http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justice/death-row-interview-joseph-paul-franklin/index.html?hpt=us_c1
This article consists of an overview of the life and crimes of Joseph Paul Franklin, a man about to be executed for the more than twenty murders he committed in the late 70s and early 80s, intending to incite a race war. Franklin was inspired by the Nazi regime and was influenced by his fanatical religious tendencies and mental problems. One of his victims, magazine publisher Larry Flynt, now paralyzed from the waist down, has spoken out about how Franklin's life should be spared, saying that the government has no right to take lives.
And on the most part, I tend to agree with him. But mostly on the basis that this man is obviously mentally ill, and I believe he should be in some sort of treatment facility, and not a prison, where hate like his can easily fester and stew and even grow. However, I realized the line we draw to define mental illness is a tenuous one, and that we should be careful to sort impostors from the crowd, as well as to punish those who deserve it.
I definitely agree that the definition of mental illness is unclear. Shooters, murderers, serial killers, etc. being diagnosed as mentally unstable seems to be becoming a more and more prevalent pattern. This pattern is a reminder that there should be more places for these people to be treated as well as more attention devoted to more quickly being able to diagnose a mental illness before it gets out of hand.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the definition of mentally illness is fuzzy. Most research suggests that our "clear cut" definitions of mental illness are based on little more than what treats them. The only way scientists can define mental illnesses are what compounds effect them. So, doctors decide what to call someone's mental illness or whether they have one based on what drug effects said person. There is no moral nuance here. Whether a mental illness is proven in court is most often not based on the motives of the person or whether they could control their actions. Thus, the current states of mental illness science and courts are incompatible. In my opinion, the sacred goal of justice in courts is entirely unattainable without more knowledge about the roots of mental illness. I would also be careful to cry imposter too quickly. Is the absence of empathy so common? I refer, of course, to the notorious psychopath. This personality disorder is rarer than most assume.
ReplyDeleteI agree that defining mental illness can be challenging. One one side of this argument, it would be dangerous to associate this person with others, even in a mental facility. On another side of this argument, one could argue that the government should have the power to take away a life. I believe that both of these cases should be taken into some serious consideration before any plans are made.
ReplyDeleteAshley Barnes 2nd