From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:01:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.045959.10247@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.014049.27662@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan23.223618.15219@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan23.210053.38071@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>>>he sees.
>>>>
>>>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>>>
>>>He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape. 
>>
>>*WRONG*. All crimes require a criminal intent, or _mens rea_. The man
>>under hypnosis has none. He acts merely as an instrument of the evil
>>hypnotizer.
>>
>Kebbin, if you'll *read* what I wrote, you might notice that I said
>*act* of rape, not crime. 

You said "he's guilty". Since, as you have tried to impress on me wrt 
"schizophrenic", we MUST use the correct jargon, even in a general forum, your 
use of "guilty" -- a legal term -- is INCORRECT.

>Idiot.

Is that a professional diagnosis, Mr. Medicine Man?

>>>He may get off on the
>>>legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
>>>he's still guilty of the act. 
>>
>>"Guilty" of the act (which means nothing), but _not_ guilty of the *crime*.
>>
>No shit Kibble. Maybe that's why I said ACT of rape, not crime. 

"Rape" is a technical term in the field of law, which denotes a crime. Since, 
as you have tried to impress on me wrt "schizophrenic", we MUST use the 
correct jargon, even in a general forum, your use of "rape" -- a legal term --
for the act described is INCORRECT.

>>>My understanding is that 'not guilty by
>>>reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
>>>fault'.
>>
>>No, they're not the same. There is a verdict of "guilty but insane". But
>>that's different. That just affects sentencing, not the question of
>>guilt or innocence.
>>
>>Besides, Mr. Medicine Man, being temporarily under hypnotic suggestion isn't
>>technically the same as being "insane", is it? Is "insane" even a proper 
>>medical term?
>>
>It may not be technically the same, 

Since, as you have tried to impress on me wrt "schizophrenic", we MUST
use the correct jargon, even in a general forum, your use of "insane" --
a legal term -- is INCORRECT.

>And Kibble, I wasn't *talking* about a medical diagnosis,
>was I? I was talking about a verdict in a court case.

And "I wasn't *talking* about a medical diagnosis" [sic] when I suggested that 
Larry was "schizophrenic", either -- I was just describing his behavior in a 
vaguely insulting way. But that didn't stop you from strutting around 
insisting that everyone should speak medical jargon, did it, Mark...?

>>>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>>>body from being violated?
>>>
>>>Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned. 
>>
>>If she has the legal right to kill in self-defense (which has not been 
>>demonstrated to my satisfaction to be the case in ANY state of the Union), 
>>the evil hypnotizer is guilty of felony murder as well as rape, since he 
>>caused the whole situation. In fact, depending on how the statute was 
>>written, the evil hypnotizer might even be guilty of TWO counts of criminal 
>>sexual assault as well as the felony murder (since he forced the dart-victim 
>>into a sexual encounter without HIS consent as well). In any case, I don't 
>>think he'll be getting out of prison anytime soon... :-|
>>
>Does this mean you've finally found a state in which it is *not* legal
>to kill a rapist to halt the rape?

No, it just means that Larry's "evidence" doesn't meet my standards. IMO, he 
has failed to meet his burden of proof.

>Besides Kebbin, you might notice up there that I said 'as far as I'm
>concerned'. Did I meantion law? Did I say she had a legal right? No, I
>didn't.

Since, as you have tried to impress on me wrt "schizophrenic", we MUST
use the correct jargon, even in a general forum, your use of "right" --
a legal term -- is INCORRECT.

								- Kevin

"I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."
						Susan Garvin, sgast+@pitt.edu
						30 Dec 92 22:07:01 GMT
						<1235@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh