toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?

[Silent Hunter]

Well, unlike the individuals we are discussing, I haven't ever murdered anyone.

That doesn't matter. How can you guarantee that you won't kill someone . . . except that you be "put down" now, today, before tomorrow?

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.

Obviously you don't understand what constitutes "murder". You should probably read TH's discussion concerning "intent" previous.

What paradox exactly?

The paradox defined by you killing your ox (Exodus 21:28).

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

Partially. However, you, being John Lennon and without religion, is irrelevant to the point TH, Granite, and I are making.

 

[Rusha]

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

I am not the one who brought up my anti-abortion stance in a conversation about the death penalty.

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

So they claim ...

Of course, IF they are (insane), we do need to make sure we can feel good about ourselves by offering them a *cure*, releasing them (unless they escape) and then acting surprised when they murder again.

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

Why are you quoting the Bible to ME? :think:

 

[Rusha]

That doesn't matter. How can you guarantee that you won't kill someone . . . except that you be "put down" now, today, before tomorrow?

I don't *have* to guarantee I won't murder someone because I have committed no crime. Is there some reason for you to believe that individuals who do NOT commit crime should be treated the same as those who do?

Obviously you don't understand what constitutes "murder". You should probably read TH's discussion concerning "intent" previous.

I haven't been discussing intent. In fact, I have made it clear that my support of the DP isn't about justice, but rather about protecting society from a known threat.

The paradox defined by you killing your ox (Exodus 21:28).

Apply your bible verses to yourself. I don't read them when Christians post them, so why should I take them to heart when an Atheist posts them? I have not at any time in this discussion used religion or any deity to support my defense of the DP for murderers.

Partially. However, you, being John Lennon and without religion, is irrelevant to the point TH, Granite, and I are making.

Well good for you. As soon as you can come up with a way to alleviate any further threats from someone who HAS murdered outside of the DP, feel free to share them.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I am not the one who brought up my anti-abortion stance in a conversation about the death penalty.

Abortion is similar to what you would have done to the mentally innocent yet you oppose abortion. That you don't understand the irony is revealing.

So they claim ...

This has been adequately answered repeatedly by Granite so I see no reason to reveal further your shortfall concerning it.

Of course, IF they are (insane), we do need to make sure we can feel good about ourselves by offering them a *cure*, releasing them (unless they escape) and then acting surprised when they murder again.

Again, how can you guarantee that you won't kill someone . . . except that you be "put down" now, today, before tomorrow?

Why are you quoting the Bible to ME?

Because the verse is relevant. Perhaps you missed the word "Atheist" below my avatar.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I don't *have* to guarantee I won't murder someone because I have committed no crime.

Exactly, the mentally deficient cannot commit a crime because they lack intent.

Is there some reason for you to believe that individuals who do NOT commit crime should be treated the same as those who do?

Have you reviewed TH's remarks on "intent" yet?

I haven't been discussing intent.

Why not? Intent is very important to what constitutes a "crime".

In fact, I have made it clear that my support of the DP isn't about justice, but rather about protecting society from a known threat.

You support the death penalty to protect society from a perceived threat and this is why I have repeatedly asked you how can YOU guarantee that YOU won't kill someone.

Apply your bible verses to yourself. I don't read them when Christians post them, so why should I take them to heart when an Atheist posts them? I have not at any time in this discussion used religion or any deity to support my defense of the DP for murderers.

Religion isn't the point of the posted verse.

Suppose you own an ox. The ox escapes from its enclosure somehow and walks through a playground trampling a child to death. Do you kill the ox? Why?

Well good for you. As soon as you can come up with a way to alleviate any further threats from someone who HAS murdered outside of the DP, feel free to share them.

The insane (and the "temporarily" insane) cannot murder because they lack intent. Hasn't this been covered already elsewhere?

 

[Rusha]

Abortion is similar to what you would have done to the mentally innocent yet you oppose abortion. That you don't understand the irony is revealing.

