genuineoriginal
New member
Thus spake the Nazi, Silent Hunter.
:loser:
toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:loser:
Should an insane person be held to a contract he signs without understanding? Should a child? Should a child, who lacks capacity for a dissimilar reason be put to death for killing another or held to contract he scribbles his mark over?
Capacity is important or we're saying an act itself is inherently evil and punishable and everyone who then commits that act, whatever their motivation, should be punished accordingly.
genuineoriginal
New member
Are you insane?
I am saying we should apply the death penalty to murderers.
We shouldn't be trying to "cure" murderers of a mental illness.
We should put murderers to death.
It's obvious to everyone exactly what you're saying, which may account for some of the flak you're getting.
genuineoriginal
New member
Moral lesson: don't murder or you will be put to death.
Justice: the murderer of the 77 people is put to death.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How do you apply a 'moral lesson' to someone incapable of understanding what morals even are? :hammer:
That's not really the point or lesson here at all. That's not what anyone here is talking about. And if you'd taken the time to actually read through the thread, as opposed to repeating yourself, you'd know better.
Try to stay on topic for a change.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
On a fairly related note has anybody read Steinbecks 'Of Mice & Men'?
Selaphiel
Well-known member
If it can be established that the offender did the act due to suffering from severe mental delusions due to mental illness, then you are in effect killing a person because of his or her illness. In such cases, the murders happened because of the illness, not because of their own agency. Instead of curing the cause of the murder, you want to kill the person who is ill. That is nothing but vengeful bloodlust, you want your pound of flesh regardless what actually caused the incident. What you call for is not justice, it is vengeance.
I have. My second favorite Steinbeck next to The Moon Is Down.
As for Lenny's culpability...I don't see it.
genuineoriginal
New member
How did the notion get into your pea brain that you can teach someone a lesson by putting them to death?
The moral lesson is not for the person put to death, it is for everyone else.
genuineoriginal
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
No, the person is put to death for his actions, regardless of the reason.
Why don't you catch up and actually read what I've posted on this thread, you clueless nincompoop?
As it is you're getting it with both barrels from me and a few others so you have a lot of catching up to do.
Then you should be put to death for killing someone to defend your life. OR, you're recognizing the importance of intent and we're right back to capacity.
How about children? If not, why not? If yes, starting at what age?
PureX
Well-known member
Yes, for two reasons.
1. Many forms of insanity are not permanent. They can be treated and the individual rehabilitated.
2. The criteria for an insanity verdict in a murder case requires that the killer was not able to understand the seriousness of the crime, or was not mentally able to stop himself from committing the crime. And by definition this would be manslaughter, not murder.
Capital punishment should be reserved for those people who not only commit murder, but can reasonably be expected to do so again if they have the opportunity. In such instances society should not have to accept that risk.
Note: I do not view the function of the criminal justice system to be "punishment". I view the function of the criminal justice system to be to protect society from people who commit criminal acts.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Actually, you're the Nazi. Your blood lust is to execute the criminally insane. The same solution Hitler had.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
What does this achieve? These offenders could not help themselves because they are SICK. Killing them achieves nothing except adding another body. In theory, if they are cured of their illness, they are no longer a threat. If they are not cured, they are kept in a secure psychiatric institution. So in the end, killing them is just serving our own bloodlust as if that will change ANYTHING. Criminal justice assumes agency, otherwise the assigning of blame is meaningless.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How is it escaping your "pea brain" that there's no 'moral lesson' in applying the exact same penalty to those who are severely mentally ill as those who act in full possession of their faculties?