Dan White: Too Much Mercy?

Dan White was your everyday Irish-Catholic, strongly moralistic policeman-turned-public-figure. His goals in life usually involved contributing to the lives of others in some way. He served as a firefighter and received a medal for rescuing a woman and her child before being elected to a supervisor position on the San Francisco board. While the part-time supervisor job required him to give up his job as a fireman, Dan could see even more opportunities to do good. He was elected because most people saw him as a down-to-earth, honest guy who would take their voices seriously. The fact that this man found himself on trial for the murder of supervisor Harvey Milk (yes, the Milk from the Oscar-winning 2008 film) and Mayor George Marscone is a shock. Yet, as you will see, the fact that he was not charged for Capital Murder is even more shocking.

So how did this upstanding man become a murderer? Isn't that always the first question in these cases? Dan began to feel unsatisfied with his supervisor decision pretty quickly.He missed his firefighter job, he was attempting to run a business, and he was upset at the lack of time he had for his wife and newborn son. In November 1978 he suddenly, some would say impulsively, resigned. Less than two weeks later, peer pressure brought him back to Mayor Marscone's office, but this time to ask that his resignation be withdrawn. This was supposed to be an easy process--Marscone seemed eager to have Dan back on the job--but it instead incited a long, protest-filled ordeal that ultimately left Dan unable to come back. He felt betrayed by Marscone and worse off than ever. Not long after, Dan walked into City Hall with a loaded revolver and, calm as you please, murdered both Marscone and Milk in turn.

The mental illnesses that five psychotherapists diagnosed Dan with was "unipolar depressive reaction," "manic-depressive illness, depressive type," "episodes of depression," and "depression of a fairly severe degree." Honestly these diagnoses are all different ways of saying clinical depression. Depression is an episodic disorder, meaning that a sufferer is not depressed at all times but has certain "low points" that last for about two weeks. During these low points some common symptoms are periods of sleeplessness, loss of appetite, and depressed mood. The disorder, especially the manic-depressive one, is highly genetic and Dan attested that most of him family was accustomed to "moods." Yet my biggest problem with this diagnosis has nothing to do when it's right; while all people are very much able to do crazy, out-of-control things, it is unclear how depression would augment this possibility. Even so, the jury agreed with the psychologists and, possibly, found sympathy for Dan. He was sent to prison, but on voluntary manslaughter, the lowest sentence he could have gotten.

So what does this have to do with ethics? First of all, I encourage you all to read this case and judge for yourselves. While the verdict may seem completely unfair--I admit, it seems that way to me--only those who witnessed the trial know how it played out. These people are the only ones that can give us a firm opinion on the matter. But back to my thoughts: To me, this seems like a case where a sympathetic jury offered too much mercy to the defendant. Going back to God's commandment to "do justice and love mercy," I think it is possible to have one more than the other. One is usually easier than the other in different situations. When it came to Dan White, the jury seemed eager to find something, anything that could prove why this morally upstanding, friendly man could kill two officials. They wanted him to be treated mercifully from the get-go (again just my thoughts since I truly cannot know what was running through their minds). A lot of times it's the opposite; it is easier to pass justice onto a lonely, hardened criminal and let mercy go out the window.

I guess what I want you to take away this week is an awareness of times when you might be more inclined to mercy than justice or vice verse. In discussion board this week we kind of touched on this when we talked about getting rid of important people in our lives for God. There comes a point when we must find that balance between merciful and forgiving and just and tough with the people in our lives who need it. Have a good week :)

Kelsey

Introduction: Presenting the Disparity Between Psyc and Law

Dr. Winslade does not like to candy coat his opinions.

The introduction to "The Insanity Plea" is always impassioned, to the point of being hostile at some parts. He begins with a list of frequent complaints people have about the criminal justice system (courts are soft on crime; the rich can afford bett

er lawyers; corrupt police; etc.) then boils them all down to one major complaint: people go free. He goes on to discuss the problem of guilty people who plead insanity who go free. This is a problem, according to Dr. Winslade, because "we are trouble by the question of how to assign responsibility." The way the criminal justice system chooses to solve this problem in an insanity case is to refer to an expert, a psychiatrist. This is supposed to make us feel better...but does it actually give us a definitive knowledge about whether or not the criminal was in his right mind? He then talks awhile about our "ambiguous and ambivalent attitude about killing and about killers," which is a fascinating idea but a completely different ethical topic to discuss.