OIC ... Because unborn babies and babies are capable of going on killing sprees. :hammer:

This has been adequately answered repeatedly by Granite so I see no reason to reveal further your shortfall concerning it.

No shortfall here ... I have read your arguments and rejected them.

Again, how can you guarantee that you won't kill someone . . . except that you be "put down" now, today, before tomorrow?

This question makes absolutely no sense when discussing someone who has actually COMMITTED a crime. Now, had I said we should start going around, gathering up those who are supposedly mentally ill and putting them down *just in case* that would be a different story. However, I have not.

However, if this is the criteria you wish to use, then feel free to turn yourself in at your local police department and explain to them that you may one day commit a crime and believe they need to get off their rears and arrest everyone else living in their jurisdiction. lain:

Because the verse is relevant. Perhaps you missed the word "Atheist" below my avatar.

They are not relevant to *me*. Perhaps you missed the fact that I am not a Christian and have never based any of my arguments on the Bible or a superior deity.

 

[Rusha]

Exactly, the mentally deficient cannot commit a crime because they lack intent.

In that case, they need to be sent their merry way AFTER the court declares "guilty, by reasons of insanity", correct? IF, by your words, they have committed no crime, then locking them away in a prison or prison cell (by your standard) wouldn't make any sense.

Have you reviewed TH's remarks on "intent" yet?

Why not? Intent is very important to what constitutes a "crime".

By this standard, an individual who is drunk or has enough drugs in them to cause a violent reaction or black out should be allowed to walk after going on a killing spree, correct?

You support the death penalty to protect society from a perceived threat and this is why I have repeatedly asked you how can YOU guarantee that YOU won't kill someone.

So your argument is that every day individuals who live according to the law and don't harm others should be treated exactly the same as those who have been convicted of murder. Got it.

Religion isn't the point of the posted verse.

Suppose you own an ox. The ox escapes from its enclosure somehow and runs through a playground trampling a child to death. Do you kill the ox? Why?

Sure ... if the ox will be a continued threat to society.

The insane (and the "temporarily" insane) cannot murder because they lack intent.

Sure thing ... until of course they are released to murder again.

Hasn't this been covered already elsewhere?

You keep repeating the same tired argument and I keep rejecting it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hi Rusha

I tried to get GO to give an answer to this but nothing doing....can you answer where you're at with this scenario out of interest?

How would you answer this hypothetical? Supposing someone is spiked with LSD (Note I say spiked and not that they'd deliberately ingested the stuff) and while tripping off their nut they end up killing two people. They have no ability to distinguish between reality and hallucination and don't return to 'normality' even after the drug has done its course. What do you do with them? Try and give them help to recover or put them down like a 'rabid dog'?

Btw the one who has spiked the person is obviously the guilty party so there's no need to address that but simply the above.

 

[Silent Hunter]

OIC ... Because unborn babies and babies are capable of going on killing sprees.

Nope. Not even close. The mentally innocent has committed no crime yet you would have them killed but not the innocent baby. That you don't recognize the irony is revealed here and below . . .

No shortfall here ... I have read your arguments and rejected them.

See above.

This question makes absolutely no sense when discussing someone who has actually COMMITTED a crime.

Obviously you still fail to comprehend the meaning of "intent" as it relates to action.

Now, had I said we should start going around, gathering up those who are supposedly mentally ill and putting them down *just in case* that would be a different story. However, I have not.

A distinction without a difference. You propose killing (executing) certain of the mentally ill based on a perceived, as opposed to an actual, threat.

However, if this is the criteria you wish to use, then feel free to turn yourself in at your local police department and explain to them that you may one day commit a crime and believe they need to get off their rears and arrest everyone else living in their jurisdiction.

Straw man.

They are not relevant to *me*. Perhaps you missed the fact that I am not a Christian and have never based any of my arguments on the Bible or a superior deity.

