Friday, November 18, 2011

Probably the Most Unsatisfactory Conclusion Ever

For my last (*tear*) blog post I'm still attempting to reconcile the questions that have come up in this journey to rectify the insanity plea, a journey that has certainly created more questions than answers for me. I will first address questions based on the "do justice and love mercy" commandment and then try (mostly likely poorly) to pull it all together into something satisfactory.

The first issue, to me, relates directly to the idea that we are to "not judge, lest we be judged." Who are we to allocate responsibility for something so heinous? How are we to judge whether Hinckley had control over his actions or not? I personally struggle with this one; I have a difficult time telling people who are not my religion or who have rejected Christian values that they are going to hell (or at least not to heaven). I may not share their beliefs, but I don't feel right assigning responsibility to them. Similarly, the juries in these cases certainly did not condone the defendant's actions, but neither did they want to condemn a fellow human being. Insanity is an easy defense, but certainly one irrational decision does not make a person insane (which seems to be the idea in a lot of the cases we've discussed). Maybe some good, rational people simply don't make the right choices. Is this satisfactory? Not particularly. Is there any way to be completely OK with judging a fellow human being? Not particularly, but it may be a part of our reality that we have to accept until the consummation.

The next problem is along the same lines as the first, but it has more to do with the "mercy" side of this equation. It is difficult to judge a fellow human being, yes, but isn't it also wrong to NOT judge a fellow human being who has done wrong? Yes, it is difficult to not identify with the defendant and feel compelled to forgive him but at what point should we cast aside our feelings of empathy and acknowledge that a person has done wrong? Again I feel that there is no easy answer. Jesus tells us to "give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's." From this statement, the best solution seems to be the one that complies with the law as well as God's teachings. So, how would you respond if put in the situations of the jurors in these cases? How would you work within the framework of the law to come up with an ethically and morally responsible solution to the problem?

Of course, it is difficult to put myself in the juror's shoes. I don't know all the evidence, the nuances, and the details of any of the cases. Perhaps I would have judged them insane or incompetent just by the way they looked at me. Perhaps the pull of sympathy would have been too great for me to make any kind of judgement (in the moment I almost always tend on the side of mercy). Perhaps I would have seen (as I do see) some of the defendants as irrational, immature children who have violent tendencies and deserve consequences for acting upon them. I have spent eight blog posts attempting to use the book, my own outside knowledge, and my Christian beliefs to come up with an ethical conclusion to these cases and the fact is: I can only do so much. And that, I believe, is the problem with these kinds of cases--not the insanity plea itself, not the legal proceedings--but the fact that we cannot know everything about what goes on in a person's mind when he commits a crime. This is one of the intensely beautiful and insanely frustrating parts about psychology. God has formulated our brains and minds in such a way that parts of yourself are only between you and Him. We cannot explain all your actions--we can only explain what to do with them. The function of the law is to judge actions, but it is near impossible to separate people from what they do (to quote Dumbledore, "It is our choices that make us who we are," right?).

I can give hard-and-fast diagnoses to some of these clients, I can judge them morally responsible, or I can throw up my hands in frustration but in all these cases there is a jumping off point. There is always a gray area that we must wade through in an attempt to fully understand a case. As Christians, I think the only way we can reconcile this is to allow God to inform our decisions in these cases and have faith that they are as ethical and correct as possible. I have thoroughly enjoyed sharing my thoughts on this with you and I hope you all have a simply fabulous Thanksgiving/Christmas season!

Happy trails,
Kelsey


No comments:

Post a Comment