|
|
|
|
|
|
by maeln
1308 days ago
|
|
|
> It made a bit more sense when he heard Brandon’s account of what happened – his son admitted to almost everything straight away. Brandon told a federal investigator that he’d been inspired by an internet troll who went by the name of Lynn Ann. “Lynn Ann” was obsessed with one of the Columbine High School shooters, and achieved a small amount of fame online by posting messages on social media about how “ugly” the shooter’s victims had been. Brandon’s messages to the Parkland victims’ families had been “pure bullshit trolling” like Lynn Ann’s, he told the investigator. Brandon said he had become interested in internet trolls because they were “popular”. > It was the same with “Shark Tale”. It made sense to Fleury that Brandon would mimic the language and behaviour of internet trolls without really understanding them. An expert on autism hired by the defence gave a similar assessment to the court. > The prosecution pointed out that Brandon’s messages didn’t simply copy Lynn Ann’s phrases, but were crafted with specific information about the victims and made ongoing threats. Brandon maintained that he didn’t intend to hurt or scare people but to “annoy” them. When a psychiatrist hired by the prosecution asked if he was trying to cause the victims anguish, Brandon responded, “What’s anguish? It’s not something I know what it is.” No one is denying that what he did is awful. The idea being discussed here is how to properly judge someone when they don't necessarily understand the wrong in what they are doing. You might want to believe or not that Brandon did it knowing the pain that it cause. But I have been around neurodiverse people in my life, and I saw how they where sometimes unable to understand that their behaviour could cause pain to other. The opposite was also true, where they could be deeply pained by what neurotypical people would consider a fairly normal behaviour.
Therefor, is it fair, is it just, to judge someone who doesn't understand the consequences of their action (or at least in the same proportion) in the same way that someone who does ? We already answered this a long time ago it seems, since the law for minor is usually different than for adult based on this exact principle. So how to we handle neurodiverse people has a modern society, it is an important question that bears asking. |
|
|
We handle them so they can't have the possibility to hurt others again until we can be confident enough that they understand what they did and/or won't do it again. IMO protection of society is more important than punishments.
At the very least that person's internet usage should be restricted and monitored for a while.
Judging and handling are two different things.
FWIW, I have been victim of a mentally unstable person years ago, with employment consequences I still suffer from. Basically that guy's medication were not adequate anymore and he went to the police to report me and others for computer related crimes (things like hacking his family's emails). Me and others still have that info somewhere in my country's police system. I wish he went to the police with his usual bullshit of Noriega still being alive and manipulating him through the electrical outlets or that South Africans replaced his heart with a bomb while he was sleeping or threats of crashing our skulls through brick walls instead of the mild fantasy he had that day.
I don't think he should be punished. But he's still at large and that's not okay. Hope his prescriptions are better handled now, for others first and then for himself.