PDA

View Full Version : Nature of the crime and insanity



Phillygirl
01-09-2009, 09:19 PM
Does the sheer nature of a crime lend itself to the probability of insanity?

I was reading the lounge thread about the guy who plucked out his lone eye and ate it. Apparently he hacked his family to death, and ripped out some of their organs. Now he eats his own eyeball. There was no news in the snippet about what he did with the first eyeball he ripped out.

In any event, those few paragraphs sort of told me all I needed to know about the guy. He's crazy. Seriously. People don't hack their children and their wife to death, and rip out organs if they're not "off". They certainly don't rip their own eyeballs out. I have a tough time with plucking my own eybrows (that's a job for professionals, preferably with anesthesia, but it hasn't yet been approved in PA as covered under my medical insurance).

Isn't there a reasonable assumption that someone who commits these acts is crazy?

biccat
01-09-2009, 09:47 PM
I can't remember which specific philosopher it was, but he made the argument that lawlessness must necessarily indicate insanity. That it is anathema to the human condition, for example, to take another life, to steal, to cheat, etc. Therefore, anyone doing so, must be insane.

While this opens the door to a lot of other issues (does evil exist? are there moral absolutes?), it presents an interesting jumping off point.

Even nonviolent crimes - such as drug possession or perjury - carries with it the threat of incarceration, and therefore causes a loss of freedom. To willingly give up even some of your freedom, so the argument goes, would be insane.

Phillygirl
01-09-2009, 09:52 PM
I can't remember which specific philosopher it was, but he made the argument that lawlessness must necessarily indicate insanity. That it is anathema to the human condition, for example, to take another life, to steal, to cheat, etc. Therefore, anyone doing so, must be insane.

While this opens the door to a lot of other issues (does evil exist? are there moral absolutes?), it presents an interesting jumping off point.

Even nonviolent crimes - such as drug possession or perjury - carries with it the threat of incarceration, and therefore causes a loss of freedom. To willingly give up even some of your freedom, so the argument goes, would be insane.

And yet each of those crimes has, as its goal, a rational purpose...to get high; to obtain property; even to vent one's spleen in a physical fashion. While the ultimate weighing of actions versus consequence may not be well done, there is a rationale that I can follow and a certain acceptance of risk versus reward there.

In this particular case, I don't see it. And it leads me to believe that there is a lack of basic human sanity.

Gingersnap
01-09-2009, 09:53 PM
Does the sheer nature of a crime lend itself to the probability of insanity?

I was reading the lounge thread about the guy who plucked out his lone eye and ate it. Apparently he hacked his family to death, and ripped out some of their organs. Now he eats his own eyeball. There was no news in the snippet about what he did with the first eyeball he ripped out.

In any event, those few paragraphs sort of told me all I needed to know about the guy. He's crazy. Seriously. People don't hack their children and their wife to death, and rip out organs if they're not "off". They certainly don't rip their own eyeballs out. I have a tough time with plucking my own eybrows (that's a job for professionals, preferably with anesthesia, but it hasn't yet been approved in PA as covered under my medical insurance).

Isn't there a reasonable assumption that someone who commits these acts is crazy?

This is a reasonable and interesting question.

Where do we draw the line? It's crazy to leave a 5 year old at home alone but is it psychotic? No. It's crazy to bang 13 year old boys if you are a 35 year old gym teacher of either sex but is it psychotic? No.

People do routinely hack up other people to dispose of the body or because of momentary rage but these people aren't "crazy" in a legal sense. They know what and why they are doing and they understand that it's against the law to do it.

I dunno. The eyeball is clearly crazy now. Was he then? Now that he's blind, he's obviously not a threat to anybody. It's an interesting question.

Phillygirl
01-09-2009, 09:56 PM
This is a reasonable and interesting question.

Where do we draw the line? It's crazy to leave a 5 year old at home alone but is it psychotic? No. It's crazy to bang 13 year old boys if you are a 35 year old gym teacher of either sex but is it psychotic? No.

People do routinely hack up other people to dispose of the body or because of momentary rage but these people aren't "crazy" in a legal sense. They know what and why they are doing and they understand that it's against the law to do it.

I dunno. The eyeball is clearly crazy now. Was he then? Now that he's blind, he's obviously not a threat to anybody. It's an interesting question.

Different issue at play here. This was his family. Vital organs were ripped out. You don't do that to your family. Sure, the mob may do it to your family. But you don't.

There is something else at play here.

Gingersnap
01-09-2009, 10:03 PM
Different issue at play here. This was his family. Vital organs were ripped out. You don't do that to your family. Sure, the mob may do it to your family. But you don't.

There is something else at play here.

No, people actually do this sort of thing to their families. Sadly. I'm not saying this guy isn't nuts but I'm saying that perfectly sane people do exactly this from time to time. Usually, it's a one time deal. Lizzie Borden comes to mind. I've read all the books and it seems clear that she actually hacked her folks to death (granted, she didn't eat them).

She went on to have a productive life devoted to charity. Good for her but I still think she whacked them. :cool:

Phillygirl
01-09-2009, 10:04 PM
No, people actually do this sort of thing to their families. Sadly. I'm not saying this guy isn't nuts but I'm saying that perfectly sane people do exactly this from time to time. Usually, it's a one time deal. Lizzie Borden comes to mind. I've read all the books and it seems clear that she actually hacked her folks to death (granted, she didn't eat them).

She went on to have a productive life devoted to charity. Good for her but I still think she whacked them. :cool:

But do sane people do this to their families?

I need to read up on Lizzie. She is fascinating.

Gingersnap
01-09-2009, 10:10 PM
But do sane people do this to their families?

