Assignment for the 10/18/14
I choose the scene from mark 1:40-1:48 when the "murdered" was brought before a prosecution and jury of people and mothers of the children he was on trial for killing. In that scene the convicted murderer was giving reason for his brutal act. He seems like a mad, confused person, he said that he was hearing voices in his head, he was being haunted by ghost and he cant remember anything. He was making a claim that he should not be held responsible for his action as they were done outside of his consciousness. The defense lawyer agreed with him and stated that he should be held in a mental ward because killing him serves no purpose.
I chose this scene because its reminiscent of people who are mentally ill and often times commit crimes they are unaware of until someones point it out to them, but are too confused to grasp the actuality of what they really did. However, is mental retardation an excuse to kill and not be held responsible, does not being in the right frame of mind an excuse not to be punished? is this a reflection of what a nihilist would say in defending their actions, that they weren't aware of the things they were doing and as such cant be held accountable?. If a crime was brought upon us or a family member by a sick person (mental as in the case of the accused murderer) first thing that would come to mind is justice. But, in seeing this accused murderer and the look he had on his face. Looks of fear, confusion and as if he was lost, would how you feel change, do you think he would be better of being dead or being held in an asylum? As one of the mother's pointed out no one knows the pain of loosing a child and as the prosecutor said "does asylum heal a mentally ill person?. What punishment would be suited for this man?
The questions you pose are incredibly powerful and almost make it hard not to give a response of my own. But I really enjoyed seeing how someone can view that scene of the movie and then make connections to morality, the lack thereof, law, justice, and all the various strands of thought and questioning you note. I recently read a Supreme Court case, Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002), in which the leaders of the courts tackle many of the concerns you raise. How best should we deal with one whose mental faculties are different or below the average person and is such a person more or less deserving of leniency? Is the death penalty reasonable or does imposing it prove counter-intuitive?
ReplyDeleteAll good things to really think about and I think one who reads the opinions of the courts will see a lot of connections to the points you make: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/case.html
Thank you Scott! But truly I think until one is placed in such a position I don't think they actually have an answer as to what they would do, moreover are there any right or wrong answers?. It's a tough position to be in seeing that person walk free or is held in an asylum or being dead what satisfaction is gives if any? One doesn't fully grasped the hurt and pain until it happens to you whether by a sane or mental person.
ReplyDelete