Relevant today.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Did a brain tumor cause Charles Whitman to shoot?
- Thread starter AProudLefty
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
How?
The Lindsay Clancy case.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
In that case, we should just shoot Clancy and get past her crimes all together, like they did with Whitman.
Too late.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the clancy case and whitmans tumor are nothing alike. false equivalency
I remember reading that theory weeks after his rampage. Mass shootings were a rarity then. The nation was shocked and appalled for months afterwards. I was a kid then so don't really recall what, if anything, was concluded about his tumor.
The commonality is both killings are being blamed on mental issues. In her case, postpartum psychosis. In his, a brain tumor causing a similar kind of psychosis, in theory.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and if they scan clancys brain and find a tumor, i'll reverse my position. As it stands now, there is no commonality
But you understand that either one -- hormone-induced psychosis and a brain tumor causing psychosis can both lead to murder?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I understand that they can lead to certain circumstances where murder is considered, but it ALWAYS becomes a choice to commit it, whether its tumor or hormone produced.
It's a reasonable thing to consider. It is kind of a hallmark of mental illness when a woman murders her children (unless of course her children were the antichrist, cf. "The Omen") so it stands to reason that it should be seriously considered.
In the case of the Texas shooter from what I understood he actually left a note to the effect that his thinking was feeling different to him and that he felt he was unable to control his actions effectively. So there's at least some evidence for it.
But it's also a slippery slope, ain't it? Murder on large scales must surely indicate a failure in the brain's wiring. Something has gone horribly awry for someone to murder at scale. But by the same token we also must hold to the ideal that we all have "choice" in our actions (set aside the question of free will for now) so we have to be able to judge people's actions as "right" or "wrong" and take action to protect society.
Personally I think that someone like Clancy is someone that clearly has some issue that makes her a danger to society at large. It may be that she exhausted her will to murder after killing her kids, but we can't be sure of that so putting her into some form of confinement (humane and with a serious level of mental health care).
But we as a society can't think of crime and punishment that way. We need to hurt people for their actions. They must pay. We couldn't care less if they are helped in any way or improved in their lives, we just want to hurt them.
And as a nation we have distinquished ourselves with the highest level of incarceration of any developed nation on earth.
It's arguable that we as a nation should be put into some form of confinement and given mental health care services.
In extreme cases of mental illness (eg psychosis) if someone is potentially seeing flying unicorns in the sky and arguing with traffic lights that they don't really have a solid grasp on "choice" in the matter.
I think that in those cases we have to consider choice off the table. But it doesn't stop our ability to protect the larger society from people with significant mental health issues that might put them in a position to be a danger to others.
Not all severe mental health issues manifest as a physical aspect to the brain.
Most of the time, yes. In rare instances the killer doesn't fully grasp right and wrong. Which is why we allow insanity as a defense. Even if Clancy is not found guilty, I expect she's going to stay in a treatment facility for a long time.