Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

[Rusha]

You want to execute people who actually had not control over their behaviour,

Well let's just use the example of one of those your POV defends ... Andrea Yates. We know full well that this woman claimed she was ill and a possible threat to her children.

Being that she was able to communicate this with such vigor, why did she not walk away to never been seen again?

The very fact that she was AWARE of her *illness* makes her responsible for anything she does as a result.

Also, IF you truly believe these individuals are not responsible, why shouldn't the homicide detectives take off the handcuffs, apologize for arresting her for a crime she had no responsibility of and send her on her way?

Not responsible for a crime means no action should be taken ...

Do you want someone like this to end up in the school your children attend or ... as your next door neighbor?

 

[gcthomas]

Well let's just use the example of one of those your POV defends ... Andrea Yates. We know full well that this woman claimed she was ill and a possible threat to her children.

Being that she was able to communicate this with such vigor, why did she not walk away to never been seen again?

The very fact that she was AWARE of her *illness* makes her responsible for anything she does as a result.

Also, IF you truly believe these individuals are not responsible, why shouldn't the homicide detectives take off the handcuffs, apologize for arresting her for a crime she had no responsibility of and send her on her way?

Not responsible for a crime means no action should be taken ...

Do you want someone like this to end up in the school your children attend or ... as your next door neighbor?

I am quite happy for innocent people to be around me in the community. If no crime was committed, why should I want to seem them dead or locked away? That would just multiply the the number of suffering people unjustly.

So will you answer the problem as sstated: the woman experiencing postpartum psychosis kills a child in her temporary insanity, the man who kills while experiencing LSD induced psychosis. Both insanities are temporary, and are considered mitigating in law.

Would you have both executed? If not, why not.

 

[Rusha]

I am quite happy for innocent people to be around me in the community. If no crime was committed, why should I want to seem them dead or locked away? That would just multiply the the number of suffering people unjustly.

Uh huh ... because you are perfectly fine with some nutter who gives an indication they are a danger to others having waltzing free until they do the deed ...

So will you answer the problem as sstated: the woman experiencing postpartum psychosis kills a child in her temporary insanity, the man who kills while experiencing LSD induced psychosis. Both insanities are temporary, and are considered mitigating in law.

Would you have both executed? If not, why not.

Yes in the first case and in the second case, it would depend. IF the man is a victim who is not responsible for the LSD, then no. As you know, in most cases, he would intentionally ingest the drug himself KNOWING he could possibly go haywire and harm someone. He is no better than a drunk drive. And yes, I would execute someone who commits vehicular manslaughter due to intoxication.

Also, since you see these people as being so innocent, you would have no problem with no arrest or further investigation after they slaughter their family based on "it wasn't their fault" ... right?

 

[gcthomas]

Uh huh ... because you are perfectly fine with some nutter who gives an indication they are a danger to others having waltzing free until they do the deed ...



Yes in the first case and in the second case, it would depend. IF the man is a victim who is not responsible for the LSD, then no. As you know, in most cases, he would intentionally ingest the drug himself KNOWING he could possibly go haywire and harm someone. He is no better than a drunk drive. And yes, I would execute someone who commits vehicular manslaughter due to intoxication.

Also, since you see these people as being so innocent, you would have no problem with no arrest or further investigation after they slaughter their family based on "it wasn't their fault" ... right?

Why do you distinguish between the two cases where they were acting on the basis of induced psychosis? That one was brought on by biological factors and the other by pharmaceutical factors is irrelevant, isn't it? Neither chose to kill, so why kill someone who killed as a result of their illness?

Postpartum psychosis is a real illness, is short term and can be treated. How is executing someone who has recovered a just response? How will the execution make anyone safer or prevent other mothers killing in the same circumstance, as claimed in the op?

 

[Rusha]

Why do you distinguish between the two cases where they were acting on the basis of induces psychosis? That one was brought on by biological factors and the other by pharmaceutical factors is irrelevant, isn't it? Neither chose to kill, so why kill someone who killed as a result of their illness?

Postpartum psychosis is a real illness, is short term and can be treated.

Agreed ... the DP is a sure fire way of making sure their *illness* does not reoccur.

How is executing someone who has recovered a just response?

How is spitting on the grave of their victim a "just response"? How is giving people an out for murdering their children a just response?

 

[gcthomas]

Agreed ... the DP is a sure fire way of making sure their *illness* does not reoccur.



How is spitting on the grave of their victim a "just response"? How is giving people an out for murdering their children a just response?

Would you execute a five year old who got angry and grabbed a left around handgun and killed a sibling?

If not, then you understand the concept of criminal responsibility. There must be an understanding of the consequences of your action and a criminal intent.

Now apply that principle to someone mentally ill. Would you execute the child to prevent them doing the same in the future? If not, then why the adult under circumstances where their mental or moral processes had reduced to that of the child?

 

[WizardofOz]

You want to execute people who actually had not control over their behaviour,

Not necessarily, which is why I said repeatedly to forget about the death penalty for a minute...

so no murder was committed. Why don't you comment on that? That is what the thread is about, sin't it?

If you find my responses off-topic, I'll bow out. :e4e:

I answered your questions,

You really didn't. What should the punishment be for any or all of the 3 examples?

so your turn - should the two people in the example I gave be executed? Ye or no. Then we have something to discuss.

If I were a prosecutor (given the few hypothetical details) I would charge all 3 with either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter depending on the state where the crime occurred.

That way the circumstances could be investigated, expert witnesses could attest to actual mental illness, LSD experts could attest to whether LSD could lead someone to kill, etc.

A judge could then decide whether or not to try these individuals. But if I were a judge or a grand jury, I'd take them all to trial and let the jury of 12 decide if they buy the defenses each builds.

