Executing the mentally ill?

[BO-CEPHUS]

What are you thoughts on this? I am about to attend a little public forum type thing on this subject. Reading the paper makes me think it is a little biased towards protecting the mentally ill, but it should be interesting.

Wonder if I will be the only one to agree that they should be put to death like any other piece of shit criminal? I hope so...

 

[jeep310]

Hell no!!!!!!!!! I am not mentaly ill, mamma just said I wasn't born right!

 

[prince of a guy]

Bo-cephus,

Are you telling us that you are about to attend a forum that will discuss the merits of executing the mentally ill. For example, if I suffer from seasonal depression or anxiety attacks, I might be strapped down for a lethal injection.

What about people with congenital birth defects. For example, what about those with Autism, Down's Syndrome, and the rest.

Certainly, you are not serious.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Bo-cephus,

Are you telling us that you are about to attend a forum that will discuss the merits of executing the mentally ill. For example, if I suffer from seasonal depression or anxiety attacks, I might be strapped down for a lethal injection.

What about people with congenital birth defects. For example, what about those with Autism, Down's Syndrome, and the rest.

Certainly, you are not serious.

Sorry, just reread my post and it is a little confusing. I am talking about the death penalty for mentally ill people who murder.

 

[velvett]

Hmmm.

Well, if you specifially mean something along the lines of someone murdering their 4 children one by one, say by DROWNING THEM IN THE TUB to then cry that they are mentally unstable - YES.

OFF THEM.

If you are not mentally stable to be with others outside of a controlled enviroment safely and you murder someone (or several people), you should either be in a controlled enviroment from the start or be responsible for your actions.

 

[prince of a guy]

Sorry, just reread my post and it is a little confusing. I am talking about the death penalty for mentally ill people who murder.

Bo-cephus,

Caveat: I am for the death penalty, provided it is distributed in an egalitarian manner. That said,

if a person were to prove that he or she was not mentally sound at the time their crimes were committed, how can we, as a compassionate people, put them to death. To wit, I offer the case of the Houston mother who drowned her five children a few months ago. Obviously, she was deranged. Please do not confuse my empathy for this woman as anything more than simple compassion. She simply can not be let free for quite some time. However, she also should not be treated like an everyday, garden-variety murderess. She is mentally ill and needs treatment; execution is not the proper solution in such cases.

It should be said that proving one's self as legally insane is very difficult and does not happen all that often.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Bo-cephus,

Caveat: I am for the death penalty, provided it is distributed in an egalitarian manner. That said,

if a person were to prove that he or she was not mentally sound at the time their crimes were committed, how can we, as a compassionate people, put them to death. To wit, I offer the case of the Houston mother who drowned her five children a few months ago. Obviously, she was deranged. Please do not confuse my empathy for this woman as anything more than simple compassion. She simply can not be let free for quite some time. However, she also should not be treated like an everyday, garden-variety murderess. She is mentally ill and needs treatment; execution is not the proper solution in such cases.

It should be said that proving one's self as legally insane is very difficult and does not happen all that often.

That women deserves a bullet in the head and nothing less.

Please do not call me compassionate, as I have no compassion for murderers.

 

[prince of a guy]

That women deserves a bullet in the head and nothing less.

Please do not call me compassionate, as I have no compassion for murderers.

Obviously, you have given this much thought.

 

[velvett]

To wit, I offer the case of the Houston mother who drowned her five children a few months ago. Obviously, she was deranged. Please do not confuse my empathy for this woman as anything more than simple compassion. She simply can not be let free for quite some time. However, she also should not be treated like an everyday, garden-variety murderess. She is mentally ill and needs treatment; execution is not the proper solution in such cases.

***this is not a flame***

That said.

I have to ask this...

It seems to be clear that this woman was known to her family, her husband at the very least, not to be *cough* well.

WHY then WHY can a person like this be responsible for the lives of 5 children? She didn't just wake up that morning deranged and decide - OUUUUUUUUUUU, what a nice day it is, oh look the tub is so nice and shiney - why don't I murder my kids.

Who should be responsible for her actions?

Her husband knew she was not stable - should he be punished for not being responsible for the mental state of his wife?


How does one justify and/or handle a situation as this?

 

[velvett]

oops

 

[prince of a guy]

How does one justify and/or handle a situation as this?

With respect to the former, the situation can not be justified. As for the latter, only those more learned that myself will know how to handle it.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Obviously, you have given this much thought.

Actually, I have. We have discussed this women many times on this board. I have listened to everyone arguments and drawn my own. The above is my conclusion.

Mentally ill people are no more important then the random person who robs a bank and kill a teller. Both deserve the death penalty. I do not want my tax money going to help rehabilitate a murderer. You say rehabilitation works, I say it doesn't.

Never heard of a dead person committing another crime. I can recall thousands of times where release criminals killed again.

 

[velvett]

With respect to the former, the situation can not be justified. As for the latter, only those more learned that myself will know how to handle it.

I see you having a very successful future in politics.

 

[the nature boy]

Who should be responsible for her actions?

any way you cut it she is responsible for her own actions. She should be given the opportunity to kill herself.

 

[prince of a guy]

Mentally ill people are no more important then the random person who robs a bank and kill a teller. Both deserve the death penalty

No, sir, you are wrong. There is a fundamental difference between a truly mentally ill criminal and a bank robber. The mentally ill person is defenseless against the urges that compel him or her to commit a crime. They do not know the difference between right and wrong.

A bank robber who kills a teller has made a conscious decision while at the same time, understanding the consequences and potential outcomes of his or her actions.

 

[Hangfire]

In my humble opinion, the test needs to be the ability to reason, and determine right-from-wrong actions. Then, determine whether the act was premeditated and what was the state of mind of the accused at the first thought of committing the crime. Does someone suffering from clinical depression qualify as mentally ill? If they ever received professional treatment for it, that is enough to disqualify them from legally owning firearms. Should it then be enough to acquit them of murder charges? If not, should it be enough to spare their life? This is tough stuff.

In the case of the mother from Houston, even I can predict with a pretty high degree of certainty that she is not well. Should her husband be held liable because he knew of her condition? Should her physician be held liable? What about her other family members? Should anyone who knew about her instability be held criminally liable for contributing to the unlawful deaths of those children? If I were the prosecutor, I'd try like hell to make the case.

A shrewd attorney (no shortage of those) could probably make a pretty convincing case in a civil trial and walk away with a bundle. Problem is, all the plaintiffs are dead!

 

[velvett]

There is a fundamental difference between a truly mentally ill criminal and a bank robber. The mentally ill person is defenseless against the urges that compel him or her to commit a crime. They do not know the difference between right and wrong.

While I agree with that - who is ultimately responsible for that mentally ill person?


Someone has to be - if that mentally ill person can not be responsible for themselves - someone must be and if no one person is (I'm heading towards someone of blood relation) - the state is responsible. No?

 

[prince of a guy]

While I agree with that - who is ultimately responsible for that mentally ill person?

Society is responsible. Everyone (her family, her husband, her doctor, her neighbors) knew that she was very ill. They should have stepped and intervened in some manner or ensured that she was being treated properly .

Someone has to be - if that mentally ill person can not be responsible for themselves - someone must be and if no one person is (I'm heading towards someone of blood relation) - the state is responsible. No?

Your logic defies me, Velvet. Someone must be responsible? You can not hold a person responsible for the criminal actions of another. She was not being treated properly for her depression, hence, we, as a society, are responsible, albeit to a lesser degree, for the deaths of her children.

 

[velvett]

Your logic defies me, Velvet. Someone must be responsible? You can not hold a person responsible for the criminal actions of another. She was not being treated properly for her depression, hence, we, as a society, are responsible, albeit to a lesser degree, for the deaths of her children.

Why would my logic defy you? Please explain.

Hell YES someone should be held responsible for the actions of a woman such as this murdering her children.

If she truly was not treated properly for her depression her husband, family and/or doctor should be held responsible or at the very least accountable for the poor mental health of this woman that lead to her murdering her children. If there were no funds for her to be helped appropriately - the state should be held responsible for not having found a way for her to be helped.

