Another WTF moment from reading law. In People V Schmidt, this dude goes nuts and hears the voice of God. God tell this nutter to kill a random woman. He does so, and gets off. The court reasons that the word, “Wrong” ( as in Wrongful death ), means subjective, moral wrong — rather than objective, legal wrong. As such, if a nutter kills someone, subjectively believing he’s right, then he’s not criminally liable.
That’s what happens when we let psychology into the law. Even the Bible talks about this — that there was a time when everyone lived according to their own morals, and this was terrible. Without an objective standard( the bible argues this is the standard of God’s law, but we modernists think this is the standard of Law ), people would be free to commit all sorts of evils. For all humans can delude themselves into thinking that which is for them is good — even when it is a horrid evil.
While psychology may be personally helpful — it has no place in law. It makes the law too soft, and allows dangerous people to go free. I feel that if you’re a nutter, then this is an aggravating factor. If you think God is telling you to run around killing people — maybe we should lock you up for life — just to protect ourselves from you.( I strongly doubt a delusion that God talks to you is curable with modern medecine. And even if you’re cured somehow — you still killed a random person. Retribution is required for this act. Game theory explains why. Also — game theory explains that revenge is a good thing. The law must be an agent of revenge, if it is to be just, and if it is to stop future crimes. )