What’s Wrong with the World

As the Culture of Death Marches on, let us Christians stand shoulder to shoulder and face it with the courage of Wellingtons Red Coats at Waterloo (I'm British so please excuse the metephor). Btw anyone got a good G.K quote for this?

The very idea of granting sympathy and mercy to the insane is ridiculous. If someone kills another because they are insane, then they are the human analog of a rabid dog, and should be either locked up indefinitely or put down immediately.

After combing for awhile, I thought these seemed apropos:

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." - Illustrated London News

"Our materialistic masters could, and probably will, put Birth Control into an immediate practical programme while we are all discussing the dreadful danger of somebody else putting it into a distant Utopia." - GK's Weekly

"They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born; and then let us drown those we do not like." - On Babies and Distributivism

Ad hoc law is always a bad situation to start. There's a reason for the maxim "Hard cases make bad law," and this could be the poster child for it. In hard cases, you want to leave judgment on the facts open, not to restrict it severely. Moreover, this sort of deference to expertise has been strongly disfavored in law given the tendency in certain fields (particularly psychology) to come up with an excuse to say whatever they are paid by articulating some pet theory without general scientific consensus. That is precisely why a large number of states cracked down on insanity defenses and why scientific evidence is scrutinized much more carefully now, which the reduced burden of proof in this case directly contradicts. The fact that European legal systems recognize such a thing does not count as a point in its favor; the procedural burden of proof is one of several ways in which the American system is rightly considered superior.

This is a problem that probably doesn't need fixing, and if it does need fixing, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. But I doubt it will pass here anyway. This is vanity legislation for a politician to get publicity (which she did), not something seriously likely to be passed as far as I can tell.

Ad hoc law is always a bad situation to start.

Ad hoc law is the foundation of modern democratic systems. The rule of law itself is undermined by the ability of legislatures to change criminal law every time they meet. The law is never subjected to rigorous analysis, debate, etc. the way it should.

Any rational constitutional system would have long deprived elected leaders from making changes to the criminal statutes without a popular referendum, at the very least. In fact, probably the only way to make a democratic system take this quite seriously would be to have the criminal code be treated as part of the constitution of a state or the federal government, and changing it that difficult.

This just up on Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House. PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside. "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals." During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood. "Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead. "Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker." Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses. Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't." Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.

Yes, it is true. It is, in the words of Max Boot, "not the Onion."

Funny how PETA think that flys in need of protection whilst they don't lift a finger to protect the unborn child.

Funny how PETA think that flys in need of protection whilst they don't lift a finger to protect the unborn child.

They also believe that human beings shouldn't use violence to protect themselves against vicious animals, and that it's immoral to eat meat. Nevermind the fact that human beings are animals too (strictly speaking), omnivorous, and that their best defense for their position is an unprincipled exception based on the "well I think it's moral because..." line of thought where one projects opinion as objective truth.

I think Jonathan Prejean's analysis is spot-on. If there are cases where a person's crime is mitigated because he was desperate because of some psychological stress, and if this should be taken into account at all in the form of mercy at the sentencing stage, that is precisely the kind of situation that should vary from one case to another, not one that should be lumped under a label and have an automatic drastically reduced sentence as a matter of statutory law. Moreover (I say), such mitigation decisions do provide an open door for prejudice and injustice to come in. For example, I should imagine that in the old South a man who murdered a black man who "spoke insultingly" to his wife might have his sentence reduced at the sentencing stage on the grounds of provocation. It just so happens in our own day that people are coming to sympathize with women who kill their new infants, and this is partly because motherhood is less valued and is even regarded with distaste by more people in the population. But at least, if we do not codify that sort of prejudice in statutory law, we do not lock it in for all cases.

Dr. Beckwith, I suppose Obama could simply tell PETA that death for those flies is the compassionate solution. You know, language they would understand.

Moreover (I say), such mitigation decisions do provide an open door for prejudice and injustice to come in. For example, I should imagine that in the old South a man who murdered a black man who "spoke insultingly" to his wife might have his sentence reduced at the sentencing stage on the grounds of provocation.

Can you really think of a mitigating circumstance in a murder case? If we say that the act of murder is always wrong, then it stands to reason that the person who does it is never really justified or excused for doing it. Society has no problem with this sort of thing with sexual crimes. No one really makes excuses for rapists or pedophiles or talks about how they deserve mercy, except perhaps the victim who has come to forgive them. Murder is obviously worse than any sexual crime since it completely destroys the victim. This is just another example of how our society doesn't even make a pretense to having a rational sense of morality.

It's also extremely judgmental to get involved in ascertaining the motives for why someone committed a murder. Matters of the heart are between the defendant and God, not the defendant and the state. Human beings only have a right to judge people based on their actions, and the cult of non-judgmentalism implicitly agrees with that as well, but of course, denies it in practice by trying to ascertain what was in someone's mind or heart when they committed a violent crime (as if it were even relevant to the case!)

What we need, Albert, is to make sure that there are fewer flies that feel the need to enter rooms in which they will be swatted. It is a common ground on which the pro-fly and the pro-swat can work together.

"Let freedom swing."

:-)

So pro-lifers are the PETA members of the abortion debate?

The very idea of granting sympathy and mercy to the insane is ridiculous. If someone kills another because they are insane, then they are the human analog of a rabid dog, and should be either locked up indefinitely or put down immediately.

There is no such thing as a "human analog of a rabid dog" no matter how mad, or how guilty they are still a human being made in the image of God. They should be locked away where they can't hurt anyone, but we can't take away their humanity.