Are we responsible as a society? Perhaps on a higher level yes - but on a practical level no.

So yes - someone should be responsible and punished for the deaths of those children. If we are going to cry about the poor *boohoo* mental state of this woman and how she is the victim of not having proper care, then I would find solace in the punishment being taken by and for a spouse or family member for not having taken care of this woman and with that her children.



Note: I would maintain the same beliefs with other cases but this one is relatively fresh and people are familiar with it.

 

[prince of a guy]

Velvetta,

I can not argue with you, madam. Our disparate opinions are so far apart that any efforts to come to a consensus will be futile.


The Prince

 

[1911]

Society is responsible.

HAA HHAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA.

 

[velvett]

Velvetta,
I can not argue with you, madam. Our disparate opinions are so far apart that any efforts to come to a consensus will be futile.

Oh Darlin'

We don't have to agree - just debate.
Besides - if it were really all that simple I would think someone would have figure all this sort of thing out by now.


Clearly, I was one of those BUT WHY? kids.

 

[Warik]

The problem is that society confuses the issues.

Fact:

Person A killed Person B with premeditation and the intent to kill.
Person A should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

What Society Sees:

Person A, as a result of having a wee-bit too much of one chemical and a wee-bit too little of another, planned to and killed Persons B,C,D, and E.
Persons F,G,H, and the rest of the alphabet, however, are to blame because Person A is psycho.
Therefore, Person A should not be punished.

It defies logic.

By that logic, no criminals should be punished.

Look at society in general. Is most of society a murderous or a peaceful bunch? Seeing as how most of the population survives from year to year, we can conclude that society is mostly non-murderous. I suppose this makes being a non-murderer "normal."
Let's assume that a person kills another person. Isn't this person, then, by definition, not normal? Isn't this person "abnormal?" I don't know about you, but I, as a person who is sound of mind and body, would not kill an innocent person. Are you attempting to say that someone like Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Bill Clinton etc... are "sound of mind and body" as well?

By your "mentally ill" logic, no criminals should be punished because they are obviously not normal.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

if it were really all that simple I would think someone would have figure all this sort of thing out by now.

It is really all that simple... some people are just hell-bent on thinking illogically. Hello! No one who kills innocents is normal... by their logic, our jails should be empty and rehab centers should be multi-trillion dollar enterprises.

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

This is never an issue in the courts. The issue is the definiton of mentally ill and whether or not the defendant meets it.

One example where the standard of mental illness was egregiously misapplied was the Wendy's massacre in Queens, NY.

(For those who don't know, 7 Wendy's employees were bound and gagged then shot in the head during a robbery. 2 survived - I don't know how).

One of the defendants was found to be mentally ill because his IQ was in the loweest 1% of society. The death penatly was taken off the table for this guy and he willdo life.

I personally do not care about whether a person is mentally ill or not. I do not care if they are retarded, schizophrenic, multiple personalities, etc. I have thought it through, and I understand a case can be made for why each of these is valid. I simply reject the arguments.

Mental illness, while tragic, does not excuse crimes. if you don't know right from wrong, why should we keep you around anyway?


My stance on the death penalty is that it should be applied in murder cases where there is an absolute certainty of guilt. The Wendy's guys were on camera. Asked and answered.

 

[prince of a guy]

Warik,


You do not believe that the criminally insane should be treated instead of punished?

 

[manny78]

execute them like any other scumbag. ANyway they're a waste and there's nothing to do with them. Why should they have an exemption ?

 

[velvett]

One example where the standard of mental illness was egregiously misapplied was the Wendy's massacre in Queens, NY.

(For those who don't know, 7 Wendy's employees were bound and gagged then shot in the head during a robbery. 2 survived - I don't know how).

Oh my God.
I remember that one, back in May of last year.

Tragic.

They were all brought down into the basement, bound, gaged and left on their knees to be shot execution style.

 

[KAYNE]

IF THE DEFENDANT ISNT DOWNRIGHT FUCKING RETARTED....THEY SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO USE MENTALLY ILL AS AN EXCUSE.


KAYNE

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Warik,


You do not believe that the criminally insane should be treated instead of punished?

Ciminally insane is a curious term. Is ther such a thing as criminally insane?

"Insane" colloquially means an inabilit to reason or understand normal realities of the surrounding world. Webster's defines insanity as "persistent mental disorder or derangement".

This word itself has no connotations of criminality. Insane is not used in scientific circles anymore.

The phrase "criminally insane" is a misnomer. What you are describing is as "insane person who committed criminal acts".

That itself answers your question.

Re-word your argument or accept that it is inherently self-defeating.

 

[Warik]

Warik,


You do not believe that the criminally insane should be treated instead of punished?

No.

-Warik

 

[KAYNE]

No.

-Warik

I AGREE......MOST OF THE TIME THEY ARENT "INSANE" ANYWAY.


KAYNE

 

[MoneyBags]

we should definitely execute the mentally ill. they are just a burden on the economy and their families.

 

[theoak01]

why should my parents pay for a mentally ill killer to eat and be warm

 

[MoneyBags]

are you talking about people who are mentally ill that commit crimes or just your standard mentally ill person? i was talking about your standard mentally ill person.

 

[prince of a guy]

are you talking about people who are mentally ill that commit crimes or just your standard mentally ill person? i was talking about your standard mentally ill person.

It shouldn't matter my dear fellow, Mr. Moneybags. Those who are insane deserve our compassion. While they do in deed need to be kept apart from society, they are defenseless against their own minds. They're defects, if you will. Hence, they should not be punished by being executed.

People! I implore you! Are we not civilized? Do we not separate ourselves from the animals?

 

[MoneyBags]

It shouldn't matter my dear fellow, Mr. Moneybags. Those who are insane deserve our compassion. While they do in deed need to be kept apart from society, they are defenseless against their own minds. They're defects, if you will. Hence, they should not be punished by being executed.

People! I implore you! Are we not civilized? Do we not separate ourselves from the animals?

you are a defect also.

 

[Warik]

Do we not separate ourselves from the animals?

Yes. That's what prisons and death row are for.

-Warik

 

[huntmaster]

If an individual comits a crime----the penalty that is spelled out in the law should be carried out, regardless of mental stability.

Accountability produces responsibility.(in a society)

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Well that little public forum was the biggest pile of shit I have ever been to in my life. I told you it would be biased and it sure as hell was. What we had was a bunch of morons telling about a mentally ill person who is up for execution in our state. They went on and on about what a great person he was and how he had done so much for society.

Fuck them and fuck that piece of mentally ill shit.

When it came to open question, that got a piece of my mine. I ask them what they knew about the victim and his family.. What kind of person they were and what great things they had done. They knew shit. All they wanted to do was tell me how great this murderer was and why he should not be executed.

Now the 75% of the brainwashed idiots there will believe that the death penalty is wrong and inhumane. Their liberal propaganda was so pathetic it made me sick.

Things like this only make my beliefs stronger. There is nothing that will ever change my mind.

 

[satanic goatslayer]

Yes.

Let's begin with James.

 

[prince of a guy]

Bo-cephus,

I assert that you have missed the point of this point. It is not of any relevance whether a criminally insane person murdered another mass murderer or a group of toddlers. If they were truly insane, they can not nor should they be put to death.

Sincerely,
Prince of a guy

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Bo-cephus,

I assert that you have missed the point of this point. It is not of any relevance whether a criminally insane person murdered another mass murderer or a group of toddlers. If they were truly insane, they can not nor should they be put to death.

Sincerely,
Prince of a guy

Yes they should...

 

[prince of a guy]

Bo-cephus,


I'm disappointed in you.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Bo-cephus,


I'm disappointed in you.

Good....

 

[Warik]

Bo-cephus,

I assert that you have missed the point of this point. It is not of any relevance whether a criminally insane person murdered another mass murderer or a group of toddlers. If they were truly insane, they can not nor should they be put to death.

Sincerely,
Prince of a guy

So there is a such thing as a murderer who is sane? I tend to disagree.

The problem with your arguments, prince of a guy, is that your points are baseless. I have no problem with you saying that those who are truly insane and who commit a crime should not be put to death. I do, however, have a problem with you saying such things without sufficient proof.

