This past year I discovered a curiosity, and a need to understand the nature of some of the crimes that have come to the students attention through the media. Of course there have been horrendous crimes, the crimes of passion and more frightening the seeming crimes of dispassion. Students were affected by the Columbine incident and we spent time sharing our disbelief and asking why, how, what happened. How could a human beings do this?
During this year classes wanted to understand the shooting of the six year old by another six year old. Students had an opportunity to consider the idea of age appropriate morality. It is at this point of dismay I suppose I discovered the most “teachable moments”. Students are searching existentially for answers. We ask such questions as what is right or wrong? When does a person become responsible for knowing right and wrong. How does a human being learn right from wrong and who is responsible for teaching morality?
To teach and consider the defense of insanity as a plea in a criminal trial provides students an opportunity to examine motivation, intention, and what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. Through looking at cases from the Supreme Court students can better determine what is unreal, illogical thinking in comparison to what is considered to be rational, objective thought.
In clarifying the Connecticut General Assemblies definition of insanity we can examine the use of a substance as alcohol or mood altering drugs as not being an excuse for violence. Sane people have control over their choice to use a substance knowing that he/she loses some or all ability to control their responses. Substance abuse does influence behavior and perhaps an individual may commit a crime while intoxicated such as a car accident. There is cause to consider personal responsibility and consequences.
Exploration of the insanity defense plea provides clarification between objective and subjective reality. “I just felt like it”, “if it feels good do it”, can be misleading if harm to another occurs. The application of the M’Nagten test and the control inquiry can be used as the basis discerning appropriate behavior. Ethical discussions resulting from cases and novels provide for abstract thinking and a chance to test for “reality thinking”. It is important to reflect on ones own motivation, intentions when harm occurs as a result of our actions. Situation ethics using case studies, can be another strategy for understanding right and wrong in cases.
It seems to be the nature of pre-adolescents and adolescents to test boundaries and limits and to try to stretch the limit beyond what many adults consider “reasonable”. Students can have quite a “reasonable” argument to create doubt in the most concrete rule! Some students have very refined skills at accomplishing this goal. Yet to be able to manipulate the system achieving the goal of “getting away with murder” in the end can become self destructive behavior. Adolescents can begin to believe in their own omnipotence and can outwits adult who have with their thinking cap off even for a moment. I think it is very stressful for youth to be empowered by “getting away with” breaking the rule even if the rule was broken with a reasonable argument.