This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I realize this isn’t a top quality post, so I accept the judgement of the mods, but a mistrial has been declared in the case of Lindsay Clancy. Shes the woman in Massachusetts who admitted to killing her kids, but claims she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The jury deliberated for seven days. Apparently, it came down to one male juror holding out against the other (nine female, two male) jurors. The belief is that he wanted to vote guilty. The jury reported to the judge that the holdout refused to follow the law regarding reasonable doubt, and the defense tried to have him removed. The judge refused. This morning, the judge declared a mistrial but gave defense one hour to get a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Predictably, the online discourse is off the walls. X lifts the holdout up as a hero, while Reddit believes he (we know it’s a male because the defense said so) is an MRA/red piller and needs to have his phone searched.
Personally, I think she’s guilty of premeditated, cold blooded murder. That said, I get the postpartum argument, but am horrified by the defense of her and holding her up as some kind of hero.
Some thoughts as I've been forced to learn much more about this case than I've wanted to know:
-A common response to the media conversation around this case is to criticize women for brainless takes that do not engage with the information about the case or expert commentary. This includes me, I've been frustrated.
-It seems like actual experts in this field are landing on a psychotic process (most likely postpartum psychosis) as the explanation of events. That is to say she is legitimately not guilty by reason of insanity. This moved the needle for me. How can I criticize women for being retarded and not listening to actual information if I don't listen to experts and people with specific knowledge of the case.
-As a legal matter, it sounds like the expectation from knowledgable parties has been a hung jury or not guilty by reason of insanity because of structural, jurisdiction specific aspects of this type of defense in MA.
-I don't know how easy it will be to parse this without a medical background, but for a relevant podcast by a forensic psychiatrist you can search on YouTube " Lindsay Clancy Trial: Forensic Psychiatrist Explains Psychosis, Malingering, & Insanity Defense."
-Incidentally I strongly suspect one or both of the hosts of that podcast are Rationalist/Scott diaspora types, so if you are reading this: loved the metal gear reference.
Insofar as this is true, it's another compelling argument against the existence of the insanity defense.
i guess from the economics perspective of law if you are prone to committing acts that have huge negative utility to others due to lapses of sanity then there is a good chance that the state strongly punishing such acts could be efficient. for example if you were aware of such punishments then the insane while they are rational could carry out actions that reduce the risk of them committing bad acts while they are insane. kind of like how Odysseus ties himself to the mast. i believe the law already punishes people who are in a non-pure state due to drugs or alcohol this is not so much different.
More options
Context Copy link
The insanity defense should be trivially deemed appropriate - do you want to send your grandmother to jail because she has a UTI and attacks her nurse while in the ICU? No, she doesn't know what's going on, doesn't know what she is doing, and doesn't know if it's right or wrong.
The insanity defense is a very specific thing with a specific definition that doesn't do what people think it does.
Jail? No, but the normal punishment for this act, for otherwise law-abiding people, would probably be a fine and probation, which seems completely reasonable. If my grandmother murdered an ICU nurse, even while completely loopy, I would still think that justice would demand punishment. I'm pretty sure that if I murdered someone during a psychotic break, I would not contest the charge and leave it to the judge to determine what punishment is appropriate for those circumstances.
I agree with the other poster that I strongly dislike the insanity defense in any form, and would much rather rely on the discretion of prosecution, the conscience of juries, and the reasoning of the sentencing judges to administer justice.
Bring back exile as form of punishment. This is to a point what Scandinavian prisons are. Importantly, you don't need to refrain from calling mass murderers or gang members (those who intended to wage civil war on their community) "evil"- you can still have PMITA prisons for them.
What trials are meant to do is therefore to determine "evil" (in the Before Times this was prosecuted with death; now it's life in prison, which is a death that you can be partially revived from if we determine later we fucked up- even El Salvador treats people who outright wage war on the community that mercifully). This is why you separate first and second degree murder (and manslaughter), too- so we see that "evil" is not even that they killed, but because they lay in wait to do it.
You don't need to be penned in like cattle in these [cities of] asylum. But the trust was broken, so you can't live around everyone else, and now you have to go to that reserve (and if you leave you will be killed, obviously).
More options
Context Copy link
Why? Just put her somewhere secure and admit it's because you're scared, not because it's justice when you degrade her life but it's immoral when she does it to you.
More options
Context Copy link
Would it reassure you to know that you can have schizophrenia, murder people because the moon goblins told you to, and still be found guilty (and therefore the insanity defense isn't applicable)?
Why would it? Would it reassure you to know that you can play Russian Roulette and survive without any injury at all?
Because most people's model of what the insanity defense means don't accurately reflect the case law.
It applies only to a very small subset of crimes complicated by mental illness, and generally does not lead to any increased freedom in the community or getting away with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, because you're supposed to not listen to the moon goblins. If the disease makes you believe the moon goblins are the source of moral truth, however, the defense does apply.
Right, I've personally interacted with convicts who said something like "yes I knew it was wrong but the moon goblins told me to" and it's like nope you knew it was wrong, to prison with you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems to me part of the moral justification of the insanity defense in the granny case is that she is an otherwise decent person who is temporarily not herself (using colloquial terminology). In this case, fixing the UTI makes her herself and punishing her for her actions under its influence seems unjust to me.
When I look at cases where it’s not curable is when I think the morality shifts for me. If the grandmother has incurable dementia, I still think she deserves mercy albeit under confinement/treatment. If it’s some homeless dude who is permanently loopy, I’m happy throwing the book at him and just punishing him.
My own morally intuitions collapse to the questions of: is it curable and who/whom. I suspect it’s similar for many folks.
So this is starting to pick at things a bit (in a good way!).
In the case of LC the defense would argue that she is an otherwise decent person who is temporarily not herself, fixing the psychosis brings her back to her healthy baseline and returns her to a safe and productive member of the community, furthermore they would argue that it's not her fault for a variety of reasons (this isn't a chronic person who really needs to understand that they should take their medicines, this is someone new to the experience, also her doctors should have caught stuff).
A separate part of this is restoration and what to do when NGRI is determined. Quite often the outcome is that someone gets dumped into a psych hospital for 30+ years or even an entire lifetime. That's not much different or better than prison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
NO this is an argument for prosecutorial discretion or 'not pressing charges', insanity defense is a concept that exists inside of a jury trial or at least a plea deal.
you're conflating a solution to a different problem.
If charged granny would justifiably be able to say she was not in her usual state of health (medical or psychiatric), did not know what was real or was not real (psychosis), did not have capacity, and did not know what was right or wrong.
We choose not to press charges because yes that's a waste of resources, but the same fundamentals apply. She's not guilty by reason of mental health. The restoration of capacity is straightforward in that case but it can be in others also.
No it’s not the same fundamentals -
The argument was that insanity should not be a defense and your example was of a scenario where charges shouldn’t be pressed.
You can remove insanity ad a defense and not have to charge every person having a small episode
The reason charges shouldn't be pressed (against granny) is because the person doesn't understand what was happening and why it was wrong.
That's the same reason charges shouldn't be pressed in patient's who have a valid insanity defense. They don't understand what is happening and why it was wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link