Ryan Thomas Green murdered a police officer because he believed that the "A" on the man's back was a sign of the Antichrist. A jury in Florida has sentenced him to death - but assuming that Green wasn't actually correct, why wasn't he found insane at the time of the crime?

CNN reports:

Green had testified during the trial that a talking bull, religious signs, colors and symbols influenced him to shoot Hallman.

He was initially declared mentally incompetent but underwent treatment and was later was found competent for trial. He also had received treatment at a mental health facility before the shootings.

If he required treatment in order to be competent to stand trial, this suggests very strongly that he wasn’t mentally competent at the time of the crime — ergo, he wasn’t faking a mental illness. Does it make sense to hold such a person accountable in the same way as someone who has full control of all their mental faculties?

Green appears to be a danger to the community and, therefore, incarceration would be appropriate, but how does a death sentence serve any reasonable goal? It’s certainly not a deterrent to the insane and mentally incompetent. Everyone else will simply learn that the state is cruel enough to execute people with mental illnesses and that’s hardly a means for engendering respect for law and justice.

Moreover, who’s to say that Green wasn’t correct in his belief? His story is no more incredible than the stories we read in most religious scriptures, and especially in the Bible which is probably revered by most of the people who were part of that trial. Does the state have the competency to declare that Green’s religious belief was false and, therefore, wasn’t a justification for his actions?

 

Read More:

• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?