Nature of the crime and insanity

[Phillygirl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Phillygirl]

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.

But do sane people do this to their families?

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

[Gingersnap]

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]

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]

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!