A stabbing incident occurred in Jingmen City, Hubei Province, injuring 11 people. All the injured were sent to the hospital for treatment in time, and no one's life was in danger. The man was quickly captured by the police. After preliminary investigation, it was found that the man was a "road attack" and had a "history of psychiatric treatment." Currently, the case is under further investigation and verification.
In fact, the case process of this "man stabbing someone with a knife" incident is not complicated. However, judging from the details of the case announcement, the man involved had a "history of psychiatric treatment", which injected a certain degree of uncertainty into the case. Because we all know that if this person is "mentally insane" and commits "the act of killing someone," he will probably not be "severely punished."
Of course, from the current point of view, whether this male "hacker" is "sick" needs further verification. However, the case report noted that the man had a "history of psychiatric illness" and was "stabbed along the road" (but not fatally). Of course, to a large extent, this should be considered a "pathological" crime.
Because, if it was a premeditated act, then the 11 people who were slashed during the "attack" on the street could not be "not in danger of life." Of course, we are not saying that "no life" is not worthy of appreciation. On the contrary, from the perspective of the case, "pathological possibility" and "criminal logic" can be inferred. After all, the key issue in this case is whether the man was "sick" at the time of the murder.
Frankly speaking, if he was not "sick", the problem would be much simpler, and he could be held criminally responsible directly on the basis of his harmfulness to society. However, if the person is having a "morbid episode," the problem becomes complicated. To be honest, even if these 11 people are not in danger, if something like this happens, it will still be "haunted" and will cause huge losses (economic losses such as treatment fees, lost work wages, etc.).
Therefore, going back to the facts of the case itself and subsequent processing, whether the relationship between "previously ill" and "currently ill" continues or not requires "basis for solving the case". After all, "pathological killing" will involve the responsibilities of "guardians". Whether it is a legal or moral category, it should be unavoidable.
One eye-catching detail is that during the media reporting, one of the injured said: "The person who was arrested is a lunatic." This is not to say that the perpetrator is "sick." However, this is also "close". Moreover, as the police report stated, it can basically be considered that the man involved is more likely to be "sick." Otherwise, it will not be disclosed directly in the brief.
Therefore, in the case of "Knife-wielding Man", the possibility of malicious attack has been basically ruled out. At this point, we naturally fall back on the logic of "too sick to control." To some extent, such results are benign for society as a whole, but malignant for those who are harmed.
To be honest, as a victim, the biggest wish is to severely punish the perpetrator and minimize his losses. However, returning to the logic of "perverted" murder, such a wish seems difficult to realize. Therefore, for the "victim" to hear in the brief that the offender had a "history of psychiatric treatment" is equivalent to the defendant saying that he "could be harmed."
Because according to common sense, being harmed by a "mental patient" is almost the same as being harmed for no reason (even if the guardian is responsible). After all, the current legal order and moral norms are extremely tolerant of "mental patients". Therefore, the label of "pathological criminal" often becomes a talisman for "mentally ill".
Of course, as far as "pathological crime" is concerned, the issue of how to determine its nature or how to impose a sentence is actually more complicated. Because, as far as "mental illness" goes, it's a much trickier question. After all, the identification of "mental illness" is both a medical and an ethical issue. Even, according to philosophical logic, madness and not madness are relative.
As Foucault said in his book "Madness and Civilization", madness is not a natural phenomenon, but a product of civilization. There would be no "history of madness" without a cultural history of labeling and persecuting "mad" phenomena.
However, in modern society, people prefer to protect the rights of mentally ill people, but is this really good?
However, back to the present, only the possibility of governance can be found from the "custody" mechanism of accountability, and only the path of "strict governance" can be taken. Otherwise, "psychopaths" will become "degenerate killers". Of course, strict accountability does not mean letting guardians serve sentences in place of criminal "lunatics". Instead, specific punitive measures should be strengthened. In particular, liability for damages must be strictly pursued.
However, most of the family members (guardians) of "mentally ill patients" are also mentally and physically exhausted. Because some "mental illnesses" cannot be completely cured. Therefore, becoming a "mental patient" means being cared for for a lifetime. From a rational point of view, care is appropriate and necessary. But back to life itself, "mental patients" always have to live and always have to pay for treatment.
Therefore, if the family's economic conditions are not good, they will fall into a state of semi-abandonment. This can lead not only to "wandering" (active or passive) but also to "incidental damage". Ultimately, "morbid harm" is indeed more than a simple legal mechanism that can be set aside. Because it is much more difficult to find out the true situation of "mental patients" than to deal with cases.
Therefore, the management of "psychopaths" is actually a social problem, because when "guardians" cannot better supervise "psychopaths", or "psychopaths" do not have clear guardians. When there is no clear guardian, intervention by some social agency (public welfare agency or government agency) is required. Otherwise, aggressive psychopaths become "human killers": "guilty with impunity."
Of course, whether to severely punish "psychopaths" is also an issue that needs to be discussed. To be honest, if it is just to gain sympathy rather than a response to the victim's tragedy, then there is no bottom line in protecting "mentally ill people" and it is tantamount to disregarding the interests of the victims. Therefore, it seems that some adjustments should be made to the culpability of "mental patients".
Of course, this will be a difficult road and it won’t take a few cases to shake it down. Because "every step" toward a more civilized humanity is extremely difficult. But every touch will be recorded to support a more robust system. As Roland Barthes said, to turn "madness" into a medical phenomenon is to turn it into a civilized phenomenon.