Kendrex White (UT campus stabbing) not guilty by reason of insanity

[DanRydell 799]

https://www.statesman.com/news/20181211/judge-accepts-insanity-defense-for-kendrex-white-in-2017-ut-stabbing-death

 

Quote

9:30 a.m. update: Kendrex White has been found not guilty by reason of insanity for the 2017 stabbing attack at University of Texas that left student Harrison Brown dead and three others injured.

State District Judge Tamara Needles rendered the judgment Tuesday morning after prosecutors announced they agreed with an assessment from a doctor for the defense who said White was suffering from severe mental illness at the time of the attack and could not discern between right and wrong.

Needles will order White to confinement in a state hospital and not sentence him to prison.

Witnesses will now testify.

8 a.m. Kendrex White, the former University of Texas student charged with murder in connection with a random stabbing attack in May 2017, goes on trial Tuesday and plans to say he was insane at the time of the event.

Proceedings in state District Judge Tamara Needles’ courtroom begin at 9 a.m.

White’s lawyers have filed paperwork with the court that waive White’s right to a jury trial and leave the judge as the sole fact-finder in the case.

They also filed a separate motion saying White should not be sentenced to prison but rather to a mental hospital because at the time of the attack he was suffering from a severe mental illness that inhibited his ability to discern right from wrong.

Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity is a rare defense, but one that legal experts say appears to be applicable to this case.

Tuesday’s setting will also be an opportunity for Lori Brown, the mother of slain student Harrison Brown, to address White from the witness stand. Three other victims who survived the attack might also be present to share their accounts about what happened.

 

[phdhorn 6224]

Probably the right verdict, though that's not much consolation for the victim's family.

[miguelito 11360]

Not a lawyer (thank God), but I've always thought that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is bullshit.  Shouldn't it be "guilty by reason of insanity"?  You can still send the guy to a mental hospital if he needs it.  But why can't someone be insane and guilty?

[elfenix 34400]

9 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Not a lawyer (thank God), but I've always thought that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is bullshit.  Shouldn't it be "guilty by reason of insanity"?  You can still send the guy to a mental hospital if he needs it.  But why can't someone be insane and guilty?

because you can only be guilty if you had intent to commit the criminal acts.  if you were legally insane at the time, you had no intent. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by elfenix

[MissingInAction 25331]

Luckily the murderer isn't a female or we would have set a "Bitches be cray" precedent.

[clapclapclap 9000]

If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then they will almost certainly be a danger to people for many, many years (including a risk to staff at mental health facilities.)  They will almost certainly remain a threat to society, even if that risk is reduced (but not eliminated) in a mental facility.

And If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then there are ways they can be put to sleep permanently without understanding what is happening or the implications.  If they are that far gone, they are living day to day, moment to moment, simply existing.  Give them their favorite meal and mix in a brief injection or sleeping pill overdose cocktail, or whatever.  They'll be enjoying a moment, then drift off to sleep, and then no longer be a permanent threat to others and an immense drain on the taxpayers that decades of heavily secured institutionalization would be.  And no, not every ill person that is a risk of extreme violence can be resolved by medication.  Very sad, but reality.

Obviously I'm not talking about the vast majority of the mentally challenged, just those who have killed and it is clear that they will remain a risk for committing extreme violence.

Edited December 11, 2018 by clapclapclap

[Brisketexan 105789]

48 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Probably the right verdict, though that's not much consolation for the victim's family.

This.

There are no winners here.  None at all.

[clapclapclap 9000]

And there won't be a major advance in reducing our homeless problems until there is true leadership in either Congress or the Presidency, because it will require taking on US Supreme Court decisions from decades ago.  Very difficult to resolve, the states and municipalities hands are mostly tied by this.  They can work on and make some improvements, but won't solve without major action at the national level.  So probably not happening for years, if ever.

Edited December 11, 2018 by clapclapclap

[4th and 5 4929]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

Not a lawyer (thank God), but I've always thought that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is bullshit.  Shouldn't it be "guilty by reason of insanity"?  You can still send the guy to a mental hospital if he needs it.  But why can't someone be insane and guilty?

 

The insanity defense negates the ability of the actor to formulate the required intent to commit the criminal act.

 

Is there deterrence, or is retribution justified, when you punish a person who cannot make rational decisions or control their conduct?

