3 ms·

The not guilty verdict of Kenneth, the sleepwalk killer, bothers me. It doesn’t seem likely to me that they jury was in any doubt whether he committed the crime

The not guilty verdict of Kenneth, the sleepwalk killer, bothers me. It doesn’t seem likely to me that they jury was in any doubt whether he committed the crime. And, in that case, our legal system says you should find the defendant guilty. I guess the jury gave the not guilty verdict because they felt it would be wrong for the defendant to be punished for a crime he committed while sleepwalking. This suggests to me that there’s insufficient separation in our legal system between whether someone committed a crime and what should be done about it. The assumption, you committed a crime therefore you should be punished, is deeply flawed and deserves serious reconsideration.

olliesaunders 15y ago
OK just realized what people are probably going to say in response to that: it’s the judge’s job to make that call. OK, fair enough. But that seems like a lot of power for a single individual.
latch 15y ago
"[there's no doubt that] he committed the crime. And, in that case, our legal system says you should find the defendant guilty" And what legal system is that? Grade 11 law class: both actus reas and mens rea are fundamental (and equally important) elements of guilt.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  For the others that didn't know what "actus reas" and "mens rea" mean: actus rea: the actual guilty act mens rea: the guilty mind. (knowing they did something wrong, I suppose?) I used Wikipedia for the citation. A useful quote from the Actus reus article to help expound on what I think latch was saying: "The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,[1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind." (Actus Reus. Wikipedia. Entymology Section)
randallsquared 15y ago
It doesn’t seem likely to me that they jury was in any doubt whether he committed the crime. Well, it hinges on exactly what "he" means, doesn't it? Clearly his body and brain took the criminal actions, but apparently the jury believed that the "person" wasn't responsible for what the body and brain did. If we based the consequences to the criminal of crime on restitution, taking the considerations of deterrence (including rehabilitation) and punishment out of the legal system proper, I think these problems would be clearer. If my brakes fail and I hit someone, I would still be on the hook for the consequences, without regard to whether I was blameworthy, and instances where a person's brain "fails" seem similar to me. Of course, killing is a problem area for restitution-based legal systems...

olliesaunders 15y ago

OK just realized what people are probably going to say in response to that: it’s the judge’s job to make that call. OK, fair enough. But that seems like a lot of power for a single individual.

latch 15y ago

"[there's no doubt that] he committed the crime. And, in that case, our legal system says you should find the defendant guilty" And what legal system is that? Grade 11 law class: both actus reas and mens rea are fundamental (and equally important) elements of guilt.

sukuriant 15y ago
For the others that didn't know what "actus reas" and "mens rea" mean: actus rea: the actual guilty act mens rea: the guilty mind. (knowing they did something wrong, I suppose?) I used Wikipedia for the citation. A useful quote from the Actus reus article to help expound on what I think latch was saying: "The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,[1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind." (Actus Reus. Wikipedia. Entymology Section)

randallsquared 15y ago

It doesn’t seem likely to me that they jury was in any doubt whether he committed the crime. Well, it hinges on exactly what "he" means, doesn't it? Clearly his body and brain took the criminal actions, but apparently the jury believed that the "person" wasn't responsible for what the body and brain did. If we based the consequences to the criminal of crime on restitution, taking the considerations of deterrence (including rehabilitation) and punishment out of the legal system proper, I think these problems would be clearer. If my brakes fail and I hit someone, I would still be on the hook for the consequences, without regard to whether I was blameworthy, and instances where a person's brain "fails" seem similar to me. Of course, killing is a problem area for restitution-based legal systems...