ALRIGHT, SO sayyyyyyyy.....
A woman is arrested for drowning four of her children but her defense was that she was extremely depressed.
OR
A man is accused of hiring someone to kill his wife because he didn't want to pay alimony and child support once his divorce was final.
Who situation, to YOU, demonstrates the rational choice theory?
and do you think the man and woman's defense will hold up in court?
Answers:
Rational choice theory does not account for mental illness. A crime committed as a result of a mental illness is not the product of a rational choice. As such, rational choice theory excuses the crime committed as the result of mental illness (as does the law in general). Rational choice theory understands deliberate killing for financial reasons and thus requires a substantial penalty for such crimes to give a disincentive for the commission of such crimes.
Under both the law and rational choice theory, the woman who claims that she suffered from depression has a claim for not guilty by reason of insanity (whether she will be able to prove it is another matter). Under both the law and rational choice theory, a financial reason for the killing is not a defense and the most severe penalty is appropriate.
The woman should get the death penalty,if she realizes that she was extremely depressed she should have gotten help, she didn't and drowned her kids, that's her fault, sadly I actually heard about a case just like this a while a go, and her case held up in court, it shoudn't have, but it did . As for the man, he should also get death, I would hope that it would not hold up and I don't think it would either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment