An eye for an eye

[tanguay'sstillgood]

Originally Posted by blankall

In order to commit murder you need a certain level of mental culpability and intent. It's not murder if you're so crazy you don't know what you're doing.

Ok, replace the word 'murder' with 'intentionally kill'. Regardless, I believe my point still stands...if you kill people you should be punished for it.

[4X4]

I think we should execute bad drivers.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think we should execute bad drivers.

Will this do?

[pope04]

Originally Posted by blankall

Is it okay to execute someone who is mentally ill?

Sure!

Thomas was condemned for killing his wife, son and infant stepdaughter in 2004, according to the department's brief account of the case. Local media reports said he had ripped out the hearts of his victims.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by tanguay'sstillgood

Ok, replace the word 'murder' with 'intentionally kill'. Regardless, I believe my point still stands...if you kill people you should be punished for it.

I don't know if that addresses his point. Why should you be punished for it if you were not in your right mind when you did it?

If someone suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and truly and honestly believes his neighbour's wife is pregnant with the antichrist and the world will end if it is born, and he intentionally stabs her in the stomach believing this is the only way to protect us all, should he be punished? Why? What does it achieve?

It won't deter other crazy people, who aren't capable of the rational thought necessary for deterrence to work. And it won't deter the individual, who can't understand what he has done wrong or, worse, doesn't remember doing it and can't possibly feel genuine responsibility for it.

I don't think there's a distinction between "murder" and "intentional killing." One defines the other.

Unless, perhaps, I've misunderstood your post.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I don't know if that addresses his point. Why should you be punished for it if you were not in your right mind when you did it?

If someone suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and truly and honestly believes his neighbour's wife is pregnant with the antichrist and the world will end if it is born, and he intentionally stabs her in the stomach believing this is the only way to protect us all, should he be punished? Why? What does it achieve?

It won't deter other crazy people, who aren't capable of the rational thought necessary for deterrence to work. And it won't deter the individual, who can't understand what he has done wrong or, worse, doesn't remember doing it and can't possibly feel genuine responsibility for it.

I don't think there's a distinction between "murder" and "intentional killing." One defines the other.

Unless, perhaps, I've misunderstood your post.

Though I don't agree with your post I'm curious on what you think about the fact that he was obviously charged and found guilty if he was on death row and thus the courts didn't find him insane...do you still execute someone even if he "became" mentally ill while being held?

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Though I don't agree with your post I'm curious on what you think about the fact that he was obviously charged and found guilty if he was on death row and thus the courts didn't find him insane...do you still execute someone even if he "became" mentally ill while being held?

That's a different issue altogether from what I was getting at.

Assuming he was sane at the time he committed the murders, and assuming he has been mentally fit long enough to exhaust all avenues of appeal, and assuming capital punishment is an okay thing to do, then I really don't see what difference his subsequent mental state would make with respect to proceeding with the execution.

Of course, such circumstances might highlight the cruelty of state-imposed murders. For example, if he had forgotten the murder, and had regressed mentally to the point of appearing as a frightened simpleton who didn't understand what was going on, it would look (and feel) pretty bad to put him to death I think. In such circumstances the person who committed the murder might as well already be dead, and I don't know what sense of gratification might be achieved by disposing of the shell that remains.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

That's a different issue altogether from what I was getting at.

Assuming he was sane at the time he committed the murders, and assuming he has been mentally fit long enough to exhaust all avenues of appeal, and assuming capital punishment is an okay thing to do, then I really don't see what difference his subsequent mental state would make with respect to proceeding with the execution.

Of course, such circumstances might highlight the cruelty of state-imposed murders. For example, if he had forgotten the murder, and had regressed mentally to the point of appearing as a frightened simpleton who didn't understand what was going on, it would look (and feel) pretty bad to put him to death I think. In such circumstances the person who committed the murder might as well already be dead, and I don't know what sense of gratification might be achieved by disposing of the shell that remains.

I agree.

My gripe here would be that there is a very good chance he was mentally ill at the time or the killing. Meanwhile someone more competent would probably be able to put a better mentally ill defence together.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

the day after someone confessed to being disgusted by the thought of touching one`s eye....

I shouldn't have opened this thread

[Gozer]

Think he could see the inside of mouth?

[troutman]

Gives new meaning to the expression, he was so hungry his eyes were bigger than his stomach.

With these hungry eyes
One look at you and I can't disguise
I've got hungry eyes

[EasternGuy]

didn't tragically hip write a song aboot this.......2.50 for an eyeball, and a buck and a half for the ear?

[HelloHockeyFans]

^ Hey EasternGuy, you should hook up with EasternGirl....