Ok, they shouldn't be put to death. Why not? Because they are insane?

Ok...

You should give Warik a million dollars because he is Warik. Based on how you argue, you should be giving me one million dollars right now.

Why don't you tell us exactly WHY an "insane" person who kills another human being should not be punished?

-Warik

 

[prince of a guy]

Why don't you tell us exactly WHY an "insane" person who kills another human being should not be punished?

An "insane" person who kills another human being should not be punished because he is incompetent and not responsible for his actions.

 

[Warik]

An "insane" person who kills another human being should not be punished because he is incompetent and not responsible for his actions.

OK. A 14-year old, unlicensed driver who stole his dad's car is an incompetent driver and should not be responsible for hitting a car carrying your whole family head-on.

Fair enough.

-Warik

 

[litig8r]

OK. Lets clarify a few things.

Insanity, mental retardation, and competency are three totally different legal issues.

INSANITY: there are some differing test on what constitutes insanity depending on the state. As a general rule if a defendant has a mental decease or defect that prohibits him from understanding that his conduct is wrong, he is insane. A person can have every diagnosable mental defect in the DSMR !V and still know what he is doing is wrong. that person is sane. Sanity is a LEGAL test and is not a medical diagnosis.

COMPETENCY: this is the defendant's mental state at the time of trial. the question here is if the defendant can assist in his own defense or is he so mentally ill that he is of no help or does not know what is going on. Again, this is a legal question, not a medical one.

MENTAL RETARDATION: The problem here is WHAT IS MENTAL RETARDATION? WHAT TEST DO WE USE (IF ANY)? WHO SHOULD ADMINISTER THE TEST? WHAT IF THERE ARE CONFLICTING OPINIONS?

In capital cases, I do not think there need to really be a question on this. To face the death penalty, a jury must find beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If insanity is raised by the defendant, the State must prove sanity beyond all reasonable doubt. If the jury finds the defendant guilty and sane, they must still answer two questions.

1. the jury must find beyond all reasonable doubt that this defendant will continue to be a threat to society. If they jury answers this question yes, they go to question 2.

2. The jury is ask if there is ANY EVIDENCE that would be sufficient to warrant a sentence of life rather than death. It is here that a defense attorney may attempt to bring in whatever limited mental capacity the defendant has (or any other 'mitigating' evidence. you know shit like 'daddy killed kittens in front of me' or 'I was raped by our pet German Shepard'). If the jury thinks the evidence is of such a mitigating nature, they may assess life.

This system allows for a jury to take into consideration a defendant's mental condition without forcing a bright line rule that may be inapplicable in some cases and leave others out because they scored one point to high on the verbal skills test.

If we try and implement some bright line rule on capital punishment and one's mental agility, it will simply create a bigger legal quagmire. This whole argument is simply the anti-DP liberals trying to get a foot in the door to ban all executions.

hasta

litig8r

 

[prince of a guy]

litig8r,


Thank you for supporting my contentions and invalidating those of Bo-cephus and especially that evila and wicked one known as Warik.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

...

 

[litig8r]

litig8r,


Thank you for supporting my contentions and invalidating those of Bo-cephus and especially that evila and wicked one known as Warik.

This was not intended to necessarily support anyone's contention. It is simply the law. To commit virtually any crime, one must be able to form the culpable mental state. If one is INSANE, by definition, he cannot form that mental state.

This is a completely different issue than executing mentally retarded persons. The problem is "what is mental retardation?" If you put some arbitrary number, ie: you cannot execute anyone with an IQ below 80, you create a numbers game with a person's life. I belive that the current system that allows a jury to take into consideration and give weight, as they feel fit, to whatever evidence of mental capacity a defendant may want to present is fair. It essentially allows a case by case evaluation of a defendant by 12 jurors who have had the oppotunity to hear the evidence, observe the witneses and actually listen to the attorney's. In this situation all defendant's can present their unique circumstances to a trier of fact. THEN THEY CAN SENTENCE HIM TO DEATH.

hasta

litig8r