NationStates

From Annie's point of view (not saying its justified, but its how it looks from her point of view):

She 100% believes that Europe must be purified and its her destiny to purify it.

These beliefs were heavily influenced by her childhood, mental health issues, and her near death experience with terrorism. She has been transformed for the worse through her traumatic experience her experience with the terrorist bomb in Rome.

She has been indoctrinated by right wing extremists.

She suffers from depression, anxiety, and problems of substance abuse.

She faces a greater temptation than most others because unlike others, she actually did have the magical power to destroy and conquer entire nations (this is the "you may have done the same thing if you had such powers" argument).

...

So I think its a lot more complicated than simply, "this is a Hitler 2.0... we must kill her"

there's a lot more going on I think...

Infected Mushroom wrote:From Annie's point of view (not saying its justified, but its how it looks from her point of view):

She 100% believes that Europe must be purified and its her destiny to purify it.

These beliefs were heavily influenced by her childhood, mental health issues, and her near death experience with terrorism. She has been transformed for the worse through her traumatic experience her experience with the terrorist bomb in Rome.

She has been indoctrinated by right wing extremists.

She suffers from depression, anxiety, and problems of substance abuse.

She faces a greater temptation than most others because unlike others, she actually did have the magical power to destroy and conquer entire nations (this is the "you may have done the same thing if you had such powers" argument).

...

So I think its a lot more complicated than simply, "this is a Hitler 2.0... we must kill her"

there's a lot more going on I think...

Nope. No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

The New California Republic wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:From Annie's point of view (not saying its justified, but its how it looks from her point of view):

She 100% believes that Europe must be purified and its her destiny to purify it.

These beliefs were heavily influenced by her childhood, mental health issues, and her near death experience with terrorism. She has been transformed for the worse through her traumatic experience her experience with the terrorist bomb in Rome.

She has been indoctrinated by right wing extremists.

She suffers from depression, anxiety, and problems of substance abuse.

She faces a greater temptation than most others because unlike others, she actually did have the magical power to destroy and conquer entire nations (this is the "you may have done the same thing if you had such powers" argument).

...

So I think its a lot more complicated than simply, "this is a Hitler 2.0... we must kill her"

there's a lot more going on I think...

Nope. No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

what about mental health issues?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Nope. No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

what about mental health issues?

No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

Valrifell wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
what about mental health issues?

No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

Genocide requires a degree of organization. Spazzing out and murdering people on a whim doesn't.

The New California Republic wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

Genocide requires a degree of organization. Spazzing out and murdering people on a whim doesn't.

does it though?

if you have magic powers and people are too afraid to challenge you, you can make lots of people do things

for instance (though not in THIS example per say, its not quite that far), someone could do all of this thinking they were hearing voices from a god commanding them to do it; while wielding magic to terrorise and kill on a large scale?

wouldn't that raise issues of mental capacity?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.

some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

It's not just about the number! It isn't one is an insanity plea and one million is genocide!

It's about the premeditation, whether they had the capacity to understand that others would consider their actions were wrong.

Someone hears voices telling them to kill? They have a shot at an insanity plea. They'll be locked up in a secure unit -- not jail -- probably forever.

Someone is depressed (terrible as it is). Probably not.

And no. The factors offered are not mitigation.

Every ideologically-motivated mass murderer felt they had a "destiny" and depression and anxiety does not prevent Witch Annie knowing that her actions are wrong.

Valrifell wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."

why couldn't a murder (or a series of murders) be both premeditated and the result of out of control insanity/delusions?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."

why couldn't a murder (or a series of murders) be both premeditated and the result of out of control insanity/delusions?

Because if you can premeditate a crime, you are not, for the purposes of the law, insane.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
why couldn't a murder (or a series of murders) be both premeditated and the result of out of control insanity/delusions?

Because if you can premeditate a crime, you are not, for the purposes of the law, insane.

okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...

but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?

So to further flesh out the above point...

Say for example:

"Annie hears voices from a supernatural entity "Kami" because she is delusional. "Kami" told her she had to go and commit genocide. As a result of this... she plans out the genocide, then carries it out."

In such a situation she is clearly both insane AND has premeditated the crime.

Should she be morally judged guilty without any mitigation?

Why?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Because if you can premeditate a crime, you are not, for the purposes of the law, insane.

okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...

but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?

Why is it so important to you that people go easy on this genocidal witch?

Face it, the law is important.

And, in law, she will have no insanity plea and be granted no clemency.

And, morally, there should be no clemency granted to this genocidal witch. If someone can understand their actions are considered to be wrong, if someone can plan the murders of dozens/hundreds/millions, they should be held accountable in law.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Because if you can premeditate a crime, you are not, for the purposes of the law, insane.

okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...

but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?

