toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?

[Arthur Brain]

No, the person is put to death for his actions, regardless of the reason.

What?! So if someone spikes you with LSD and while completely out of your tree you end up killing someone you deserve to die do you? You can argue that the guy that spiked you with the drug is to blame but you're just as accountable for your act which killed another if 'diminished responsibility' cuts no slack with you, right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Yeah but don't forget Sela, killing em saves $$$....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have. My second favorite Steinbeck next to The Moon Is Down.

As for Lenny's culpability...I don't see it.

Not read that one as it goes. I'll have to check it out.

I don't see it in regards to Lenny either. He has the mind of a child in the body of a gorilla and simply doesn't know his own strength. There's no malice about him at all.

:cheers:

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

Okay.

I specifically said that murderers like Breivik who are aware of what they do deserve a six-foot drop.

I agree.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

You are looking at what is best for the murderer, not what is best for the society.

 

[Town Heretic]

No hurry, GO, whenever you can get around to it. lain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

Self defense has long recognized as justification for killing. It is for the benefit of society to allow this justification.

There is no benefit to society by preserving the life of an insane murderer on the basis that he is insane.

 

[ragTagblues]

No, the person is put to death for his actions, regardless of the reason.

Do you think justice is served by putting someone to death? Who precisely does that help? Does bring anyone back from the dead, onle life for another!

What a wonderful message to send to the masses - 'errr don't kill people . . . . because we'll kill you if you do'

In the first instance capital punishment does more to make murder acceptable then otherwise, if the government can do it with all these millions of people watching then so can Joe the plummer . . . .

If someone who commits murder is to be given the death sentence, then what happens to everybody involved in a court proceeding where someone is wrongfully given the death sentence? Are they then guilty of murder, should they all face death because they lacked the capacity or knowledge to make the right decision? Hey, lets go further, even the death penalty for guilty people could be construed as murder by the courts, pre-meditated decision to end human life. You back this system, so maybe you should be given the death penalty for backing it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are looking at what is best for the murderer, not what is best for the society.

Amongst other things he's trying to explain to you that those who don't understand their actions aren't murderers. Murder requires premeditated intent to kill for starters, but not surprising you're not getting this as your responses may as well be on a different topic for all the relevance to what people are actually saying on here....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Self defense has long recognized as justification for killing. It is for the benefit of society to allow this justification.

There is no benefit to society by preserving the life of an insane murderer on the basis that he is insane.

There is benefit to society if it wishes to retain civilized values. Executing the sick because they're a 'burden' pretty much blows that standard to hell....

lain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you think justice is served by putting someone to death?

Yes, justice is served. Justice has a strict definition: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. If you go beyond that definition then you are not talking about justice, but are talking about something else.

Who precisely does that help?

It helps the society.

What a wonderful message to send to the masses - 'errr don't kill people . . . . because we'll kill you if you do'

In the first instance capital punishment does more to make murder acceptable then otherwise, if the government can do it with all these millions of people watching then so can Joe the plummer . . . .

:rotfl: You think that capital punishment creates an increase in vigilante justice? :rotfl:
History disagrees with you.

If someone who commits murder is to be given the death sentence, then what happens to everybody involved in a court proceeding where someone is wrongfully given the death sentence? Are they then guilty of murder, should they all face death because they lacked the capacity or knowledge to make the right decision? Hey, lets go further, even the death penalty for guilty people could be construed as murder by the courts, pre-meditated decision to end human life. You back this system, so maybe you should be given the death penalty for backing it?

Romans 13:1-4 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Amongst other things he's trying to explain to you that those who don't understand their actions aren't murderers. Murder requires premeditated intent to kill for starters, but not surprising you're not getting this as your responses may as well be on a different topic for all the relevance to what people are actually saying on here....

lain:

Explain manslaughter.

 

[ghost]

Actually, you're the Nazi. Your blood lust is to execute the criminally insane. The same solution Hitler had.

The more you talk, the more you expose how stupid you really are. Hitler murdered innocent people, you retard.

One thing is certain, if you end up murdering someone, no court would execute you, on the grounds that you don't know your right hand from your left.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is benefit to society if it wishes to retain civilized values. Executing the sick because they're a 'burden' pretty much blows that standard to hell....

lain:

Then it is a good thing I am not advocating executing the sick because they are a burden to society.
I am advocating the swift execution of justice on someone that doesn't think there is anything wrong with blowing people up and shooting them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Explain manslaughter.

Manslaughter isn't the premeditated or calculated killing of someone. There's your basic overview of it but that's the biggest difference between the two.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Manslaughter isn't the premeditated or calculated killing of someone. There's your basic overview of it but that's the biggest difference between the two.

In the case being discussed, was Breivik guilty of manslaughter or murder?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then it is a good thing I am not advocating executing the sick because they are a burden to society.
I am advocating the swift execution of justice on someone that doesn't think there is anything wrong with blowing people up and shooting them.

Eh? You've been advocating the execution of mentally ill people for killing throughout this thread. This topic isn't about those who 'see nothing wrong' with blowing up or shooting people but rather whether they have any conscious idea or understanding of what they're doing to start with.

 

[PureX]

Explain manslaughter.

C'mon, man. Take a little responsibility. In five seconds I googled "manslaughter' and got this:

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Dracon in the 7th century BC.[1]
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

not surprising you're not getting this as your responses may as well be on a different topic for all the relevance to what people are actually saying on here....

I am discussing the topic of whether insanity is an excuse for blowing people up and shooting them.

I get the impression that other people on this thread are discussing whether the ADA should start suing shop owners for not providing loaded semi-automatic pistols for the criminally insane that want to enter their shops.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In the case being discussed, was Breivik guilty of manslaughter or murder?

Murder as there's no reason to believe he hadn't planned this appalling massacre, nor were his faculties impaired to the extent he didn't know precisely what he was doing.