[El Diablo 4232]

25 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then they will almost certainly be a danger to people for many, many years (including a risk to staff at mental health facilities.)  They will almost certainly remain a threat to society, even if that risk is reduced (but not eliminated) in a mental facility.

And If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then there are ways they can be put to sleep permanently without understanding what is happening or the implications.  If they are that far gone, they are living day to day, moment to moment, simply existing.  Give them their favorite meal and mix in a brief injection or sleeping pill overdose cocktail, or whatever.  They'll be enjoying a moment, then drift off to sleep, and then no longer be a permanent threat to others and an immense drain on the taxpayers that decades of heavily secured institutionalization would be.  And no, not every ill person that is a risk of extreme violence can be resolved by medication.  Very sad, but reality.

Obviously I'm not talking about the vast majority of the mentally challenged, just those who have killed and it is clear that they will remain a risk for committing extreme violence.

I guess. I'd think the sort of insanity you're describing though would be kinda rare.

[TwiceHorn 31707]

5 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

The insanity defense negates the ability of the actor to formulate the required intent to commit the criminal act.

 

Is there deterrence, or is retribution justified, when you punish a person who cannot make rational decisions or control their conduct?

There is nothing but retribution in 90% of the criminal justice system, anyway. We are a fearful and bloodthirsty people. And stupid. 

[BrickHorn 18334]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

because you can only be guilty if you had intent to commit the criminal acts.  if you were legally insane at the time, you had no intent. 

That’s the legal reason.  As a policy matter, it’s pure bullshit.  Punishment has no utility aside from prevention and deterrence.  It should be employed when useful for those purposes and not employed where not useful.  In the case of the criminally insane, punishment is useful (indeed, necessary) as a means of prevention.  

The focus should be on intent to do the act we desire to prevent (as opposed to intent to do something you know to be immoral).  Who gives a shit whether the perpetrator understood that murder is frowned upon?  If he intentionally killed someone, then he is dangerous and should be removed from society. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

The insanity defense negates the ability of the actor to formulate the required intent to commit the criminal act.

 

Is there deterrence, or is retribution justified, when you punish a person who cannot make rational decisions or control their conduct?

IDGAF about all of that.

Put the guy where he will never hurt anyone again. It's not about punishing or deterring, IMHO.

Just make sure he doesn't hurt anyone else again.  This judgment does that.

[El Diablo 4232]

I knew a guy back in the mid 70's, BIL of one of my uncles, guy flipped out and murdered his whole fam damily with the exception of the son who wasn't in the house at the time. Some sort of chemical/drug reaction. VA hospital had given him something they should not have. He never spent a day in prison, just Rusk and eventually a VA facility.

IIRC he was more or less catatonic for a long period afterwards. Had a complete breakdown when he came out of that and was told what he had done. It was a damn shame. Good guy, owned a small neighborhood grocery store.

I ran into him years later at the VA hospital and he was just a broken shell of a human. The facility wasn't any sort of a lockup, he could have just walked away if he'd wanted to. He wasn't going anywhere, just shuffling along.

[XYZ 2154]

19 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I knew a guy back in the mid 70's, BIL of one of my uncles, guy flipped out and murdered his whole fam damily with the exception of the son who wasn't in the house at the time. Some sort of chemical/drug reaction. VA hospital had given him something they should not have. He never spent a day in prison, just Rusk and eventually a VA facility.

IIRC he was more or less catatonic for a long period afterwards. Had a complete breakdown when he came out of that and was told what he had done. It was a damn shame. Good guy, owned a small neighborhood grocery store.

I ran into him years later at the VA hospital and he was just a broken shell of a human. The facility wasn't any sort of a lockup, he could have just walked away if he'd wanted to. He wasn't going anywhere, just shuffling along.

That is about the saddest thing I ever heard.

[DanRydell 799]

That’s the legal reason.  As a policy matter, it’s pure bullshit.  Punishment has no utility aside from prevention and deterrence.  It should be employed when useful for those purposes and not employed where not useful.  In the case of the criminally insane, punishment is useful (indeed, necessary) as a means of prevention.  
The focus should be on intent to do the act we desire to prevent (as opposed to intent to do something you know to be immoral).  Who gives a shit whether the perpetrator understood that murder is frowned upon?  If he intentionally killed someone, then he is dangerous and should be removed from society. 

