“Browne tried to pin him down while the friend went for help, but in the heat of the moment he used excessive force and choked the man to death. This horrified the poor preacher, who was normally the sort never to hurt a fly.”
This to me seems like a weak part of your storytelling and sentimental to boot.. This “poor preacher” killed a man. Your story suggests that it was by accident. But this does not sound likely. Throttling takes time. Subdueing a man does not require choking.
Your story suggests that it happened after he had sent a friend for help (why send for help if the man was already dead?) I suggest that this god-fearing pastor killed the robber by warm-blooded intent. In passion. In fury. Maybe he even enjoyed it!
How does a god-loving and god-fearing man live with this?
With difficulty! With great difficulty.
Your story says nothing about being charged and prosecuted—in which case there would be no public catharsis. He is GUILTY. A guilt which in no way can be exonerated. He is alone with his God and his Guilt (and perhaps the Devil).
He needs an explanation. He needs a punishment. He needs a consequence.
Losing his soul seems like a plausible punishment to fit the crime. A preacher who has killed a man can no longer preach. A preacher wih no soul can no longer preach.
A preacher with no soul can no longer live.
These lesions of the mind will in time also give lesions of the brain. What a psychiatrist calls them (usually another psychiatrists surname) is deeply uninteresting.
Your story suggests that it was by accident. But this does not sound likely. Throttling takes time. Subdueing a man does not require choking.
It’s hard to say what happened at this remove, but it’s not inconceivable that a strong well-fed man could accidentally kill a weaker man he was trying to subdue. Adrenaline would tend to shut down the man’s higher brain functions and give him more strength than he would ordinarily have. Under those conditions a man might kill by inadvertent use of a blood choke or simply by compressive asphyxia. We also don’t know if the highwayman had a hidden defect that made him particularly vulnerable.
Blood chokes still take several minutes to effect brain damage/death. I find the idea of accidentally throttling someone to death fairly suspicious. Besides, if it was truly an accident then where does Browne’s guilt come from? I don’t think the story suggested it was an accident.
“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”
Perhaps the authors thought that actual burglary would be more common at night, and that a proprietor during the daytime would be better positioned to shout “stop! thief!” and expect it to do anything, such that if we find you with a corpse in your house at night we have fewer grounds for suspicion (of you) than if we found it during the day. The logic seems pretty similar to the presumption that a woman raped in the countryside resisted, and is therefore merely damaged goods rather than an active participant in the sexual injury to her husband or father, as opposed to women raped in the city, who have an obligation to call for help.
These lesions of the mind will in time also give lesions of the brain
Part of Szasz’ objection to much of psychiatry was that they didn’t look for brain lesions, and without that he claimed there was no “disease”. I would be interested to know if there was evidence of disorders of the mind leading to lesions of the brain rather than the other way round. Best case for that sort of thing discussed here.
There has been a great deal of argument over whether the differences seen between musicians and non-musicians is a pre-existing tendency, or a change brought about by extensive exposure to and playing of music.
It is quite clear, though, that certain kinds of reactions can have a very real and relatively easily detectable effect on brain structure.
“Browne tried to pin him down while the friend went for help, but in the heat of the moment he used excessive force and choked the man to death. This horrified the poor preacher, who was normally the sort never to hurt a fly.”
This to me seems like a weak part of your storytelling and sentimental to boot.. This “poor preacher” killed a man. Your story suggests that it was by accident. But this does not sound likely. Throttling takes time. Subdueing a man does not require choking.
Your story suggests that it happened after he had sent a friend for help (why send for help if the man was already dead?) I suggest that this god-fearing pastor killed the robber by warm-blooded intent. In passion. In fury. Maybe he even enjoyed it!
How does a god-loving and god-fearing man live with this?
With difficulty! With great difficulty.
Your story says nothing about being charged and prosecuted—in which case there would be no public catharsis. He is GUILTY. A guilt which in no way can be exonerated. He is alone with his God and his Guilt (and perhaps the Devil).
He needs an explanation. He needs a punishment. He needs a consequence.
Losing his soul seems like a plausible punishment to fit the crime. A preacher who has killed a man can no longer preach. A preacher wih no soul can no longer preach.
A preacher with no soul can no longer live.
These lesions of the mind will in time also give lesions of the brain. What a psychiatrist calls them (usually another psychiatrists surname) is deeply uninteresting.
It’s hard to say what happened at this remove, but it’s not inconceivable that a strong well-fed man could accidentally kill a weaker man he was trying to subdue. Adrenaline would tend to shut down the man’s higher brain functions and give him more strength than he would ordinarily have. Under those conditions a man might kill by inadvertent use of a blood choke or simply by compressive asphyxia. We also don’t know if the highwayman had a hidden defect that made him particularly vulnerable.
Blood chokes still take several minutes to effect brain damage/death. I find the idea of accidentally throttling someone to death fairly suspicious. Besides, if it was truly an accident then where does Browne’s guilt come from? I don’t think the story suggested it was an accident.
You think people can’t have guilt over accidents they caused?
From the descriptions, Browne seems to’ve been something of a literalist prig. And the Bible does say ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ in pretty absolute terms.
Technically the Bible says you shall not murder. Self-defense is allowed.
What an interesting distinction.
Perhaps the authors thought that actual burglary would be more common at night, and that a proprietor during the daytime would be better positioned to shout “stop! thief!” and expect it to do anything, such that if we find you with a corpse in your house at night we have fewer grounds for suspicion (of you) than if we found it during the day. The logic seems pretty similar to the presumption that a woman raped in the countryside resisted, and is therefore merely damaged goods rather than an active participant in the sexual injury to her husband or father, as opposed to women raped in the city, who have an obligation to call for help.
I was thinking that simply due to the darkness it is more likely to accidentally kill someone at night. Your explanation is very anti-Occam.
These lesions of the mind will in time also give lesions of the brain Part of Szasz’ objection to much of psychiatry was that they didn’t look for brain lesions, and without that he claimed there was no “disease”. I would be interested to know if there was evidence of disorders of the mind leading to lesions of the brain rather than the other way round. Best case for that sort of thing discussed here.
There has been a great deal of argument over whether the differences seen between musicians and non-musicians is a pre-existing tendency, or a change brought about by extensive exposure to and playing of music.
It is quite clear, though, that certain kinds of reactions can have a very real and relatively easily detectable effect on brain structure.