random conversations...

[chrisau8r.livejournal.com]

x-posted, my journal and multiplicity

I was watching 60 Minutes last night and they were talking (GAH talking, NOT tawking, lol) about people who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs, and use that as a defence. All my flatmates thought this was stupid. The conversation steered to the same situation, but where the defendant was a multiple instead of high on crack or whatever.

Dat said that if it was us, he wouldn't wanna use insanity as a defence. He'd plead guilty, not guilty, whatever, and not bring the multiplicity into it. Because if we couldn't work together to stop one of us committing a crime, then we were all to blame.

What does everyone think? Obviously it's not quite the same in a system with next to no co-consciousness, but yeah...

Chris

Comments

Re: Not necessarilly the case

[dour.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course, about prior awareness, and the possibility of disabling a peer. But I was assuming that there was no such awareness (or notifying the authorities was impossible), and that the peer in question was able to maintain control against any efforts of others. Both of which are not uncommon situations. The question is, after all, what to do in a situation where all (or many) of the others are genuinely innocent. If they're not, the question gets really easy to answer! ;)