In many cases when it has been used it has tended to cause public debate. The insanity defense confirms that the criminal defendant is not guilty because of his insanity. The theory of defense tells that people who are insane cannot have the intent necessary to commit a criminal action because they either do not know that action is wrong or cannot control their behavior even when they know the act is wrong. However, this theory is rather controversial as it is complicated to define insanity itself, and the situations in which it can be used to excuse criminal responsibility are complex to define Insanity Defense
Introducing the Problem Journalist and best-selling author Lee Strobel commissioned George Barna, the public-opinion pollster, to conduct a nationwide survey. The survey included the question "If you could ask God only one question and you knew he would give you an answer, what would you ask?
If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good, why does he let so many bad things happen? This question raises what philosophers call "the problem of evil. As it is, however, thousands of good-hearted, innocent people experience the ravages of violent crime, terminal disease, and other evils.
Michael Petersonp. An earthquake kills hundreds in Peru. A pancreatic cancer patient suffers prolonged, excruciating pain and dies. A pit bull attacks a two-year-old child, angrily ripping his flesh and killing him. Countless multitudes suffer the ravages of war in Somalia.
A crazed cult leader pushes eighty-five people to their deaths in Waco, Texas. Millions starve and die in North Korea as famine ravages the land. Horrible things of all kinds happen in our world—and that has been the story since the dawn of civilization.
They claim that, since there is something morally problematic about a morally perfect God allowing all of the evil and suffering we see, there must not be a morally perfect God after all.
Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time: Any two or three of them might be true at the same time; but there is no way that all of them could be true. In other words, 1 through 4 form a logically inconsistent set.
What does it mean to say that something is logically inconsistent? None of the statements in 1 through 4 directly contradicts any other, so if the set is logically inconsistent, it must be because we can deduce a contradiction from it.
This is precisely what atheologians claim to be able to do. Atheologians claim that a contradiction can easily be deduced from 1 through 4 once we think through the implications of the divine attributes cited in 1 through 3. They reason as follows: Statements 6 through 8 jointly imply that if the perfect God of theism really existed, there would not be any evil or suffering.
However, as we all know, our world is filled with a staggering amount of evil and suffering. Atheologians claim that, if we reflect upon 6 through 8 in light of the fact of evil and suffering in our world, we should be led to the following conclusions: From 9 through 11 we can infer: Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get: Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests that—in light of the evil and suffering we find in our world—if God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked.
It should be obvious that 13 conflicts with 1 through 3 above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine 12 and 3 into the following single statement.
There is no way that 13 and 14 could both be true at the same time.
These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory. Statement 14 is simply the conjunction of 1 through 3 and expresses the central belief of classical theism.
However, atheologians claim that statement 13 can also be derived from 1 through 3. Because a contradiction can be deduced from statements 1 through 4 and because all theists believe 1 through 4atheologians claim that theists have logically inconsistent beliefs.
They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory. Can the believer in God escape from this dilemma? As a perfectly good God, he also feels your pain. Denying the truth of either 123 or 4 is certainly one way for the theist to escape from the logical problem of evil, but it would not be a very palatable option to many theists.
In the remainder of this essay, we will examine some theistic responses to the logical problem of evil that do not require the abandonment of any central tenet of theism.
Logical Consistency Theists who want to rebut the logical problem of evil need to find a way to show that 1 through 4 —perhaps despite initial appearances—are consistent after all. We said above that a set of statements is logically inconsistent if and only if that set includes a direct contradiction or a direct contradiction can be deduced from that set.
That means that a set of statements is logically consistent if and only if that set does not include a direct contradiction and a direct contradiction cannot be deduced from that set.
In other words, 15 A set of statements is logically consistent if and only if it is possible for all of them to be true at the same time. Notice that 15 does not say that consistent statements must actually be true at the same time.There’s varying levels of walled gardens, to take the metaphor way too far.
You could talk at a friendly and superficial level to a wife-and-seven-kids coworker that treats his family as his personal fiefdom, but do no more.
The Law and Insanity Defense Essay - The insanity defense has been around for a very long time, the idea behind it is that a person who is incapable of telling right from wrong should not be held responsible for his or her actions at the time. Amy Freeman, a year-old mother of three, stood recently in the young-adult section of her local Barnes & Noble, in Bethesda, Md., feeling thwarted and disheartened.
Threats against Bush at public protests. A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, . Using magic. Witches and wizards need training to learn how to control their magic. With young and untrained children, magic will manifest itself subconsciously in moments of strong apprehension, fear, anger and sadness.
For example, Harry Potter once made his hair grow back after a bad haircut, set a boa constrictor on his cousin Dudley at the . Challenging The Insanity Defense Philosophy Essay.
Print Self-induced insanity is a distinct strain of insanity which should not be used as a viable defense against criminal liability. Insanity caused by substance abuse must work against a criminal’s cause rather than save him from the perils one has entered into.
If you are the.