Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Crimes, mental illness, and culpability
Associated PressCOLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio is getting ready to execute a 63-year-old inmate who has spent more than 26 years behind bars for the fatal shootings of his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend at her Cincinnati apartment.Let's say that Mr. Bedford is clinically diagnosed with dementia. This has not happened (yet), but this is a hypothetical. Is he still guilty of murder?
Daniel Bedford is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday for killing 25-year-old Gwen Toepfert and 27-year-old John Smith in April 1984. Prosecutors say Bedford told authorities and a friend that he gunned down the pair because he was jealous.
His attorneys say he has dementia, can't recall his crimes and wouldn't understand why he's being executed.
Bedford arrived at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville on Monday as his attorneys pushed to block the execution in a federal court hearing in Columbus.
He would be the fourth Ohio inmate executed this year.
I do not want to debate the death penalty. That is a different topic.
My question is: If a person committed a crime, then developed dementia to a degree that he no longer remembers the crime or can associate with it, is he still responsible for the crime?
My contention is: No, he is not. Mr. Bedford in 2011 is not the same person that committed murder in 1984. I don't mean this in the colloquial sense that he's aged and gathered more experience and has perhaps changed his ways or reformed. I mean that because parts of his memory have been expunged, he can't really be held liable for it. The mental and emotional entity that is being punished today is fundamentally not the mental and emotional person that was present at the crime. You can punish the corporeal body that was present, but that body is just a husk for a scared person who, for all intents and purposes, wasn't there.
This argument is predicated on the assumption that a person is defined as the collection of their memories and experiences. It's already been suggested to me by another party that a person is defined by his or her actions, in which case Mr. Bedford is still guilty and carrying out a sentence against him is ethically justifiable.
What do you think?
Comments
This does remind me how JMS handled murders in Babylon 5. You were sentenced to the death of personality. All of your memories are wiped from your mind, new banal ones are implanted, and you, well the new you, become a ward of the state to serve the community you one harmed.
Obviously, if Bedford doesn't even remember the crime, punishment isn't really going to deter recidivism on his part. The deterrent effect to other people is likely not enough to justify the punishment either.
If he is a dangerous person despite his dementia, then isolating him from society and rehabilitation is still justified, though.
If you believe that it is to right wrongs, then you probably don't agree with the death penalty to begin with (as killing someone does nothing to repair the damage for their past crimes). Killing a Bedford in his right mind is just as wrong.
On the other hand, if you believe justice is lawful revenge then not killing Bedford is devaluing justice. In fact, Bedford dying of a disease or in an accident would also be cheating justice and another should be killed in his stead.
Does the crime require the person to be "knowing?" Does the crime have to be "intentional"? If not, if it only requires recklessness, then even if he doesn't remember, he's still guilty, according to the law at least. At least in criminal law, in the US, the mental awareness of the criminal, as well as the requirement for the crime play a huge part in determining guilt or innocence for that crime.
I think few people who support the death penalty really think about why and that what I said is the natural progression of the mentality that supports it.
True... if the crime required a mens rea of "knowing" or "intentional." If not, then his mental capacity wouldn't matter.
Our primary goals in justice should be:
1. To restore the pre-crime status quo insofar as is possible or practical.
2. To prevent a future crime.
The fucked-upedness of our legal system aside, there are two reasons for sentencing. You want to rehabilitate that particular criminal and you want to deter other people from doing the same thing. Obviously carrying out a sentence on a demented person does not help rehabilitation. If someone is in prison, or some such (assuming the prison is actually trying to rehabilitate people) and they undergo some drastic change, such as contracting dementia, they should be re-sentenced to something else that will better help their rehabilitation process.
Does killing, or continuing to imprison, a demented person provide a deterrent? I don't think it does. People aren't going to be thinking "Oh I better not rob this convenience store, I'll be stuck in jail even if I go insane." I do think that if someone gets out of jail for going insane, that it will cause many other jailbirds to try to get out with the same excuse. Thus, assuming you want to keep them in there, you are going to need a very clear list of conditions, and thorough tests for those conditions, so that people can't fake it and get out.
Imagine if there were no punishment for parking illegally. None whatsoever. There would be people parked in the middle of the street. Punishing with parking tickets likely reduces the number of offenses greatly. Further, attempting only to redress (moving the car) is effectively a punishment, as it would come down to towing (which we already do as a punishment).
Or, imagine if there were no punishment for skipping the fare on a train. If caught, one simply pays what was originally owed with no punitive fee. Game Theory points out pretty clearly that in this case, the optimal solution for all people is to NEVER have a ticket. There's no cost to not having one and getting caught, and a substantial gain to not having one and not getting caught. There is literally no individual reason to ever buy a ticket unless caught without one.
Punitive measures can be a deterrent, but should only be used as such if this is reasonably demonstrable.
That, and it's a universal claim. Bad boy.
It may not "never" work, but I doubt many criminals think about the consequences of their actions before they commit their crimes. Yes, maybe in the situations that Rym brought up, a parking ticket, or paying for a train ticket, sure, but people who kill or steal or whatever other crime don't think.. "oh, if I do this, I'm going to spend 5-7 years in prison."
The flip side to your question is how many people don't commit murder because there's a punishment associated with it? Probably not many. The people who commit murder are usually caught up in the "heat of the moment" or necessity is driving them to do it, or some other reason. They aren't thinking and analyzing their actions and the consequences of such actions like we are.
I have no evidence to support this at all, except for reasoning.
It's sort of how gun control laws probably don't stop mass murderers. Who would really say, "Y'know, I wanted to shoot 17 people in that KFC, but I'll get 5 years for possessing an assault rifle. Better not do it." Doesn't really make sense, does it?
That was ridiculously weak.
Any analysis has to start with the question of whether Scott would find this defendant sympathetic. This particular defendant is older than Scott, so Scott is unlikely to be sympathetic at all towards him. Scott would most likely ask why this person is still alive in the first place. Scott would then come up with a crazy idea, such as: "From now on, anyone convicted of capital murder who is not currently a smart, young, anime fan with a degree in computer science must be executed within 24 hours of conviction. All smokers must be executed immediately."
Any further analysis would concern the victim. Was the victim a smoker? If he was, then the defendant should be congratulated, not imprisoned. Was the victim religious? If so, then the defendant did the victim a favor and should be allowed to go free. Was the victim older than Scott? If he was, then the defendant should be assessed a nominal fine. Any questions regarding mental capacity are moot because Scott thinks people should be more like computers.
1. Fare Jumping (already noted)
2. Parking Illegally (already noted)
3. Dumping garbage illegally
4. Shoplifting
Etc...
That's not to say that suddenly making it legal wouldn't provide a sudden increase in murder for a time, but what I suspect you would find out rather quickly is that when you go around murdering people, some other people are going to make it a point to murder you. In some sense, that's how we got where we are today.
One area I see deterrence working is in "white collar" crime where the perpetrators are, by far, educated.