Is John Kramer, AKA Saw's Jigsaw, insane?

[Jastall]

Is he legally insane, IE completely unable to distinguish right from wrong? Doubtful, given that he tries hard to rationalize his position. Certainly he has a massive laundry list of psychological issues but that alone does not an insanity defense make.

Is he a delusional piece of shit murderer that nobody should listen to regardless of what he says? Absolutely.

[Bodakane]

yikes, you sure do get worked up over nothing. And no, i'm not playing "lawyer ball" I gave you my point of view on murder in general based on what you said, then you clarified it and that's that.

Considering your emotional responses though I start to suspect you know it was poorly phrased and then tried to backpedal and somehow put the blame on someone else. Being overdefensive and aggressive like you are now over abso-fucking-lutely nothing is somewhat...crazy.
I mean, all you could've done is just "no, you missunderstood me, I meant this" and it would be all good...yet you gave an response which made no sense to my reply and I pointed that out, then you got mad for some reason. *shrug*

you do you though. Weird choice to be angry rather than just clarify something tbh.

Horseshit. I did point out you misunderstood in the second post. You choose to double down. I'm not angry but I am annoyed and I talk like a sailor when i' annoyed. But your arrogant ass seems to have a real fucking problem with telling people what they mean though.

[Kumorii]

Horseshit. I did point out you misunderstood in the second post. You choose to double down. I'm not angry but I am annoyed and I talk like a sailor when i' annoyed. But your arrogant ass seems to have a real fucking problem with telling people what they mean though.

actually, fuck it... no reason to bicker further over nothing, take care.

[baskev]

I'm trying to rationalize what insanity actually is using the famous Jigsaw from the Saw series as an example.

See, while it's easy to write him off as insane/crazy because of his philosophy and antics, it's the fact he is so smart and determined with conviction that calls it into question if he's really unaware of what (the suffering) is going on around him. He's completely convinced himself he's not evil or killed anyone, which does give credibility he is pretty out there in the head. However, the level of rationality and planning he displays means he could just be believably sane and therefore completely evil.

I think whether this man qualifies as anti-villain (note: not anti-hero; a full-fledged villain with pitiable or sympathetic motives) hinges on his debatable sanity.

Being smart , determinend and having a convinction does not make you automatic not insane.
And believing you are sane is not the same thing as being it.

And anti villian would mean he did the world justice by removing only villians.

https://facts-of-everything.fandom.c...aw%27s_Victims

Looking at his victims. Some indeed would "deserve it" . Some do not deserve horrible fates. And some where not even crimes.
So not all his victims where really bad people. That plus the insane way testing them makes him insane.

[Egomaniac]

he vehemently denies he's a murderer though, claiming that everything is up to the person he puts in his technically survivable death traps.

i mean how much he believes in this idea is actually to a point he snatches up mark hoffman, a man that mimicked his motif to get murder revenge on someone, and go on a tirade of how wrong that and "murder" is

yes he's a weird cinema villain but he is pretty interesting

The fact that he denies responsibility for the deaths of his victims kind of proves he's insane. And while his death traps are technically survivable...he committed felonies (assault, kidnapping, etc) to put those people into those traps... so, even if a jury were to accept that he did not directly murder the victims, he's still guilty of felony murder on every person that did not survive.

The guy believes he has the moral authority to decide who has "wasted" their lives...and so needs to be tested to prove that they are worthy to survive. That's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

[YUPPIE]

And anti villian would mean he did the world justice by removing only villians.

if you consider he is insane and how much he believes he's doing something noble, he is definitely an anti-villain. The term anti-villain is pretty complex and can apply to characters that are sympathetic and doing what they believe is right even if it isn't.

So for instance, consider Darth Vader is technically one of the most vile monsters in fiction but is still an anti-villain because he believes he is enforcing the law and doesn't derive any sadistic pleasure from killing.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

So for instance, consider Darth Vader is technically one of the most vile monsters in fiction but is still an anti-villain because he believes he is enforcing the law and doesn't derive any sadistic pleasure from killing.

Vader absolutely gets pleasure out of the killing he goes out of his way to be cruel and sadistic and likes to make people cower before his power over them.

[YUPPIE]

Vader absolutely gets pleasure out of the killing he goes out of his way to be cruel and sadistic and likes to make people cower before his power over them.

vader explicitly isn't sadistic. that would mean he enjoys being evil. He is cruel, yes, but every horrible thing he does is an extension of his undying wrath and hatred of himself and everything around him.

