In discussions in the various CWC threads here about this horrendous action, the incest, there seems to have been some hostility between posters when it comes about what will and should happen to CWC as a result.
I've been pondering this, on and off, and it seems that some of the conflict is coming because we're all trying to present one answer, when in fact we are asking at least four different, but connected, questions, namely:
- What is CWC's legal culpability? Under the legal system where CWC is what will the law do to him.
(LEGAL)
- What is CWC's actual level of competence? That is, to what degree does CWC function mentally in comparison to a normal adult, and to what degree can he make assessments about his environment, its expectations, and behaving safely in it.
(MEDICAL)
- What is CWC's actual level of ethical responsibility in this? This question depends in part on the second question, but also on people's personal beliefs about crime and punishment. Are people ethically responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if they are currently mentally incompetent? (ETHICAL)
- Finally, to what degree does this action say about CWC's ability to function in a society, and does the society need to be protected from him and he need to be protected from himself? This question is unconnected to CWC's ethical responsibility or autonomy. One does not choose whether to protect society from hurricanes or wild lions based on their culpability, instead we just make a risk assessment.
(SOCIAL)
Now the position I have been arguing, based on extrapolating what I've seen of CWC and my limited applicable professional experience has been to ignore the first question. I have no idea about US law and any proclamations I make about this are just things I think should happen in an ideal world. (LEGAL)
For the second I have serious doubts that CWC is capable of the same level of understanding as a normally functioning adult. Any debates about this are just technical assessments of what is scientifically correct or incorrect, and have no connection whatsoever to any moral debates about right and wrong (MEDICAL)
As a result of this, for the third question I don't think that CWC has the same level of moral responsibility as a normally functioning adult who committed this act. I also have personal belief that the autonomy to make an informed and unimpeded choice about an action is essential to being culpable for it. This is a purely ethical question, but debate here cannot occur unless there is a consensus reached on the second question. (ETHICAL)
Finally, because of the severity of this act, I believe society does need to be protected from CWC to a degree, and CWC needs to be protected from himself. Which is my answer to the fourth question. CWC's culpability is irrelevant to this, just the danger he poses. (SOCIAL)
So, because of the way I've answered these four actions while I do not necessarily believe CWC can be held ethically responsible to the full degree for this action, I think this action proves that CWC is not safe to be allowed to care for other people, care for himself, or necessarily make choices about his own life. Which leads me to believe some form supervision, group home, conservatorship, or institutionalization is the just choice in response to his action.
Hopefully this outlines where some communication breakdowns have occurred when discussing this.
As a finally thought, there is another question, a question zero, being what actually happened, but that's a whole different can of worms.
