NationStates

Title: Violent Violet

Description: Following the pronounced innocence of a man who killed his wife and three kids claims that the vengeful God, Violet, made him commit the atrocity, nationwide concerns over the state of mental health in @@NAME@@ have arisen.

Validity: Has not abolished the court system

Option 1: Accomplished psychologist, @@RANDOMNAME@@ stares intently, asserting that "It is obviously a case of undiagnosed schizophrenia. The symptoms are all there. We cannot hold our citizens responsible for that which they cannot control. The courts need to be more lenient on those with mental illnesses."

Effect: "The Will of Violet" is a valid excuse in court.

Option 2: "I have succumbed to the will of Violet," the defendant, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@ screams, clinging onto the outside of your third-story window, "Join us! Join the movement for a better world! Hail Violet! Hail Violet! Hail Violet!"

Effect: The citizens of @@NAME@@ have become mindless servants of Violet.

Option 3: "These mental illnesses are getting out of hand," says the lead prosecutor from the trial, @@RANDOMNAME@@, frowning intensely, "We need to treat these savages for what they are! Savages! Crack down on mental illness, we have no reason to tolerate them."

Effect: Mental illness is responded to with life in prison.

Option 4: A shady figure in the back raises his voice, whilst hiding his face, "Hey - I can take care of your citizens. Just give me the courts."

Effect: Punishments are doled about by a masked man.

This is loosely based on the story of Hercules - who was forced by Hera to kill his family. In fact, the original title was "A Herculean Homicide," but I figured that was a bit too obscure of a reference.

I'm aware it needs a lot of work - creative writing isn't my strong suit, and neither is being funny. But it's worth a shot, so feedback will be well-received, probably.

Option 1- religion is false, all religious people are schizophrenic
Option 2- religion is false, ban religion
Option 3- Violetism is the one and only true faith, all other religions are false
Option 4- Religion is false, punish the man

Do you see the problem?

How abouts an option which doesn't assume all religions except Violtism are false?

Why not change the premise and have it so, because of this plea, the jury finds the man innocent? That would surely spicen things up a bit. It would then turn into a more "should this be allowed or not" kind of issue. Right now, it's just "hey do you like Violetism or not?"

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 1- religion is false, all religious people are schizophrenic
Option 2- religion is false, ban religion
Option 3- Violetism is the one and only true faith, all other religions are false
Option 4- Religion is false, punish the man

Do you see the problem?

How abouts an option which doesn't assume all religions except Violtism are false?

I intended for options 1 and 4 to be rather indifferent towards religion, but I suppose they didn't necessarily come off that way. I'll add an additional option. Thanks for the feedback.

Krogon wrote:Why not change the premise and have it so, because of this plea, the jury finds the man innocent? That would surely spicen things up a bit. It would then turn into a more "should this be allowed or not" kind of issue. Right now, it's just "hey do you like Violetism or not?"

Yes, that would be more interested. I'll make the suggested changes shortly.

Welcome to GI.

For the validity, remember that not all countries allow Violetism, also -- which you may want to consider for this issue (for reasons I will explain) -- not allow human sacrifice.

Also, Violet is a goddess, not a God. I suggest you read over previous descriptions of Violet, as a deity, in the NPC religions list (which cites them).

While five option issues aren't unheard of, I would suggest that it would be easier to give over one of your existing options to a less negative view of religion. Perhaps option four. Right now, I can't tell what -- if anything -- it's supposed to do.

Also, for option two, why would a devout believer want devout believers of -- what is -- a merciless Godess who (in fundamentalist depictions) demands sacrifice -- suppressed? He would be probably demanding to be released, and that you acknowledge his actions as divinely inspired.

Mental-health related killings have been covered before. For maximum differentiation, I suggest you write this about a Violetist who killed his family in a country where human sacrifice is illegal, claiming divine revelation and have three options:
--> He heard voices telling him to kill, ergo he is mentally ill and must be treated
--> This was a manifestation of the divine and he must be freed and his actions legalised. Violet only commands good deeds.
--> This is not a problem with religion, but with extreme interpretations of Violetism. Extreme practises must continue to be prosecuted and Violetists must be educated about the more gentle aspects of their religion.

EDIT: I see you have now changed option two. Although you've changed the angle, OP, what I say above still applies. You need more of an explanation as to why @@LEADER@@ should be persuaded to allow someone who killed his family get away with it.

The concept is much better, but it seems a bit barebones, especially the last option. It could use a lot more meat and substance.

I think there is some potential for another issue about the management of mental illness, though as was pointed out, there are existing issues already.

Two aspects I don't think has been adequately covered in the past:

First, there's not really an issue about psychiatric care in the community (as opposed to inpatient care) and whether there's been too much of a shift towards managing psychotic patients in an outpatient setting. While #394 critiques mental health institutions, it doesn't really ask what happens when you keep people in the community.

Second, there's the issue of mental health stigma, and the discrimination that people with mental health problems face. #1012 touches on this from one angle, but I think there's other stories to be told here too, for example about people not wanting to report symptoms because of fear of stigmatisation.

Having said that, this draft doesn't really sit close enough to those ideas to be able to shift that way, and probably needs to be written with more sensitivity and knowledge of the topic in hand in general. All in all, it is probably more representative of the public bias that schizophrenics suffer than a good treatment of the issues at hand.

For example, did you know that people with schizophrenia are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160236/

Now that would make a worthwhile issue to explore.