Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23
You are taking a completely moral (and untenable) position here. The intent requirement for murder could not be met here because Li was having a psychotic episode and thus acting without intent. How can you lock him away forever for murder when the justification that he used essentially nullifies the intent requirement for murder?
Do you also get up on soapboxes about taking away the liberty of soldiers for shooting enemy combatants, because they had performed a murderous act (action + intent to kill)? Or similarly for police officers in the line of duty? Really, you could argue that they are more deserving of punishment from a purely moral perspective. However, the law has been designed to carve out exemptions for them. Just like it has been designed to allow for exceptions when the clinically insane (legal term) take a life. Do you know how hard it is to successfully deploy a NCRMD defence? It is very narrow.
Criminal law, both in the trial and sentencing phases, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. And honestly, you should be thanking your lucky stars every night before you go to sleep that that's the case.
|
Again, I don't care what the reason was.
He cut off someone's head and cannibalized them.
I couldn't care less that there are legal defenses for instances of clinical insanity.
We're not talking about a soldier or police officer suffering from post traumatic stress.
We're talking about a guy who - on a bus - cut someone's head off with a knife and started eating pieces of them.
"He didn't know what he was doing when he did that" is a horrible excuse. When someone in our society goes that far off the deep end and does something that despicable they should be locked up for good.