toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?

[genuineoriginal]

The reason for keeping and treating the criminally insane is twofold: first, they may yet be cured. Second, we don't have the ethical, moral, or legal right to end their lives.

Unless they have murdered people, then we have the ethical duty to end their lives.

 

[Town Heretic]

Self defense is seen as difference because the guilty party is killed during an attempted murder instead of after committing murder.

Then you can't say, as you did earlier, that we're punishing the act without regard for the mental state of the murderer, because that's the only thing that distinguishes between that murderer and the killer in self defense. Otherwise they commit the same physical act.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Then you can't say, as you did earlier, that we're punishing the act without regard for the mental state of the murderer, because that's the only thing that distinguishes between that murderer and the killer in self defense. Otherwise they commit the same physical act.

I know you are smarter than that.

The mental state has nothing to do with it, the only thing that distinguishes between them is whether they are guilty or not. A person that kills in self defense does not bear guilt in the eyes of God, even if it is only in defense of his property.

Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.​

Now, if you have any proof from the Word of God that an insane murderer should be spared from a just death, bring it out. Otherwise you have no grounds for your position.

 

[Quincy]

The reason for keeping and treating the criminally insane is twofold: first, they may yet be cured.

They may not also .

Second, we don't have the ethical, moral, or legal right to end their lives.

I may be able to see that there isn't a legal precedent for doing it across the board, I'm not sure about that stuff. It would seem to me though, if you ask anyone who has a mental illness that doesn't impair their functionality, none of them would say they'd want to live in the state they are in when they have an episode, constantly. I've experienced things from spending every dime I have to thinking I'm above the law to playing extreme practical jokes on people. Things I won't even comment on what I did. Seems there is an ethical basis for putting down someone who has become criminally insane, if they would tell you that wouldn't want to live that way.

If you were once sane, chances are there was a point where you became aware their was something wrong with you. That is where you make a choice between taking responsibility and getting help and being irresponsible. What's the difference in someone like me and someone who becomes criminally insane? They chose to neglect their condition and be irresponsible. I'm not saying someone who was born with extremely low IQ and never knew right from wrong should be put down. I'm saying someone who made the conscious decision to not seek help made that choice.

 

[Town Heretic]

I know you are smarter than that.

Thanks. I know the law and the distinctions between actions. I don't know why this is difficult for you.

The mental state has nothing to do with it, the only thing that distinguishes between them is whether they are guilty or not.

Guilt is distinguished by what? Right, reason and intent. That is, you must be acting against the right/law with the intent to do so and with the resulting harm. That's what distinguishes and that's mental state and capacity.

Now, if you have any proof from the Word of God that an insane murderer should be spared from a just death, bring it out.

The proof is in the designation of murder itself and how we attach it, not to any dead body, but to dead bodies produced in a particular way... If you back up your car not realizing your neighbor's toddler daughter is sitting behind it you are not a murderer, by way of example, though the girl is as dead as had you seen her and placed your car in reverse with a smile. What distinguishes the smiling villain from the grieving neighbor?

Intent.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Guilt is distinguished by what? Right, reason and intent. That is, you must be acting against the right/law with the intent to do so and with the resulting harm.

Guilt is distinguished by right and result. That is, you must be acting against the right/law and with the resulting harm.

The guilt is the shedding of innocent blood.

Deuteronomy 19:13 13Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.​

The proof is in the designation of murder itself and how we attach it, not to any dead body, but to dead bodies produced in a particular way... If you back up your car not realizing your neighbor's toddler daughter is sitting behind it you are not a murderer

Prove it from the Bible, or stop blowing hot air through your hat.

 

[Town Heretic]

They may not also .

Insufficient justification then. When in doubt? Hope. You never know what's around the corner. And it doesn't matter given the second leg here, which is about right.

I may be able to see that there isn't a legal precedent for doing it across the board, I'm not sure about that stuff.

Most civilized societies agree that killing the incapacitated isn't a good thing. Lacking capacity they are innocent of the charge at the foundational level. They are not much different than a man who sleep walks into the street causing another to swerve and lose his life.

It would seem to me though, if you ask anyone who has a mental illness that doesn't impair their functionality, none of them would say they'd want to live in the state they are in when they have an episode, constantly.

There's a reason why we don't let judges try their families or doctors operate on theirs. It applies here.

Seems there is an ethical basis for putting down someone who has become criminally insane, if they would tell you that wouldn't want to live that way.

Again, it isn't about their desire but about our right and power to abridge a fundamental human right.

If you were once sane, chances are there was a point where you became aware their was something wrong with you. That is where you make a choice between taking responsibility and getting help and being irresponsible.

Not the way clinically insane people tend to be produced. Psychotic breaks aren't the sort of thing any of us imagine will happen to us or see coming. And most mental illness is a bit like the old frog in a pan of water with the temperature being raised by increments. By the time you'd notice you mostly won't be able to. That seems to be more the rule where violent crime and mental illness are joined.

What's the difference in someone like me and someone who becomes criminally insane? They chose to neglect their condition and be irresponsible.

Rationality and self interest argue against your assumption. No sane person wants to suffer and will do what they can to avoid it. If they aren't then the chances are much greater that they were sitting in that pan of water.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

The guilt is the shedding of innocent blood.

Answer me on the little girl then. Are you a murderer to be put to death if you back over her because she decided to play behind your car and you were unaware of it?

Yes or no. Apply the relevant verse to that scenario.

And lay off the hot air nonsense. I'm speaking to you like a man. Answer me like one.

 

[some other dude]

Seriously guys. :freak:

You're trying to out-argue a lawyer on points of the law.

