Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

[Desert Reign]

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?

Since you to continue to misrepresent and make straw men despite my very clear words, I have nothing more to say. If you wish to engage with what I have actually said, then I will respond but it seems more like you have a preformed conclusion and this is not conducive to debate.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Because we all agree about supporting and protecting the victims, there is no debate about that.

Whether we believe we should place limits of morality on ourselves in the way we treat perpetrators, is independent to the fact we all want to support victims.

.Why do you never speak up for the actual victims?

 

[Lon]

Question. Should you be executed for your crime carried out during your mental imbalance?

If it doesn't go away, sure. If insanity is a viable offense, incarceration. I'm not sure if the death penalty is always a deterrent, we should probably look to Texas to see how things are going in that state the rise or decline of heinous acts. This was interesting.

 

[Rusha]

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.

IF they are not guilty, the only rationale outcome would be to hand over their items and allow them to go free minus restrictions and follow up.

Any other criminals you would like to make excuses for so they are able to destroy more lives?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You still need the 'guilty mind' to convict.

:think:

Nope, that is a foolish idea to use in criminal justice.

All you really need are eyewitnesses that actually saw the crime.

 

[gcthomas]

IF they are not guilty, the only rationale outcome would be to hand over their items and allow them to go free minus restrictions and follow up.

That, or if the illness/danger is ongoing, an order to be detained in a secure hospital until they are sufficiently recovered.

A lesser mitigation than the Insanity defence is diminished responsibility, which doesn't remove the guilt, but is taken into account when deciding sentence.

Any other criminals you would like to make excuses for so they are able to destroy more lives?

Any that are not fully responsible for their actions. Apart from the mentally ill that would include children under ten or so, with some consideration for older children.

 

[aikido7]

If you were sure that God spoke to you and said your children were demons and had to be killed, what would you do?

These people are sure of God just as are believers who are sure they are doing the right thing in their lives.

 

[Desert Reign]

:think:

Nope, that is a foolish idea to use in criminal justice.

All you really need are eyewitnesses that actually saw the crime.

This is partly true but not always.
Some crimes require intent, others don't. Murder requires intent/ premeditation. Of course it may be difficult to prove premeditation, in which case other evidence may be used but the jury must decide to convict only on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

If there was evidence of planning then it would probably be deemed premeditated. But I would say that even a psychotic person could have a knowledge of wrongdoing if it was drummed into them that killing babies carried a death penalty. It's up to the jury at the time, depending on evidence from experts. But I fail to see how getting rid of the death penalty (or whatever murder carries in the country) can help anything at all. All it does is to remove the hammer that makes them think twice.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is partly true but not always.
Some crimes require intent, others don't. Murder requires intent/ premeditation. Of course it may be difficult to prove premeditation, in which case other evidence may be used but the jury must decide to convict only on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

If there was evidence of planning then it would probably be deemed premeditated. But I would say that even a psychotic person could have a knowledge of wrongdoing if it was drummed into them that killing babies carried a death penalty. It's up to the jury at the time, depending on evidence from experts. But I fail to see how getting rid of the death penalty (or whatever murder carries in the country) can help anything at all. All it does is to remove the hammer that makes them think twice.

In the Bible (Numbers 35) the rules for putting a murderer to death apply to both accidental manslaughter and intentional murder. The only difference between them is that there are cities of refuge that are set up for the person guilty of accidental manslaughter to flee to (self imprisonment) to escape the death penalty.

So, I am not really buying your requirement for intent, especially when the requirement for two or three eyewitnesses that will stake their own lives on their testimony is waived.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No because I was illegally drugged by someone else. That person is culpable.

Who is culpable when a woman kills her newborn?

Postpardum depression is common amongst women who've just given birth, and the degree of severity varies amongst those women (severe anxiety can happen).

http://www.webmd.com/depression/postpartum-depression/default.htm

Is it grounds for murdering one's baby? Of course not, but it very well might explain why the mother did the unmentionable.

 

[Desert Reign]

In the Bible (Numbers 35) the rules for putting a murderer to death apply to both accidental manslaughter and intentional murder. The only difference between them is that there are cities of refuge that are set up for the person guilty of accidental manslaughter to flee to (self imprisonment) to escape the death penalty.

So, I am not really buying your requirement for intent, especially when the requirement for two or three eyewitnesses that will stake their own lives on their testimony is waived.

It's not my requirement. I'm explaining how the law works. You don't get to discuss with the judge whether the law is just or not or whether the law should have exactly followed the terms of another country's law 4000 years ago.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's not my requirement. I'm explaining how the law works. You don't get to discuss with the judge whether the law is just or not

It is obvious that the current law is unjust.