Discussion Post
As a child and young man, Charles Whitman was kind, quiet, and known by all as a "good boy" serving as both an altar boy at his church and an Eagle Scout. As a student at the University of Texas, however, he began to experience severe headaches, assaulted his wife, and became involved in numerous fights. He confided to his psychiatrist that he was fighting the urge toward even more extreme violent behavior. He lost the fight. On August 1, 1966 he murdered 16 people including his wife and mother. He wounded more than 20 people before the police finally killed him. An autopsy on Whitman's body revealed a large tumor pressing against his amygdala.
If he had lived, should Whitman have been held fully responsible for his actions? Why or why not? What types of consequences for his actions would have been appropriate (e.g., Prison, death penalty, hospitalization, none?)
Although you may have an opinion on this prior to reading the chapter, it should be clear from your post that you have read the chapter and that you have applied some information from the chapter in explaining your position.
The response must include a reference list. One-inch margins, double-space, Using Times New Roman 12 pnt font and APA style of writing and citations.