Dr. Winslade's hostility comes out especially when he starts talking about psychiatrists and psychology in general. Of course it's also possible that I'm seeing this words through the eyes of a passionate psychology major , so I'll let the readers decide on this one. He cites two specific problems. The first is "the assumption that psychiatry is based on a scientifically tested theory and body of knowledge..." I would argue that that assumption is actually a valid one; we have specific clinical interviews and techniques, as well as neurophysiological tests, that can help us diagnose patients with severe brain disorders. However, Winslade does make the point that psychiatric testimony is usually based only on a series of interviews, which does have the potential to skew the diagnosis based on what the client says. The second is that psychiatry and the law are "philosophically incompatible." Basically, the law assigns responsibility, but psychiatry asks "why did they do that?" which can make things messy and less reasonable. Dr. Winslade makes it very clear that psychology and law should not try to compete in the courtroom. The cases in the book serve to "show the law and psychiatry at their worst, struggling openly to resolve their disagreements."

We haven't even gotten to the moral side of this issue and we're already preparing for an all-out battle.

But now that we are talking about morals, let me comment on one interesting issue Dr. Winslade brings up. In trying to answer the question of why we are so fascinated by violent crime, he directs us to our society's moral aspirations. Basically, we are a society driven to be perfect while believing that we are in fact perfect. By holding up this pretense of perfection, we are forced to hide our darker impulses. We are intrigued and terrified by violent crime because, in some ways, it is an opportunity to see what it would be like if for one minute we let our pretenses fall and gave our negative emotions free reign. Now, is this assumption saying we should drop the "act" and let our violence out whenever it feels caged? Not at all! However, I think that we as Christians should let go of moral perfectionism. God interceded for our everyday downfalls; we don't have to hide them or make sacrifices because of them! This is the basis of the New Covenant at the end of the Old Testament: it is unconditional and takes into account the human dilemma of fallibility. I guess I would really encourage an awareness of this covenant as you go about your week. Maybe it's best to let those imperfections happen with the knowledge that we are still children of God.

Have a lovely week!

Kelsey

Do Justice AND Love Mercy?

In the book of James we are told do "do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [our] God." I want this to be a key thought as we wander through the criminal justice system and try to make sense of an emotional and controversial claim: not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). The legal definition of this claim is: "plea in court of a person charged with a crime who admits the criminal act, but whose attorney claims he/she was so mentally disturbed at the time of the crime that he/she lacked the capacity to have intended to commit a crime" (from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com). In these cases the question is not whether the defendant committed the crime--he/she is assumed guilty in these cases--but whether he or she has the mental capacity to assume responsibility for it. A forensic psychologist provides an expert opinion on the matter and a finding of insanity (by insanity we mean a debilitating mental disorder) will lead to a "not guilty" verdict. The defendant will either go free or--by discretion of the judge--be confined to a mental hospital until his or her mental state improves sufficiently.

"But wait!" You say, before flinging a slew of counterarguments to and problems with this plea. You're not alone. It is obviously difficult to deal with something that could potentially allow a murderer to walk free. Luckily for me, though, this makes it a fascinating and emotional ethical issue. I hope to offer perspectives from my views as a psychology major as a Christian. I love neuroscience and understanding what certain disorders actually do to the brain, so hopefully I'll be able to explain that as I go through the case studies in my book: The Insanity Plea, by Dr. William Winslade and Judith Ross.

As a Christian, I would like really quick to go back to the verse I introduced. I believe this plea is a case where justice and mercy are hopelessly at odds. One one hand we have people who have committed heinous acts and on the other we have people who are seriously sick and may never get better. How do we bring them to justice while remaining merciful and sensitive to their issues? I'm excited to explore this through case studies, psychological resources, and the Bible.

Happy reading!

Kelsey