Nick's Journal
2002-08-09 23:35:12 (UTC)

Insanity and Philosophical Semiotics

Ok, well that stupid fucking title makes it seem like this
is supposed to be an entry with a plethora of jumbled
psycho-babble or whatever. but. basically what this is
about is the fucking insanity plea.
shit. i can't believe that criminals/MURDERERS are getting
free vacations to "regain" their sanity. now. i don't
fucking doubt for one fucking second that these people are
fucking insane. no fucking shit! you have to be insane to
want to kill somebody. that's really not even a point.
that's like saying you have to be a republican to join the
republican party. using this concept as a DEFENSE is
basically it comes down to something as small as
semiotics. what we take a word to mean. basically we can
break down "what we take a word to mean", into 3 basic
groups. we have our view of it, for example, my view of
the word "aunt" will probably be quite different from
someone else's who may have a mentally deranged aunt.
then we have the meaning that "a bunch" of people around
us have. needless to say when we join a frat our meaning
of the word "woman" is engulfed in the collective meaning
that everyone around us has. then of course there is the
meaning that is more or less "set in stone". these are
our dictionary/thesaurus definitions. sure when i hear
the word horse i might picture something really bizzarre,
but the fact remains that there is a firm defintion of
what a horse is, and what i, or others around me share in
belief really is inconsequential.
so there you have the three types of meaning. now the
insanity charge feeds on all of these. look at the word
insanity. who do you view as insane? what are your
requisites for insanity? is it frothing at the mouth?
cutting up your boss so that you can wear his skin as a
cloth that will help you fight the demons of the alterior
dimension? needless to say our definitions of insanity
are all quite different. it is the defense attorney's job
to not only converge YOUR perception of the
word "insanity", but also that of your surrounding jurors,
to a "stead-fast" definition. for example : insanity is,
drooling all cross-eyed while you execute a marine officer
after you rob him (a true case). then once established,
and believe me it's quite some work to establish, the
attorney molds this definition onto his defendant. logic
goes like this:
A. THIS is insanity
B. MY client IS this insanity
C. According to the law, you must now let him go.
my main beef with the insanity plea is that it's used when
the victim is OBVIOUSLY GUILTY! i see it as a way of
saying, yeah ok, you caught us, but i shouldn't be
punished because i'm too stupid. fucking bullshit.
it's actually quite sad that our legal system many times
succumbs to fights about definitions and meanings of words
than right vs. wrong. lawyers aren't trying to prove
someone was a dumbshit killer but moreover that they KNEW
they were a dumbshit killer. that's preposterous! so to
get around that shit a prosecutor has to fiddle with
definition of insanity, refuting the defendants
definition, while at the same time saying, that no matter
the definition the defendant can not be set free under
said word.
i can't believe that people scoff at philosophical
semiotics and their baring on society. our words have a
hell of a fucking lot to do with how we perceive. they
are extremely powerful and they are able to give convicted
killers country club stays, just because they have
been "termed" under "unfit". fucking bullshit. let's
throw those "insane" people in with the lions. haha, i'd
like to see a lion on trial all cross-eyed and drooling.
hell no. we'd shoot the motherfucker because it was "too