Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

[Stripe]

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill, so a fear of the judicial processes will not even cross their minds. Punishing them severely to prevent further deaths would therefore be ineffective and immoral.

Your assessment is fatally warped because you do not understand what role the law plays in teaching people to think rationally.

 

[oatmeal]

That's just the point - there is no bad character that will repeat the crime, because the causes were external to the will of the woman, temporary and preventable.

the reason for capital punishment is that you do not want someone who commits such crimes to live.

 

[Desert Reign]

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill, so a fear of the judicial processes will not even cross their minds. Punishing them severely to prevent further deaths would therefore be ineffective and immoral.

Perhaps if the fear of murdering their children were instilled in them more forcefully while they are rational through the death penalty for for murder, then when they are not rational they wouldn't have the instinct to want to kill them or would be able to overcome it?

 

[gcthomas]

Perhaps if the fear of murdering their children were instilled in them more forcefully while they are rational through the death penalty for for murder, then when they are not rational they wouldn't have the instinct to want to kill them or would be able to overcome it?

There is no evidence that changing laws affects the behaviour of mentally ill people when they are suffering a psychotic episode.

The way to reduce the number of infanticides by such people is to have better supervision/support of at risk women after childbirth. Women out of work, with no husband around or a violent/unsympathetic partner, a history of depression and so on. It is not rocket science, but noone on this thread is pushing the one thing that could have a real effect.

Would you support increased funding for better mental health care and postnatal support services?

 

[Desert Reign]

There is no evidence that

This seems to be your mantra. So what kind of evidence would you require? And why would you need the evidence?
The Germans have a proverb: if it looks like mud, there's no need to walk in it to be sure.

changing laws affects the behaviour of mentally ill people when they are suffering a psychotic episode.

There is no evidence for a great many things that you believe.

The way to reduce the number of infanticides by such people is to have better supervision/support of at risk women after childbirth.

What evidence do you have for this?

Women out of work, with no husband around or a violent/unsympathetic partner, a history of depression and so on. It is not rocket science

And presumably that's why you offer no evidence?

Would you support increased funding for better mental health care and postnatal support services?

No. Because this would only be at the expense of other worthy causes. Throwing money at something is not the solution.

And besides:

changing laws affects the behaviour of mentally ill people when they are suffering a psychotic episode.

Who said anything anything about mentally ill people? You assumed the conclusion when you said

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill,

Why do we need to go down the worn out road of scientific evidence when you are not even being logical to begin with? No scientific evidence will support your lack of logic. It is obvious that capital punishment will help them to think rationally if they aren't. That's why laws are there at all.

 

[Stripe]

There is no evidence that changing laws affects the behaviour of mentally ill people when they are suffering a psychotic episode.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. First you must establish compelling evidence that "psychotic episodes" are the only cause of bad behavior before you can justify demands that laws be implemented in the way you want.

The way to reduce the number of infanticides by such people is to have better supervision/support of at risk women after childbirth.

Nope. Again you ignore the role the law plays in removing the need for such things. Liberals are always trying to make regulations under which people cannot act evilly rather than advocating laws that make people not want to do so.

Women out of work, with no husband around or a violent/unsympathetic partner, a history of depression and so on. It is not rocket science, but noone on this thread is pushing the one thing that could have a real effect.

Again, begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Would you support increased funding for better mental health care and postnatal support services?

Nope. Good laws work much better and are far cheaper.

 

[gcthomas]

This seems to be your mantra. So what kind of evidence would you require? And why would you need the evidence?
The Germans have a proverb: if it looks like mud, there's no need to walk in it to be sure.
There is no evidence for a great many things that you believe.
What evidence do you have for this?
And presumably that's why you offer no evidence?
No. Because this would only be at the expense of other worthy causes. Throwing money at something is not the solution.

You have a strange view on the burden of evidence for criminal cases.

The claim was that executing a bunch of women who had a temporary mental illness would persuade other mothers not to get mentally ill and kill their badies, or something like that. There has been not one iota of evidence provided to suggest that it is a realistic expectation - executing people just on the off-chance seems rather escessive to me.

I asked earlier whether another poster believes that mental illnesses exist - do you? If no, then you are against the vast majority of the medical profession. If yes, then how much responsibility would the woman have for her actions when she recovered her wits?

 

[Stripe]

You have a strange view on the burden of evidence for criminal cases.

:darwinsm:

 

[Desert Reign]

The claim was that executing a bunch of women who had a temporary mental illness would persuade other mothers not to get mentally ill and kill their badies, or something like that.

