Murderer A is an adult of normal emotional maturity but has severe mental disability and the reasoning ability of a young child.

Murderer B is an adult of normal intelligence but has psychopathy which renders him devoid of guilt, compassion and empathy.

Is each man responsible for his crime, and how should society respond?

Beyond that, it's a tough question. Some sort of line needs to be drawn.

-------
The man who once was but never has been.

Click Me

maybe morally they are responsible, but not guilty. its according to the trial and severity of the disabilities.

-------
What happens when the only person that can make you stop crying
Is the one who made you cry.

society should respond as if they're "normal" people

---

Two men are known to have committed murder.

Murderer A is an adult of normal emotional maturity but has severe mental disability and the reasoning ability of a young child.

Murderer B is an adult of normal intelligence but has psychopathy which renders him devoid of guilt, compassion and empathy.

Is each man responsible for his crime, and how should society respond?

---

I would say that just because you yourself lacks guilt or compassion does not mean that you did not act in accordance with your values, thus making him properly in control of his actions, and thus guilty. The first guy clear is unable to act in accordance with his values due to his mental disability. The first guy did commit unjustified killing too, he just has some mitigating circumstances.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

The crime was still committed. Matters of responsibility defer onto the solution that fair justice should provide.

If a man is not deemed "responsible" for his murder, but at the same time the man knowingly did murder someone (he wasn't drugged or mind controlled by a third party etc), society is forced to prevent these individuals from committing murder again.

If it can be reasonably argued that the man with the mental development of a child is still a risk to society, and so it would be on his family/lawyer to argue for a special type of care other than imprisonment. I feel that this could be successfully argued and the man could live in a special environment other than a prison for a set period of time until he is no longer considered a risk to society.

The man with no empathy, etc, is responsible for his murder and should be sent to prison. He is of normal intelligence and is not capable of remorse or empathy, he willingly murdered another man for reasons which likely were not emotional, but instead calculated and domineering. This man should be processed and sentenced normally and given no special consideration.

"I didn't feel bad when I killed her" isn't a defense.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

---

Both would need to be institutionalized to lower the chances that they'll hurt anyone else.

Beyond that, it's a tough question. Some sort of line needs to be drawn.

---

I dont really think it matters whether or not they are "murderers".

like insaneblue said, both need to be seperated from society so it doesnt happen again.

-------
Do not abandon yourselves to despair.
We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.

Pope John Paul II

The second one has no excuse.

-------
A quitter never wins and a winner never quits - Napolean Hill