Smoking weed can make you kill Jews, it turns out.

Lexicus said:
I'm hardly suggesting that the decision the courts eventually hand down should be immune from criticism, but you seem to have decided that the outcome is bad when the outcome hasn't actually happened yet...
Click to expand...

What's happened so far is already scandalous.
 
Psychosis from Cannabis is a real thing, think of it like a peanut allergy. You can't imagine being allergic to peanuts, but there is a confluence of factors that makes it dangerous to somebody.

Also, not pressing criminal charges against someone in a psychotic break is a pretty standard thing in the modern society, thank goodness.

We have serial underinvestment in mental health, especially the truly debilitating ones. Most people cannot even name a charity that researches such things
 
Criminalizing marijuana does very little to help keep people safe, because the type of people who are rendered psychotic by marijuana are not very likely to be prevented from smoking marijuana by the law

In essence, it doesn't help. Except maybe the small fraction of people who are prevented from smoking marijuana due to its criminalization, and who are also at risk of psychotic break. It's a bit like the gun argument, where a lot of normal people are inconvenienced while not really preventing much harm.

Probably the best way to help reduce psychosis from marijuana is to have conversations about it, so that people know that it is possible, and look for the signs. Additionally, research to help those that are susceptible would go a long way to reducing their proclivity to consume it
 
Just so you're aware, that article's title was sarcastic.
 
Mouthwash said:
Just so you're aware, that article's title was sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Sure. My broader point is that marijuana psychosis is real, and we want to reduce psychotic killings. One necessary path is actually funding the underlying research, which we don't really.
 
Yeah dropping an intent-based charge you think won't succeed, and pursuing involuntary psychiatric confinement, is not "being let off" nor is it a particularly surprising or uncommon deployment of prosecutorial discretion. This is silly.
 
I think the OPs point is that anti-Semitism is so ingrained in a lot of people that stuff like this results when they lose a semblance of control. He attacked her and was scared because his subconscious was already phobic to Jews. Same with anyone who in polite society is, er, politically correct, but goes all Mel Gibson, under the influence, with the influence not actually influencing anything but removing normal inhibitions to say and act what one believes. So I also hope OP brought up Philando Castille sincerely and supports the message of black lives matters and recognizes that many police shootings are tainted with a racial bias and the same underlying fear that already exists ingrained in many of these officers about black people.
I hope your point is that hate crimes happen and that should not be minimized. And is not seriously saying weed should be banned because it causes it.
 
It's likely less weed related and more social/civilized discomfort related.
 
Arwon said:
Yeah dropping an intent-based charge you think won't succeed, and pursuing involuntary psychiatric confinement, is not "being let off" nor is it a particularly surprising or uncommon deployment of prosecutorial discretion. This is silly.
Click to expand...

The question is why an intent-based charge wouldn't succeed. I keep comparing it to treatment of black people in the US, but I think a murder like this of one would be an easy hate crime.
 
Lexicus said:
Seems ridiculous to drop the murder charge in this case. But I don't see how he is being "let off for it," presumably if it was determined to be psychosis or whatever, he will be involuntarily committed to an institution for a lengthy period of time.
Click to expand...

This isn't the 19th century though so being locked up in an institution isn't exactly a punishment anymore. Hell it could even be seen as a vacation with the only real freedom one loses is their freedom of movement. Not being able to leave the place that houses you, feeds you, and provides therapy and medical care for you, all at the tax payers expense, is a pretty light punishment for brutally murdering another human being.

Now if this were any time before, say, 1930 then you might make the case that sending him to an institution is the proper punishment for his crime since institutions were essentially just torture houses back then.
 
Last edited:
Commodore said:
This isn't the 19th century though so being locked up in an institution isn't exactly a punishment anymore. He'll it could even be seen as a vacation with the only real freedom one loses is their freedom of movement. Not being able to leave the place that houses you, feeds you, and provides therapy and medical care for you, all at the tax payers expense, is a pretty light punishment for brutally murdering another human being.

Now if this were any time before, say, 1930 then you might make the case that sending him to an institution is the proper punishment for his crime since institutions were essentially just torture houses back then.
Click to expand...

Seems like the 'Avatar' film, but where evil tyranny won.
 
Mouthwash said:
The question is why an intent-based charge wouldn't succeed. I keep comparing it to treatment of black people in the US, but I think a murder like this of one would be an easy hate crime.
Click to expand...

Your own opening post explained this:

The different opinions come after separate panels of psychiatrists concluded Mr Traoré had suffered a psychotic episode after a massive use of cannabis, but disagreed over whether he was partially aware of his actions.
Click to expand...

If established medical opinion and prosecutors both think it's gonna be iffy, that's a pretty good sign that it's gonna be iffy. Without being privy to the details of the reports, to any particular psychiatric expertise, or to any particular understanding of the French criminal code, that's all there is to go on - both sets of experts thought this was gonna be very iffy to prosecute as murder.

Now, prosecutors aren't generally in the business of not pursuing murder cases if they think they have a decent case, so one would think their decision here to go for medical confinement is a fairly carefully considered one based on the evidence and law.
 
Last edited:
Gorbles said:
I like that we got to a literal Godwin by post #9.
Click to expand...

Godwin's been cancelled for around half a decade now.

Arwon said:
If established medical opinion and prosecutors both think it's gonna be iffy, that's a pretty good sign that it's gonna be iffy. Without being privy to the details of the reports, to any particular psychiatric expertise, or to any particular understanding of the French criminal code, that's all there is to go on - both sets of experts thought this was gonna be very iffy to prosecute as murder.

Now, prosecutors aren't generally in the business of not pursuing murder cases if they think they have a decent case, so one would think their decision here to go for medical confinement is a fairly carefully considered one based on the evidence and law.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that the business of psychiatrists and lawyers is to establish something resembling the truth (and could not be more wrong). You're correct that prosecutors should be at least incentivized to make harsher claims, but this is a high-profile political case. In a country like France, I suspect that avoiding political backlash is a bigger incentive.
 
Lexicus said:
I think it's interesting that you believe you are better-positioned to determine this than the French judicial system...
Click to expand...

Don't you routinely think that you are in a better position to determine justice than the US judicial system?
 
Commodore said:
This isn't the 19th century though so being locked up in an institution isn't exactly a punishment anymore. Hell it could even be seen as a vacation with the only real freedom one loses is their freedom of movement. Not being able to leave the place that houses you, feeds you, and provides therapy and medical care for you, all at the tax payers expense, is a pretty light punishment for brutally murdering another human being.
Click to expand...

Your callousness and lack of experience is showing. Mental health institutions are not going to approximate a vacation for any serious offender.

They are terrible places, and there is a strong psychological reason why inpatients almost never get visitors. Again, we deliberately underfund this aspect of society.

I worked in it for years, and now that I work elsewhere I devote a portion of my paycheck to funding the research. We are nowhere near where we want to be when it comes to treating serious mental health issues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sir Bugsy
Out of the Mouths of Babes
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Cookie Crumbs
C
Top Bottom