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Wow. Was his nickname Oedipus?

why, did he have sex with his mothers eye socket?

yes, I know Oedipus gouged his own eyes, but is better know for marrying his mother

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by blankall

The real question:

Is it okay to execute someone who is mentally ill?

There's a good chance this guy just has no hold on reality and was incapable of forming the intent needed to be convicted of murder.

Its kind of sad that this guy may actually have been mentally ill and convicted of murder. Meanwhile, people who fake it are probably better at weasiling their way out of a conviction.

Personally I think it depends on what is cheaper, lifetime incarceration at a well-staffed psychiatric facility, or running the appeals gauntlet to death row. Neither are likely to accomplish much of anything deterence-wise, but as long as the goal of permanently removing this person from society is accomplished, either work. Rehabilitation of the criminally insane is still by and large a pipe dream. Repeat offense rates from sociopaths and pedophiles are disgustingly high. Rehab typically finds its success with mostly stable people who make mistakes, and make poor decisions. Not people with severely botched wiring.

People of sound mind who murder are typically less of a danger to society at large, than someone who is mentally unbalanced/sociopathic. Murderers with a "sound mind" are not only few and far between, but typically have no intent to attack at large. To me, insanity is more of a reason to put someone away permanently, or strapped to a chair.

[Gozer]

I kind of agree with Thunderball, even though I feel like I shouldn't.

Person A murders a man that stole his wife and bankrupted his life-long business.
Person B murders someone for no reason.

I'm more afraid / wary of Person B being freed.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Personally I think it depends on what is cheaper, lifetime incarceration at a well-staffed psychiatric facility, or running the appeals gauntlet to death row. Neither are likely to accomplish much of anything deterence-wise, but as long as the goal of permanently removing this person from society is accomplished, either work. Rehabilitation of the criminally insane is still by and large a pipe dream. Repeat offense rates from sociopaths and pedophiles are disgustingly high. Rehab typically finds its success with mostly stable people who make mistakes, and make poor decisions. Not people with severely botched wiring.

People of sound mind who murder are typically less of a danger to society at large, than someone who is mentally unbalanced/sociopathic. Murderers with a "sound mind" are not only few and far between, but typically have no intent to attack at large. To me, insanity is more of a reason to put someone away permanently, or strapped to a chair.

Just becaue cheaper and more convenient ways of dealing with the mentally ill exist does not justify their use.

If someone is truly insane to the point they cannot control themselves and they continue to represent a danger to society, that is the burden of the health system not the criminal one. How do deterrents affect someone who doesn't know what they are doing?

I think the problem is criminal lawyers have stretched what the idea of criminally insane actually means. The line has become so blurred we have people who are insane in jail, and people who are should be found guilty getting off on insanity pleas.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by blankall

Just becaue cheaper and more convenient ways of dealing with the mentally ill exist does not justify their use.

If someone is truly insane to the point they cannot control themselves and they continue to represent a danger to society, that is the burden of the health system not the criminal one. How do deterrents affect someone who doesn't know what they are doing?

I think the problem is criminal lawyers have stretched what the idea of criminally insane actually means. The line has become so blurred we have people who are insane in jail, and people who are should be found guilty getting off on insanity pleas.

You make some good points, but in the end we are discussing the "best" way to deal with an extremely unpleasant situation in the best interests of society. Money is used as an excuse against capital punishment, so turnabout is fairplay. Emotions aside, the best way could very well be execution, but that is a values debate.

It is a failure on the part of both society at large and the health system to not recognize, segregate and treat those with severe, violent mental illness before it gets to the level that people are being brutally murdered. There are many tell-tale signs, and often these are dismissed as "a phase," a case of "boys will be boys," or some other deflecting BS. The most obvious is animal butchery.

There is also the requirement of justice. Yes, the insanity plea has been perverted beyond repair. However, in cases such as this, irreparable damage has been done, and justice must be served. If psychological rehabilitation had a realistic chance of success, great. However, it appears we still lack the ability/technology to adequately do so.

Its really picking off a list of undesirable options, and none really represent a good solution. Emotionally, I don't like it either.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by EasternGuy

didn't tragically hip write a song aboot this.......2.50 for an eyeball, and a buck and a half for the ear?

Yeah Little Bones.

Only, he wasn't trying to sell em in this case...

The variations in the line go:

2.50 for a hi-ball, and a buck and a half for a beer,
Happy hour is here.

2.50 for an eyeball, and a buck and a half for a ear,
Happy hour is here.

2.50 for a decade, and a buck and a half for a year,
Happy hour is here.

Love that song!