DiscussMormonism.com

So here is some quick background:

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.

I'm not one of our resident lawyers. I don't even play one on this system of tubes we've got here.

I do believe someone can be insane and suffering from delusions that manifest themselves in religious terms. I guess there's a fine line here somewhere, because while I would say my own mom is "delusional" in some aspects due to her TBMness and how literally she takes some of it, that delusion would be more in the sense that her worldview contains elements blown out of the water by science long ago, but that come to her through growing up TBM. Not in the sense that her mind is incapable of comprehending reality.

But that really is a fine line. What's the real, deep-down, in the weeds difference between believing some stupid things that come to you from your religion, and having a mind that is literally incapable of some types of rational thought?

As far as the legal stuff goes in this case, I have to seriously question the value of the testimony of those professors. Who cares if this guy's beliefs are part of the broader, mainstream Christian movements? Does the 1st Amendment only protect beliefs "consistent with any form of Christianity?" Are Prophets protected as much by the First Amendment as mere followers? Were Joseph Smith's beliefs part of the mainstream? What about David Koresh, Rev. Moon, and all the other new church leaders? Sort of by definition, when someone starts their own new church, they're splitting off and differentiating themselves from the other existing religions. This is perfectly "normal" behavior in American religious history.

I think this guy deserves to die. He executed all those people. I almost don't even care if he did it "merely" because his religious beliefs tell him he should, or because his delusional mind came up with whacky religious ideas to justify to itself what it already wanted to do, or what. At some point you do with a guy like this what you'd do with a rabid dog, and for the same reasons.

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, does it mean he's insane (legal standard) if he thinks that his execution is just the government sending him back to God to prepare him for coming back to save the United States from a communist plot?

Ya but religion means something different to everyone. Because the delusion of religion is so much more deep or shallow for different people, it's hard to consider the label of insanity on all religious beliefs as very fair.

Obviously that guy's level of delusion reaches insanity.

Some are mildly religious or spiritual and that's not insane.

Given that there's such a wide range of belief/delusion, classifying all religious beliefs as a form of insanity that's probably a little extreme or overly simplistic.

Granted, Harold, but how can you tell? Is the government really capable of being in the business of differentiating which religious beliefs are literally crazy crazy from those that are only metaphorically crazy crazy?

How should they do it?

Sethbag wrote:Lulu, does it mean he's insane (legal standard) if he thinks that his execution is just the government sending him back to God to prepare him for coming back to save the United States from a communist plot?

The legal insanity standard is really high and it seldom works. What a court is looking for is someone who's mental state is such that he does not know he is about to die or he doesn't understand he is being executed because he was accussed of killing someone.

Here is what I remember of what was reported of an AK case when Clinton was running for pres. It wasn't an insanity case but a low mental ability case. There were reports that the defendant's IQ was so low that he didn't understand he would not be coming back to his cell. He saved some of his dinner so he could eat it later. He was executed. So the defendant has to be in even worse shape than that. (All though I can't vouch for how accurate the reporting was.) Clinton wouldn't step in because he thought it would hurt his election prospects.

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?

But here is one of society's dirty little secrets, the main question is not "how can you tell?" but "Who gets to decide?"

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.

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 crazy crazy from those that are only metaphorically crazy crazy?

How should they do it?

They do it in the tax law setting, denying some organizations 'church' status and denying charitable contribution deductions for donations. What criteria is used to differentiate a 'legitimate' church and an illegitimate one for tax reasons, I do not know. Never come up in my practice.