to argue that someone’s religious beliefs really be grounds for labeling them insane.
The question, I guess, is is there a substantive difference between the way that Furguson came to believe himself the prince of God and the way that, say, Petterson came to believe that Joseph Smith saw God in the 19th century.
Sethbag wrote:Granted, Harold, but how can you tell? Is the government really capable of being in the business of differentiating which religious beliefs are literally bat**** crazy from those that are only metaphorically bat**** crazy?
How should they do it?
Well that' open to debate, but my opinion is insane or not if you do the crime you pay the time.
But here is a classical law school hypothetical. If the defendant was so delusional he thought he was having target practice with pumpkins rather than peoples' heads, would you have him "do the time."
Its interesting in this case that although he tried the insantity defense at trial, he lost.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
lulu wrote:That was basically DCP's testimony in the Mitchell case. He said that just because Mitchell had religious visions, it did not mean he was insane.
A capital criminal defendant's sanity comes up at 3 points. And the legal standard is not the same as the medical one.
1. At the time of the crime could the defendant understand the nature and consequences of his acts?
2. At the time of trial, is the defendant's mental state such that he can assist his attorney.
3. At the time of execution, does the defendant understand what is happening to him and why?
lulu wrote:I think the reasons for #1 and #2 are obviously deduced. I don't see the reason(s) for #3.
I'm probably at the end of what I know, but I think 3, and that is what this case appears to be right now, comes from the punitive argument for sentencing (as opposed to the retribution, restitution, protect society arguements.) If the defendant is not in a mental state to know he is being punished, should he be punished?
What value is there to society that this guy understand that society's 'turning his light switch to off' is a punishment?
If there's no afterlife, then big deal. Lights out!
If there's an afterlife and society was right, he'll then know it within moments that it was done because he had done wrong in this sphere.
It seems to me that the executed needing to be mentally capable is to make society feel better about itself, not terminating someone who doesn't realize what's going on or why when they terminate him--how can we do that to someone who is mentally deficient? So to soothe society's conscious, the executed person must be capable of understanding what is happening and why, and fear it? I think that's a bit cruel insisting that the person be able to apprehend what is going on and fear it.
Perhaps I should explain a bit of where I am coming from. I do not like pain or suffering, either for myself or by any conscious being. I hope each of us and every animal could have a quick and as pain-free demise as possible. I do not elevate life, or its continuation, over avoiding what will be prolonged remaining life that will in all probability be plagued by pain until it ends.
I do not hunt as I do not want to be witness to or even the agent of a few minutes of pain, but I do not have a problem with it the act itself because when fish and game departments manage wildlife appropriately, hunting helps thin the population to a point that diminishes the numbers that will starve to death during the impending winter.
I eat meat because the livestock are generally put down in a quick manner. But I am active against stockyard abuses of living animals, as I will intervene if a neighbor kicks his dog or leaves a pet outside in the winter elements.
I find what Ferguson did reprehensible. From what I know, I do not believe he could be successfully rehabilitated, and I do not believe society should be put to the burden, cost and risk of attempting to do so given the extreme pain that he has caused others, if nothing else the loss and anger of family and friends of his victims. So, I am not against his capital punishment if the investigation and prosecution used best available science and forensics, and his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.
But I do not think that his execution is only appropriate if he is capable of fearing what is happening to him. I do not see how his suffering knowing that his life is going to be ended serves any legitimate societal purpose.
I need to point out that my beliefs on the subject of the death penalty are still not settled firmly, and I've been going back and forth on it for a couple of decades now.
In theory I support the death penalty, because I think that folks who go out and murder other people should both pay for that crime with their life, as well as be removed from society so they no longer present a threat to the rest of us.
In practice I'm appalled by our inability to apply the death penalty fairly. Aside from fairness, there's the question of the innocent being convicted and executed wrongly, which cannot be taken back.
I'm unconvinced that the flaws can ever be entirely overcome. So I have a sort of intellectual predisposition against the death penalty. But then for every thought I've had against the death penalty, along comes a Jeffrey Dahmer who just so obviously needs to die, and I find myself having no trouble at all supporting it.
I'm inclined to think that in this case, if Mr. Prince of God really did line up those blindfolded and bound people and execute them, and then kill that other couple later on, that's pretty egregious stuff, and this guy needs to be taken out behind the proverbial woodshed and not come back.
Do I really care whether he really thinks he's the Prince of God, or merely "believes" it due to the usual religious justifications and hand-waving exercises? Not really. The religious folk in this country stand behind the First Amendment guaranteeing them the right to believe whatever nonsense they like. They're going to have to own that. If it costs them the ability to turn around and claim actual insanity because the government has no effective, fair, rational way to differentiate irrational brains from "irrational belief"-addled brains, so be it.
He who lives by the First Amendment, dies by the First Amendment.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Don't take anything I say here as meaning that I approve of capital punishment or that this guy should be executed.
But reading the opinion, there is evidence in the record that
1. The guy knows that when he is executed he will be dead. 2. He knows he killed some people.
I think that is about all the standard for execution requires. I haven't read the brief yet.
As to SP good question why should society care that the defendant be hurt in some fashion, I don't know that I have a good answer. All I can say is that the societal need is seen as being taken care of under the other rationales for sentencing. The punishment part focuses not on society but on the defendant. Historically, our society, rightly or wrongly thinks that when some one breaks a criminal law, they should be "hurt" in some way. There's probably a deterrence argument in there but I don't know how prominent it is in the "hurt" rationale. I should have listed it earlier.
What I think is going on here, between the lines, is the defense is trying to shift the conversation, as it should, from the 2 prong test above to more of an argument over whether that standard should be lowered to include a greater consideration of the defendant's overall sanity. Moving towards should anyone with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia ever be executed. You'd have to get there by small steps. This might be one of those steps.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.