Evil or Ill? The Insanity Defense

H

HedKandi

Member
From 1978 to 1991 Jeffrey Dahmer killed seventeen young men, mostly homosexuals, by luring them to his apartment with the promise of money for posing in nude photographs. There Dahmer plied them with drinks spiked with the sedating drug Halcion. Once asleep, he strangled them, cut them open, and had sex with the exposed body parts. He was only able to have an erection if his partner was unconscious. He kept some of the dead victims in his apartment for days, repeatedly sexually assaulting them. He boiled their skulls in hydrochloric acid, painting them for a shrine which he hoped would give him 'special powers'.

The skulls aroused him, and he frequently masturbated in front of them. He ate parts of his victims after tenderizing them, responding with an erection. He explained his cannibalism by saying that he wanted his victims to come alive in him. He tried to turn some of his victims into walking zombies-sex slaves-by performing frontal lobotomies. He drilled holes in their heads and injected muriatic acid. Some died instantly but others managed to walk around for days after the operation.


Source:

After reading that case, I was curious as to what everyone?s opinion is on how someone like Jeffery Dahmer should be punished. Would it be the death sentence, or a permanent stay in a mental institution? Basically, is someone like that evil or ill and can insanity be used as an excuse to dismiss such brutality?

Discuss.
 
Since Albert Fish was just as evil and was given the death sentence, I feel that the death sentence would be suitable for Jeffrey Dahmer too. :nod
 
wtf? this doesn't even make sense! he brought gay guys to his apartment, lobotomized them, fucked them over and over, killed them, gutted them, fucked their guts over and over, ripped their skulls out, ate a bit of their flesh, clean boiled the skulls, made a shrine with the skulls, masturbated in front of them and above all, believed some part of that would give him special powers?!

i think this guy needs a madhouse instead of death
 
i feel like its pretty easy to react emotinoally to those horrific descriptions and lash out and come to an irrational and vengeful conclusion that he was evil, not ill, and should be killed.

but thats why you should not post a horrific description like that before asking such a broad policy question... it makes the discussion incredibly skewed and biased in favor of a certain conclusion

anyway, mental illness is the cause of a lot of violence, as is past victimization. the term 'evil' is just a catch-all to cover up our own ignorance of the real causes of human behavior
 
AbnormallyNormal said:
i feel like its pretty easy to react emotinoally to those horrific descriptions and lash out and come to an irrational and vengeful conclusion that he was evil, not ill, and should be killed.

but thats why you should not post a horrific description like that before asking such a broad policy question... it makes the discussion incredibly skewed and biased in favor of a certain conclusion

anyway, mental illness is the cause of a lot of violence, as is past victimization. the term 'evil' is just a catch-all to cover up our own ignorance of the real causes of human behavior
Click to expand...


I do see your point, but I gave a detailed example because this is how things are decided in courts. All the facts are looked at, taking into consideration that the individual who committed the crime is in fact, mental. Then a decision is made. Besides, I thought it?d be easier with an example, because then people will be able to give opinions based on information from a given ?case study? - narrows things down a little.
 
Such an insane person simply can't be rehabilitated. They can never serve to be useful to any society, nor can they pay their massive debt to the society in which they perpetrated these crimes. I just don't know what should happen to these people.

Perhaps solitary confinement for the rest of their lives with absolutely minimal cost to society? Perhaps the lowest cost would be to chuck them to a pack of hungry carnivorous beasts but of course that makes us just as bad as an unprovoked serial rapist/mass murderer/torturer. In all seriousness, how 'ill' can these people be who've calculated their crimes and clearly try to ensure their not being 'caught in the act'?
I mean I've heard of people with brain damage who've apparently lost the sense of morality, but in the only case I've really heard of, the acts were spontaneous.

To respect the 'sanctity of life' and to prevent those seething with my unintelligent satire from losing it altogether, I'll opt for a destitute solitary confinement for life.
 
I'm not really sure what they should do.
I remember this case it was crazy as hell...
i know he was crazy and all, but I don't think that's an excuse for what he did. Rehabilitation wouldn't be an option. But there is no way in hell I would ever have wanted him back on the streets after that. Crazy or not.
 
I don't believe in evil or insanity. But my best definition is insane = someone who breaks the norms of society sloppily and impulsively; evil = someone who breaks the morals of society in a cunning, planned matter.

Not only did this person break norms, he broke morals. And his behavior seems well planned and intricate. Unless I was too sleepy when reading is and hallucinated words that didn't exist.

So yeah, the person put thought into it, so therefore "evil".

