Skyrad 0 #26 May 21, 2004 A nation can be judged by the way it treats the weakest members of its society. This is a sad indictment of American values.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #27 May 21, 2004 Timothy McVeigh = Execute him. This guy is mentally ill and was diagnosed mentally ill in 1981. Our society is so inept in treating the mentally ill it's pathetic. He should NOT have been executed. He shouldn't have been let loose but he should not have been executed for this. Just my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #28 May 21, 2004 QuoteA nation can be judged by the way it treats the weakest members of its society. This is a sad indictment of American values. well in that case, i guess we too should bow our heads in shame? Just one example of a similar social situation on home turf right here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3595053.stm "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #29 May 21, 2004 I'm not sure what you're saying. The link you've posted gives details of very temperate treatment of the mentally ill. This guy was suffering from a mental illness, for which he was being treated. Whilst out on day release he murdered someone… perhaps you are saying that not incarcerating mental patients before they even commit a crime is dealing with them harshly? Once he had committed murder and demonstrated himself to be a serious risk to society he is put in a mental hospital where he can be treated and cannot hurt anyone else. He will not be let out unless he gets better. Indefinitely does not mean forever, it just means they don’t know how long – if it’s proved he has got better, there will be an avenue for his release. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #30 May 21, 2004 QuoteSame question. A two year old finds a gun, wants to get his neighbor that he doesn't like, so he points it at him and pulls the trigger, like he saw on TV. Do you execute the child? The difference between your two year old, and this guy is this: You will be able to explain to the two year old WHY you can't just shoot people. And unless the two year old has mental issues, then that two year old will understand and not be a future danger to the population. If the two year old can not learn, and would continue to pose a danger...Then yes, kill the two year old. But It would take several years to determine if that two year old COULD learn. This guy was 50...Its pretty clear he was never going to learn that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #31 May 21, 2004 QuoteThis guy was suffering from a mental illness, for which he was being treated. Whilst out on day release he murdered someone… And that says alot about your country as well. QuoteDr Katherine Bartlett said that Studders had a persecution complex and had been threatening to kill people. Hey, we let a dangerous man who was sying he wanted to kill someone out to walk around for the day. QuoteHe was kept in custody when he said he would re-offend if he was released. But magistrates gave him bail the next day. Great legal system you have there."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #32 May 21, 2004 QuoteBut i guess that costs too much, so we may as well just shoot the rabid dogs now and save the tax payer some money eh? Why do people insist on thinking humans shouldn't fit into the rules of Darwinism like the rest of the animals?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #33 May 21, 2004 QuoteOne thing that bugs me is the lack of decent legal representation these people get. Sure they’re accused of some really terrible things but lawyers won’t touch em with a barge poll. This really worries me. The people on death row are often represented by the dregs of the legal profession. Maybe no one wants to waste their time with a dirtbag. Why would you want to defend someone if you thought they were guilty? QuoteEveryone deserves proper legal advice. Yet another example of the "entitlement" running around.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #34 May 21, 2004 Yup - it's an example of very temperate treatment of the mentally ill. So much so that you see backlashes in the press about it. I don't think these people should be in society and I think the uk posting is an example of the other end of the spectrum - overly lenient treatment. I'm in the middle - don't let em walk round throwing people under trains - lock em up. And if you're gonna lock em up make sure you give em a competant lawyer. People of deminished capacity are the most in need of someone put their side of things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #35 May 21, 2004 QuoteA nation can be judged by the way it treats the weakest members of its society. This is a sad indictment of American values. No it's not. It's your judgement of what makes you squemish. If you think it's bad in America (and it's not) check out much of Africa, China, the East of Europe......... We're not practicing genocide here, we're culling some of the defectives.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #36 May 21, 2004 QuoteI'm in the middle - don't let em walk round throwing people under trains - lock em up And I think that if there is no way to teach them that killing is wrong, and they want to do it again...I say kill them if they have killed others. They have proven that they will kill, and they don't see whay they should not, that means they will kill again. Also, the prison should be to rehabilitate if possible...In the case of a prisoner with a mental disability (One that makes it so they can't see the problem with killing) they also will not understand why they are in prison....So one could agrue that you should not even have them in jail... They are not learning anything. Keeping the public safe from them is the #1 concern...If they are murderers...Executing them makes the public safer."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #37 May 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut i guess that costs too much, so we may as well just shoot the rabid dogs now and save the tax payer some money eh? Why do people insist on thinking humans shouldn't fit into the rules of Darwinism like the rest of the animals? That's a bit extreme though. I mean if we were to following Darwinism blind kids would be euthanised at bith as well as any genetic abnormal human being with any traits that would be detrimental to our species. Stephen Hawkings wouldn't, shouldn't be alive according to Darwin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #38 May 21, 2004 You can't unkill someone when you find a miscarriage of justice. They happen an awful lot. That's my only problem with it. Now if they're caught red handed, or if they're open about having committed it AND there is corroboratory evidence - hell fry em, it's cheaper. I'm no bleeding heart, but I am a realist. Miscarriages happen a LOT more often than people realise. And a miscarriage is far more likely to happen when someone is not given decent legal representation the first time through court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #39 May 21, 2004 QuoteQuote You would put down a rabid dog, why should he be different? Roy Humans have more rights than dogs. With that we believe that sometimes it's okay to take a life, and sometimes it happens without intent and the person is not held to the same level of punishment. Don´t think of it as punishment so much as "death therapy" and you won´t have so much trouble with the concept. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #40 May 21, 2004 'A schizophrenic who tried to kill two women by pushing them off a Tube platform has been sent to a mental hospital indefinitely.' Err.............We gave him treatment in a psych hospital. In Texas they executed the man You've got to be kidding Dave. We are by no means perfect but we're far from executing the mentaly ill.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #41 May 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteA nation can be judged by the way it treats the weakest members of its society. This is a sad indictment of American values. No it's not. It's your judgement of what makes you squemish. If you think it's bad in America (and it's not) check out much of Africa, China, the East of Europe......... We're not practicing genocide here, we're culling some of the defectives. Thats the same lanugage that the Nazis used when they also liquidated 'some defectives' I can only take it that you're trying to crank us with that one. Hope to God you're not serious.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #42 May 21, 2004 QuoteWe're not practicing genocide here, we're culling some of the defectives. Just to be sure you understand the full meaning of what you said there - the only thing that distinguishes the two acts, is the number of times you do it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 May 21, 2004 Funny thread. The system shouldn't be about: Closure for the victim's family Various social/psychological experiments Punishment Deterrence Emotion etc It's only one thing, will the person do it again, and is society able to take that risk. In the case of a murderer, if he is likely to kill again, then they should be removed from that opportunity. Very simple. Whether that's the death penalty or life imprisonment is a different story. It's not about the victim, it's about all the potential victims of this criminal. It's not about the criminal, it's about all his potential future victims. I don't see what the mental capacity has to do with it if he was incurable... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 May 21, 2004 Quote Unfortunately In this country we seem to be a minority......Too many bleeding hearts. Hell follow this link to ted bundy, this sick bastard took a lot of lives........when he was executed he had people on one side crying and praying for a stay of execution........and on the other side people were jubulant chanting, burn bundy burn. Newbie asked that this not be a debate over the death penalty. It's focused on whether or not the mentally incompetent should be executed. Do you feel drunk drivers that run down others with their car should also be executed? Or drunk drivers who haven't hurt anyone yet - since clearly it's only a matter of time before they do so? Or what about drivers who kill others because they were fumbling with the cd player? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #45 May 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteA nation can be judged by the way it treats the weakest members of its society. This is a sad indictment of American values. No it's not. It's your judgement of what makes you squemish. If you think it's bad in America (and it's not) check out much of Africa, China, the East of Europe......... We're not practicing genocide here, we're culling some of the defectives. Well, if your idea of peer nations is North Korea, People's Republic of China, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Congo, fair enough. I'd rather be in the same league as Norway, Switzerland, Britain and Canada myself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 May 21, 2004 Quote Do you feel drunk drivers that run down others with their car should also be executed? If the court decides they are likely to do it again? YesOr drunk drivers who haven't hurt anyone yet - since clearly it's only a matter of time before they do so? Innocent until proven guilty in this country - there are different penalties for the actual crime of driving drunk Or what about drivers who kill others because they were fumbling with the cd player?If the court decides they are likely to do it again? Yes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sabr190 0 #47 May 21, 2004 I agree..........an eye for an eye. Why don't we just take all the murderers, rapist, child molestors, drug dealers, ect and put them all on an island and let them design their own freaking society. Where they can kill, rape and plunder each other................shit, turn it into the next bid reality show.............."Survive This Shit". "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one" - rehmwa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 May 21, 2004 You mean Australia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #49 May 21, 2004 QuoteThat's a bit extreme though. I mean if we were to following Darwinism blind kids would be euthanised at bith as well as any genetic abnormal human being with any traits that would be detrimental to our species. Stephen Hawkings wouldn't, shouldn't be alive according to Darwin. Darwinism hardly advocates the euthanizing of the weak. Instead it suggests that nature will weed them out of the pack. The idea of euthanizing the pack is born out of your own personal values that nobody should suffer. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #50 May 21, 2004 QuoteI'm not sure what you're saying. The link you've posted gives details of very temperate treatment of the mentally ill. This guy was suffering from a mental illness, for which he was being treated. Whilst out on day release he murdered someone… perhaps you are saying that not incarcerating mental patients before they even commit a crime is dealing with them harshly? Once he had committed murder and demonstrated himself to be a serious risk to society he is put in a mental hospital where he can be treated and cannot hurt anyone else. He will not be let out unless he gets better. Indefinitely does not mean forever, it just means they don’t know how long – if it’s proved he has got better, there will be an avenue for his release. i guess i'm asking, why was he on unsupervised release at all, wandering the underground? No society is unfallable, it's not just the Americans that can be blamed for gaps in the system for dealing with the mentally ill... "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