I need to read up on Lizzie. She is fascinating.

They do it preferentially to their families. Let's face it - brutally hacking somebody to death and then eviscerating them is an intimate act (and strenuous). Would you put out that kind of effort for a stranger?

This why murder victims killed by kids or lovers are so often mutilated. You only chop up the ones you love.

Phillygirl
01-09-2009, 10:17 PM
They do it preferentially to their families. Let's face it - brutally hacking somebody to death and then eviscerating them is an intimate act (and strenuous). Would you put out that kind of effort for a stranger?

This why murder victims killed by kids or lovers are so often mutilated. You only chop up the ones you love.

Wives, husbands...I understand. But your kids? Nope, not buying it. There is insanity there.

patriot45
01-09-2009, 10:25 PM
Does the sheer nature of a crime lend itself to the probability of insanity?

I was reading the lounge thread about the guy who plucked out his lone eye and ate it. Apparently he hacked his family to death, and ripped out some of their organs. Now he eats his own eyeball. There was no news in the snippet about what he did with the first eyeball he ripped out.

In any event, those few paragraphs sort of told me all I needed to know about the guy. He's crazy. Seriously. People don't hack their children and their wife to death, and rip out organs if they're not "off". They certainly don't rip their own eyeballs out. I have a tough time with plucking my own eybrows (that's a job for professionals, preferably with anesthesia, but it hasn't yet been approved in PA as covered under my medical insurance).

Isn't there a reasonable assumption that someone who commits these acts is crazy?

I would think thats hard to say. Does the nature of the crime lend itself to the probability of insanity? With the case in question, yes, he really can't walk among us. But your common amoral sociopaths would be a different story. In our estimation, they would be insane, but they can and do live among us, and act normal. ( Ted Bundy) Different levels of insane!

Phillygirl
01-09-2009, 10:36 PM
I would think thats hard to say. Does the nature of the crime lend itself to the probability of insanity? With the case in question, yes, he really can't walk among us. But your common amoral sociopaths would be a different story. In our estimation, they would be insane, but they can and do live among us, and act normal. ( Ted Bundy) Different levels of insane!

I'm not so certain that he was insane. A sociopath? Sure. But I don't know that he lived in a different basic reality than we do.

Hacking your kid and eating your eyeball? That man's cuckoo flew over the nest long ago.

lurkalot
01-09-2009, 10:41 PM
ora gel on the eybrows..just enough lidocaine to kill the pain :D

I think you need to look at the reasoning behind the action. The hiker trapped who amputates his own arm to save his own life has committed self mutilation, but for a reason seen largely in society as sane. If this guy was thinking "if thine eye offends thee pluck it out" and thinking that was his way to salvation?

When doing psych holds back in the day when I was actually crazy enough to work in that field I would remind my staff, everybody has the right to be stupid and make poor choices. The decision to be made is if that person is capable of understanding the consequences of their stupid choices?

does this make any sense? am having a bit of rash flare up and am a wee tiny bit grumpy lately :cool:

Gingersnap
01-09-2009, 10:59 PM
I would remind my staff, everybody has the right to be stupid and make poor choices.

Yes and no. You don't have the "right" to eat people or mutilate them or kill them (ordinarily). There's a big difference between buying thong underwear (wrong) and deciding to kill and eat your sister (more wrong).

I think this guy is nuts but it also seems as though he will never get better (unlike Lizzie Borden). The crucial thing would be if he knew what he doing at the moment. He may have subsequently go nuts after the trial.

megimoo
01-09-2009, 11:15 PM
No, people actually do this sort of thing to their families. Sadly. I'm not saying this guy isn't nuts but I'm saying that perfectly sane people do exactly this from time to time. Usually, it's a one time deal. Lizzie Borden comes to mind. I've read all the books and it seems clear that she actually hacked her folks to death (granted, she didn't eat them).

She went on to have a productive life devoted to charity. Good for her but I still think she whacked them. :cool:There seems to be a line not to be crossed in some/most peoples emotional makeup.

If the conditions are right or in these cases wrong their minds don't seem to function as before.Lizzie's
father made a point about forcing her and her mother to eat questionable days old lamb stew that was kept room temperature before they had refrigeration in order not to waste money and that may have set her off.

She was quite methodical about killing them even removing her cloths to prevent blood stains from the hatchet blows and washing in the laundry sink after she was done yet the multiple blows seems to indicate a great, frustrated rage.She reverted to her formal mental self as if expiated and even was able to survive a trial without breaking down again.

Our collective grasp of reality and normalicy is subjective and for the most part unknown.We dabble with known quasi normalicy and strive to establish a legal definition for normal behavior under great emotional stress and make an effort to define and name the abnormal behavior rather than really attempting to treat and cure it.The latest 'correctness' is an attempt remove the stigmata from conditions that have been defined and known for years.

Manic Depression is now a 'Bipolar' Disorder.Psychopathic behavior is now Sociopathic in nature.Sexual attraction to the same gender is now removed from a disorder and now defined as a choice or better still a normal genetic condition !

The human mind isn't just three lumps of cranial tissue but a sort of 'field' that is projected by the brain and spinal columns peripheral nervous system .

I believe that the majority breaking point can be manipulated and in some permanently breached without our even being made aware of it.

Some, once they cross the line, never return and many are even able to hide among normal (More stable)
people.The things we are able to do ,some of us,in order to defend our lives or our family's are ,again in some cases,astonishing .Sheer brutality in the defense of a helpless young child from a individual with an axe or knife.

A killing rage to defend a loved one from death or mayhem by a crazed person.Are these a normal part of our survival mechanism or our own little acts of madness.