The insanity plea idea makes me lol. Because neither evil nor insanity truly exist. They are merely ideas that portray what the society sees are right or acceptable. The only difference between the two terms is that insanity is more impulsive and not necessarily immoral while evil is more thought out and absolutely immoral.

What to do with murderers? I haven't the slightest clue. And personally I don't care. I don't feel particularly attached to the guy. So long as he doesn't pose a danger to me or those I care about, I could care less what happens to the guy. And I do not believe there is a right course of action here.
 
64palms said:
I don't believe in evil or insanity. But my best definition is insane = someone who breaks the norms of society sloppily and impulsively; evil = someone who breaks the morals of society in a cunning, planned matter.

Not only did this person break norms, he broke morals. And his behavior seems well planned and intricate. Unless I was too sleepy when reading is and hallucinated words that didn't exist.

So yeah, the person put thought into it, so therefore "evil".

The insanity plea idea makes me lol. Because neither evil nor insanity truly exist. They are merely ideas that portray what the society sees are right or acceptable. The only difference between the two terms is that insanity is more impulsive and not necessarily immoral while evil is more thought out and absolutely immoral.

What to do with murderers? I haven't the slightest clue. And personally I don't care. I don't feel particularly attached to the guy. So long as he doesn't pose a danger to me or those I care about, I could care less what happens to the guy. And I do not believe there is a right course of action here.
Click to expand...

hmm i pretty much concur with your first few points but towards the end i have to say you sound very solipsistic and apathetic... not good
 
Defendants pleading the insanity defence will always be sentance depending on how much the public knows about the case and how much publicity it gets. If it's a high profile case then because of public policy even if they are sent to a mental institution later on.
 
AbnormallyNormal said:
hmm i pretty much concur with your first few points but towards the end i have to say you sound very solipsistic and apathetic... not good
Click to expand...
Well...I am a nihilist.

But I'll try again anyway. How bout lock the guy up and figure out what made him this way(the causes that created this effect, his behavior), and in the meantime, perhaps try to make his behavior and mental state more conforming.

Though don't we do this plenty with the "mentally ill" and "evil" anyway? I guess you can't do it enough though, or we'd have a clear knowledge about what makes people the way they are.

Aldrick said:
What's all this, then?
Click to expand...
The power from skulls thing is his religion. Christians used to be just as brutal in killing during the crusades. And many ancient religions practiced human sacrifice. Certainly not insanity here.

Cannibalism has also been practiced throughout various human cultures. As for his sexuality, humans who have sexual drive tend to associate sex with anything and everything. He mixed in his other fascinations with his sexuality.

What he did to these guys is not something most of us would want to happen to us. But that does not mean it is insane.
 
Damn thats crazy. I say death penalty, its too much. He killed and tortured too many people. But yeah insanity defense can always be used, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Oh and some sick bastard should make this to another pycho horror flick
 
canibalism isn't illegal as long as the person stated in his will that he wouldn't mind beeing canibalized
 
There is no such thing as 'evil...'
I would say that the acts that Dahmer performed were, in my eyes, vile and abominable beyond perhaps what is even the scope of my understanding.

... But he was most definitely- by society's standards- not right in the head. The difference was the way he went about it... his motives... his cunning... the callousness.
... Perhaps all those who are seen as 'evil' ARE 'insane.' Their minds foreign and differing and functioning in a way that is deemed 'wrong' in our society...

Huh. In the end, all I can say is that from my point of view, Dahmer got it off easy when he was raped to death with a broom handle.
But isn't that... an 'evil' thought, too?
Tch... motive... has a lot to do with it...
Sorry, I'm not a psychologist...
 
Gaawa-chan said:
There is no such thing as 'evil...'
I would say that the acts that Dahmer performed were, in my eyes, vile and abominable beyond perhaps what is even the scope of my understanding.

... But he was most definitely- by society's standards- not right in the head. The difference was the way he went about it... his motives... his cunning... the callousness.
... Perhaps all those who are seen as 'evil' ARE 'insane.' Their minds foreign and differing and functioning in a way that is deemed 'wrong' in our society...

Huh. In the end, all I can say is that from my point of view, Dahmer got it off easy when he was raped to death with a broom handle.
But isn't that... an 'evil' thought, too?
Tch... motive... has a lot to do with it...
Sorry, I'm not a psychologist...
Click to expand...

I disagree, I believe there is a such a thing as evil. I agree that Dahmer was sick in the head and not evil though.

I think evil is intentionally causing harm to others and gaining pleasure or joy from harming others.
 
The only reason why I say that there is no such thing as 'evil' is that 'evil' is a matter of perspective... you can't just... pin someone down as 'evil' or not. We're more complex than that... no matter how detestable one might find something....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom