<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Stefano, how does the insanity plea
work in the continental law tradition?<br>
<br>
On 24/02/2013 15:35, spike wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Ja.
If we presume to set up a number of different varieties of
crazy, I can see a hundred ways this whole notion could go
seriously wrong. In the US, gun ownership and voting are
considered constitutional rights for those who have not been
convicted of a felony. In introducing a new category of those
whose gun rights are to be infringed, it seems logical to me
that if anyone is too crazy to have a gun, then they are
definitely too crazy to vote. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not necessarily. First, the idea that felons do not have a right to
vote is a local one - the UK is actually struggling with the
European Court of Human Rights, which has judged that preventing
prisoners from voting is a severe infringement of their rights. And
I think one can make a good case that some people who have mental
disorders yet should have the right to vote (should we prevent
depressed or anorexics from voting?) <br>
<br>
Being ill means that certain rights and obligations change, but they
change in different ways depending on how the person is sick and in
different ways from someone who is a criminal. Criminals are assumed
to know right from wrong but choose to do wrong; mentally ill people
might or might not have that ability - when they are locked up it is
for very different reasons than criminals. I think the simple test
of whether somebody might deserve a right is that they understand
what it is and what it implies: sociopaths are actually too
short-term and self-centred to have for example voting rights, while
anorectics are perfectly normal in all domains except body image.
Yes, this concept of rights also implies that a lot of stupid adults
should not have voting rights, and that posthumans might have rights
and obligations beyond ours. <br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University </pre>
</body>
</html>