There is a parallel that you are not understanding that I'm confident is explained in the post that followed.

 

[Rusha]

Hi Rusha

I tried to get GO to give an answer to this but nothing doing....can you answer where you're at with this scenario out of interest?

How would you answer this hypothetical? Supposing someone is spiked with LSD (Note I say spiked and not that they'd deliberately ingested the stuff) and while tripping off their nut they end up killing two people. They have no ability to distinguish between reality and hallucination and don't return to 'normality' even after the drug has done its course. What do you do with them? Try and give them help to recover or put them down like a 'rabid dog'?

Btw the one who has spiked the person is obviously the guilty party so there's no need to address that but simply the above.

It depends ... is the person in question a threat to society? Also, I am unclear as to why institutionalizing someone with a bunch of nutters or locking them up in a cage is considered acceptable and humane for people who have committed no crime.

The argument has been that these individuals have committed no crime ... in that case, they should be allowed to run free (even if that means running with scissors), correct?

 

[Silent Hunter]

In that case, they need to be sent their merry way AFTER the court declares "guilty, by reasons of insanity", correct? IF, by your words, they have committed no crime, then locking them away in a prison or prison cell (by your standard) wouldn't make any sense.

Locking up a threat doesn't make sense? You say this as though your Nazi tactic of euthanasia does make sense.

By this standard, an individual who is drunk or has enough drugs in them to cause a violent reaction or black out should be allowed to walk after going on a killing spree, correct?

No. The person you describe is guilty but for a different reason. While a punishment is in order for their action, I fail to understand why you think they "deserve" death.

So your argument is that every day individuals who live according to the law and don't harm others should be treated exactly the same as those who have been convicted of murder. Got it.

I always appreciate it when people have the clairvoyance to tell me what I think.

I said nothing of the kind. But feel free to insert words into my mouth whenever your argument is failing (see the underlined).

Sure ... if the ox will be a continued threat to society.

Really? Why didn't you lock up your ox securely enough that it couldn't escape? I doubt you recognize how slippery is the slope you are creating.

Sure thing ... until of course they are released to murder again.

There is no guarantee either way. That you don't comprehend the question, "How can YOU guarantee that YOU won't kill someone"? reveals how flawed is your argument concerning.

You keep repeating the same tired argument and I keep rejecting it.

All your rejection of my (and TH's, Granite's, & AB's, to name a few) argument means is that you still don't understand it and would rather join the "christian brethren" in blood lust :sigh:.

 

[Rusha]

Locking up a threat doesn't make sense?

Using YOUR reasoning, no it doesn't make sense.

You say this as though your Nazi tactic of euthanasia does make sense.

Apply the Nazi tactic to yourself. I am not the person arguing for the rights to kill unborn babies simply because of their age and residency status.

No. The person you describe is guilty but for a different reason. While a punishment is in order for their action, I fail to understand why you think they "deserve" death.

This has never been about punishment. I thought I made that clear. This is about permanently stopping a threat.

I always appreciate it when people have the clairvoyance to tell me what I think.

Right back at you.

I said nothing of the kind. But feel free to insert words into my mouth whenever your argument is failing (see the underlined).

Really? Why didn't you lock up your ox securely enough that it couldn't escape? I doubt you recognize how slippery is the slope you are creating.

There is no guarantee either way. That you don't comprehend the question, "How can YOU guarantee that YOU won't kill someone"? reveals how flawed is your argument concerning.

The only thing revealed is how far you will reach to apply your illogical position. Your *argument* implies that it is unfair to use the death penalty because ANY of us might someday kill. In that case, it is illogical to institutionalize someone or lock them away for life unless you can prove that you and everyone else won't at some point commit murder.

All your rejection of my (and TH's, Granite's, & AB's, to name a few) argument means is that you still don't understand it and would rather join the "christian brethren" in blood lust :sigh:.

