Muder or not?

This was brought up in my psychology class the other day and I thought it might be interesting to get your takes on it. If someone commits murder but suffered a traumatic childhood or possesses a gene that makes them more violent( Not discovered yet but lets say it has been for this example) should this person be held as accountable for their actions as someone who is perfectly healthy. Should this person even be punished at all?

yes

i don't care if he meant to or not..but in the end a murder is a murder and anyway you look at it someone is dead. I really hate it nowadays when someone is killed and the murder pleads "insanity" or something..it's such a mockery.

This was brought up in my psychology class the other day and I thought it might be interesting to get your takes on it. If someone commits murder but suffered a traumatic childhood or possesses a gene that makes them more violent( Not discovered yet but lets say it has been for this example) should this person be held as accountable for their actions as someone who is perfectly healthy. Should this person even be punished at all?

Yes, they should. I believe in Europe they don't allow such rubish...it's still murder no matter what. Self-defense is different, but if it's straight murder, well, I don't care. You are responsible for your actions no matter what the condition; if you kill someone, Marilyn Manson and Eminem didn't make you do it, The Basketball Diaries didn't make you do it, movies didn't make you do it, and so on...if anything has any affect on these disturbed individuals, it's the press and the attention they give to such crimes.

In Holland when you commit murder when you're mentally not 100% they can lower your sentence, but then you also have to be watched and studied by the government. (I think that's the way to explain it hehe)

In Holland when you commit murder when you're mentally not 100% they can lower your sentence, but then you also have to be watched and studied by the government. (I think that's the way to explain it hehe)

I think the same happens here in Brazil...

Good topic Bob.

In my opinion, it's like trying to excuse yourself from a crime due to a level of intoxication that leaves you unaware of what you're doing. When a person commits crime, especially murder, I don't believe a situation exists where they cannot claim any responsibility for their actions. A mental illness might prove the person is not necessarily a cold blooded, evil criminal, but they still commited the crime, and have a problem that makes them dangerous to the population.

In my opinion, it's like trying to excuse yourself from a crime due to a level of intoxication that leaves you unaware of what you're doing. When a person commits crime, especially murder, I don't believe a situation exists where they cannot claim any responsibility for their actions. A mental illness might prove the person is not necessarily a cold blooded, evil criminal, but they still commited the crime, and have a problem that makes them dangerous to the population

Tell that to the US legal system...

To be charged with murder, intent has to be proven I think... so as long as there's intent, there's no excuse.

That takes us back to the question, is it intent when someone isn't in full control of their handlings...

I think it is, when someone isn't like retarded or something no mental state is bad enough to make you dismiss rational thinking and go ahead and kill someone.

I think it depends on whether you define intent as saying to yourself "I'm going to kill this person, and this is how I'm going to do it" or whether it's simply commiting an act that has the intention of killing someone, such as grabbing a gun and shooting the first person you see.

If we define it as the former, then anyone whose condition would prevent them from knowing and questioning what they were doing (or about to do) might be excused, or at least given a reduced sentence. That of course leaves the system open to exploitation, by pleading insanity and whatnot.

If we define intent as the latter, then it assumes (correctly, in my opinion) that no one can be completely excused from commiting a crime, and that everyone is still responsible for their own actions. At the very least, it acknowledges that someone who is for whatever reason unaware of their actions and not in complete control of themselves are just as dangerous and responsible for any crimes they commit as someone of sound mind who know full well what they are doing.

I believe that any time you harm someone in a way that could take their life - fire a gun at them, stab them, attack them with a blunt instrument, etc - there is an intent to kill, even if you do not conciously formulate a plan or even think "I'm going to kill this person". Even if its a spur of the moment event, I say it's still intent, thus murder (or attempted murder if the victim survives).

I think that they should be heald accountable. They still killed the person. Somebody is dead because of what they did...

You summed it up correctly Andrew.