An insanity acquittal doesn’t prevent the person from being removed from society for the protection of others.

Andrea Yates is still locked away at the Kerrville State School 17 years later and her postpartum psychoses would seem significantly less likely to pose a future danger than this guy’s schizophrenia.

[elfenix 34400]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

That’s the legal reason.  As a policy matter, it’s pure bullshit.  Punishment has no utility aside from prevention and deterrence.  It should be employed when useful for those purposes and not employed where not useful.  In the case of the criminally insane, punishment is useful (indeed, necessary) as a means of prevention.  

The focus should be on intent to do the act we desire to prevent (as opposed to intent to do something you know to be immoral).  Who gives a shit whether the perpetrator understood that murder is frowned upon?  If he intentionally killed someone, then he is dangerous and should be removed from society. 

if someone is insane then punishment doesn't deter them because they're not capable of making that calculation. 

and what danrydell said. 

[immortal13 4059]

As long as he is kept locked up where he isn't a threat to anyone ever again

[Red Six 131]

3 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then they will almost certainly be a danger to people for many, many years (including a risk to staff at mental health facilities.)  They will almost certainly remain a threat to society, even if that risk is reduced (but not eliminated) in a mental facility.

And If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then there are ways they can be put to sleep permanently without understanding what is happening or the implications.  If they are that far gone, they are living day to day, moment to moment, simply existing.  Give them their favorite meal and mix in a brief injection or sleeping pill overdose cocktail, or whatever.  They'll be enjoying a moment, then drift off to sleep, and then no longer be a permanent threat to others and an immense drain on the taxpayers that decades of heavily secured institutionalization would be.  And no, not every ill person that is a risk of extreme violence can be resolved by medication.  Very sad, but reality.

Obviously I'm not talking about the vast majority of the mentally challenged, just those who have killed and it is clear that they will remain a risk for committing extreme violence.

Or how about releasing the cyanide capsules during a nice, warm shower?

[Brisketexan 105789]

33 minutes ago, Red Six said:

Or how about releasing the cyanide capsules during a nice, warm shower?

Your solution....it seems so....final.

[High Plains Drifter 11092]

3 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

The insanity defense negates the ability of the actor to formulate the required intent to commit the criminal act.

 

Is there deterrence, or is retribution justified, when you punish a person who cannot make rational decisions or control their conduct?

Putting this guy away forever, or killing him, wouldn't be about deterrence or retribution. It would be about protecting the rest of society.

[Hank Scorpio 17856]

3 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

That’s the legal reason.  As a policy matter, it’s pure bullshit.  Punishment has no utility aside from prevention and deterrence.  It should be employed when useful for those purposes and not employed where not useful.  In the case of the criminally insane, punishment is useful (indeed, necessary) as a means of prevention.  

The focus should be on intent to do the act we desire to prevent (as opposed to intent to do something you know to be immoral).  Who gives a shit whether the perpetrator understood that murder is frowned upon?  If he intentionally killed someone, then he is dangerous and should be removed from society. 

Wait, do you think that after the judge announced that he was not guilty by reason of insanity that he just walked out of the courtroom?

[BrickHorn 18334]

5 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Wait, do you think that after the judge announced that he was not guilty by reason of insanity that he just walked out of the courtroom?

No, I know that’s not how it works.  My point is that the distinction is stupid.  Part of my frustration is that the idea of finding someone not guilty by reason of insanity perpetuates wrong-headed views on the purpose of criminal punishment.  

Most people think of punishment as a response to a free choice to do bad.  According to that theory, insanity eliminates the “free” aspect and, thus, makes punishment inappropriate.  To put it simply, someone who is insane can’t be at fault and doesn’t deserve to be punished. 

I don’t agree with any of that shit.  I understand that the insane may be largely immune to deference.  But the prevention aspect of punishment is still key, and it is possibly even more important for someone who is so mentally disturbed as to not even understand right from wrong.   

[Hank Scorpio 17856]

Oh I see. 

Not really. That was gibberish. 

[Brisketexan 105789]

15 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Oh I see. 

Not really. That was gibberish. 

Yeah....pretty hard to sort out.