Legal insanity is not the same as having a mental health problem.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...

but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?

Why is it so important to you that people go easy on this genocidal witch?

Face it, the law is important.

And, in law, she will have no insanity plea and be granted no clemency.

And, morally, there should be no clemency granted to this genocidal witch. If someone can understand their actions are considered to be wrong, if someone can plan the murders of dozens/hundreds/millions, they should be held accountable in law.

but what if they know that most of society would consider it wrong but they themselves, (as a result of a degree of insanity), do not consider such actions to be wrong but instead to be morally correct?

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...

but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?

Legal insanity is not the same as having a mental health problem.

Okay but in considering this hypothetical, you don't have to think like a lawyer

its not about the law, its ultimately about greater considerations of morality (you're allowed to take a philosophical or moral approach if you don't agree with the formality of the law)

Infected Mushroom wrote:The following is a hypothetical situation:

In 2033, a witch queen Annie Holstadt takes over Europe and attempts to use her command of magical forces to take over the world.

wat

IM, just write a fantasy novel already. Your scenarios just keep getting more and more bizarre...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Why is it so important to you that people go easy on this genocidal witch?

Face it, the law is important.

And, in law, she will have no insanity plea and be granted no clemency.

And, morally, there should be no clemency granted to this genocidal witch. If someone can understand their actions are considered to be wrong, if someone can plan the murders of dozens/hundreds/millions, they should be held accountable in law.

but what if they know that most of society would consider it wrong but they themselves, (as a result of a degree of insanity), do not consider such actions to be wrong but instead to be morally correct?

In what the hell kind of world is this scenario taking place?

Is this a new amendment to your fictional future? Norway is an ultra-liberal paradise where people are sentenced to play Xbox and no-one in the rest of the world considers genocide a crime?

The Free Joy State wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
but what if they know that most of society would consider it wrong but they themselves, (as a result of a degree of insanity), do not consider such actions to be wrong but instead to be morally correct?

In what the hell kind of world is this scenario taking place?

Is this a new amendment to your fictional future? Norway is an ultra-liberal paradise where people are sentenced to play Xbox and no-one considers genocide a crime?

No its considered a serious crime for sure

However, yes, you can play Xbox in Norwegian prison (prisons around the world have adopted my proposals to constitutionalise the right to play video games, hence the Xbox in prison)

Valrifell wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
some degree of it has to right?

so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?

why's that?

It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."

Okay, its "premeditated" (some thought needed to go into it, it needed to be planned out, carried out systematically, intentionally)

but why couldn't insanity (i.e. delusions, mental instability) still be a driving force behind it overriding any meaningful conception of Choice? for instance, they've been programmed/devolved to think that their actions are 100% right while someone more sane wouldn't have gone that way...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."

Okay, its "premeditated" (some thought needed to go into it, it needed to be planned out, carried out systematically, intentionally)

but why couldn't insanity (i.e. delusions, mental instability) still be a driving force behind it overriding any meaningful conception of Choice? for instance, they've been programmed/devolved to think that their actions are 100% right while someone more sane wouldn't have gone that way...

Because at some point society has to say enough. There are lines that cannot be crossed by anyone, sane or not.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Legal insanity is not the same as having a mental health problem.

Okay but in considering this hypothetical, you don't have to think like a lawyer

its not about the law, its ultimately about greater considerations of morality (you're allowed to take a philosophical or moral approach if you don't agree with the formality of the law)

This hypothetical is about a matter of law.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Okay but in considering this hypothetical, you don't have to think like a lawyer

its not about the law, its ultimately about greater considerations of morality (you're allowed to take a philosophical or moral approach if you don't agree with the formality of the law)

This hypothetical is about a matter of law.

but it invites you to think like a moral philosopher/policymaker (not necessarily as a lawyer)

you have carte blanche to decide what to do with Annie (within the limits of these two options)... the law will justify itself in retrospect in some legal judgement somewhere

Len Hyet wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Okay, its "premeditated" (some thought needed to go into it, it needed to be planned out, carried out systematically, intentionally)

but why couldn't insanity (i.e. delusions, mental instability) still be a driving force behind it overriding any meaningful conception of Choice? for instance, they've been programmed/devolved to think that their actions are 100% right while someone more sane wouldn't have gone that way...

Because at some point society has to say enough. There are lines that cannot be crossed by anyone, sane or not.

Anyway, the character doesn't have delusions. She has depression and anxiety, and I imagine people who have depression and anxiety might feel a little insulted to have them conflated with psychosis.

As I say, someone with psychosis that has driven them to kill anyone would be locked up in a secure institution -- like Rampton or Broadmoor -- forever.