• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

At what point are you not held responsible for a heinous act?

M

maluckey

Platinum Member
In an effort to draw intelligent discussion about the current legal system, and the thousands of ways to redirect/subvert/avoid paying for a crime, I have decided to ask a few simple, yet profound (to me) questions:

1. If someone (a 31 year old white collar professional) commits a particularly heinous crime against a community, let's say raping, then eating four, three year old children, then showing pictures of the ordeals to local schoolchildren (who are at the playground) of their buddies being eaten, then.....

2. Claims mental anguish/mental illness caused him to do it, and wants to spend time getting "help".

3. Claims he was not in control of his actions.

4. Has one medical professional that claims that this patient can be safely re-integrated into society, while another disagrees, saying that the criminal is not remorseful, and is a flight risk.

5. The accused had a perfectly normal upbringing.

Do you EVER let them out of prison? Do they get the free help? Do they get the death penalty? I have pondered over situations like this for weeks now. I do support the death penalty, but only for particularly heinous crimes, where the perpetrator has no remorse, and is a flight risk.

I am torn between the want to tell my children that this person can never do it again, and the protection of the life of the criminal. ALL life to me is valuable?Is the life of the criminal worth more than the three lives he already took? Is the life of the criminal worth more than the lives he may take if he ever gets out? Can society guarantee he will never do it again after his treatments are complete? I ponder these questions a lot.

Let?s try and see some intelligent discussion here, without political party lines being towed or slammed.

 
I do not support the death penalty, but would have no problem with this person being locked away for the rest of his natural days, strictly as a public safety measure. It's not fair to the rest of society to even consider letting this person out as a test of whether he's 'cured'.
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
I do not support the death penalty, but would have no problem with this person being locked away for the rest of his natural days, strictly as a public safety measure. It's not fair to the rest of society to even consider letting this person out as a test of whether he's 'cured'.
Click to expand...

I agree that this guy would be a menace, and should NEVER get out. In the "locked up for good" scenario, I also might consider one step further and, create a standing death warrant for escapees of his kind. That way his death is on him if he attempts to exit his facility. This would NOT infringe on his right to life.

Also, we as citizens would be remiss if we did NOT provide counseling in this scenario I think. After all, if he manages to escape, and we have done nothing to "cure" him, then we bear the responsibility of any further harm to the community that this criminal may commit.

Of course by playing the Devils Advocate I can state that by killing him, he could also never repeat his crime. The drawback is that this may also deprive him of repentance, or reconcilliation, and that would never do in the eyes of many citizens.
 
I'd put him in a mental institution, one with maximum security. You never know what kind of mental disorders these people have. Yes this goes beyond what is even conceivable in to any of us (i hope), but just what if we can learn something from this person and prevent at least one more by studying, and treating him, so that the warning signs can be detected before the next one happens.

But to more directly answer your question. His freedom is forfeit.
 
It seems to me that it would be best to have mental institution, prison, and parrol system designed to rehabilitate and monitor such indivuduals; but, until we can manage that I recomend just throwing away the key.
 
In the last couple of months, there have been murders of kids in Florida . . . and other states,
that were committed by 'Previously Convicted' pediphiles - that had been released back into society.

This doesn't appear to work, as somwhat over 80% that do get 'treated' return to society only to be repeat offenders . . .
only now they add murder, because they have everything to loose and nothing to gain if identified by a survivor.

Incarceration and reabilitation are lost causes when dealing with this form of mental case.
To keep them alive in prison, with the risk of parole - either by good behavior or by accidental release,
have already cost too many young innocents their lives, one is too many.

Certain crimes are justifiable as carring the death penalty, murder and child molestation may be reasonable grounds for that penalty.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
This doesn't appear to work, as somwhat over 80% that do get 'treated' return to society only to be repeat offenders . . .
only now they add murder, because they have everything to loose and nothing to gain if identified by a survivor.

