"Mental illness" is not a uniform category to explain things, or explain things away.
There is mental illness that leads to suicide attempts or actual suicide.
Then there is metal illness that leads a person to drive am SUV into an Easter Parade held annually in a community leading to multiple deaths/injuries.
And mental illness leading to a school shooting taking the lives of innocent children who never caused any distress to the person who killed them.
There is no diminished responsibility on the basis of mental illness in these latter cases. The criminal behaviour in these cases is not merely disturbed - it is evil. Gross evil.
Maybe so it is. But if we can’t agree on what mental health (i.e. what is healthy, normal behavior) is, how can anyone discuss what mental illness is? If we can’t discuss what good is, what liberty is, how can we discuss what evil is, what tyranny is?
“Good”, “evil”, “liberty”, and “tyranny” are concepts that have no objective facts to define them. Mental illness is a malleable concept also, since to define illness you first have to define normalcy. And normalcy is not an objective fact. Therefore we need to agree on what these concepts mean in order to have a useful discussion. If that bamboozles you, you’ll never make it through a philosophical debate.
I view the mental illness problem more from a preemptive angle. People who are dangerously mentally ill should have a much higher bar for access to deadly weapons.
Of course, after the fact they are criminally liable, but in a great many cases there is nothing for the courts to do since suicide-by-cop was a likely part of the motive.
"Mental illness" is not a uniform category to explain things, or explain things away.
There is mental illness that leads to suicide attempts or actual suicide.
Then there is metal illness that leads a person to drive am SUV into an Easter Parade held annually in a community leading to multiple deaths/injuries.
And mental illness leading to a school shooting taking the lives of innocent children who never caused any distress to the person who killed them.
There is no diminished responsibility on the basis of mental illness in these latter cases. The criminal behaviour in these cases is not merely disturbed - it is evil. Gross evil.
The death penalty is warranted.
Maybe so it is. But if we can’t agree on what mental health (i.e. what is healthy, normal behavior) is, how can anyone discuss what mental illness is? If we can’t discuss what good is, what liberty is, how can we discuss what evil is, what tyranny is?
Sorry - your response to my comment makes no sense to me. Please fascinate me with facts and analysis rather than bamboozle me with word salad.
“Good”, “evil”, “liberty”, and “tyranny” are concepts that have no objective facts to define them. Mental illness is a malleable concept also, since to define illness you first have to define normalcy. And normalcy is not an objective fact. Therefore we need to agree on what these concepts mean in order to have a useful discussion. If that bamboozles you, you’ll never make it through a philosophical debate.
I view the mental illness problem more from a preemptive angle. People who are dangerously mentally ill should have a much higher bar for access to deadly weapons.
Of course, after the fact they are criminally liable, but in a great many cases there is nothing for the courts to do since suicide-by-cop was a likely part of the motive.