EDIT:
To be clear, my question is facetious and its origins are borne of rife frustration at the rush to claim mental illness as an excuse why someone has murdered someone else. It’s as if to say, “Well, victim’s family, this death is due to the murderer’s mental problem, so it’s ok.” While I know that is not an accurate rendition, it is an approximation.
A majority of you who have answered so far have brought up points about different aftermaths that are applied in cases of murderers being found legally under some type of protection from certain types of “punishments” that would normally face those convicted of this crime. I understand your positions and acknowledge their validity. However, the focus of what I was trying to get across is not about the penalty phase, it’s about the “mental-illness-lessens-the-severity-of-this-murder” phase, which at the same time makes the loss of life less important.
:(
Not all murders are the results of firearms, even though it’s probably possible that more than 51% of them are. Achieve gun control and humans will still have ways to murder other humans. Heck, for centuries before firearms ever existed, humans have always been quite adept at bumping each other off. Additionally, separate gun-involved murders from those of other methods, and then calculate those legal cases of each stripe wherein the accused or the convicted are deemed mentally incompetent or mentally not responsible for their actions. The true focus of the question I’ve posted crosses the spectrum of gun or not gun. I’m not stating that your points are completely incorrect or inaccurate, I just wonder if there a non-2nd Amendment response along with what you state. Nor am I am advocate of the gun lobby, I’m focusing on the issue of those defenders of murderers who rush practically salivating to find proof of mental deficiencies.
~
I think that some apologists for the mentally ill expect survivors to shrug off the death of their loved one based on the idea that responsibility cannot be attached to the criminal act.
I don’t know . . . it sure seems that way when some of these defense attorneys and suspects’ family members and advocacy groups get ahold of a microphone. Their first words are mental illness, mental defect, mental disorder, etc. Of course, you are correct in that it may be a factor that is used as a part of an overall defense strategy and/or a way of explaining away murder, but I have to revert to my original intent in stating that a murderer’s mental problems still leave a murder victim, and the premise that uses mental problems as some kind of explanation for murder diminishes the importance of the life that has been taken.
~
Hmmmm, variety in consequences as resurrection of the dead.
:(
None of that addresses the magical process by which mental instability brings the victim back to life.
I think that in your first paragraph you have covered the gist of what underlies in my post; the knee-jerk response to label an act as resulting from mental illness. Independently, I go a bit further in a ridiculous causation-result scenario wherein the rubber stamp of mental illness erases the death or diminishes the death. While I do not dismiss the points about which consequences a mentally ill person faces, it’s the designation of mental illness that seemingly puts the brakes on holding accountability to the point that the survivors should just forget that their loved one has been slaughtered. No amount of consequences to the accused after the murder or lack thereof really play into my point, because once mental illness is assigned, it’s almost as if the murder is ok.
[The link you posted brings up the Wikipedia article on the letter M.]
Shuhak 