• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    There’s legal definitions and whatnot but my definition is more like “is there something deeply wrong with you?” Which a serial killer clears with ease.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      What if they objectively made the world a better place? E.g. they were picking off the billionaires?

    • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      There’s a lot deeply wrong with me but I’m still not clinically insane. Insane people genuinely don’t have control over their actions thus cannot be held to account, only put away for public safety. I think calling serial killers insane both absolves them of responsibility and dilutes the meaning of the word for people actually suffering serious mental illnesses.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        “Deeply” is both present in what I wrote and also subjective. I don’t think “insane” implies no control exactly. These things are more complicated than that.

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          A person experiencing a fullblown psychotic episode is beyond the point of self control, and frequently self recognition. It’s a seriously rare occurrence, and it usually doesn’t result in the death of anyone but the sufferer. I just think the distinction should be made between people who may be highly disturbed or psychopathic, or on a revenge streak or whatever reason they have, and people suffering a very serious mental illness that in the midst of an episode wound up killing somebody.