253
Some people are just really lacking in impulse control. I imagine they are also more likely to end up in front of a judge for the same reasons.
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
253 points (98.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12306 readers
1214 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why Hell is such a stupid concept.
There's a literal "moral privilege" in that it's much, much easier to live life in a good way depending on physical structures in your brain.
You'd be surprised at the rates of TBI in incarcerated violent criminals.
Turns out damaging people's impulse control pathways leads to crime!
Just yesterday I was walking past an old person on the sidewalk and had an intrusive thought about pushing them out into the street, followed by a thought of "man I'm really grateful that I have a functioning impulse control - it must be hell to go through life where thoughts like that could turn into terrible consequences because there's no mechanism catching errant impulses").
While this guy should definitely not be out in public where he'd likely continue to harm people, I think we generally underappreciated just how little separates all of us from behaving just like him, and overestimate how much of his behavior is because of choice as opposed to circumstance.
We shouldn't try to be so punitive with criminal justice. A functioning society does need to keep violent people separated from potential victims, but we really don't need to be such dicks about it.
TBI, lead exposure, malnutrition… gotta try to be kind.
Interesting we have more sympathy for those who impulsively, say, eat non-food items, versus lash out violently.
Something I don’t know: is there any reason to be more sympathetic to someone who self harms (say cuts themselves) than someone who harms others as a result of mental illness?
We say “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide” to speak closer to the reality of a situation, to acknowledge how awful it is when pain exceeds resources available for coping with that pain. We necessarily view murder as abhorrent, and I won’t defend murderers at large, but I question if some percentage of those who kill were mentally ill to the point they deserve exactly equal sympathy to others who were just as ill but whose illness manifested without violence.
deleted by creator
Thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time!
I think we generally underappreciated just how little separates all of us from behaving just like him, and overestimate how much of his behavior is because of choice as opposed to circumstance.
I agree 100%.
This is a description of fundamental attribution error to a T. Simplifying human beings actions into a representation of their character rather than looking at the circumstances and conditions that resulted in making the decision to begin with. We overestimate our inherent differences, in order to distance ourselves from unsavoury behaviour and boost our own self esteem.
And there is no place for profit in keeping people safe (both the offenders and society at large).
Also the circumstances you were born in affects you as a person.
And attacking the judge was somehow going to make it better?
Holthus was preparing to sentence Redden on a charge of attempted battery with substantial bodily harm when he rocketed across the room.
Great, now he has three more identical charges to face.
The man who brazenly attacked a Las Vegas judge after leaping over the bench and slamming her into a wall told corrections officers he had a bad day and tried to kill her, a police document shows.
and a possible attempted murder charge?!
Shit, his bad day hasn't even started yet...
He said that he tried to kill her... to police....
He's not helping his case...
isn't he just criminally insane at this point?
No.
good point!
clearly the actions of a sane man
That’s not how the insanity defense works. And even if it did you probably wouldn’t want to use it, because mental hospitals are a lot harder to get out of than prison.
In 2008 a man decapitated someone on a Greyhound, he taunted the other bus riders by showing them the severed head, and he ate some of the body in front of the other passengers. His lawyers used the insanity plea. He served his time and was let out in 2017.
If he didn't plead insanity, I'd be extremely surprised if he weren't still in jail.
Yeah, as that took place in Canada and most countries treat mental health problems much better than the US, like the incident in the OP. If he had cannibalized someone in the US he might not even be alive.
i did not say, "insanity defense", nor did i imply it.
i find your replying to me as if i did, quite vexing.
on my first impression, these are the actions of someone who is unable to control themself, and as such, should be treated as a mental health case instead of a normal violent offender. there's more to the story, of course.
i also think mental hospitals and prisons should be drastically reformed...
Sorry, I was assuming by “criminally insane” you meant “not guilty by reason of criminal insanity” aka the insanity defense.
I agree that he probably needs mental health treatment regardless of whether or not he has any additional punishment.
i used criminally insane because not all mentally ill people need to be locked up away from society...
obviously, uncontrolled rage means you should be locked up for a bit...
"Having a bad day" is likely a confabulation to explain away irrational behavior resulting from deficient impulse control, not an actual rational answer to a complex decision making process that led to the conclusion of "I know, I should attack the judge - that will fix my problems."
Imagine if you had the misfortune to have a brain where every one of your intrusive thoughts ended up resulting in acting upon them.
I suspect most of this guy's life was not by choice.
As a veteran with PTSD, DPDR, that has spent a lot of work, time, and money to not have a bad day. If I cannot prevent myself from committing acts of violence please just put me down.
There is no reason my existence, for whatever reason caused it to be fucked up should cause harm to others. As a survivor of abuse at the hands of Catholic Church, nothing justifies harming children. As a TBI traumatic Brian injury survivor of war, my continued existence and freedom for self determination doesn't justify continuing to abuse others or commit unsanctioned acts of violence against others.
If I am incapable of controlling myself or not causing harm to others I should not be allowed to cause harm to others simply because I am a faulty individual that has been harmed or suffered. My suffering does not justify causing others to suffer. Get out of here with that bull shit. If the person refuses medications, therapy, work then the only alternative is involuntary treatment.
I mean, this person should be in prison, but prison doesn't have to be the horrifying fate it is in America.
It is possible to separate someone from general society, and do so with compassion. We just don't here.
Get out of here with that bull shit.
Where did I say it justifies or makes it acceptable?
It's possible to take precautionary measures towards keeping people unable to avoid harming others separated from said others while simultaneously having empathy for what was likely a shit set of circumstances that led to that inability.
By all means, if you are going to harm others I think you should be locked up. And given I generally believe in as much self-determination as socially acceptable, I'd even want you to have access to ending your life if you didn't want to be locked up but couldn't prevent yourself from harming others.
What I wouldn't want though, is for you to be punitively harmed yourself beyond forcible separation from potential victims. I don't think you should be denied access to stimulating media, or put in dangerous situations for yourself, or made to be in barely livable conditions, or have your friends and family extorted with price gouging to connect with you, or to deny you quality medical treatment, etc.
The more punitive we make the conditions, the more it dissuades people who are afraid they can't help harming others and don't want to harm others from seeking aid in preventing harming others.
So yeah, of course this guy shouldn't be walking the streets and assaulting people. I never said otherwise.
But it's possible to hold that opinion in parallel with empathy for the circumstances he's in and the life he's forced to live as a result.
Now he'll be having a few bad years.
I dunno why but I feel like this ~~is gonna~~ could be devastating to his case
"I did a wittle bit of an oopsie."
Oh, ok, in that case…