To be guilty of a crime, a person must be fully aware of their actions or have premeditated the actions in a rational state of mind no matter how irrational the action. I found Madea guilty for committing infanticide because she was very conscious of her actions before and after committing the crime. The whole crime was planned out with full intention of revenge. This we see when she speaks "Do I want to make myself ridiculous, letting my enemies go unpunished?" this statement was a clear indication of her intention to bring pain to her former husband who ridiculed, betrayed and cheated Madea. By indicating she has a plan, this means she was fully aware of her actions. Therefore Madea is guilty of her crimes.
Medea is not guilty. You claim that a person is guilty when they are fully aware of their actions. However, Medea is insane and was not aware of what she was doing. As the evidence shows, she was constantly debating with herself on whether or not to kill her children. She often spoke to herself. For instance, she started staying " I'll take my children from this land". Then, she would state, " Don't my heart, don't you do this!". This shows the 2 sides to Medea and her insanity. She was not aware of what she was doing.
You mention insanity as the excuse to Madea's rationalizing when rationalizing her categorized thoughts are rationalizing. If it were the case that you had to choose between turkey or chicken for a thanksgiving dinner, would you be insane for debating yourself, since you the cook, will ultimately have to cook and carry out the dinner. This would not make you insane but is the sane thing to do when coming at crossroads.
A rational human being can debate themselves and come to a completely rational decision. She was not simply coming at a crossroads about dinner, but this was about committing murder to her own children. She did not normally come to a decision. She went from saying "Heart don't do this!, spare the children" and a moment later yelling, " They must certainly die; and since I gave birth to them shall kill them". This utterly demonstrates how her mind is not working properly. She is not thinking in a rational state of mind.
She most certainly was debating like a rational person because she had a purpose. Her purpose was for revenge. When your debating about two decisions to take in your life, sometimes the way you are currently feeling will play a huge part in your thinking. We see this thirst to revenge when she says "By the avenging furies down in Hades, I swear I'll never leave these children for my enemies to insult and torture!". Blinded by anger, fury and revenge like most murders, this would mean that in the case of most murders, all criminals would have to pledge insanity since their ultimately rationing would be considered irrational. This is not the case. Therefore we can also pledge that simply because of Madea's crime, she is insane, but just another criminal who was blinded by her uncontrollable immoral feelings.
In this case you can't say she was a rational person. There is evidence which shows that Medea was conflicted with her emotions and thought. She was speaking to herself. In an insanity case there must be further investigation. A rational normal person, yes may feel angered and troubled by situations in their life; however, they are able to make a moral decision and deal with the problems they are encountering. It is not as if she took revenge and tried to destroy his possessions such as car or items he owns, but she killed children. Her own children, whom had no involving in the matter. This demonstrates how sick Medea is and how she is insane. She cried out " But what is happening to me?" She has no control of these emotions. She is insane.
You are then claiming that ANY murder would then be considered for an insanity plea because of it's an immoral decision . Criminals that have killed others people, or children in bombs, maybe indirectly but nonetheless carried out their revenge plan, are mostly insane because most people cannot fathom their justification but, we must analyze each case differently . You can only be considered insane by someone of knowledge, therefore you say there is evidence of her speaking to herself. But I ask you, how many times have you found talking to yourself when thinking of a topic of importance. How many times have you found yourself talking to yourself in sorrow? Would you be considered insane on this act alone?
I agree that we all do talk to ourselves in times of sorrow; however, does a rational person question on whether or not to kill their children in an act of revenge? Medea is absolutely not an average case. She has been through alot of pain and suffering; it simply added to her insanity. She cannot be committed of this crime, there is no evidence that she is not insane. How can this be an act of a normal person where they are simply brought to desperate acts of murder. The evidence is in her logic. She is all over the place. One moment she is telling her children to smile at her, then she is conversing with Hades and crying how her children must die.
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was founded on the context of the "internal debate" as evidence of insanity, which was her fatal flaw. An argument of insanity could have been made, a woman scorned defense, but it was not argued. As it stands, what was argued was whether a rational internal debate is insane in one instance (dinner) and not another; this makes no sense.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.