Obsidienne
New Here
I agree that it is a plausible defense. However, it is the slippery slope. It would be an extremely dangerous thing to permit as justification. If there was a perfect science of determining when a person might be disassociative it might not be so much. Mental illness defenses are intended to protect people who cannot, in all realities, form the intent to commit the crime. This is generally the case with cognitive disorders, not personality or anxiety disorders.
Also, from the aspect of personal responsibility, if you have violent, disassociative episodes where you could be a threat to another person (by another person I mean not a perpetrator who poses a legitimate threat to your person) it should be your responsibility to do make whatever short term plans are necessary to ensure that you and others are protected during a fugue state. I do not mean this statement to be a judgement on anyone, as I have taken myself in to the hospital personally when my disassociative episodes became a concern.
At this point I think it is better to work within the system that we have, then to develop another loophole for perpetrators to squirm out of.
Also, from the aspect of personal responsibility, if you have violent, disassociative episodes where you could be a threat to another person (by another person I mean not a perpetrator who poses a legitimate threat to your person) it should be your responsibility to do make whatever short term plans are necessary to ensure that you and others are protected during a fugue state. I do not mean this statement to be a judgement on anyone, as I have taken myself in to the hospital personally when my disassociative episodes became a concern.
At this point I think it is better to work within the system that we have, then to develop another loophole for perpetrators to squirm out of.