Incarceration and reabilitation are lost causes when dealing with this form of mental case.
To keep them alive in prison, with the risk of parole - either by good behavior or by accidental release,
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I sit up sometimes wondering about the current system. They DO get out and most always repeat the crime, often more boldly than the last time. This also happens with hardened criminals that are not pedophiles.

I find it hard to lie to my children and say that there is no such thing as monsters when this happens. I also find it hard to not have hope for rehabilitation, even if they are not ever "scheduled" for release.

 
I fully believe that insanity should never be an excuse for a lighter punishment. The trial should proceed as normal, and a punishment should be given out. Lets say the punishment is 25 years. Then a separate trial should be held with one goal - to determine sanity. If the person is deemed to be sane, it is 25 years in prison without parole. If insane, 25 years in a mental institution without parole.
 
Good thought, but mental institutions are NOT secure in comparison to a prison. It would cost huge dollars to construct a mental ward to be as secure as a prison. You may as well send them to prison, and treat them there.....
 
I've wondered why insanity is a defence. Fine you are an insane homicidal maniac that is going to get the death penalty. Makes no difference to me if they are insane or not. Lots of insane ppl are not threats to society. Why lock him up for 50 years at an immense cost to society.
 
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It seems to me that it would be best to have mental institution, prison, and parrol system designed to rehabilitate and monitor such indivuduals; but, until we can manage that I recomend just throwing away the key.
Click to expand...



The problem I hear is the prison system has a great mental treatment system but outside of prison system the mental insitutions in this nation are very lacking. Thus a lot of people seeking treatment or help are left in the lurch. I was watching a special about the state of mentally ill prisoners and the huge rise of them in the prison system because of lack of or inablity to get services before and after they develop a mental illness.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
Good thought, but mental institutions are NOT secure in comparison to a prison. It would cost huge dollars to construct a mental ward to be as secure as a prison. You may as well send them to prison, and treat them there.....
Click to expand...


They are not "as secure" because they use different methods to control their patients. There are prisoners who can't be handled by the prison system because of their behaviors and inablity to deal with prison life and end up in the few mental institutions left in this country. Of course they then are transfered back to the prison once they "seem to have made progess". Of course then they usually end up right back in the mental institutions because they end up racking up points for their behaviors and more time to serve when they are back in prison.
 
Originally posted by: episodic
I've wondered why insanity is a defence. Fine you are an insane homicidal maniac that is going to get the death penalty. Makes no difference to me if they are insane or not. Lots of insane ppl are not threats to society. Why lock him up for 50 years at an immense cost to society.
Click to expand...


and lots of insane people are a threat to themselves and/or society. Obviously you haven't seen what these people do to themselves when they are suffering from a extreme delusional episode. I personally wouldn't want to be in the same room with someone suffering from schizophrenia who thinks that I am out to kill him and who has run out of meds.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: episodic
I've wondered why insanity is a defence. Fine you are an insane homicidal maniac that is going to get the death penalty. Makes no difference to me if they are insane or not. Lots of insane ppl are not threats to society. Why lock him up for 50 years at an immense cost to society.
Click to expand...


and lots of insane people are a threat to themselves and/or society. Obviously you haven't seen what these people do to themselves when they are suffering from a extreme delusional episode. I personally wouldn't want to be in the same room with someone suffering from schizophrenia who thinks that I am out to kill him and who has run out of meds.
Click to expand...


Maybe I wasn't clear - I meant it makes no difference to me if you are insane or not - the death penalty should be applied regardless. If you are a homicidal insane person you get the same punishment as a homicidal sane person.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
I fully believe that insanity should never be an excuse for a lighter punishment. The trial should proceed as normal, and a punishment should be given out. Lets say the punishment is 25 years. Then a separate trial should be held with one goal - to determine sanity. If the person is deemed to be sane, it is 25 years in prison without parole. If insane, 25 years in a mental institution without parole.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
I don't support the death penalty but I would'nt stop on of these daddys from waxing him either.