My views on this issue changed when I came face-to-face with such a person. I worked as a judicial clerk out of law school, and my judge was on a three-judge panel (the defendant's right in a capital case in this state) in the case of a woman who drowned her two children. Everyone walked into the courtroom wanting to fry her. I won't recount all the details, but by the time the testimony was done, the entire courtroom's demeanor had changed. The prosecutor essentially quit trying to prove that she was guilty. The children's own grandmother wanted her to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. It was obvious that the woman was out of touch with reality and absolutely insane. She was found NGRI and sent to mental institution for life (under the sentencing laws, you can be locked in a mental institution for the same amount of time you could be imprisoned).

I don't have a problem with NGRI findings because mental state is an element of the crime of murder. It's as necessary as the whodunit. If a person isn't capable of forming that intent, the most we can do is keep them from hurting someone else.

The problem with this legislation is that it takes away the ability of the government to protect children from a particular class of criminal. If a woman is really crazy, the NGRI plea is already available. Instead, they are proposing a "needs killin" defense for child murderes.

There is no such thing as a "human analog of a rabid dog" no matter how mad, or how guilty they are still a human being made in the image of God.

I'll see your argument, and raise you a more direct one from the Bible itself:

Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

We are not called to be merciful to the point of denying justice to the victims of murder.

I don't have a problem with NGRI findings because mental state is an element of the crime of murder. It's as necessary as the whodunit. If a person isn't capable of forming that intent, the most we can do is keep them from hurting someone else.

It is only necessary in modern law. It's a point of procedure, not morality. There is nothing inherently immoral or even questionable about executing someone who is both insane and a murderer. In fact, it is the most effective way to keep them from hurting someone else.

Mike T, we may have misunderstood each other. I am not opposed to capital punishment. I was writing against the characterization of such a person as a "rabid dog." Even if a person must be executed, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it is a human being that is dying.

I will have to disagree with your point about criminal intent being procedural rather than moral. Although I don't have time to find the references, the statutes regarding the avenger of blood make a distinction between premeditated ("lying in wait") killings, manslaughter (those done in the heat of the moment) and negligent homicide. Modern law reflects these distinctions, which I suspect are part of natural law (although I'm about as far from an expert on NLT as one can be). Although it doesn't specifically address homicides by madmen, it's clear that the killer's intent does matter in the OT law.

Mike T, I suppose I can imagine cases of actual severe provocation *by the victim* to murder, but before I would sympathize they would have to veer close to the line where self-defense begins--that is, that A kills B because B is threatening A. Another type of mitigation that seems to me like it should be legally relevant is duress from some other person to commit or contract a murder. This can get very severe, especially in the case of boyfriends or husbands pressuring women to have abortions, for example. There is even an extant letter from something like the 1st century B.C. or 1st century A.D. in which a Roman husband chats lovingly with his wife about various matters and then, at the end, casually orders her that if she has an infant (presumably he left without knowing whether she was pregnant or not) and it is a boy, she should keep it, but if it is a girl, she should "cast it out"--a direct order to his wife to commit infanticide by exposure of a girl infant, whom he does not want. Depending on the pressures that could be brought to bear on the mother in such a situation, I might regard that as somewhat mitigating for her, though of course the husband should then be punished as well.

Mike T, we may have misunderstood each other. I am not opposed to capital punishment. I was writing against the characterization of such a person as a "rabid dog." Even if a person must be executed, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it is a human being that is dying.

I characterize certain classes of people as being the human analog of a rabid dog on the grounds that they are extremely dangerous, already proven to be violent, and it's only a matter of time before they badly injure or kill someone else. As such, showing them the mercy of keeping them around makes no more sense than keeping a rabid dog alive rather than putting it down.

Mike T, I suppose I can imagine cases of actual severe provocation *by the victim* to murder, but before I would sympathize they would have to veer close to the line where self-defense begins--that is, that A kills B because B is threatening A.

I am personally sympathetic to this argument. If your neighbor taunts you with threats to murder you children, and then you see him walking toward your house with a weapon, I would not call preemptively killing him murder since his own words and actions, taken together, would give you a reasonable reason to believe that he is coming over to murder your family. Being a southerner, I tend to find it offensive when people suggest that victims have a moral duty to their attacker to retreat, rather than aggressively defend themselves when they are in the process of being attacked. I'm not saying that you hold that view, just that I don't at all subscribe to the notion that a victim has any moral duty to give their attacker a chance to back off before using force.

Another type of mitigation that seems to me like it should be legally relevant is duress from some other person to commit or contract a murder. This can get very severe, especially in the case of boyfriends or husbands pressuring women to have abortions, for example. There is even an extant letter from something like the 1st century B.C. or 1st century A.D. in which a Roman husband chats lovingly with his wife about various matters and then, at the end, casually orders her that if she has an infant (presumably he left without knowing whether she was pregnant or not) and it is a boy, she should keep it, but if it is a girl, she should "cast it out"--a direct order to his wife to commit infanticide by exposure of a girl infant, whom he does not want. Depending on the pressures that could be brought to bear on the mother in such a situation, I might regard that as somewhat mitigating for her, though of course the husband should then be punished as well.

I could see some grounds for mercy here as well, but not much. In the case of the abortion, that is her decision, and in the case of the Roman example, the wife could flee from her husband. Given the gravity of murder, I think that an innocent person can reasonably be expected to go to great lengths to disobey orders to commit it.

Can you really think of a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?

Mitigation is not the same as excuse or justification. Excuse or justification would exonerate the murder completely. With mitigiation, it is still murder; only the sentence is lessened.