murder should be legalized because it might not be anyone's fault.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t actually believe that is what I meant.

I’m not suggesting that murder become legal, I was attempting to illustrate to DrawFour that there are factors in criminal behavior which ought not be ignored or resolved so simplistically.

Do you remember crimes of passion where a man kills his wife for having an affair? That would be the world you would usher in with your nonsense.

Saying that there are causes to certain behaviors is not to say that a person isn’t culpable; instead, it’s an attempt to suggest that the culpability is shared and therefore so is the responsibility to resolve the things which caused the behavior.

HOW MANY MURDERERS HAVE THEY FOUND TUMORS IN THEIR BRAINS?

Is it so surprising that an injury or illness in the brain (the organ which facilitates the entirety of our thoughts and actions) causes a change to otherwise ‘normal’ behavior?

You don’t seem like the type to be persuaded by evidence that opposes your preconceived notions but nonetheless:

Charles Whitman

James Butwin

The Brain on Trial

To be, or not to be a psychopath

Brain Trials: Neuroscience Is Taking a Stand in the Courtroom

Coping With Personality and Behavioral Changes

Brain tumour linked to uncharacteristic aggression

It matters not what brought about the person's inhumanity, we deal with him so anyone else understands they can not get away with it.

In the subject of criminology ‘what brought about the crime’ or a person’s ‘motive’ is a very significant factor which is often times the paramount reason for convicting or exonerating an accused person.

Making an example out of someone as if to say “this will happen to you if you do the same,” is not the purpose of the justice system. Besides, it doesn’t work. People who intentionally commit crimes do so with full knowledge of consequence, they still do it though because they assume they won’t get caught. This is not an unreasonable assumption considering that most crimes go unnoticed or unreported.

It is apparent that we ought to look for more effective means to reduce crime then scare tactics.

Fair is entirely relative, and bears no weight on its own assertion. Declining to exercise capital punishment does not necessarily value either life relative to the other, but rather conveys that the state values each human life inherently.

I should have clarified my stance on mirror punishment. Yes, I do believe the survivors, if not the victims themselves, should have the right to exact punishment. But they should also be free to decide otherwise, also (for example, deciding upon a lesser form of punishment).

Perhaps presumptively, I had already rather read that context into your earlier statements. Even when equitable vengeance is enacted as a consequence of personal election, the enacting party may still suffer from lasting negative psychological ramifications. Enacting violence is very different from imagining it, and revenge does not consistently achieve its desired psychological effects.

Idisagree. It is human nature to err, or think monstrous thoughts and have unexplainable feelings and/or emotions. But to act upon those impulses is not human nature otherwise the constraints humankind puts on its own behavior, and even the laws in place intended to exclude such behavior, would be completely ineffective. & I can concede that some individuals commit heinous crimes against their better judgment and as compulsory actions to obsessive thinking. I do not categorize such individuals as monsters deserving of death, but instead of study and treatment. However, I do believe there are individuals inherently evil and who, in their right minds, commit heinous acts just to do so. Those are the individuals I categorize as monsters.

For your statements to be true, such persons must be a biologically distinct species from the human species (which they are not, as a matter of scientific fact). Your primary error in reasoning is to assume that human behavior is categorically uniform. In reality, however, human neurobiology exists upon a spectrum from which we can derive an average norm of behavior but for which there will always be multiple deviations.

Acts of premeditated killing are the consequence of a violent, anti-social aberration from the norm which we actually know a fair amount about. Science has established that some members of our species are genetically disposed towards developing this psychological deviation, due to a particular gene sequence commonly referred to as "the warrior gene". This coding does not guarantee that a person will develop violent, anti-social behavior but does cause that development if such a person undergoes triggering environmental stimulation (e.g. abuse) in their lifetime and especially in childhood or early adolescence.

Had science continued to dismiss the conduct of these persons as the results of "monsters" rather than considering their behavior as a naturally occurring human genetic deviation we would not have the understanding we are beginning to develop. To persist in viewing such persons as "monsters" is not only to deny the science we have, but to resist further exploration that could develop effective proactive and reactive treatments. Again, it also denies our own collective culpability in failing to seriously and effectively address the crimes of child abuse and neglect that we know for a fact are a serious contributing factor to the development of such deviant psychologies.

It perplexes me that you are apparently able to concede this in some cases though not in others, when scientifically we understand this type of conduct to be categorically determined by genetic and environmental variables beyond conscious human control. There is no basis to the notion that the Ted Bundys of the world are any more in control of their actions than are the Charles Whitmans.

(It may be pertinent if somewhat tangential at this point for me to mention that I do not believe any of us exercise any actual free will over any of our thoughts or actions.)

And to dilute murder as part of human nature offers an excuse for its perpetration.

Sure, though not a legitimate one. Culpability is a requisite to responsibility, but not to accountability. Acknowledging human neurodiversity does not mean inherent acceptance of all consequent behavior, it just means we better understand it for what it is and can manage it more effectively.