You seem to be assuming everyone who claims to be deranged will be taken at their word.
toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You seem to be assuming everyone who claims to be deranged will be taken at their word.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You are attempting to force a distinction where there is no difference.
Your posts thus far suggest that you would have everyone who kills, accidental or otherwise, executed.
That's just :kookoo:.
Should drunk drivers be executed?
Selaphiel
Well-known member
You can't declare yourself insane. You have to be diagnosed as insane by a panel of psychiatric experts. Then they deliver their report to the court which then can approve or disapprove of that report. We are talking about rather severe mental illnesses here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Hold on there son. We're talking about two different issues here:
#1 Someone who was born with limited mental faculities.
#2 Someone who by his own actions destroyed his brain through the use of unlawful drugs.
If you want to lump me in with others, you'll need to see how they feel about the above two subjects.
As I stated in an earlier post, I have compassion for those that were born that way, I don't have any for those that commit crimes because they were irresponsible for their actions in life.
Saaaaaay what? If someone can't figure out the difference between this man
and this
then they shouldn't be free judge others in a court of law.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Hold on there son. We're talking about two different issues here:
#1 Someone who was born with limited mental faculities.
#2 Someone who by his own actions destroyed his brain through the use of unlawful drugs.
If you want to lump me in with others, you'll need to see how they feel about the above two subjects.
As I stated in an earlier post, I have compassion for those that were born that way, I don't have any for those that commit crimes because they were irresponsible for their actions in life.
Saaaaaay what? If someone can't figure out the difference between this man
and this
then they shouldn't be free judge others in a court of law.
Start? That ship is sailing
No. Just presenting a hypothetical.
True dat!
Well that's a fairly unrealistic hypothetical, chickenman. That's not the way the courts work now, and I can't imagine why you'd think it would change in the future.
ragTagblues
New member
Quote:Saaaaaay what? If someone can't figure out the difference between this man
and this
then they shouldn't be free judge others in a court of law.
Fail to see the comparison here between a very unfortunate looking man and what appears to be a heroin addict?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
(This is an atheist's way of saying: "We really don't have any doctrine, other than that of what we borrow from Judeo-Christian dogma").
While "The Golden Rule" is used in practically every major world religion, it was Judeo-Christian doctrine that was responsible for it.
Atheists piggy back off of Judeo-Christian doctrine.
http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/Bibliography/goldenrulehistory
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
(This is an atheist's way of saying: "We really don't have any doctrine, other than that of what we borrow from Judeo-Christian dogma").
While "The Golden Rule" is used in practically every major world religion, it was Judeo-Christian doctrine that was responsible for it.
Atheists piggy back off of Judeo-Christian doctrine.
http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/Bibliography/goldenrulehistory
Right. And since there are no lawyers or psychiatric experts that have any impure motives
greedy, then certainly no person could ever be wrongly proclaimed to be of unsound mind.
Look deeper rTb. One was born with mental retardation, the other ruined his brain through drug use.
That's what this thread is all about: Should #1 be executed as well as #2?
If they've both committed a capital crime, yes.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
What.
Are you suggesting we judge people on what they look like instead of their actions?If someone can't figure out the difference between this man
and this
then they shouldn't be free judge others in a court of law.
A person out of touch with reality through drug use (or some other self-induced factor) is held to a different standard of "insane" than a person who is "insane" apart from a self-induced influence.
Perhaps you can cite the case of a drug user being executed using the above standard.
Even if #1 had the mentality of a 4 year old and didn't know that it's wrong to murder?
Would you execute a 4 year old if he or she pulled the trigger of a gun, killing his or her brother or sister?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Right. And since there are no lawyers or psychiatric experts that have any impure motives
It's my understanding that such reports/tests have to pass review by a panel of experts and the results/findings have to corroborate the claim. It's hardly as straightforward as one or two corrupt individuals managing to pull the wool over the courts eyes in order to make a dirty buck. Your scenario could apply to those who are wrongly proclaimed guilty so it's not much of an argument anyway.
It's also just a complaint against the system we have already, which already has the checks in place you mention. I can't tell where CM is coming from or what his point is. "Corruption is bad," maybe.
ragTagblues
New member
It doesn't actually follow that someone with mental retardation will look any different from someone who hasn't, having once made a blunder at my work where I thought a member of staff was actually who I had to look after . . . . The first picture needs to be more clear that it is representing someone with learning difficulties, not just what could be perceived as an unfortunate looking man.
Neither should be executed on the basis that capital punishment is neither a solution or a deterrent when it comes to crime, it is simply stupid.
However both should be punished individually taking into account the relevant circumstances of whatever may have been done wrong and what the cause may have been.
No one is free to commit crime; but how someone is punished does need to take into account a persons capacity for thinking at the time of the incident.
You judge them on their behavior. It's obvious that #1's behavior is going to be different due to being born with mental retardation.
Yes, as the drug addict had the choice of whether or not to ruin his mind, whereas the person that was born with mental retardation didn't.
The standard that he was high on drugs when he committed murder?
(Boy, that's a tough one).
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_5a833346-8fd2-58b1-8f52-472329138797.html
Now you show me where a mentally retarded person who a jury said wasn't responsible for his actions, was put to death.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:liberals:
It seems here that some (dare I say "all") christians waffle on the importance of a "written" record or an "oral" record as it suits their perceived "argument".
Regardless, nearly all cultures formulated the "golden rule" independently of judaism/christianity.