Sadly, mentally ill people often end up in jail rather than getting treatment, because it's cheaper for the government. That's true of most countries, I suspect.

What does 'excuse' mean in that context? If he was mad enough, possibly, yes, he gets a free pass (on guilt, not treatment for insanity). Probably he wasn't that mad, but if he did something he wouldn't do if he wasn't crazy, then it's not the same as doing it whilst completely sane.

You can skip the criminal charges and just commit him, if he's mad. Sentence cannot, under the law of any jurisdiction I know of, include sending someone to a mental institution. If they're mad enough to go, they're either too mad to stand trial or were too mad to commit a crime (in law). If someone uses the defence…

Sympathy for the victim doesn't preclude sympathy for the perpetrator as well. If he was actually mad, he's not responsible for his own actions. If he's not mad, as I've said, he deserves a good long jail sentence.

See the other posts on the subject for more info. I thought all this was pretty well known. It's annoyingly difficult to find information about the links between the two families because of all the google hits to do with Max Mosley and the not-actually-Nazi-themed sex orgy. Also, since Austria never properly…

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780718300166/Record-Years-Ferrari-Lauda-Niki-0718300165/plp

If that's true, then, as I've said, I fully support jailing him for a long time. And getting him treatment, if necessary - possibly a regular course of beatings at the hands of his fellow inmates, possibly therapy for being a violent misanthrope.

Er, what? Even the Wiki entry makes it clear he had private funding to start his career. Are you an Illinois Nazi or something? Why are you twisting things to support a well-known nasty piece of work?

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. It's not that he gets away without any further action being taken - that would be ridiculous - but that this needs an appropriate response. Sending a madman to jail is like spanking a baby for filling its nappy.

If he wasn't mad, he deserves a lengthy jail sentence. If he was, what would be the point?

As I said, of course my incident wasn't as serious - but the principle is the same. You don't treat a madman like a criminal. The point is that I (and bystanders) restrained the madman until the men in white coats arrived to take him away. We didn't take him into the nearby dark alleyway and kick ten kinds of crap out…

Logic fail. Not all soldiers end up doing this - just a far higher percentage than amongst those who haven't served.

No, of course he doesn't get special treatment for being a serviceman. He gets treated as all other loonies - treated, not jailed.

"Should this guy be allowed to beat people up just because he's had a bad time recently?"

Yes. You'd give them a chance to make amends, whereas if someone did it on purpose you'd be perfectly justified in beating the (remaining?) crap out of them. When a baby sh*ts its nappy, do you punish it?

Not logical. A false dichotomy. People may not realise they need help until they do something like this. Or they may be getting some help already but not enough.

If he's mad, he needs treatment, not jail-time. Whether he's suffering PTSD or something isn't directly relevant, but if he's mad as a result of serving his country, then his countrymen are responsible for him.

Doesn't make it a less stupid idea. 'I know, how can we remove every advantage a bike has, and make it massively less energy efficient into the bargain?'