difference between insane and bad

[jonwilson]

I've seen some suggest that Jack was not insane, just a bad person, but how could anyone on earth who did the things he did to women be considered not insane? No sane person would do the type of things he did to those prostitutes that he killed.

[Bob Hinton]

I'm afraid your ideas of what is sane and what isn't need revising.

[Garza]

Criminally insane people have no awareness of what is right or wrong, they have no concept of morality. Eg. Ed Gein.

Criminally sane people know what they are doing is bad, but they do it anyway.

The vast majority of serial killers are sane. And what we know about the types of killer Jack the Ripper closely resembles and organised way he dispatched his victims, it is probable that Jack the Ripper was sane.

Just because normal people can't understand their actions does not make them insane.

[Ally]

I've seen some suggest that Jack was not insane, just a bad person, but how could anyone on earth who did the things he did to women be considered not insane? No sane person would do the type of things he did to those prostitutes that he killed.

(emphasis mine)

What did he do precisely that indicates insanity? If you break it down into absolute actions he killed people and he cut up dead bodies.

People kill all the time. They aren't insane. Soldiers, regular dirtbags, doctors euthanizing patients, etc. The act of killing itself has absolutely no bearing on whether one is insane.

The second part, cutting up dead people? Once again, doctors, medical students, people who need to dispose of their murdered victims, etc.

The mere act of doing something doesn't indicate insanity whether we go by the legal definition or not.

[Hunter]

(emphasis mine)

What did he do precisely that indicates insanity? If you break it down into absolute actions he killed people and he cut up dead bodies.

People kill all the time. They aren't insane. Soldiers, regular dirtbags, doctors euthanizing patients, etc. The act of killing itself has absolutely no bearing on whether one is insane.

The second part, cutting up dead people? Once again, doctors, medical students, people who need to dispose of their murdered victims, etc.

The mere act of doing something doesn't indicate insanity whether we go by the legal definition or not.

It is the motive behind the act that would be in question. To kill, in order to mutilate and disperse body parts is a far cry from what soldiers, doctors, regular dirtbags or even one that disposes body parts to eliminate evidence mental inclinations are... unless one believes Baxter's theory about a Burke and Hare motive.

This guy was probably not a foaming at the mouth lunatic like much of the sensationalism depicted, but the evidence points to some kind of problem... whatever terminology you want to use.

[Garza]

This guy was probably not a foaming at the mouth lunatic like much of the sensationalism depicted, but the evidence points to some kind of problem... whatever terminology you want to use.

Having a mental problem is not the same as insanity. I agree Jack was a screwed up individual by our standards, that does not make him insane however.

[Barnaby]

I think that most of us would agree that Jack did not meet the modern legal standard of criminally insane. I also think most of us would agree that Jack had a psychological disorder (e.g., antisocial personality disorder, at the least). As stated above, these two things are different.

One thing that does bother me about the "insane" designation is that we almost always judge whether or not a person knows an action is right or wrong based on their attempts to avoid detection. The reasoning goes that you must know something is wrong if you are taking steps to cover up what you did. But I swear my dog does this when she does something wrong. I think it is possible that a person can have a clear idea that a certain action results in a certain punishment (and thus take steps to avoid detection), but have no real concept of why that action merits punishment. I'm not saying Jack was insane, I'm just wondering what is the best way - if any - to define this term.

[Bob Hinton]

Category -gory being the right word!

Well at the very least I think we can all agree he was a "Very naughty boy!"

[kensei]

This debate is such a slippery slope, and is going on right now about the assassin in Tucson who killed six people and wounded so many others in his attack on a congresswoman. They say if he is found to be sane he will almost certainly receive the death penalty. The same was true of Jack the Ripper- if caught and found sane, he would have swung from a rope. If found insane, he would have languished and died in Broadmoor or Colney Hatch. Lifetime commitment to a mental hospital is no different from prison- at least the maniac is off the streets. And we hurl epithets at such people- "Sicko! Wacko!"- as if these words describing mental illness are insults that are synonymous with "evil." It seems to me that people never stop and think that it can't be both ways. A killer is either sane or insane. If he is sane, then he is evil and deserves nothing but disdain. But if insane, he is sick and had no control of his actions. Such a person must still be contained of course to protect the public, but logically, how can we still hate such a person just for being ill? I think there is great food for thought there.

And if we want to explore some of the darker corners of our minds- we often hear the verdict "Not guilty by reason of insanity," which as I said usually still results in "imprisonment" in a hospital. But should there be such a thing as "Guilty by reason of insanity?" Should there ever be a case in which a person found to be insane is executed anyway? The thought would be- sir, we feel for you and you got a really bad break by being born with this mental defect you have, but if you are really so completely insane that you are literally unable to keep yourself from killing people, and if we confine you you are just going to live the rest of your life suffering from unbearable urges to kill unless we just medicate you into a coma, then really, what practical purpose is there for keeping you around?

I'm not even sure where I stand on those questions, they're just thoughts I've allowed myself to have.

[Ally]

One thing that does bother me about the "insane" designation is that we almost always judge whether or not a person knows an action is right or wrong based on their attempts to avoid detection. The reasoning goes that you must know something is wrong if you are taking steps to cover up what you did. But I swear my dog does this when she does something wrong. I think it is possible that a person can have a clear idea that a certain action results in a certain punishment (and thus take steps to avoid detection), but have no real concept of why that action merits punishment. I'm not saying Jack was insane, I'm just wondering what is the best way - if any - to define this term.

The "consciousness of guilt" argument is an interesting one I agree (and I agree that my dog displays this as well, I always know how much mischief she's gotten up to by her body language when she greets me at the door, and if she doesn't even come to the door when I arrive home, I know my kitchen is going to be strewn with garbage from one end to the other).

As for not knowing WHY something is wrong but knowing it's wrong, I am not sure how that would imply to insanity. There are many things we do in our daily lives anyway that we know are "wrong" but we do them and conceal them, the criteria is "do you know if you are caught, you will be punished, do you do it anyway". If you take efforts to conceal your behavior, then whether you agree with or comprehend why something is wrong, you know it is, and you know there will be consequences for your actions.

For examples, less heinous than murder, consider people who regularly cheat on their spouses. They have to rationalize it someway, they clearly don't think it's "wrong" because they keep doing it, but they aren't insane. They just have a different concept of what justifies right and wrong than others.

People cheat, steal all the savings from grandmothers, beat their spouses, beat their kids and no one has any problem saying these people are completely sane, just arseholes with a different concept of what's acceptable than most.