Why are earth are you INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the reasons I have given? IF I were interested in blood lust, I would be advocating torture prior to and during execution.

OTOH, why do YOU have more compassion and concern for murderers as compared to murder victims, their families and the innocent who are at risk should they be released and go on to kill again?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It depends ... is the person in question a threat to society? Also, I am unclear as to why institutionalizing someone with a bunch of nutters or locking them up in a cage is considered acceptable and humane for people who have committed no crime.

Well lets say for the sake of argument they could be after being screwed up by the drug, so despite their being completely innocent in taking it or responsible for the subsequent carnage they should be killed in order to protect society? I understand your argument I think but isn't this unfortunate person also a member of society? In regards to the latter I think rehabilitative care is a bit less draconian than what you suggest (I certainly hope so anyway)

The argument has been that these individuals have committed no crime ... in that case, they should be allowed to run free (even if that means running with scissors), correct?

No, absolutely not. If they pose any sort of discernible threat to others or even themselves then they need to be kept in care for the good of everyone.

 

[Town Heretic]

Just a thought.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Using YOUR reasoning, no it doesn't make sense.

The straw man given to me by you doesn't, no. That you need to resort to such tactics demonstrates the futility of your position.

Apply the Nazi tactic to yourself. I am not the person arguing for the rights to kill unborn babies simply because of their age and residency status.

Neither am I. But it is interesting that you would continue to use this red herring to justify your depraved indifference to kill an "innocent" person simply because they don't fit your criteria of "residency". As Granite's signature states, "Life is sacred until you're born".

This has never been about punishment. I thought I made that clear. This is about permanently stopping a threat.

There is no threat beyond your perception of one.

Right back at you.

I've done nothing of the kind. You claim there is an imminent threat that the person will "re-offend" which you have made no attempt to justify beyond assertion. That, my dear lady, is your perception of a threat.

The only thing revealed is how far you will reach to apply your illogical position. Your *argument* implies that it is unfair to use the death penalty because ANY of us might someday kill. In that case, it is illogical to institutionalize someone or lock them away for life unless you can prove that you and everyone else won't at some point commit murder.

Well, no, that is your straw man representation of my argument.

I'm not against the death penalty. I'm against killing a person for no reason other than there is the mere possibility of a threat sometime in the future as you advocate. You are reaching a flawed conclusion based on a faulty premise. Thus my question, "How can YOU guarantee that YOU won't kill someone"?

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Why are earth are you INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the reasons I have given? IF I were interested in blood lust, I would be advocating torture prior to and during execution.

A distinction without a difference.

Bloodlust is a desire for extreme violence and carnage, often aroused in the heat of battle and leading to uncontrolled slaughter and death.

Glaringly missing from that definition is "torture".

That you don't understand the exaggerated nature in the use of the word (blood lust) in context reveals your misunderstanding of the entire conversation in my opinion.

OTOH, why do YOU have more compassion and concern for murderers as compared to murder victims, their families and the innocent who are at risk should they be released and go on to kill again?

Another red herring, Rusha?

Who said, other than you, that I have no sympathy for the victims?

We haven't been discussing murders that I'm aware (if you recall, "intent" is a necessary factor). Perhaps this is just equivocation on your part, :idunno:.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

You need to know the rest of the Biblical laws on murder and punishment to really understand the dynamics.

The community is guilty by God of any innocent blood shed by a murderer in the community, so the community must find a way to be absolved of the guilt by killing the murderer. If there are two or three eyewitnesses that can testify that it appeared to be a deliberate act of murder, then the community has the duty to kill the murderer without pity in order to be absolved from the blood guilt. If the witnesses claim that it appeared to be an accident, then the community can be absolved from the blood guilt by allowing the person that accidentally killed another to flee to one of the cities of refuge, where he is in self-imposed exile until he or the high priest dies. If two witnesses cannot be found, then the blood guilt must be absolved through an animal sacrifice and the people of the community must declare to God that they are unable to find the person that killed another.

