toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?

[Selaphiel]

Well, in Andrea's case, she was balanced enough to use birth control, seek help from a professional and tell her husband and others that she was afraid she might harm her children.

IF she is well enough to know she *might* hurt her children, then as a mother she should have been well enough to protect those children from HERSELF.

But isn't that a different question? If that is the case, then I agree that she should be trialed according to law. But if they truly are insane, as in so mentally ill that they no longer possess what we refer to as human agency and could not help their actions (say a delusion caused by mental illness that causes and offender to kill someone they thought were going to kill them), is it right to convict such a person as if they had normal human agency?

 

[Granite]

I am not placing the fault of someone's upbringing on the person beaten. Clearly, this child was also a victim.

However, why should other individuals have their lives put into jeopardy or snuffed out because he is allowed to run free?

Here is my question: Is he still a threat to others as long as he is alive and could possibly be released on society on any given day?

We don't try to treat or analyze why a rabid dog bites, attacks, maims or kills other animals or human beings. Yet we are willing to allow a much more dangerous animal to continue living and thus being a threat to society?

Then what you're really advocating is a nicer form of euthanasia: take someone who is medically ill, and put them down. Sorry, but I'd rather not use an animal shelter's rationale when we're dealing with issues of life, death, mental illness, and justice.

 

[Granite]

To have a civil society justice must be served. If justice is properly served less people will be victims of crime and less people will become criminals in the first place.

For many of the criminally insane, choice has nothing to do with what they did. These are people with a sickness, not people who consciously made a decision to break the law. (I already addressed your Breivik example, so he's not the kind of offender I have in mind.)

 

[ghost]

No where in this is any insanity defense.

How does one define "insane" other than not being of sound mind? From a Biblical perspective, that would be anyone who is carnally minded, and puts their confidence in the wisdom of this world and in their flesh. God's viewpoint is dramatically different than the vast majority of those in this world.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Dead murderers do not reoffend ... EVER.

WRONG. As long as a murderer is alive, they are always a threat to society.

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

This is similar to my point earlier that we can't release a known unknown back into society.

 

[Sherman]

How does one define "insane" other than not being of sound mind? From a Biblical perspective, that would be anyone who is carnally minded, and puts their confidence in the wisdom of this world and in their flesh. God's viewpoint is dramatically different than the vast majority of those in this world.

Good point. The insanity defense is as useless as it is unscriptural. Our legal system shouldn't be releasing dangerous people back out into society.

 

[Granite]

Good point. The insanity defense is as useless as it is unscriptural. Our legal system shouldn't be releasing dangerous people back out into society.

No one here has suggested that.

 

[Rusha]

This is similar to my point earlier that we can't release a known unknown back into society.

I agree, they cannot be released. The only way to insure they are never released or allowed to harm again is the death penalty.

 

[Rusha]

Then what you're really advocating is a nicer form of euthanasia: take someone who is medically ill, and put them down. Sorry, but I'd rather not use an animal shelter's rationale when we're dealing with issues of life, death, mental illness, and justice.

I don't hold animals to the same standards I do as human beings, and still yet, they are put down.

Should a judge allow for a criminally insane person to be released and that person goes on to murder again, who is responsible for the victims this time?

 

[Rusha]

But isn't that a different question? If that is the case, then I agree that she should be trialed according to law. But if they truly are insane, as in so mentally ill that they no longer possess what we refer to as human agency and could not help their actions (say a delusion caused by mental illness that causes and offender to kill someone they thought were going to kill them), is it right to convict such a person as if they had normal human agency?

IMO, it would depend on who and what has the most to lose from the decision. There is already one or more dead bodies ... should this person's illness and rights trump the safety and rights of society?

 

[Random]

Insane or not, if a person is a threat to innocent people, they need to be put down. If someone's insanity manifest itself as talking to aliens or wearing tinfoil hats, that's fine. Give them the care they need. If it can be proven that they are essentially harmless, then okay. But when someone's insanity manifests itself as murdering innocent human beings, they need to be taken out. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[Rusha]

Insane or not, if a person is a threat to innocent people, they need to be put down. If someone's insanity manifest itself as talking to aliens or wearing tinfoil hats, that's fine. Give them the care they need. If it can be proven that they are essentially harmless, then okay. But when someone's insanity manifests itself as murdering innocent human beings, they need to be taken out. No ifs, ands, or buts.

This ...

 

[Granite]

I don't hold animals to the same standards I do as human beings, and still yet, they are put down.

So you do hold them to the same standard: the animals and criminally insane deserve the exact same fate, in your book. When ill, eliminate them. That's different from euthanasia how, exactly? We're talking about sickness, after all. And rather than treat or cope with the sickness of an exceedingly small minority, you're suggesting we just kill 'em because...well, because the symptoms of their sickness were overlooked, or misdiagnosed, or ignored, until they finally got out of hand.

Should a judge allow for a criminally insane person to be released and that person goes on to murder again, who is responsible for the victims this time?

No. And no one, including me, has suggested this. Why are you bothering to ask a silly question?

 

[Selaphiel]

IMO, it would depend on who and what has the most to lose from the decision. There is already one or more dead bodies ... should this person's illness and rights trump the safety and rights of society?

No one is suggesting that we just let him out on the street again. The issue whether he should be punished with prison or whether he should be deemed sick and undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment. You don't get released from such institutions unless you are really are cured (which is quite rare as I understand it), at least you shouldn't. If the offender could not help his actions, but now is completely cured from what caused it, how would you justify holding him or her? Of course he could snap, then again so could anyone else. I am of course assuming that he or she really is cured here, which is essential.

 

[Nick M]

People should not be put to death by the state period.

God says the exact opposite in his word, including in his "New Testament" through Paul.

Death is not a deterrent to crime. Prison is a deterrent.

God, who knows the hearts of men, says the exact opposite.

 

[ghost]

No one is suggesting that we just let him out on the street again. The issue whether he should be punished with prison or whether he should be deemed sick and undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment. You don't get released from such institutions unless you are really are cured (which is quite rare as I understand it), at least you shouldn't. If the offender could not help his actions, but now is completely cured from what caused it, how would you justify holding him or her? Of course he could snap, then again so could anyone else. I am of course assuming that he or she really is cured here, which is essential.

You've just defined why the "mental illness" defense is defenseless.

It will do me no good to point out why an unsound mind is not an illness. Too many people believe the latter because they have the former.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As far as I know there is little to no evidence that the death penalty prevents crime in a more efficient manner than prison sentences.

Read this.

 

[Rusha]

So you do hold them to the same standard: the animals and criminally insane deserve the exact same fate, in your book.

Nope ... the animal in question should get a steak dinner prior to dying and the someone such as Susan Smith should be stuck in a small cell with no food, no water, no toilet, no bed and nothing to look at but the autopsy pics of her dead children for the two days prior to her execution.

No. And no one, including me, has suggested this. Why are you bothering to ask a silly question?

It isn't a silly question. I already posted a link for a list of murderers who are convicted and released from prison who go on to murder again.

Can you guarantee someone who receives *treatment* or does their time (even though their victim's time is never ending) will never be released?

Until such a time comes that there is a guarantee that murderers will never murder again, there is no valid argument against the death penalty.

And that pertains to those who claim or have their docs claim they are :kook: as well.

 

[Granite]

Nope ... the animal in question should get a steak dinner prior to dying and the someone such as Susan Smith should be stuck in a small cell with no food, no water, no toilet, no bed and nothing to look at but the autopsy pics of her dead children for the two days prior to her execution.

All right...I thought I'd made this as clear as could be, so let me clarify again: there is a world of difference between the criminals on death row, and the criminally insane. I have already said I oppose executing someone who commits a crime and can't grasp the consequences of their actions, let alone the reality of what they've done, who they are, and who can't possibly make any kind of rational or coherent decision. I specifically said that murderers like Breivik who are aware of what they do deserve a six-foot drop. For the truly mentally ill who have lost their bearing on the world and who can't comprehend the world around them? The truly lost? I do not see the justice or value in executing them for a crime they can't understand.

It isn't a silly question. I already posted a link for a list of murderers who are convicted and released from prison who go on to murder again.

See above.

Can you guarantee someone who receives *treatment* or does their time (even though their victim's time is never ending) will never be released?

No, I can't. The guarantee of death isn't justice in this case, Rusha, it's just the sickest kind of insurance I can imagine. I would hope if they show signs of improvement that they may one day be cured, or healed of their affliction. If not, they deserve to remain institutionalized.

Until such a time comes that there is a guarantee that murderers will never much again, there is no valid argument against the death penalty.

There most certainly is, and you should know better.

And that pertains to those who claim or have their docs claim they are :kook:

In that case you're being hard-hearted. Whatever.

 

[steko]

The original GOD ordained basis for human civil government:


Gen 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.-ESV