I was really surprised Ron Goldmen did'nt kill OJ as angry and distraught as he seemed, no jury in the world would have convicted him🙂:thumbsup:

I fully believe that insanity should never be an excuse for a lighter punishment
Click to expand...

So yes it should😉

PS: never say never🙂
 
Originally posted by: episodic
I've wondered why insanity is a defence. Fine you are an insane homicidal maniac that is going to get the death penalty. Makes no difference to me if they are insane or not. Lots of insane ppl are not threats to society. Why lock him up for 50 years at an immense cost to society.
Click to expand...

Only problem with what you said is that it actually costs more to execute people than keep them alive for the rest of their lives (if you count the appeals process and legal fees).

Don't get me wrong I am for the death penalty. Not because it is a deterrent, because it is just a way to remove them from the possibility of ever getting back into society. Most "index" criminals cannot be rehabilitated, nor do they want to be. And even if they wanted to be rehabilitated we do not have a proof positive way to know if they are telling the truth or very smart and telling people what they want to hear.

As far as insanity as a defense, I am not sure about it. I agree with you, for the most part people that murder people are "insane" by the very act, so what difference does it make if they are insane or not? My only question to that is, what about a person that actually does not know right from wrong? They honestly do not know that to murder someone you don?t like is wrong. On a side note, the number of people that try to use the insanity defense is not very high, and the numbers that successfully establish "not guilty by reason of insanity" is even lower. So don?t think it is a common occurrence.


 
Why not issue a death sentence in case of a repeat offender? Insane or otherwise, it will have become proven, to a point, that the chances of curing them are slim. And as to the argument that execution cost more than life in prison (even with hard labour) seems odd.

Left to me, I'd just dig a huge pit and throw them one after another. Another thing I don't understand is why people are so concerned that the mode of death (hanging, poison, etc) is such a big issue? Please don't tell me it's pain.

CD.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
And that's why I first recommended the chipper, just thought it would be a good idea to clarify the 'why'.
Click to expand...
And I'm the psycho?!? 😉 I'll hold 'em up, you push 'em through.

 
Originally posted by: maluckey
In an effort to draw intelligent discussion about the current legal system, and the thousands of ways to redirect/subvert/avoid paying for a crime, I have decided to ask a few simple, yet profound (to me) questions:

1. If someone (a 31 year old white collar professional) commits a particularly heinous crime against a community, let's say raping, then eating four, three year old children, then showing pictures of the ordeals to local schoolchildren (who are at the playground) of their buddies being eaten, then.....

2. Claims mental anguish/mental illness caused him to do it, and wants to spend time getting "help".

3. Claims he was not in control of his actions.

4. Has one medical professional that claims that this patient can be safely re-integrated into society, while another disagrees, saying that the criminal is not remorseful, and is a flight risk.

5. The accused had a perfectly normal upbringing.

Do you EVER let them out of prison? Do they get the free help? Do they get the death penalty? I have pondered over situations like this for weeks now. I do support the death penalty, but only for particularly heinous crimes, where the perpetrator has no remorse, and is a flight risk.

I am torn between the want to tell my children that this person can never do it again, and the protection of the life of the criminal. ALL life to me is valuable?Is the life of the criminal worth more than the three lives he already took? Is the life of the criminal worth more than the lives he may take if he ever gets out? Can society guarantee he will never do it again after his treatments are complete? I ponder these questions a lot.

Let?s try and see some intelligent discussion here, without political party lines being towed or slammed.
Click to expand...

....whoa, what a fvcked up crime you just described. Did it really happen? WOW.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
And that's why I first recommended the chipper, just thought it would be a good idea to clarify the 'why'.
Click to expand...
And I'm the psycho?!? 😉 I'll hold 'em up, you push 'em through.
Click to expand...

You 'Psyched up' yet ? - Let's go do it !





 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top