We don't find people "guilty" when they are insane because such a finding requires a culpable mental state -- a person knew and intended to commit the crime.  IF they are truly insane, that can't be found.

BUT, the person clearly DID the bad act.  AND, often, the person remains a threat (it wasn't something brought on because someone slipped them a psychoactive drug or something).  So, we have found that person both not guilty AND dangerously insane.  And dangerously insane people can be and are confined, often for long periods, even their whole lives.  The person is supposed to be removed from society so long as he is a threat.  So, the "prevention" goal is supposed to be met by this process.

It's not perfect.  Nothing is.  But it balances our concepts of justice, guilt and innocence, and the need to protect the public from a person who is a danger.  Bloodlust and punishment of such a person wouldn't do that.  Neither would a finding of "oh well, you couldn't help it -- now go be free to do it again."  This is the balance we've struck.  It's a reasonable one.

[immortal13 4059]

I still find it hard to believe that anyone, while stabbing a person repeatedly, could think to themselves..."hey, this is ok!"

[Helobious 9516]

5 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

And there won't be a major advance in reducing our homeless problems until there is true leadership in either Congress or the Presidency, because it will require taking on US Supreme Court decisions from decades ago.  Very difficult to resolve, the states and municipalities hands are mostly tied by this.  They can work on and make some improvements, but won't solve without major action at the national level.  So probably not happening for years, if ever.

This guy was just a regular student, he wasn't homeless. 

[DanRydell 799]

This guy was just a regular student, he wasn't homeless. 

And was something like 14th out of his 500-person pre-med class per the testimony today.

[Brisketexan 105789]

I still find it hard to believe that anyone, while stabbing a person repeatedly, could think to themselves..."hey, this is ok!"

Well, that’s probably because you’re not completely insane. So that’s good. Point for you.

 

I also can’t imagine thinking that by mercifully drowning my kids, I’m saving my kids from an even worse fate. I can’t imagine thinking that I’m the actual queen of England. I can’t imagine thinking that the government sends me individually coded messages through my cat’s brainwaves. But truly psychotic people believe all of those things. Those things are as real and true to them as the fact that you are reading these words on a screen is true to you.

 

Being insane isn’t having bad judgment. It’s living in an alternative reality.

[TwiceHorn 31707]

3 hours ago, Red Six said:

Or how about releasing the cyanide capsules during a nice, warm shower?

The empirical evidence is pretty clear that existing criminal penalties or raising existing penalties has little or no discernible deterrent effect. 

The only time criminal penalties have deterrent effect is when a previously legal act is made a criminal offense. 

The only thing most of our criminal sentences do is punish and incapacitate (remove from society). 

There aren't many anecdotes (willie horton, the favorite rhetorical device of the tough on crime crowd) of the not-guilty-by-insanity going on to further their criminal careers. They either get better or stay locked up. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[BrickHorn 18334]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....pretty hard to sort out.

We don't find people "guilty" when they are insane because such a finding requires a culpable mental state -- a person knew and intended to commit the crime.  IF they are truly insane, that can't be found.

That’s circular reasoning.  “The insane cannot be found guilty because we define guilt to require sanity.”  

My point is that sanity should not be a requirement for guilt.  Such a requirement muddles the issues, and gives credence to free will-based theories of justice.  The idea that culpability applies because our choices are free is fundamentally bullshit, and leads to confused application of justice.  For example, it leads to the idea that a lifetime of poverty and abuse (or the converse: “affluenza”) can nullify guilt.  It’s the same logic as the insanity defense: those who grew up with too little or too much really don’t know any better and thus we cannot attribute guilt to them.  

It’s bullshit.  Punishment seeks to minimize poor behavior through prevention and deterrence.  Intentional misconduct can be prevented, whether or not the culprit understands good from bad.  

If anything, sanity should be a mitigating circumstance considered only in the sentencing phase.  Differing mental circumstances may warrant differing punishments.  (e.g., psych ward as opposed to prison)

I don’t disagree with Brisket that the system we have can, in practice, achieve the same result as the system I propose.  But my system is less likely to lead to confusion in the culpability phase, by properly separating the determination of guilt from the determination of optimal punishment.  

[Brisketexan 105789]

That’s circular reasoning.  “The insane cannot be found guilty because we define guilt to require sanity.”  
My point is that sanity should not be a requirement for guilt.  Such a requirement muddles the issues, and gives credence to free will-based theories of justice.  The idea that culpability applies because our choices are free is fundamentally bullshit, and leads to confused application of justice.  For example, it leads to the idea that a lifetime of poverty and abuse (or the converse: “affluenza”) can nullify guilt.  It’s the same logic as the insanity defense: those who grew up with too little or too much really don’t know any better and thus we cannot attribute guilt to them.  
It’s bullshit.  Punishment seeks to minimize poor behavior through prevention and deterrence.  Intentional misconduct can be prevented, whether or not the culprit understands good from bad.  
If anything, sanity should be a mitigating circumstance considered only in the sentencing phase.  Differing mental circumstances may warrant differing punishments.  (e.g., psych ward as opposed to prison)
I don’t disagree with Brisket that the system we have can, in practice, achieve the same result as the system I propose.  But my system is less likely to lead to confusion in the culpability phase, by properly separating the determination of guilt from the determination of optimal punishment.  

Welll, I mean, I get that you don’t like that mens rea is a component of many criminal offenses, but it is, and it’s been woven into our system of criminal justice for centuries, going back to England. And it’s not circular. It’s one of TWO basic elements for guilt. To be convicted, I have to 1) actually stab you, and 2) intend to do so. If you are hiding in my shrubs, which I am hacking back with my machete, and I slice open your neck and kill you, without ever seeing you, I won’t be convicted of murder, because no intent. It’s a pretty important element. But so is the other one - the one where the state also needs to prove that I committed the act itself.

The insanity defense - a VERY high bar to clear, by the way, it’s exceptionally rare - accounts for that matter of intent.

But it also takes into account the need for the public to be protected, and of you are crazy enough to meet the insanity standard, you’ll almost always be in bad enough shape to be confined for a long time.

[BrickHorn 18334]

You’re muddling two different types of mens rea.  I absolutely agree that intent to commit the act should be a prerequisite of guilt.  But knowledge that the act is wrong should not be.  

That is why ignorance of the law is no defense to a murder charge.  Unless you’re insane, of course, in which case ignorance actually is a defense.  

The whole theory underpinning the insanity defense is built on a foundation of sand, and it results in absurdities.  You may be so used to those absurdities that you no longer notice them.  But they’re there. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

8 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then they will almost certainly be a danger to people for many, many years (including a risk to staff at mental health facilities.)  They will almost certainly remain a threat to society, even if that risk is reduced (but not eliminated) in a mental facility.

And If someone is so clinically insane that they don't know killing someone is wrong, if they can't recognize that they are causing distress while their victim struggles and reacts, then there are ways they can be put to sleep permanently without understanding what is happening or the implications.  If they are that far gone, they are living day to day, moment to moment, simply existing.  Give them their favorite meal and mix in a brief injection or sleeping pill overdose cocktail, or whatever.  They'll be enjoying a moment, then drift off to sleep, and then no longer be a permanent threat to others and an immense drain on the taxpayers that decades of heavily secured institutionalization would be.  And no, not every ill person that is a risk of extreme violence can be resolved by medication.  Very sad, but reality.

Obviously I'm not talking about the vast majority of the mentally challenged, just those who have killed and it is clear that they will remain a risk for committing extreme violence.

most of the people who cop this plea aren't in a permanent state of psychosis, and can be treated with medication. 

[Brisketexan 105789]

You’re muddling two different types of mens rea.  I absolutely agree that intent to commit the act should be a prerequisite of guilt.  But knowledge that the act is wrong should not be.  
That is why ignorance of the law is no defense to a murder charge.  Unless you’re insane, of course, in which case ignorance actually is a defense.  
The whole theory underpinning the insanity defense is built on a foundation of sand, and it results in absurdities.  You may be so used to those absurdities that you no longer notice them.  But they’re there. 

But that belief can be fundamental. If I truly, 100% believe that you are a bear, in the act of attacking those children, and I take you out to protect them, my culpable mental state is zero. And if you are indeed a bear, I did the right thing. If I was mistaken about you being a bear because of my psychosis, I did the wrong thing...but I believed with my entire being that I was doing right.

