Scapegoating

[Brovo]

Ahhh... you have just revealed the "secret" of who determines mental unsoundness. Let's look at it this way: A psychopath is "mentally unsound", but knows full well what they're doing. A person with Down's Syndrome could be considered "mentally unsound" by your definition, in that they usually require a "keeper". SOMEONE WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM. If a person isn't able to think for themselves, then how can they plan their criminal activity? How can they even commit a single crime? More importantly, without help? All I know is, from my own knowledge base, there is this: Ignorantia juris non excusat ... and yet, a psychopath can be held responsible, while someone with Down's Syndrome would not.

Hm. I'll reply once more, then stop to avoid derailing this thread too much. (Last word goes to you, I think.)

Ignorantia juris non excusat only applies to those capable of understanding the law. "Ignorance" means to not know. It's in the same way that you don't hold an eight year old child to a several year long prison sentence for theft. The mental capacity of an individual is as important as any other factor in determining their precedence for innocence or guilt--which is why a psychopath can be held legally accountable, and someone with Down's Syndrome cannot be, generally speaking. The former is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and committing to a premeditated series of actions, the latter is not.

That being said, those who fall into the category of mental unsoundness don't generally get to walk away simply because of that. They're normally put into asylums, or mental hospitals for severe crimes--neither of which are pleasant places. Both have rates of attempted suicide above that of the average.

This is actually something I have to understand for my future career path. If I misinterpret a person's mental disorder for alcohol or drug related issues and act upon it to physically detain them, I can be held criminally responsible for that and have my security license revoked.

I'm not really saying if this is right or wrong, more that this is just how the criminal system has interpreted it up to this point. Given more time, and a greater understanding of mental disorders, the ability to determine criminal intent should increase over time as well.

As for who determines mental unsoundness? Generally psychiatrists and other medical specialists who have spent several years studying mental faculties, followed up by those who write the law books. Even in the US, if Congress tries to pass an adjustment to criminal law which the Supreme Court judges would obstruct a human right, they're allowed to intervene. It is, however, one of the most complicated fields of study there is, as no other animal has a brain as sophisticated as ours. It's also only been free of political tampering and had reliable methods of acquiring physical evidence for the past 40-50 years, which by science standards, is laughably young.

A. But that's just it... "so far gone" is that slippery slope. Humanity is humanity. We only hold ourselves together because we have established certain moral codes by which to live. And have decided to enforce those codes. Only that seems to be breaking down. "True Humanity", rising to the surface. All the seven Deadly Sins come to haunt us. In all the recent school shootings, from what I'm aware, those who have committed said acts have been on "mood-altering" psychotropic drugs. Drugs meant to keep them from being "so far gone". Meaning, they chose to act out whatever motivated their thoughts. A person can think all they want about how much they'd like to see another person dead, but it's the choice to act on that thought that counts. Mental unsoundness is more often used as an excuse, so other things can be blamed... inanimate objects, or society/culture, held responsible in that person's place. As a scapegoat. Look at the concept of "gun violence". Guns are not violent. They are inanimate objects. Humans are violent, but "political correctness" demands we blame the blameless. And excuse the guilty.

B. Yes, they do. But are they really mentally unsound? Are they not simply doing what humans do when they have no common morality, no social/cultural inhibitions towards murder? In other words, things are not so simple. Because one person's definition of "mentally unsound" is another person's definition of normalcy. Again, who gets to judge?

Tss.

#1: Not all school shooters have a history of mental disorders. Those that do, typically came from damaged households, and lacked the proper support network to catch them in time.

#2: Drugs are not a cure-all, and nobody has proposed that they are. The reason there are so many antipsychotics and antidepressants and so on out on the market, is because each brain reacts differently, and the source and cause of most disorders can come from multiple factors.

#3: Drugs are also not a cure-all because people still have the legal right to choose not to take their drugs. Unless you've been shipped to an asylum due to a crime you've committed, then you forfeit that right. The vast majority of people that take drugs? Can choose to never take them, or stop whenever they wish. The vast majority of people who go to therapy? Have every ability to lie to their therapists, or refuse to cooperate.

Drugs cannot cure the individual's ability and right to choose. The drugs that can, are not drugs shipped out as medicine.

#4: In the US, a lot of people can't even afford their drugs, because your health care system is nightmarishly draconian and cares more about money than human lives.

#5: Mental unsoundness has nothing to do with guns, or other items around a person. If anything, mental unsoundness is perhaps the single best argument defeating the usual scapegoats--because you cannot stop the mentally unsound from being mentally unsound by banning everything around them. It's why video games aren't banned and why D&D is still around and why movies no longer have to follow the Hays Code. A gun cannot make anyone mentally unsound, and those that propose it does are morons who have no idea what guns or mentally disturbed people are. I can't fix stupid.

#6: As for "common morality" understand that human beings (and some other animals) have a part of the brain that creates empathy and sympathy. Common morality arose because people feel naturally inclined toward forming societies and other pack mentality orders, and felt bad when those around them that they cared for were hurt. Morality has changed throughout the centuries because society has grown more complex with each iteration--with each failed civilization, or revolution, or otherwise.

A person who is mentally unsound has a brain that (thanks to the way evolution works) does not work the way most other people's brains do. Whether that's because they feel constantly fatigued and sorrowful because their serotonin receptors don't properly fire, or because their brain's capacity for differentiating subconscious and conscious thoughts is damaged.

How one determines mental unsoundness, I'll grant you, is difficult. It's preferable to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra, but that means that some people who have a disorder or who might be dangerous to society, slip through. However, as I've mentioned, the actual science behind the understanding of mental disorders has only really gone anywhere in recent history. There are physically measurable differences, but we don't yet understand them all. Given more time, we'll get better at it.

In the same way that you can identify a person who is wheelchair handicapped, you can identify the mentally unsound if you know where to look for it in the brain. Which science is working on! In its usual, painfully slow way.

It should also be noted that it takes an extreme case for the mental unsoundness label to normally apply in a serious context beyond shitflinging. A "gun nut" is still probably a person who loves their family and feels bad when they commit a wrongful action, or who at least understands their wrongful actions.

That, and, a perfectly healthy person can do terrible things if they think it's justified. Which is where morality and the world becomes a grey, murky, confusing mess. I'm not proposing a one shoe fits all method. It is, however, quite possible to physically define mental unsoundness in a legal context, and in a scientific context, which is why both a scientific discipline exists for this, and several laws address it directly. It physically exists.

As for people who throw it at political opponents? They're the same kinds of morons that throw racism, sexism, bigotry, and other labels around without any evidence. All they're doing is discrediting themselves in front of anyone with half a brain.

Get it? Brain? Because puns.

Anyway, just wanted to address the mental unsoundness thing since it directly relates to my future career choices, so... Yeah. Hope that was informative in all that rambling.