Should People Who Have Mental Illness/Retardation Be Tried As An Adult?

[genuineoriginal]

I think your wording needs work. When you say "if it is," that implies the condition is possible, but it is not possible that a person is an animal.

"If it were" might be slightly better, but I think a complete redo would be best.

How about this?

A person that is a man-killer should be put to death, whether that person is able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE a human, or is not able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE an animal.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're still not seeing or correcting the problem, which is the notion that not recognizing the consequence and nature of an action has anything to do with being human, that it then makes a person merely an animal capable of being put to death if that person kills another person.

Could you try to explain why you think that is a problem?

The problem isn't that you're writing over anyone's head. The problem is that you did a poor job of advancing an argument that as you've reformed it might as well be nothing more than, "I believe that if you kill someone with no more regard for their rights than an animal would have you should be treated the same way as an animal would be."

Maybe this article will advance my argument better than I have.

It’s Time to Scrap “Innocent By Reason of Insanity” It’s time to scrap the insanity defense altogether – ‘Innocent by Reason of Insanity’. A crime should be defined by criminal behavior, not just by the state of mind of the accused. It ought to be replaced with a plea of “Guilty by Reason of Insanity’. The fallacy of the insanity plea is that it only assigns responsibility based on the state of mind of the perpetrator. This is of course a very major issue, but it is not the only issue. No matter how deluded a defendant is, once he commits the action of a crime, then there are consequences for other people. Nobody thinks anymore that a drunk driver who kills someone should be exonerated because he was so intoxicated and impaired that he didn’t know what he was doing at the time. It wouldn’t have happened if he were sober. No matter what, when a criminal behavior is committed and there is irreversible damage, we are still responsible for our actions, no matter what our state of mind.

​

 

[ok doser]

How about this?

A person that is a man-killer should be put to death, whether that person is able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE a human, or is not able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE an animal.

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Could you try to explain why you think that is a problem?


Maybe this article will advance my argument better than I have.

It’s Time to Scrap “Innocent By Reason of Insanity” It’s time to scrap the insanity defense altogether – ‘Innocent by Reason of Insanity’. A crime should be defined by criminal behavior, not just by the state of mind of the accused. It ought to be replaced with a plea of “Guilty by Reason of Insanity’. The fallacy of the insanity plea is that it only assigns responsibility based on the state of mind of the perpetrator. This is of course a very major issue, but it is not the only issue. No matter how deluded a defendant is, once he commits the action of a crime, then there are consequences for other people. Nobody thinks anymore that a drunk driver who kills someone should be exonerated because he was so intoxicated and impaired that he didn’t know what he was doing at the time. It wouldn’t have happened if he were sober. No matter what, when a criminal behavior is committed and there is irreversible damage, we are still responsible for our actions, no matter what our state of mind.

​

If a person drives to a bar with the full intent of getting intoxicated with alcohol and gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk and causes a fatal or serious accident then being drunk is not an excuse. Someone who has impaired judgement due to disease/brain damage etc cannot be held accountable for anything akin.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If a person drives to a bar with the full intent of getting intoxicated with alcohol and gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk and causes a fatal or serious accident then being drunk is not an excuse.

Why are you looking for an excuse?

Someone who has impaired judgement due to disease/brain damage etc cannot be held accountable for anything akin.

Accountable comes from the word "account," which is itself from the Old French word acont, meaning to count (as in money). While you can be accountable for monetary damages, you're most likely to be held accountable for your actions and behavior, and the actions of your children and pets. If your dog bites another dog, you may be accountable for any vet bills incurred by the other dog's owner.[/B]

​

My argument is not that someone who has impaired judgement due to disease/brain damage etc. should "pay" for what they did. My argument is that the death penalty is how a society rids itself of dangerous individuals without rewarding dangerous individuals for being a danger to society by providing them with free food, shelter, and clothing that has to be paid for by the non-dangerous individuals in the society.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why are you looking for an excuse?

:AMR:

Accountable comes from the word "account," which is itself from the Old French word acont, meaning to count (as in money). While you can be accountable for monetary damages, you're most likely to be held accountable for your actions and behavior, and the actions of your children and pets. If your dog bites another dog, you may be accountable for any vet bills incurred by the other dog's owner.[/B]

​

My argument is not that someone who has impaired judgement due to disease/brain damage etc. should "pay" for what they did. My argument is that the death penalty is how a society rids itself of dangerous individuals without rewarding dangerous individuals for being a danger to society by providing them with free food, shelter, and clothing that has to be paid for by the non-dangerous individuals in the society.

Your "argument" sucks. If people suffer from conditions that render them with severely impaired judgement then they're in no way comparable to people who calculatedly kill or deliberately render themselves intoxicated where such can come about. Why you bring "reward" into the equation is anyone's guess. Why not just kill anyone with a mental illness or condition where such was a possibility? :rain:

 

[Town Heretic]

I wrote: "You're still not seeing or correcting the problem, which is the notion that not recognizing the consequence and nature of an action has anything to do with being human, that it then makes a person merely an animal capable of being put to death if that person kills another person."

Could you try to explain why you think that is a problem?

Your humanity isn't defined by your ability to understand the nature and consequence of your actions; rather, your culpability/responsibility AS a human being is defined by your ability to understand them. That's why when you're asleep or stupid you don't have fewer rights. In fact, when we as a society believe your judgment to be fundamentally impaired, we protect you from that judgment, which is why children are not permitted to contract and why people cannot be placed under duress that impairs their judgment in order to be coerced into a contractual relationship, that we will negate that obligation when the effort is proven.

Maybe this article will advance my argument better than I have.

It’s Time to Scrap “Innocent By Reason of Insanity” It’s time to scrap the insanity defense altogether – ‘Innocent by Reason of Insanity’. A crime should be defined by criminal behavior, not just by the state of mind of the accused. It ought to be replaced with a plea of “Guilty by Reason of Insanity’. The fallacy of the insanity plea is that it only assigns responsibility based on the state of mind of the perpetrator. This is of course a very major issue, but it is not the only issue. No matter how deluded a defendant is, once he commits the action of a crime, then there are consequences for other people. Nobody thinks anymore that a drunk driver who kills someone should be exonerated because he was so intoxicated and impaired that he didn’t know what he was doing at the time. It wouldn’t have happened if he were sober. No matter what, when a criminal behavior is committed and there is irreversible damage, we are still responsible for our actions, no matter what our state of mind.

​

If criminality is singularly established by the act then a man rushing his wife to the hospital is no different than the teenager racing through town on a joy ride. Is that just? And if I kill you while trying to give you cpr am I a murderer? No.

The problem with using the drunk driver is that his conduct prior to becoming incapacitated afforded him the opportunity to understand the foreseeable consequence of his act (drinking to excess) and so his responsibility carries forward and defeats an incapacity defense. A four year old firing a gun at his brother doesn't have that opportunity. Someone born with significant mental impairment can be similarly situated.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If people suffer from conditions that render them with severely impaired judgement then they're in no way comparable to people who calculatedly kill or deliberately render themselves intoxicated where such can come about.

I am not comparing the moral culpability of the individuals (like you are).
I am stating what society needs to do to protect itself from dangerous individuals.
Whether the individual is capable of knowing that they are dangerous should be of no concern to anyone.

Why you bring "reward" into the equation is anyone's guess.

You brought up accountability, which suggests that someone needs to pay for what the person did.
The idea behind that is: a person that is accountable for his/her actions must pay for the consequences of his/her actions (fines, beatings, imprisonment, death, etc.).

I brought up "reward" as a way of describing how the community is paying to keep a dangerous person alive, well fed, sheltered, medicated, and clothed, in addition to having to suffer the consequences of that dangerous person's actions.

Why not just kill anyone with a mental illness or condition where such was a possibility?

I am against killing the innocent.

 

[Stripe]

How about this?

A person that is a man-killer should be put to death, whether that person is able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE a human, or is not able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE an animal.

Sure.

In a line: Murderers should be executed regardless of their supposed state of mind.

We have enough trouble with justice, let alone pretending we can read people's thoughts.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

Your humanity isn't defined by your ability to understand the nature and consequence of your actions;

That debate is too long to get into here: abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.

rather, your culpability/responsibility AS a human being is defined by your ability to understand them. That's why when you're asleep or stupid you don't have fewer rights.

An individual's culpability/responsibility should not be an issue.

In fact, when we as a society believe your judgment to be fundamentally impaired, we protect you from that judgment, which is why children are not permitted to contract and why people cannot be placed under duress that impairs their judgment in order to be coerced into a contractual relationship, that we will negate that obligation when the effort is proven.

Parents and guardians can enter into contracts on behalf of children and other people with impaired judgment, which negates your argument.
Using that piece of information, the parents and guardians of a person that has impaired judgment would be responsible for paying for the crimes committed by the person with impaired judgment (fines, beatings, imprisonment, death, etc.).
And the person with impaired judgment would be put to death for capital crimes because of the danger they represent to society.

If criminality is singularly established by the act then a man rushing his wife to the hospital is no different than the teenager racing through town on a joy ride. Is that just? And if I kill you while trying to give you cpr am I a murderer? No.

I know that you are not making the argument that men with pregnant wives and first responders are all mentally disabled and have their judgment fundamentally impaired.

So, find an example that works.

1. A mentally disabled person who has his judgment fundamentally impaired picks up a butcher knife and stabs his mother to death because he saw it on a movie.
2. A person with a mental illness who has his judgment fundamentally impaired picks up a butcher knife and stabs a woman to death in a shower because he thinks he is his own mother.
3. A man with a large amount of death picks up a butcher knife and stabs his wife so he can collect the insurance money.

What should be done about each of these?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I am not comparing the moral culpability of the individuals (like you are).
I am stating what society needs to do to protect itself from dangerous individuals.
Whether the individual is capable of knowing that they are dangerous should be of no concern to anyone.

It should be of concern to anyone with an ounce of empathy, else let's just kill someone with dementia in case they accidentally take someone's life out of confusion.

lain:

You brought up accountability, which suggests that someone needs to pay for what the person did.
The idea behind that is: a person that is accountable for his/her actions must pay for the consequences of his/her actions (fines, beatings, imprisonment, death, etc.).

Well, no. If someone is incapable of recognising the ramifications of their actions then they're not required to pay for or are accountable for them. That's all your domain. A drunk driver who was fully aware of what could happen before he decided to risk going to a bar and driving home is utterly different. What kind of disconnect have you got going on here?

I brought up "reward" as a way of describing how the community is paying to keep a dangerous person alive, well fed, sheltered, medicated, and clothed, in addition to having to suffer the consequences of that dangerous person's actions.

Well, no, you were just trying to justify killing a person who it would seemingly be inconvenient to keep alive. I have a friend who's schizophrenic and is reliant on medication to keep him grounded in reality. Unnecessary expense?

I am against killing the innocent.

Yeh, right.

:rain:

 

[ok doser]

Were thompson and venables innocent?

 

[Stripe]

How about this?

A person that is a man-killer should be put to death, whether that person is able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE a human, or is not able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE an animal.

Actually, there are some issues with this.

We can't say "killer," because some slayings are accidental, and they don't carry the death penalty. A man's mental state might be evidence that this was the case.

With an animal, the situation is never murder, so the parallel you draw would be somewhat tenuous. Not that there isn't validity to your point, but it's probably outweighed by the grief you're going to get from those already dedicated to not understanding.

Accidental deaths are why we have the "two or three witnesses" standard; insanity alone would not be sufficient to exonerate a man, especially when the evidence indicated a crime.

Also, the lawyer who attempted to use insanity as evidence to acquit should share the suspect's fate. Death if guilty, insane if innocent. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Actually, there are some issues with this.

We can't say "killer," because some slayings are accidental, and they don't carry the death penalty. A man's mental state might be evidence that this was the case.

With an animal, the situation is never murder, so the parallel you draw would be somewhat tenuous. Not that there isn't validity to your point, but it's probably outweighed by the grief you're going to get from those already dedicated to not understanding.

Accidental deaths are why we have the "two or three witnesses" standard; insanity alone would not be sufficient to exonerate a man, especially when the evidence indicated a crime.

Also, the lawyer who attempted to use insanity as evidence to acquit should share the suspect's fate. Death if guilty, insane if innocent. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

... the lawyer who attempted to use insanity . . . to acquit

We talking justice system here or "just-a-system"?

'Cus lawyers are usually only needed when a crime has been committed and the criminal is trying to get away with it... Which is called being an accomplice after the fact... :think:

 

[Stripe]

... the lawyer who attempted to use insanity . . . to acquit

We talking justice system here or "just-a-system"?

'Cus lawyers are usually only needed when a crime has been committed and the criminal is trying to get away with it... Which is called being an accomplice after the fact... :think:

Yeah, that comment was mostly for entertainment purposes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

That debate is too long to get into here: abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.

An individual's culpability/responsibility should not be an issue.

When it isn't you invite a horror show of injustice, but you're entitled to your belief.

Parents and guardians can enter into contracts on behalf of children and other people with impaired judgment, which negates your argument.

Not if you understand it, no. Rather, a parent or guardian is in play precisely because we don't trust the capacity of the child and is there with a duty to protect their interests. If they don't they can be personally liable for their failure.

And the person with impaired judgment would be put to death for capital crimes because of the danger they represent to society.

If you believe that then you have a piece of your own humanity that's missing and I'm genuinely sorry for you. But you're entitled to believe that, again. The humane thing to do would be to place them in an institution where they could live without posing a danger to the general public or themselves.

I know that you are not making the argument that men with pregnant wives and first responders are all mentally disabled and have their judgment fundamentally impaired.

No, I'm illustrating why the action/crime itself is insufficient as a consideration before judgment and why what goes on inside a person's mind, from intent to capacity, should be taken into consideration. As with so many things, context matters.

So, find an example that works.

The problem wasn't in the example, but in your inability to process it contextually. Do you have Asperger's? We've had a few people here with that condition. I know inference can be problematic for people with that condition. Lighthouse struggled with that.

1. A mentally disabled person who has his judgment fundamentally impaired picks up a butcher knife and stabs his mother to death because he saw it on a movie.
2. A person with a mental illness who has his judgment fundamentally impaired picks up a butcher knife and stabs a woman to death in a shower because he thinks he is his own mother.
3. A man with a large amount of death picks up a butcher knife and stabs his wife so he can collect the insurance money.

What should be done about each of these?

The first two don't contain enough information to make an informed decision. How impaired? What mental illness? Are they impacted by either to the point where they don't understand the nature and consequences of their actions? Then they have to be placed in an appropriate facility to safeguard themselves and the general public.

The last man is tried for murder.

 

[ok doser]

It should be of concern to anyone with an ounce of empathy, else let's just kill someone with dementia in case they accidentally take someone's life out of confusion.

only a retard would suggest we should punish someone for something they haven't done

A drunk driver who was fully aware of what could happen before he decided to risk going to a bar and driving home is utterly different.

a bold claim - can you support it?

 

[genuineoriginal]

It should be of concern to anyone with an ounce of empathy, else let's just kill someone with dementia in case they accidentally take someone's life out of confusion.

lain:

All you have is an irrational appeal to emotion?

Well, no. If someone is incapable of recognising the ramifications of their actions then they're not required to pay for or are accountable for them. That's all your domain. A drunk driver who was fully aware of what could happen before he decided to risk going to a bar and driving home is utterly different. What kind of disconnect have you got going on here?

You are the one that is expecting only accountable people to commit crimes.

Well, no, you were just trying to justify killing a person who it would seemingly be inconvenient to keep alive. I have a friend who's schizophrenic and is reliant on medication to keep him grounded in reality. Unnecessary expense?

You have a schizophrenic friend who is a man-killer?
I have a schizophrenic friend who has never killed anyone.

 

[genuineoriginal]

they have to be placed in an appropriate facility to safeguard themselves and the general public.

There is no need to burden the society with the expense of providing an appropriate facility to house the criminally insane people in the examples I provided when putting them to death will safeguard the general public without the expense.

 

[Arthur Brain]

All you have is an irrational appeal to emotion?

What you propose flies in the face of justice and ethics.

You are the one that is expecting only accountable people to commit crimes.

In order for someone to commit a crime they either have to be aware of what they're doing or not deliberately become intoxicated to the point of impairment hence the drink/driving analogy.

You have a schizophrenic friend who is a man-killer?
I have a schizophrenic friend who has never killed anyone.

Did I say he was a man-killer? No, I didn't. Start taking note of your sig and learn to read what is written. He isn't but when he was off his medication then he lost touch with reality and if he had then he wouldn't have had a clue about what he was doing. When he's grounded he's one of the most non violent people I've met.