That wasn't what you said. You said

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill,

Which is to assume the conclusion. You could say the same about any kind of crime. I perfectly accept the existence of mental illness and so does the law. But you need to get your logic right before you criticise or dispense with the concept of law, which is there for the very purpose to instill in irrational people the need to behave properly.

 

[gcthomas]

That wasn't what you said. You said

I was referring to the OP, dumbo.

Which is to assume the conclusion. You could say the same about any kind of crime. I perfectly accept the existence of mental illness and so does the law. but you need to get your logic right before you criticise or dispense with the concept of law, which is there for the very purpose to instill in irrational people the need to behave properly.

I have been talking consistently about mothers who have psychotic episoded after childbirth, and I believe these cases to be the vast majority of infanticides. And given the fact that most of these cases don't produce significant jail time, if any at all, it is reasonable to assume that sane mothers don't tend to kill their own children.

Unless you have any evidence at all to support the OP? No, it seems from your comments.

 

[Stripe]

these liberal morons need to start reducing their conversations to syllogisms. That way, they could see the nonsense they are determined to peddle.

 

[Desert Reign]

it is reasonable to assume that sane people don't tend to commit crime.

Anything you say.

Edit: oops! You didn't say that at all! Terribly sorry for misquoting you! You actually said

it is reasonable to assume that sane mothers don't tend to kill their own children

There'll be a prize for being able to spot the difference. A booby prize.

You didn't read the part where I said that I perfectly accept the existence of mental illness and so does the law. And I'm all for helping vulnerable people not to descend into lawlessness and putting an arm round their shoulder. None of this is an argument for not punishing the crime of murder.

I was referring to the OP, dumbo.

So when you said that mothers who commit infanticide are acting irrationally and are usually ill, I can take that as a Freudian slip?

 

[gcthomas]

Anything you say. You didn't read the part where I said that I perfectly accept the existence of mental illness and so does the law. And I'm all for helping vulnerable people not to descend into lawlessness and putting an arm round their shoulder. None of this is an argument for not punishing the crime of murder.

So they kill because they're ill, but you'd execute anyway. :idunno:

 

[Desert Reign]

So they kill because they're ill, but you'd execute anyway. :idunno:

How you get this from my post beats me:

DR: A is B
GCT: Ah, you mean 'Fruit is colourful?'

Obviously at this level you are just saying any wild thing that comes to mind. It's that scientific training coming through...

 

[gcthomas]

it is reasonable to assume that sane mothers don't tend to kill their own children.

it is reasonable to assume that sane people don't tend to commit crime.

There'll be a prize for being able to spot the difference. A booby prize.

The difference is profound and simple to spot, DR, so you should be ashamed of your lack of insight.

It is entirely sane and rational to commit crimes, since there are benefits to be had that are not available to law-abiding people. Such as gaining money quickly, damaging a competitors business, removing romantic competition etc.

A mother who kills a baby? What does she gain? It is all loss. There is a reason that mothers bond so strongly to their babies, and so when that bonding does not protect it then something is very wrong psychologically.

But you could have worked that out, couldn't you?

None of this is an argument for not punishing the crime of murder.

To be guilty of 1st degree murder there must be an actus reus (a guilty act) and a mens rea (a guilty mind). If the metal capacity was not there to reach the standard of the mens rea, then they should be aquitted. Society, as determined from case law and statute, prefers to treat mentally ill people rather than punish them.

Are you happy to execute people who are mentally incapable of controlling their conduct?

 

[Rusha]

So they kill because they're ill, but you'd execute anyway. :idunno:

That keeps them from killing AGAIN, which *you* would allow them to do ...

Why do you never speak up for the actual victims?

 

[gcthomas]

That keeps them from killing AGAIN, which *you* would allow them to do ...

Why do you never speak up for the actual victims?

Executing all inner city youths would cut the murder rate too, but I wouldn't recommend it. :idunno:

The ends, as ever, do not necessarily justify the means.

 

[Rusha]

Executing all inner city youths would cut the murder rate too, but I wouldn't recommend it. :idunno:

Ridiculous comment that does not apply. You would be executing someone for who they are, not what they did.

 

[gcthomas]

Ridiculous comment that does not apply. You would be executing someone for who they are, not what they did.

You still need the 'guilty mind' to convict. You need the person to be criminally competent. We don't convict children for the same reason we don't convict the mentally ill. They are not responsible for their actions.

 

[Stripe]

Executing all inner city youths would cut the murder rate too, but I wouldn't recommend it. :idunno:.

Nope. That would increase it.