We as a society don’t want to punish a psychosis. That’s a pretty civilized and humane approach. I don’t feel any need to be vindictive or punitive to that psychosis. I want the guy off the streets, but why would I want to punish intent that wasn’t bad?

[BrickHorn 18334]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We as a society don’t want to punish a psychosis. That’s a pretty civilized and humane approach. I don’t feel any need to be vindictive or punitive to that psychosis. I want the guy off the streets, but why would I want to punish intent that wasn’t bad?

And that entire view is based on a flawed idea of punishment’s purpose.  The whole point of punishment is to get a dangerous human being off the streets.*  Denying punishment in cases where the phantom rationales for punishment — such as meting out some kind of cosmic justice for poor choices made by those with free will — don’t apply is absurd, especially where we let those phantom rationales trump the real reason to punish.  

The idea of punishment as some kind karmic equalizer is a human instinct.  Like many instincts, we inherited it because it generally encouraged our ancestors to behave in an optimal way.  We typically felt the instinctual need for retribution in cases where incapacitation of a criminal would benefit us.  So retribution stuck with us.  

But like many instincts, the theory we feel is correct only approximates reality in limited circumstances.  It’s like the Ptolemaic System.  Sure, it certainly feels like the Earth sits still while the stars revolve around us, and that idea can predict a lot of what we observe (such as that the sun will rise every morning).  But it’s wrong.  Fortunately, another more accurate model avoids the absurdities Ptolemy couldn’t explain (like retrograde motion).  

Call it free will or karma or whatever.  The idea that we punish as a way to exact revenge on a perpetrator is a simplistic, obsolete understanding of criminal justice. Punishment serves a utilitarian purpose, and the guidelines for when we punish should be directed toward that purpose.  

*There are of course other utilitarian purposes for punishment, such as deterrence and appeasement of the public.  But I would argue that, in any given case, incapacitation of the perpetrator is by far more valuable to society.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by BrickHorn

[Brisketexan 105789]

Fascinating.

 

Doesn’t comport with reality, either past or present. But genuinely interesting.

 

And I can’t agree that “punishment” and deterrence is not an element of a criminal justice system. “If I do wrong, I can go to jail” is a valid approach to managing behavior. It’s not perfect, or 100% effective, but it’s not illusory.

 

And, yes, there is a retributive part of any human system of justice. It’s silly to pretend that we’re “above that.” We’re not.

 

All of those are relevant when considering the question of intent and ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

 

And, you repeatedly skip over the fact that a part of this process IS a determination to put the person safely away from society so that EXACT purpose - removing the threat - is met. It’s not neglected, it’s a vital part of the process.

[XYZ 2154]

What’s interesting to me is that people who think that free will doesn’t exist would argue about anything. Or that they think that they are even arguing.

Edited December 12, 2018 by XYZ

[Bookman 4731]

9 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Punishment has no utility aside from prevention and deterrence.

Don’t forget vengeance. Sweet, sweet vengeance.

[kibbles 70]

This dude show any signs of mental illness before this?   Seems like UT should be screening for murderous insanity before the murders occur

[TwiceHorn 31707]

Schizophrenia often has an onset in late teens early 20s. So it is not inconsistent that he may have shown no prior symptoms. 

[Helobious 9516]

20 hours ago, kibbles said:

This dude show any signs of mental illness before this?   Seems like UT should be screening for murderous insanity before the murders occur

He had spent 9 days in a mental hospital about a month before this happened. His parents also called the police to do a welfare check on him a couple days before it happened because they thought he was suicidal.

[kibbles 70]

Seems like the welfare check failed the victims in this episode.   Wonder if ut will be found liable.  

[David Dennison 19150]

On 12/11/2018 at 10:36 PM, XYZ said:

What’s interesting to me is that people who think that free will doesn’t exist would argue about anything. Or that they think that they are even arguing.

Their brain, like yours, is guiding them in everything they do. Agency is an illusion and "You" only exist as a social construct made possible by your brain's ability to understand symbolic language.

You're an animal bound by the laws of nature. You have as much free will as every other sentient creature.

[XYZ 2154]

18 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Their brain, like yours, is guiding them in everything they do. Agency is an illusion and "You" only exist as a social construct made possible by your brain's ability to understand symbolic language.

You're an animal bound by the laws of nature. You have as much free will as every other sentient creature.

Okay.