If an insane person kills another person in the community, and there are witnesses that can testify that it appeared intentional, then the capacity of the insane person is a non-issue, since he must be killed without pity in order for the community to be absolved from the blood guilt.
If an insane person kills another person in the community, and there are witnesses that can testify that it appeared accidental, then the capacity of the insane person is a non-issue, and he is allowed to flee to the city of refuge. If his capacity is diminished enough that he doesn't stay in the city of refuge, then he is to be killed when he leaves.
Either way, the community is absolved of the blood guilt and the person that killed is no longer a threat to the community.

From those Biblical laws, we can see that the current laws are not sufficiently able to absolve societies from blood guilt, nor are they sufficient to protect the community.

And intent is exactly what capacity is all about.

It looks like we will have to disagree on that one.
:e4e:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Dead murderers do not re-offend.

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 looks like Silent Hunter spoke right without even knowing it.
He said death is a guarantee, which is exactly the point you are trying to make.
:mock:Silent Hunter

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

Abortion increases the blood guilt because it sheds innocent blood.
The death penalty decreases the blood guilt because it absolves for the innocent blood shed by the killer.

All your rejection of my (and TH's, Granite's, & AB's, to name a few) argument means is that you still don't understand it and would rather join the "christian brethren" in blood lust :sigh:.

Your desire to constantly increase the blood guilt is the true blood lust.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hi Rusha

I tried to get GO to give an answer to this but nothing doing....can you answer where you're at with this scenario out of interest?

How would you answer this hypothetical? Supposing someone is spiked with LSD (Note I say spiked and not that they'd deliberately ingested the stuff) and while tripping off their nut they end up killing two people. They have no ability to distinguish between reality and hallucination and don't return to 'normality' even after the drug has done its course. What do you do with them? Try and give them help to recover or put them down like a 'rabid dog'?

Btw the one who has spiked the person is obviously the guilty party so there's no need to address that but simply the above.

Read my post in #356 and see if you can figure out the answer using common sense.

 

[Town Heretic]

You need to know the rest of the Biblical laws on murder and punishment to really understand the dynamics.

The community is guilty by God of any innocent blood shed by a murderer in the community, so the community must find a way to be absolved of the guilt by killing the murderer.

If there are two or three eyewitnesses that can testify that it appeared to be a deliberate act of murder, then the community has the duty to kill the murderer without pity in order to be absolved from the blood guilt.

If the witnesses claim that it appeared to be an accident, then the community can be absolved from the blood guilt by allowing the person that accidentally killed another to flee to one of the cities of refuge, where he is in self-imposed exile until he or the high priest dies.

If two witnesses cannot be found, then the blood guilt must be absolved through an animal sacrifice and the people of the community must declare to God that they are unable to find the person that killed another.

If an insane person kills another person in the community, and there are witnesses that can testify that it appeared intentional, then the capacity of the insane person is a non-issue, since he must be killed without pity in order for the community to be absolved from the blood guilt.

If an insane person kills another person in the community, and there are witnesses that can testify that it appeared accidental, then the capacity of the insane person is a non-issue, and he is allowed to flee to the city of refuge. If his capacity is diminished enough that he doesn't stay in the city of refuge, then he is to be killed when he leaves.

Either way, the community is absolved of the blood guilt and the person that killed is no longer a threat to the community.

From those Biblical laws, we can see that the current laws are not sufficiently able to absolve societies from blood guilt, nor are they sufficient to protect the community.

It looks like we will have to disagree on that one.
:e4e:

I have trouble seeing why the community is responsible for an act it doesn't condone or incite. I don't see the justice in any of it, though I do see the law. I suspect that's part of why Christ bled and died to fulfill it.

Looks like we will disagree on that notion applied post Christ, but I appreciate your taking the time to set it out. Interesting.

:e4e: