Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Moral culpability Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Live Just To Die[/m] at 10:25 am on July 6, 2009[quote]Both SHOULD get equal punishments along with support for any needs they have.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post SpM Posted at 10:21 am on July 6, 2009 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?

Replies static nightmare Posted at 8:18 pm on July 6, 2009 The first one should be tried according to his mental capacity. Ie. If he has the mental capacity of a 5 year old he should get tried in the same way a 5 year old would. The second one has no excuse. Dexter Ward Posted at 12:35 pm on July 6, 2009 Put the first one in mental hospital, execute second one.  Being a psychopath is not an excuse. Hi Carie Posted at 12:03 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from InsaneBlue at 12:24 pm on July 6, 2009 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. Shaknbake Posted at 11:45 am on July 6, 2009 If conscience is the deciding factor in moral culpability, the only people we'd be able to hold responsible for misdeeds would be those who'd turned themselves in and confessed. Reason has to be the deciding factor. We agree that it's wrong, and no matter what you feel about it, you knew what you're doing, and here's the consequences. medjai Posted at 10:59 am on July 6, 2009 Whether or not each man is responsible is irrelevant in the fact that they have both unlawfully ended the life of another human being and have been apprehended. 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. Moridin Posted at 10:37 am on July 6, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 8:21 pm on July 6, 2009 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. hithere Posted at 10:34 am on July 6, 2009 each man is responsible for his crime society should respond as if they're "normal" people exceedinglyrare Posted at 10:26 am on July 6, 2009 Just speaking from a strictly legal perspective, a person who doesn't have the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong is one who can be declared not guilty by reason of insanity. I'd say that applies to Man A (who might not have understood that what he did was considered illegal and/or wrong and/or may have not understood what he was doing at the time he was doing it) but not to Man B (who likely understood exactly what he was doing but didn't care). Live Just To Die Posted at 10:25 am on July 6, 2009 Both SHOULD get equal punishments along with support for any needs they have. Leannbby Posted at 10:25 am on July 6, 2009 take psychology, they tell you all about it. maybe morally they are responsible, but not guilty. its according to the trial and severity of the disabilities. visualcandyxo Posted at 10:24 am on July 6, 2009 murderer a shouldnt be guilty because of a mental disability, they make exceptions but i think he will get some form of punishment.. murderer b.. theres no exceptions for lack of any of that.. InsaneBlue Posted at 10:24 am on July 6, 2009 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. All 12 previous replies displayed.