Mental State

A person's mental state is important because we should know if a defendant knows right from wrong, or if he or she is competent. When a defendant is on the witness stand or sitting in a courtroom, we usually have no way of knowing their mental state. A person can look perfectly normal, but have big problems.

Their mental state must be a factor in determining whether or not they are guilty. There are serious mental illnesses that people suffer from that are real and that affect their mental capacity to make normal decisions.

Though most of us don't like the idea of someone getting away with a crime because they are found "insane" or "mentally incompetent," in some cases it is reality. And, given, that they are examined by a competent, independent psychiatric expert, we, as a society must give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, we are all innocent until proven guilty, and one who is truly mentally unstable deserves our understanding. They do not deserve our forgiveness or a verdict of innocent. Punishment and rehabilitation should be the goals.

The only alternative would be to try a person whether mentally incompetent or not, but have a different set of penalties for it. However, the problem with that is that, in our system, the person must be competent to stand trial, to face their accuser, and to comprehend what is going on in court, as well as to communicate with their own attorney.

If, indeed a person is truly mentally incapacitated, we must somehow show understanding of that fact.

An Intentional Act Involved in Every Act of Recklessness

Any voluntary act of a thinking human being is intentional. It has to be, or we wouldn't do it. Our intent is to commit the voluntary act. Blinking of your eye is a reflex. Kicking...

It also involves a "rash," thoughtless, or irresponsible act. Reckless may apply to someone who jumps in their car when they are extremely angry and drives too fast, not paying attention to other cars and rams into another car injuring someone. That's reckless, but it was also a voluntary act. So it is an intentional act.
Getting in the car, starting it, racing off down the street were all voluntary and intentional. Not paying attention and hitting someone else were reckless.

In our case, the defendants had a physical altercation in their room and knocked over the candle "accidently." The physical altercation was a voluntary, intentional act which led to the reckless act of knocking over the candle. Thus, there was an intentional act involved in their act of recklessness.

Their acts of leaving the building, walking away, going to a shopping mall, having a meal, and choosing not to call 911 while a fire they started was growing bigger by the minute were all voluntary, intentional acts. Did they know a fire could kill firefighters? How could they not know that fires injure and kill people all the time. So were they being reckless at the same time they were committing intentional acts? Of course.

Our definition of reckless is thoughtless, rash, or irresponsible. Not calling 911 was both voluntary (intentional) and reckless (irresponsible).

The judge is correct in his statement that there is an intentional act involved in every act of recklessness. (Murray)

Bibliography

Commonwealth vs. Thomas S. Levesque. No. 436 Mass. 443. Supreme Judicial Court. 29 March 2002.

Murray, G.V. "Tragedy in Worcester." 20 September 2000. firehouse.com. 18 July 2009 .