Imagine a scenario in which a woman wakes up from sleep
one morning to find her three month old infant strangled to death in her crib.
Police investigate the crime and ultimately conclude that all of the circumstantial
and physical evidence points to the woman as the person who committed act.
Mom is horrified, but doesn’t remember doing it. She has
a sleep disorder; she’s a sleepwalker who sometimes does weird things while
asleep; things she wouldn’t do while awake. She must have done it when asleep. She
asserts this excuse as a defense at her trial. She claims she’s not legally
responsible for the death of her infant; not guilty of any crime.
Of course, the little baby whose life was violently snuffed
out at the hands of its own mother is just as dead and gone as it would be had
her mom been awake. It makes no difference to her whether mom was asleep, or
insane, or mentally incompetent, or whatever the excuse. She’s dead; the victim
of a homicide; and her mommy did it to her.
Should this woman walk away free? Should the law regard
her sleep disorder an excuse which absolves her from guilt for the brutal homicide
of her three month old infant? Is she
guilty or not guilty? Will there be justice for this homicide or, like the perpetrator;
will it be an excuse for justice to fall asleep?
Yes, sometimes justice is asleep. The judicial disorder
is manifest in situations as described above and when perpetrator’s of crimes
successfully assert insanity and mental incompetence defenses. Justice goes to sleep. The victims are just as
much victims but that doesn’t matter to the law.
Recently, Mikeal Halvarsson, a Swedish man walked away
free from a prison sentence on a forcible rape conviction courtesy of the “sexomnia”
defense. He was asleep when he raped the woman so the law held him not
accountable for the crime. It’s a legal defense in some jurisdictions. Sexomnia
will make you free. Sexomnia will cause justice to go to sleep.
Well, I’m really sorry that some people have sleep
disorders that make them do weird things while sleeping. My heart bleeds for
crazy and mentally incompetent defendants who commit violent crimes they
otherwise might not have intended to commit. It’s too bad. But these people
pose a danger to others and justice requires that they be held accountable for
their conduct.
Surely their disorders ought to be taken into account as
a mitigating factor when it comes to punishment, but in no case should
sexomnia, insanity, mental incompetence or any other human failing absolve one
from responsibility as an excuse for harming others. The perpetrator is just as
guilty and his victim just as harmed no matter the intent involved in the act.
There is no legitimate excuse for justice asleep.
It seems to me that all we're looking at here is the divide between "criminal" and "civil" law.
ReplyDeleteIf the guy really has that disorder and it really has the effect described, there's no "mens rea" ("evil mind"), no intent to commit the act described, so there's no "crime" to be held "accountable" for. What there is is a tort for which damages might be sought.
Exactly!
ReplyDeleteThe concept of "mens rea" is an antiquated concept which I believe can lead to injustice as it clearly does in the cases I describe. Whether the actor has an "evil mind" or not makes no difference to the victim who suffers exactly the same harm. To say that there is no "crime" is an arbitrary opinion. Crimes can be committed without evil minds. Evil mind should go to the question of punishment -- not guilt. That is my point.
What good are damages to the dead baby? Libertarians believe in personal responsibility. I don't give a damn if a guy has a sleep disorder if he brutalizes another human being. He's personally responsible for what he did.
Punish him less, yes, but let him go, hell no!
Sorry dude - but as I read it, the gal WILLINGLY went into the same bed as he. So what the hell did she expect - a peck on the check and a fond goodnight?
ReplyDeletePlay with the fires of passion - and you may very well get burned.
Why be sorry? The guy had a license to use force, right? She couldn't say "no." Yeah, that's even better than the sleeping defense ... Isn't it dude?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete