I guess that means we need to amend Double Jeopardy then. Depending on the provisions posited, I might be in favor of them.
Does it matter if I think they are? I'm not an acreditied psychologist. Are you? If someone is mentally ill, they are just as much a victim as the people they hurt. Mentally ill eople can't control their illness.
Even if they did understand about consequences, they don't CARE! When someone is going thru a psychotic episode, they're not even capable of caring about consequences...... A friend's daughter was born paranoid schizo and it surfaced when she was 16. Medicated, she did ok. When she was 18, she left home and lived UNmedicated and went into her psychotic world. One night she went back to the bar that she had left w/a knife and stabbed a guy b/c a voice in her head told her the guy wanted to hurt her.... now if that isn't a 'bona fide break from reality' then I don't know what is..... That is psychotic and they don't give a dam about consequences... If I was in a store and had a crazy tho't about shoplifting something, my knees would buckle from the next tho't of the consequences - being caught! That's a stark reality to us..... But a kleptomaniac - another disorder - doesn't give any tho't to being caught, they don't care or even think of the consequences - they have the uncontrollable impulse to steal and they do.......
Forgive me. I confess to being VERY emotional about those small children who were summarily executed by this cowardly punk. THEY are the victims here; NOT him.
He was ill. If someone with the Hanta virus infected 22 children by breathing near them, would you want him executed? The actions of a mentally ill person are not fully under their control. We don't execute people for having diseases.
I was actually applying it more broadly. I understand the premise behind preventing double jeopardy, but it is flawed IMHO. The incompetency of a prosecution shouldn't guarantee the freedom of a criminal. The fact that someone can still be sued for crimes they can't be charged with criminally makes this part of law rather farcical. Either someone is guilty or they're not.
If the prosecution is allowed to just keep trying someone over and over until they are convicted, then no one will ever be found innocent.
I don't care if you are accredited or not. Your industry doesn't have a great track record for getting it right. Are you going to tell me that psychologists who get paid by defense lawyers to give them the answers they want.....are doing it to seek justice for the victims? Why are so many kids being placed on these powerful drugs....some that warn of possible violent behavior in a certain amount of kids who take them? What's up with all the millions of children being placed on these drugs.....for things as minor as agressivenes and anxiety? And what's your industry doing about the correlation here among these Meds and these young mass killers?
Godwinning a discussion doesn't help your argument. Rights and protections for individuals are set with the understanding that a person is mentally capable of respecting those of others in kind. If a person proves to be incapable of comprehending said rules and rights, then the person must be handled differently from someone who can. If said person is a lethal threat, then practical considerations should take precedence. As I mentioned earlier, a padded cell is equally acceptable to "removal."
My industry is economics, so I don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about. You sound like L Ron Hubbard.
My question was do you believe someone can kill dozens of innocent people and be sane?? I don't believe that it's possible for a sane person to have killed those children.
I figured one extra shot should be allowed. Make it a provision against triple jeopardy rather than double.
If that is the case, then I agree with you. My beef is with the people who are saying that we need to kill people with diseases.
*shrugs* All I care is that they are out of the way. I have no sympathy for a mass murderer whether they had control over their actions or not. To me, they cease being human at that point. They are merely an obstacle that must be dealt with effectively and efficiently.
Show me anywhere where I said "execute" them. I am talking about standing trial for what they did. And you don't know how ill he was....or if he was ill. He was a coward and killed himself. But had he not done so.....if he knew right from wrong, he should have stood trial. Lawyers and psychologists should not protect him from standing trial when the victims and their families are seeking justice. Think about those families. Think how you'd feel if it were YOUR 5 year old.........;
If they have no control over their actions, then they are just as unresponsible for their actions as someone with an infectious disease who kills people simply by breathing the same air.
I'd say it's a moot point because whether ruled 'competant' or not they will likely never see the light of day again, if ruled incompetant they will simply spend their life in a mental institution rather than a prison.
Trials sentence people to prison. Mentally ill people don't belong in prison. They belong in specialized facilities for the care of the mentally ill. Justice shouldn't be based on how people would feel if they were the victim. Justice should be objective, not subjective and emotional. If is not the job of government to make people feel good. It is the job of government to protect the rights of individuals, and that includes the mentally ill.
Oh yes....because we all know that NO trained psychiatrist could EVER be fooled, right? It's such an exact science and all.
Oh really? Not so. John Hinkley....the shooter of Brady and Reagan.....now enjoys unsupervised visits with his family. How sweet.
Let me explain why I view physical illness differently from mental illness. Usually, a virus highly capable of killing people leaves the host too weak to have any hope of escaping quarantine. Mental illness is something different altogether and is often much less predictable in how it manifests in behavior. A person can be very violent while mentally ill but still be very physically capable. Losing your physical health still often allows for lucidity. Someone mentally lost enough to kill dozens of people in an uncontrolled rage or mania is hard to describe as being human in behavior. I believe humanity is defined by said lucidity. Without it, I'm not sure if it's really relevant to define them as human anymore. They're more like a wild animal. By the same token, a braindead person isn't really a person anymore.