Even if you had a point, he would never concede it.

You're arguing with a guy who's smarter than the Colorado State Supreme Court Chief Justice and whichever SCOTUS Justice with whom he is currently disagreeing.

You're wasting your time.

Worse, you're feeding his need.

 

[Town Heretic]

Seriously guys. :freak:

You're trying to out-argue a lawyer on points of the law.

Does your obsession with my every word ever give you pause or is it like a mental illness that you simply can't help?

Even if you had a point, he would never concede it.

You only feel that way because you so rarely manage one.

You're arguing with a guy who's smarter than the Colorado State Supreme Court Chief Justice and whichever SCOTUS Justice with whom he is currently disagreeing.

I don't know the IQs of the people you're referring to so I can't say, but it isn't a matter of that to begin with. Newton was brilliant and still managed to get a few important things wrong, even in his discipline. Heck, the Supreme Court once said it was fine and dandy to own people. And more recently that it was fine and dandy to kill them. I disagree with both of those decisions as well.

So do you. Are you smarter than every Justice on the Roe Court? Probably never occurred to you to apply the same sneering standard to your own thoughts and conduct...ah, well.

You're wasting your time.

Are you certain about that? (it's funny when you really think about it)

Worse, you're feeding his need.

Said the fellow who starts whole threads on single lines by me and can't answer a simple question from kmo without going on about me, who even when he isn't addressed by me steps in to talk about me.

:chuckle:

 

[some other dude]

:doh:

 

[some other dude]

Town, I'm ashamed for you.


You're a sick man.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town, I'm ashamed for you.

You're a sick man.

I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the sad expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.

Else: "Said the fellow who starts whole threads on single lines by me and can't answer a simple question from kmo without going on about me, who even when he isn't addressed by me steps in to talk about me."

 

[genuineoriginal]

Answer me on the little girl then. Are you a murderer to be put to death if you back over her because she decided to play behind your car and you were unaware of it?

Yes or no. Apply the relevant verse to that scenario.

And lay off the hot air nonsense. I'm speaking to you like a man. Answer me like one.

Your designation is "Christian" but all your arguments are based on opinion, not on the Bible.

I asked you to twice provide the relevant verses to make your point.

Are you unable to do so?

 

[some other dude]

I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the sad expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.

Else: "Said the fellow who starts whole threads on single lines by me and can't answer a simple question from kmo without going on about me, who even when he isn't addressed by me steps in to talk about me."

Yes Town, thank you for demonstrating that you need help.

 

[Town Heretic]

Your designation is "Christian" but all your arguments are based on opinion, not on the Bible.

Well, no, though I tend to stay out of religious arguments because that isn't where my expertise is found and I'd rather listen.

Now the next time you do what you just did with that hot air comment and your even less worthy "Your designation is Christian" you're going to get a far less civil treatment from me. I've done nothing of the sort to you, have approached you upright and on the issue. This isn't in the exclusively Christian section or even the religious section and my entry was on the point of law.

Beyond that, I asked you a straight forward question driven by a clear enough problem.

I asked you to twice provide the relevant verses to make your point.

I didn't enter on a point of scripture, though I suppose I could reference how our law treats the matter and root the respect for that law in Romans.

But again, allowing for the treatment here in the terms you mean to apply it and outside of the existing law: how do you handle the situation I just gave you. Apply the scripture. Are you guilty of the murder of the little girl for backing your car over her in ignorance.

If not, why not, according to scripture? If yes, same question.

 

[some other dude]

Careful go, he's getting ready to loose the far less civil treatment on you. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

This isn't in the exclusively Christian section or even the religious section and my entry was on the point of law.

My arguments have also been on the point of law, God's Law as written in His Word. Based on God's Law, there is no justification for not executing an insane murderer, which is why I asked you to provide verses to prove your point.

Well, no, though I tend to stay out of religious arguments because that isn't where my expertise is found and I'd rather listen.

Beyond that, I asked you a straight forward question driven by a clear enough problem.

I didn't enter on a point of scripture, though I suppose I could reference how our law treats the matter and root the respect for that law in Romans.

But again, allowing for the treatment here in the terms you mean to apply it and outside of the existing law: how do you handle the situation I just gave you. Apply the scripture. Are you guilty of the murder of the little girl for backing your car over her in ignorance.

If not, why not, according to scripture? If yes, same question.

Okay, it is not your area of expertise, which is a shame.

Here are some relevant scriptures:

Numbers 35:10-28 10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan; 11Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. 12And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. 13And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge. 14Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge. 15These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither. 16And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. 20But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; 21Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. 22But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, 23Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: 24Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. 26But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; 27And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: 28Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.​

Deuteronomy 19:11-13 11But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.​

To put it in today's terms, a person that accidentally kills another person, like backing a car over a child, can be protected from being put to death as long as the community agrees that it was unintentional and the person that accidentally killed another remains in a minimum security facility for the rest of his life or for the rest of the life of the chief justice at the time of the accidental killing, whichever comes first.
A person that kills another person with a weapon, like the man who shot 77 people to death, has no protection from being put to death for shedding innocent blood, regardless of any mental illness that made him unaware of the consequences of his act or that makes him "unfit" to stand trial.

 

[some other dude]

My arguments have also been on the point of law, God's Law as written in His Word.

We've already determined that Town puts man's law above God's Law.

 

[genuineoriginal]

We've already determined that Town puts man's law above God's Law.

That has not been determined yet.
He said it is not his area of expertise, so I am willing to help him out by showing him what the Scriptures say.