You are confusing separate issues as one. The threat of punishment is to deter crime. A person does not need to be mentally I'll to commit a crime. Quit demonizing the mentally ill.
I'm not demonizing the mentally ill. I'm well aware that you can have mental problems without committing crimes.
You can also commit crimes without a mental illness. You are trying to create a false equivalency that is quite nasty. You are trying to demonize the mentally ill.
In what way am I trying to demonize the mentally ill? If unprovoked aggression is not a sign of mental issues then the definition needs to change. What is your definition?
A mental deficiency that makes it difficult for someone to participate in society. Not by choice. Criminal behaviour is often a choice.
Unprovoked aggression is going to make it difficult to participate in society... Yes, crime is a choice. Why do people make that choice?
It doesn't really make it hard to participate in society. Mental deficiencies are not a choice. One reason to break the law is not caring about the law.
Do you think people are going to trade and interact equally with violent criminals as with peaceful people?
People do it all the time... so yes.
Really. Suppose you have a hardware store. A known serial domestic abuser walks in and tries to buy an axe. Do you let him?
Since storms dknt perform background checks, then use. You putting "known" in there changes things a lot.
So your assumption that criminals won't be shunned in society is based on their crimes remaining unknown? So if they are known, they would be shunned?
Sure, but shunned is a different issue. There are other reasons one can have difficulty in society. Not all those reasons are a mental illness.
Would you agree that there is something seriously wrong with a person that commits random acts of violence?
Sure, for a given value of seriously.
Is there a major difference between having something seriously wrong with you (mentally or behaviorally) and being insane?
Yes, they are two separate classifications. You can be a bad person without any mental illness. It is more common to be a bad person and same then a bad person with a mental illness.
So evil vs insane? How do you tell the difference between a person doing evil deeds because he is evil and a person doing evil deeds because he is insane?
The presence of a mental illness is what differentiates between those.
You're just repeating the classification. I'm asking how do you tell the difference? People don't have labels on them displaying their mental classification.
A doctor usually. Symptoms let you know. Violent crime isn't a symptom.
Obviously a doctor is the person doing the evaluation. Obviously they use "symptoms". I bet violent crime can be seen as a symptom.
If you commit real crimes, like theft, assault, rape, murder, you have serious mental/behavioral issues. Whether all criminals qualify according to some DSM manual isn't that relevant.
That is not true at all. Actually most mentally I'll people are not violent. You really ate wrong to trust to define criminal behaviour as a mental illness.
I've never said that most mentally ill people are violent. Why are you making things up? Do you really think assaulting people at random is sane?
I make up nothing. Comparing criminality to mental illness is saying that the mentally ill are violent.
Yes I think murder and assault are mostly done by the same.
I'm arguing that violent criminals have mental issues. You are turning it around and trying to make it seem like I claim all people with mental issues are criminals. This is not cool.
Violence is very natural. Hardly a mental deficiency. You keep saying all criminals have .dental deficiencies, which is objectively wrong. Your definition isn't the definition.
Natural is not the same as good, or healthy, or sane.
How dare you suggest that all people with cavities are criminals!? /s
