toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?

[some other dude]

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.

I determined it a month or so ago, right before he flounced off in a huff.

At that time it had to do with homosexual "rights".

 

[Granite]

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

You seem most interested in killing someone and not in justice.

 

[ragTagblues]

Bigot.

Wow with that kind of response I'm surprised you don't win post of the year every year . . . .

Him being an unfortunate looking man does not make me a bigot, it merely makes me honest, how he looks will not influence how I treat him as a person.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You seem most interested in killing someone and not in justice.

You can't get justice for murder without killing someone.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You can't get justice for murder without killing someone.

. . . or without killing something at least . . . Exodus 21:28.

. . . this must be some more of that eye-for-an-eye nonsense someone railed about earlier.

 

[Granite]

You can't get justice for murder without killing someone.

This is just blood lust, plain and simple. There's no justice here, or moral lesson--all you're interested in is seeing another corpse.

So I assume for the mentally retarded, the completely deranged, for children, it simply doesn't matter. You'd rather see them dead, if convicted of homicide.

All you want is more blood. That in and of itself speaks to a homicidal mindset.

 

[Rusha]

This is just blood lust, plain and simple. There's no justice here, or moral lesson--all you're interested in is seeing another corpse..

I won't speak for GO or any other DP advocate, however, for me, justice takes a back seat to protecting society. Dead murderers do not re-offend.

IF someone has a plan of action that will 100% insure that these individuals will never escape, be released upon society or harm someone while incarcerated, I am all ears.

 

[Selaphiel]

You can't get justice for murder without killing someone.

Most civilized nations stopped with blood feuds a while ago, maybe it is time to catch up? Justice is about assigning guilt and punishment where it is due, all to secure the rest of society from further crimes from the offender. Blood for blood is barbaric non-sense, and has nothing to do with justice. You cannot assign guilt to a person who cannot help what he is doing.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I won't speak for GO or any other DP advocate, however, for me, justice takes a back seat to protecting society. Dead murderers do not re-offend.

. . . or dead oxen either for that matter.

IF someone has a plan of action that will 100% insure that these individuals will never escape, be released upon society or harm someone while incarcerated, I am all ears.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are NO guarantees in life Rusha (except, of course, death and taxes).

 

[Rusha]

I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are NO guarantees in life Rusha (except, of course, death and taxes).

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Regardless of whether or not anti-DP advocates want to admit it, the DP does keep society PERMANENTLY safe from at least one offender.

It's sort of like comparing a hysterectomy to birth control ... one ALWAYS works while one has been known from time to time to fail.

 

[Granite]

I won't speak for GO or any other DP advocate, however, for me, justice takes a back seat to protecting society. Dead murderers do not re-offend.

We've been over this already. I'm not talking about a Ted Bundy or Charles Manson here. I'm talking about someone with a mental illness severe enough to render them incapable of understanding themselves, let alone the consequences of their actions. You keep on confusing the criminal with the criminally insane. You're right back to your animal shelter morality.

 

[Quincy]

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.

Then I believe it would become a matter of compassion. How long is long enough, or too long to force someone into living in asylum like conditions, in that state of mind? Reminds me of the Batman paradox ( :ha: *raspberry*). He won't kill the Joker, preventing all the future crime the Joker will do, no matter how the Joker may honestly beg him to. So is he really a hero or is he really the nutcase?

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.

They may lack functional capacity when they did the crime but it still comes back to did they always lack mental capacity? This leads to perceiving the perception, which I'll get to in a second.

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.

You don't see it coming, you are right there. However, when someone begins to develop a mental disorder, they have episodes. People just don't go from being a functioning individual to being a homicidal maniac in an instant. It slowly happens and at some point, you do something where you realize you have episodes where you lack the ability to perceive the perception. The ability to say, what am I doing? Why am I doing it? Is this right or wrong? After an episode you always come back down though, until you hit that ciminally insane zenith. Then you know you did something wrong, or something is wrong with your body, trust me. At that point, if you don't go get help, everything following is a result of that choice.

For example, disco/dance music is a trigger of mine. Earlier this year, Lady Gaga released a new album. I knew I shouldn't listen to it, but I did it anyways. I became obsessed with it, and I probably listened to the songs 100s of times each in the matter of a week. The next thing I know, I've broken into my gf's house at the time and vandalized it. At the time, I just wanted to turn on all their faucets and surprise them when they got home with a nice pool, because it was so hot outside. Yes, I didn't realize I was doing something wrong like I do now and beforehand, but I knew the trigger that lead to that was wrong, and I did it anyways. I made the conscious choice to give in to my urge to listen to the album, instead of ignoring it or asking for help to keep me from doing it. 99% of the time, I would do one of those things and wouldn't trigger an episode.

Rationality and self interest argue against your assumption. No sane person wants to suffer

Exactly!

and will do what they can to avoid it

Shame, quilt, fear and other bad feelings can come into play here and cause the person to believe they can handle their problems on their own. They may choose to ignore their triggers and they may choose to give in. Is that really any different than someone who has a "normal" mental state choosing to do a crime? It may hurt some of you on here who care about me to hear my honesty, but I am a maniac. I still have full mental capacity and functioning 99% of the time to perceive the perception, unless I initiate a trigger. I initiate the trigger though...... What happens after is my fault.

:e4e:

:cheers: As always, it's a pleasure talking with you good sir.

 

[Rusha]

We've been over this already. I'm not talking about a Ted Bundy or Charles Manson here. I'm talking about someone with a mental illness severe enough to render them incapable of understanding themselves, let alone the consequences of their actions. You keep on confusing the criminal with the criminally insane. You're right back to your animal shelter morality.

Andrea Yates was mentally ill which allows her to live. How exactly can you be sure that one day some doctor won't declare her fit to live in society and be released or that she won't escape and decide that if she kills a couple of kids playing on the playground she will be saving their souls?

David Berkowitz also used the *insanity defense*.

Again, what guarantee can you offer that someone who is claiming mental illness will never be a threat to society again if they are allowed to live?

 

[Town Heretic]

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

No shame in admitting to being less versed than many who've had years of study and/or training I haven't.

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.

Okay. So what distinguishes an accident from a deliberate act if they both look the same from a distance/in the act?

What are the neighbors saying in their agreement? They must be saying that they're confident that the fellow didn't commit the act wilfully/intentionally.

And intent is exactly what capacity is all about.

:e4e:

I determined it a month or so ago, right before he flounced off in a huff.

I left in anything but a huff. Here's a link to the post where I set out some of the reasons for my sabbatical...though I omitted a family difficulty relating to my father's health for a couple of other.... I was absent for about a month, frankly for a much shorter time than I anticipated, because of very good and early news on the home front and a productive personal period of reflection. And because while I discovered I could do without a great deal of the argument, I missed a great many friends.

At that time it had to do with homosexual "rights".

No, it didn't. I've never advanced that notion. So he still doesn't understand the argument.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Regardless of whether or not anti-DP advocates want to admit it, the DP does keep society PERMANENTLY safe from at least one offender.

:liberals:

The death penalty has nothing to do with the death penalty?

I'm pretty much all for someone who murders with intent being executed (there is no murder without intent). But why would you kill your ox (Exodus 21:28)?

It's sort of like comparing a hysterectomy to birth control ... one ALWAYS works while one has been known from time to time to fail.

I'm amazed you are against abortion Rusha. Truly .

 

[Granite]

Andrea Yates was mentally ill which allows her to live. How exactly can you be sure that one day some doctor won't declare her fit to live in society and be released?

How can you be sure she'll reoffend?

When it comes to postpartum depression/psychosis, I think we need to tread very carefully. And when it comes to a woman whose mind had been warped and manipulated by an odd duck of a husband and a twisted form of Christianity, well....let's just say I almost pity her. Almost.

David Berkowitz also used the *insanity defense*.

And failed. Later he admitted to the FBI's John Douglas that it was nothing more than a ruse, and he wasn't believed. Using the defense guarantees nothing--but if one is found by experts to be unable to understand their actions or consequences, I don't see any moral lesson gained in executing them. If we're beyond justice at this point and simply want to kill whoever's inconvenient, then no thanks. No way I'll ever support this kind of thinking. It's no different from euthanasia.

Again, what guarantee can you offer that someone who is claiming mental illness will never be a threat to society again if they are allowed to live?

Like I told chickenman, you seem to be assuming anyone who claims derangement will be taken at that word.

 

[Rusha]

I'm amazed you are against abortion Rusha. Truly .

Why? Abortion intentionally kills unborn babies. There are no similarities to abortion and the death penalty.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Andrea Yates was mentally ill which allows her to live. How exactly can you be sure that one day some doctor won't declare her fit to live in society and be released or that she won't escape and decide that if she kills a couple of kids playing on the playground she will be saving their souls?

David Berkowitz also used the *insanity defense*.

Again, what guarantee can you offer that someone who is claiming mental illness will never be a threat to society again if they are allowed to live?

What guarantee can you offer that YOU will never be a threat to society if YOU are allowed to live?

That you don't understand the paradox is frightening to us (me and my imaginary friend).

 

[Rusha]

What guarantee can you offer that YOU will never be a threat to society if YOU are allowed to live?

Well, unlike the individuals we are discussing, I haven't ever murdered anyone. It's not like these individuals are just being pulled randomly off the street, SH, and executed for crimes they *might* commit. They have murdered. Big difference.

That you don't understand the paradox is frightening to us (me and my imaginary friend).

What paradox exactly? I will assume the imaginary friend was just sarcasm for the purpose of sarcasm since I am not religious.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Why? Abortion intentionally kills unborn babies. There are no similarities to abortion and the death penalty.

As such, no, there isn't, that isn't the point but it is your red herring.

We are discussing executing a person who has killed someone who doesn't know/understand that they have done anything wrong.

Again, why would you kill your ox (Exodus 21:28).