The American legal system is based on the assumption that someone who commits a crime acted out of free will and should be held responsible for his or her crime. However, there are exceptions designed to absolve (e.g., insanity) or reduce (e.g., diminished capacity) one's responsibility. The purpose of this post is not to discuss these factors but to use them to ask some probing questions about the nature of religious belief.
A man with a gun was killed today by a security officer outside the office of Colorado governor Bill Ritter. The gunman claimed, "I am the emperor and I'm here to take over state government" and refused orders to drop his gun before he was shot.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that facts emerge showing that this man had a long history of mental illness, was off his medication, and had become psychotic. Let's further assume that we learn that he was delusional at the time of the incident and that he genuinely believed that he was the emperor of Colorado and that he had a duty to retake his rightful office by any means necessary.
Is he morally responsible for his criminal act? That is, do we hold him responsible and punish him regardless of his mental illness, or do we relieve him of responsibility because he was operating under a mental disorder sufficient to render him unable to know what he was doing or to know that what he was doing was wrong?
If you are even mildly familiar with psychology and the law, you'll recognize this as a question about the insanity defense. Even people who don't like the insanity defense tend to agree that someone suffering from a serious mental disorder is less responsible for his or her actions even if we might not be comfortable removing responsibility completely (i.e., diminished capacity). So far so good. Time for the central question...
What about Osama bin Laden? Should he be considered less responsible for his terrorist acts because of his religious delusion? I'm guessing that you wouldn't go for this. What is the difference? What about a Christian terrorist who kills an abortion doctor because he genuinely believes that this doctor is sending souls to hell. Should he be considered less responsible for his actions? Should religious delusion mitigate against personal responsibility?
In mental health law, mental disorder per se is not sufficient to mitigate responsibility. Even if religious belief were universally accepted as a mental disorder, the overwhelming majority of religious fanatics would still not come close to meet legal criteria for insanity. This is because the legal standard in most states goes far beyond mental disorder, requiring serious impairment to the point where the defendant's capacity to form criminal intent is limited. Only the most seriously delusional would come close, and in fact, this is exactly what happens now. Many who have been acquitted on insanity have met criteria in part due to religious delusions, a rather common symptom of schizophrenia.
Tags: delusion, crime, religion, insanity, Colorado, Bill Ritter, law, psychology, mental health