[Ladey Gags]

Why the fuck anyone would watch this glorified gore porn is beyond me. HURRDUUUR MUUH PHILOSOPPHYYY. Lmao what a bunch of bullshit. The saw movies are nothing more than gore porn for sick people masquerading as some enlightened commentary to coddle the viewers into believing they’re not disturbed for enjoying it. Who the fuck would want to actually watch that shit? It’s fucking appalling. It’s vile, an abomination. You won’t change my mind, anyone who enjoys these films are the insane ones rather than some movie character.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

>Murders people
>>Denies being a murderer
>>>Proceeds to murder more people


Give me a break Tsugunai

[Coolthulhu]

PTSD has no relevance to whether he is considered sane or insane. There exists both Sane and Insane people with PTSD. I mean you can link a potential psychosis or disorder to PTSD, but that's not what we're talking about. It's whether the character can be considered insane.

Yes, but both suffer from an illness, which in the vast majority of cases is comorbid with others (which I mentioned earlier in Kramer's case). That can lead to someone being deemed "insane" or not. Anyway, since we're talking semantics about a fictional character, I don't think it's something worth arguing over any further.

I don't particularly find it relevant to the topic since what Jigsaw does in the films can not be definitively equated as being rational evil.

The holocaust was not exactly carried out by people dressing up in pig masks, using puppets and setting up elaborate 'escape room' style torture devices that allow the victim a chance to survive. Very different scenarios we're talking about here.

John Kramer pretended he was a bloodied suicide victim just to fool his other victims. This isn't rational or methodical behaviour, it's comicbook-level drama that can be considered to be highly irrational. I don't think there's a proper definition for this, and the closest is the 'super sane' explanation which fans have come up with to describe characters like the Joker.

How is that different from people wearing skulls and using a systematic dehumanization process coupled with torture (because the Holocaust wasn't merely about killing, that only came after said process of systematic torture and dehumanization was over, and I'm most certainly not going to argue with prominent survivors about said processes being carried out in a very rational and methodical way - again, despite the motives being far from rational).

Why the fuck anyone would watch this glorified gore porn is beyond me. HURRDUUUR MUUH PHILOSOPPHYYY. Lmao what a bunch of bullshit. The saw movies are nothing more than gore porn for sick people masquerading as some enlightened commentary to coddle the viewers into believing they’re not disturbed for enjoying it. Who the fuck would want to actually watch that shit? It’s fucking appalling. It’s vile, an abomination. You won’t change my mind, anyone who enjoys these films are the insane ones rather than some movie character.

Don't forget the part about Marilyn Manson and violent video games causing mass shootings.

[ParanoiD84]

He does make some wild traps though. I enjoyed the movies or atleast some of them.

[baskev]

if you consider he is insane and how much he believes he's doing something noble, he is definitely an anti-villain. The term anti-villain is pretty complex and can apply to characters that are sympathetic and doing what they believe is right even if it isn't.

So for instance, consider Darth Vader is technically one of the most vile monsters in fiction but is still an anti-villain because he believes he is enforcing the law and doesn't derive any sadistic pleasure from killing.

What he beliefs does not matter. Because in your logic ALL villians are anti villians. As long as they believe in themselves.

And being sympathetic depens on people POV.


My god...did you miss use vader like that?
Nope he is not a anti villian because he is enforcing the law.
IN universe he is still the villian.
OUT universe, he is a villian trying to redeem/redeemed him self. He did not belief in enforcing the law. He wanted Padma back. And power. Amd sadistic pleasure from killing....eeeuhhhh. He is Darth sadistic. He chockes people to death, impales them, throws them in lava. Torture's them. Uses the idea of threathing his son with his sister.....
Have you even seen star wars?

But back to jig saw.
Your logic is: if he believes what he does is right , he is anti villian.

But WE give him a status of villian or anti villian. He most likely is just thinking of himself as jigsaw.


but some meanings i found online:

An Anti-Villain is the opposite of an Anti-Hero — a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain.

The term is strictly defined as a character who has heroic goals, personality traits, and virtues but is ultimately villainous.

Anti-villains have noble characteristics, values, and goals, but how they strive for those goals is often questionable

Do you notice something. Heroic goals, good virtues, noble etc. But his means are what me him the villian. While you could say that about him if all his victims where really evil.