So again, what would you see done to each of the 3?

Sailson Jose das Gracas if very likely insane but I'd never let him see the light of day.

Gary Ridgway and Jeffery Dahmer are/were definitely insane in my opinion but I would have seen them both executed.

 

[musterion]

Put them to death.

 

[Rusha]

Would you execute a five year old who got angry and grabbed a left around handgun and killed a sibling?

You wish to equate little children to grown adults? What's next? Comparing a protective, wounded or startled dog who bites to a mass murderer? Do you think that a five year old is capable of playing the role a mentally ill person?

If not, then you understand the concept of criminal responsibility. There must be an understanding of the consequences of your action and a criminal intent.

In that case, there would be no reason to not allow a five year old to drive a car, smoke cigarettes, move out on their own, etc.

You know full well there is a different standard applied to different ages.

Now apply that principle to someone mentally ill. Would you execute the child to prevent them doing the same in the future? If not, then why the adult under circumstances where their mental or moral processes had reduced to that of the child?

IF you truly believe those who claim mental illness have an excuse for their actions, then punishing them would not make any sense.

Locking them away in a mental institution and drugging them is STILL punishment. Either just admit that you have no problem with the probability of them going on to hurt more innocents or concede the fact that they will always be dangerous.

Like Cujo ... and Old Yeller.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Also, punishing them severely would save the life of any potential children they might have in the future or have contact with.

Rusha are you seriously suggesting using the death penalty to protect the potentate lives of the mother future children?

Think about it...

 

[WizardofOz]

Put them to death.

Who?

 

[This Charming Manc]

Frankly, I am tired of seeing people (especially parents) use the insanity defense. Anyone insane enough to kill their newborn presents a danger to society.

I cant speak for the states, but over here its 'manslaughter with diminished responsibility', which still leads to substantial jail time and or enforced residential treatment.

People dont 'get off' with insanity, they just get appropriate treatment and restraint.

These cases are on the whole incredibly sad, can anyone produce anything serious evidence based to say the death penalty in these situations reduces the numbers of these tragic incidents?

Can anyone produce anything evidence based to say that treatment led sentencing leads to repeating offending in these situations?

If not can I suggest its the ramblings of a demented and insecure man, who gets a 'hard on' by demanding the death sentence at every opportunity. Bully Bob strikes again

 

[This Charming Manc]

liberals?
tree huggers?
gays?
blacks?
women?
foreigners?
Arabs?
charismatics?
Calvinists?
Catholics?


Really anyone who isn't Bob and his fan club

Who?

 

[Rusha]

Rusha are you seriously suggesting using the death penalty to protect the potentate lives of the mother future children?

Think about it...

No ... and yes. I do NOT believe anyone who murders a child/children should EVER be allowed in the presence of children again.

There is no good reason why a mother or father who DOES murder their child should be able to impregnate or become pregnant again.

How many lives do you believe they should be allowed to end before a decision is made that "the first one was one too many"?

And before the question arises "well what if an expectant mother is put behind bars for life OR on deathrow" ...

Simple. Keep her healthy and safe against her own will until she safely gives birth.

Frankly, I am tired of excuses being used for people who murder their own kids OR the children of others.

 

[gcthomas]

Rusha,

If you want to prevent a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis and killing her baby again, then you have the choice of killing her just to be on the safe side, sterilising her, taking the baby away after birth, providing medical or social support to prevent the illness or doing nothing.

Tell me again why you need to execute the woman and can't possibly do one of the other actions? Unless you just like people to die.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I am reasonably sure but need to check of someone convicted of murdering a baby in post natal depression or another state, was to get pregnant again it would be the responsibility of social services to removal the child from the mother pretty much immediately.

If they dont they are grossly incompetent and not capable of doing there jobs.

No ... and yes. I do NOT believe anyone who murders a child/children should EVER be allowed in the presence of children again.

There is no good reason why a mother or father who DOES murder their child should be able to impregnate or become pregnant again.

How many lives do you believe they should be allowed to end before a decision is made that "the first one was one too many"?

And before the question arises "well what if an expectant mother is put behind bars for life OR on deathrow" ...

Simple. Keep her healthy and safe against her own will until she safely gives birth.

Frankly, I am tired of excuses being used for people who murder their own kids OR the children of others.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Did you see the logical flaw in your argument?

If you want to protect the child you have to kill the mother so the child will never have the chance to exist...

hmmm

No ... and yes. I do NOT believe anyone who murders a child/children should EVER be allowed in the presence of children again.

There is no good reason why a mother or father who DOES murder their child should be able to impregnate or become pregnant again.

How many lives do you believe they should be allowed to end before a decision is made that "the first one was one too many"?

And before the question arises "well what if an expectant mother is put behind bars for life OR on deathrow" ...

Simple. Keep her healthy and safe against her own will until she safely gives birth.

Frankly, I am tired of excuses being used for people who murder their own kids OR the children of others.

 

[Rusha]

Did you see the logical flaw in your argument?

If you want to protect the child you have to kill the mother so the child will never have the chance to exist...

hmmm

I don't believe you read my response carefully.

Here it is again:

And before the question arises "well what if an expectant mother is put behind bars for life OR on deathrow" ...

Simple. Keep her healthy and safe against her own will until she safely gives birth.

I would never support the DP for a PREGNANT woman until *after* she has given birth.

 

[musterion]

Who?

Who should be put to death? Or who should execute it? Which do you mean?

 

[musterion]

liberals?
tree huggers?
gays?
blacks?
women?
foreigners?
Arabs?
charismatics?
Calvinists?
Catholics?


Really anyone who isn't Bob and his fan club

I see you're not yourself again this weekend. You're not known for such low-rent sniping.

Something's been bugging you of late. If you want to share, we'll listen.