DomAviator -> RE: is it possible to be born a criminal? (5/31/2008 4:35:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator Actually, thats a pretty dangerous notion that led to the eugenics programs of the 40's and 50's etc... That is a different subject. quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator I feel environmental factors and upbringing pose a much greater role than being "bad stock"... There is some truth in that. Lead for example increases criminal behaviour, presumably because it reduces the intellectual abilities of exposed people. So car exhaust (as petrol has lead added to it), especially in big cities and near large roads, and paints and lead water pipes will increase the crime rates. The implication is obvious: reduce traffic and in forty years the crime rate will be reduced. quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator Now with his being special needs there may be a whole other area at play in that if he has no understanding of right and wrong, and hence cannot comprehend the criminality of his conduct he is not a "criminal" even if he kills his mother and eats her... Criminality requires a guilty mind... No. Crime is an act. It is guilt that requires a conscience. quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator If hes special needs he may lack capacity and is just simply insane. And criminal. The criminally insane. 1) Eugenics is not a different subject because if one embraces the idea that people are "born bad" the next logical step is to keep the bad from breeding... Hence the failed idea of eugenics. 2) As slaveboy noted there is no lead in any automotive gas sold in the United States, and there is only a little bit in 110LL (blue) Aviation Gasoline. Lead pipes are long gone, and nowadays you cant even use lead solder on copper pipes used for potable water. The inspector who checked my house even swabbed to ensure I had lead free solder. 3) The commission of a crime requires two things 1) Mens Rhea ("the guilty mind") and 2) Actus Rheus ("an overt act") If you are lacking one or the other there is no crime committed. Even physical impossibility is not a defense - provided the person has mens rhea and commits an actus rheus. A case we studied in a law class in college was that of a woman who hired a voodoo priestess to kill her ex-husband via voodoo. She was convicted because she had mens rhea (the guilty mind in that she knew what she was doing was illegal and even told the undercover officer that they needed to make sure it didnt come back on her etc) and an actus rheus (the overt act of hiring the voodoo priestess.) The fact that you cannot kill someone by Voodoo is irrelevant a crime took place. Conversely, absent either one - there is no crime. If someone daydreams about killing their wife thats perfectly legal, so long as they make no overt act. If someone does in fact kill their wife, but lacked specific intent or the capacity to know that what they were doing was wrong and likely to result in death - such as if they were using a nail gun and didnt realize she was on the other side of the wall, no crime has been committed. You need both. Hence the reason dick chaney shot a lawyer in the face and was not charged... He committed the overt act, ie the shooting, but lacked the intent... 4) There is no such thing as "criminally insane". That is an antiquated term. The actual ruling would be "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" and the person may then be committed to a mental institution under public health laws allowing the involuntary committment of people who "pose a danger to themselves or others". They are committed under public health laws, not criminal laws, and are not "criminally insane"... That term is an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|