LOL..so you could use it in your defense if need be (remember your bio post?)
But, seriously, I strongly doubt you are an Aspergie - they are characterized by emotional flatness and poor understanding of nonverbal clues, poor social intelligence etc. - I think you are anything but.
прочитала по диагонали описание синдрома в Вики - очень туманно... идеальное "он не виноват, потому что..." для объяснения практически любой агрессии s формате 1:1 или 1:N
Of course. It is just another version of "abuse excuse".
We can take it further: the fact that some person had committed a murder is a prima facie evidence that (s)he is mentally disturbed, because normal, mentally and emotionally healthy people do not murder others.
But if ANY murderer is mentally disturbed almost by definition, why are we trying and punishing them?
I am not a prominent supporter of death sentence, but I'll play the devil's advocate once more...
the society at large should provide the people with some level of security and order... the well-being and guarantees for all will always be of higher priority that an individual fate... so I think the answer to your "why?" is not to set the precedent some may act on later on, and thus, change the priority of interests.
"the society at large should provide the people with some level of security and order... the well-being and guarantees for all will always be of higher priority that an individual fate..."
oh, I fully agree with that...but if we agree that any murderer is just a dangerous mentally disturbed case rather than a "criminal" who is willfully committing a murder, then we just have isolate them from the rest of the population and maybe treat them with psychiatric drugs instead of putting them on trial, convicting and sentencing them, taking their remorse into account, etc?
And I am not saying that it is my position, but there seem to be a logical inconsistency with any "diminished capacity" defense: it could be plausibly argued that ANY murderer (or rapist for that matter) has "diminished capacity" by definition..
Comments 19
Reply
Reply
But, seriously, I strongly doubt you are an Aspergie - they are characterized by emotional flatness and poor understanding of nonverbal clues, poor social intelligence etc. - I think you are anything but.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
We can take it further: the fact that some person had committed a murder is a prima facie evidence that (s)he
is mentally disturbed, because normal, mentally and emotionally healthy people do not murder others.
But if ANY murderer is mentally disturbed almost by definition, why are we trying and punishing them?
Reply
the society at large should provide the people with some level of security and order... the well-being and guarantees for all will always be of higher priority that an individual fate... so I think the answer to your "why?" is not to set the precedent some may act on later on, and thus, change the priority of interests.
Reply
oh, I fully agree with that...but if we agree that any murderer is just a dangerous mentally disturbed case rather than a "criminal" who is willfully committing a murder, then we just have isolate them from the rest of the population and maybe treat them with psychiatric drugs instead of putting them on trial, convicting and sentencing them, taking their remorse into account, etc?
And I am not saying that it is my position, but there seem to be a logical inconsistency with any "diminished capacity" defense: it could be plausibly argued that ANY
murderer (or rapist for that matter) has "diminished capacity" by definition..
Reply
Leave a comment