In jigsaw case this was not the case. While he had very vile people that he killed. He also had MANY victims, who did "crimes" that where not even crimes or very minor ones.
Some of his victims made a small mistake, used drugs, tried to commit suicide, being a jerk, prositution, being a laywer, trying to solve the jigsaw case, racism ( yeah its bad, but not a crime), being abused by her boyfriend , being part of someone else his test ( so did not even do something) .

I think a better example of a anti villian is Killmonger, draco malfoy, carrie. Think they only way jigsaw is a anti villian, if all of his victims or 99% where very bad people.

[Koriani]

If you're trying to determine Kramer as "insane" you do need to decide on the definition of your term(s) in order to have a discussion where everyone's talking about the 'same thing.'

In mental illness, the term 'insane' doesn't exist. Doesn't apply. If you're talking about Kramer and mental illness (or what diagnoses he might fall under) - that's not the same thing as determining sanity. You can have 8 mental illnesses and be 'sane'. You can have one mental illness (or even none) and be 'insane.' The diagnosis, or lack thereof, doesn't determine sanity.

Sanity/insane is exclusively a legal term - and has nothing to do with whether someone is 'diagnosed' with a mental illness, or which one. It ONLY comes down to whether you can establish/prove the person committing a crime can 'tell the difference between right or wrong', *at the time of the action.* That's all it really has to do with.

Under the 'real world' applications of the terms:

Kramer is NOT Insane. He rationalizes his acts, yes, but that only proves he's 'sane'. He makes and executes grand plans and then hides that he did it - that makes him 100% sane in the real world application of the legal term.

Kramer IS mentally ill. Whatever personality disorders (and other diagnoses) you want to throw at him - narcissism, anti-social, and borderline personality disorder appear to be his 'big three' IMO (and I work in this field) - none of that makes him insane in any way, shape, or form. Psychopathy - which is not a diagnosis btw - also does not make him insane. Makes him mentally ill; but he's fully sane. He's NOT having a psychotic episode - so still sane. Evil - sure. Comic Book Villian Evil - sure. But none of that has anything to do with what 'insane/sane' actually means in the real world.

So yea, you do NEED to define your terms in this discussion - because these words get thrown around and, depending on the context, can mean entirely different things between people arguing about the term.

~~
To actually qualify for 'insanity' (legally - and its very hard to convince judge and jury of this to begin with) - you can take NO actions in self-preservation after the fact, basically. No actions to cover up or hide your crimes and no actions afterwards that show in any way that you realize you did something bad. If you have a mental illness mixed in there, it has to be one that can be shown to affect 'reality testing' (as its referred to) - or one that affects your ability to know reality from fantasy, and that it was 'actively doing so' at the time of the crime (even if its not now).

So yes - the Schizophrenic who is off their medications (or never been diagnosed) and is in an active psychotic break - has no reality testing. Cannot tell fantasy from reality. So if they shot someone while actively psychotic, could very well be determined as 'not sane at the time of the incident', though they are sane a month later because they are on the right medications. (Note: this has nothing to do with whether they stand trial or serve time - you can absolutely serve time after being declared legally insane; its just in a criminal hospital and not prison; YMMV on whether its actually 'better' or not). (This is also seen in the rationale behind Postpartum Cases where they are found 'not guilty by insanity' due to the psychosis that can occur as part of postpartum.)

John Kramer was never psychotic. We may view him as delusional - but that doesn't necessarily mean he IS delusional. (Here's where movies and tv and reality don't provide the same evidence lol). He may have multiple mental illness diagnoses - but at no time does he ever really act like what he's doing 'isn't wrong' because at no time does he not make tons of effort to cover up who he is and what he's doing. He knows what he is doing is wrong, even if he disagrees with society on the rationalizations, he still knows what he is doing is wrong and does everything possible to avoid prison and avoid capture. That makes him, legally, sane.

Or to compare this to 'actual' reality - most serial killers are legally 'sane'. *Most* of them have their own rationalizations, like Kramer, as to why what they are doing are entirely justified. Are they 'sane' like normal people are 'sane' - clearly not - they are killing people; they are ALL mentally ill. But mental illness doesn't give you a wash on your choices and responsibilities - carte blanche. Personality disorders, in no way, absolve a person from all individual responsibility for their actions or mean they can't tell 'right from wrong'. But may be mentally ill, but they are not 'insane.' Mixing legal and medical terms doesn't help the discussion. They don't have anything to do with each other, in how the 'real world' applies them.