06 Feb 12
He is the guy who killed all those people in Tucson last year and wounded congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford. Why do they have to keep him in prison hospital to attempt to get him in a more or less reasonably sane state to try him? If they end up offing him, why bother with all that? Even if they end up giving him life, what difference does it make what mental state he was in during trial?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-usa-shooting-tucson-idUSTRE81525R20120206
Is all this just to soothe the conscience of the judge and prosecutors? Why can't they just say, look Jared, you did a very bad thing and we have to put you on this gurney and put this little tube up your arm, you will soon feel a lot better....
06 Feb 12
I don't know, but I suspect it has a lot less to do with soothing the conscience of the judge and prosecutors, and a lot more to do with making the guy seem sane in front of a jury to help the prosecutors with their case.
1) If he's a visibly a babbling lunatic, it's easier for the jury to support an insanity defence.
2) If he's a babbling lunatic and then is later cured afterward, it's easier for him to claim he got an unfair trial because he couldn't take part in the defense.
I strongly suspect this is to the prosecution's benefit, not to help them feel better.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseA trial where the defendant is incapable of understanding the proceedings or assisting in his defense would be a farce. The integrity of the system requires a competent defendant. He's not going anywhere, so what's the big deal? You can't legally execute an insane person BTW.
He is the guy who killed all those people in Tucson last year and wounded congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford. Why do they have to keep him in prison hospital to attempt to get him in a more or less reasonably sane state to try him? If they end up offing him, why bother with all that? Even if they end up giving him life, what difference does it make what mental ...[text shortened]... ut you on this gurney and put this little tube up your arm, you will soon feel a lot better....
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by no1marauderLets take an extreme case: Suppose terrorists get hold of a small A bomb, carry it to central park and have a total madman pull the trigger from a remote 100 km away. So millions die. They then find out this madman set off the devise. Does he get a bye because he is nuts? Obviously there would be a lot of effort spent to find the rest of the gang but what about the nutcase who pulled the trigger?
A trial where the defendant is incapable of understanding the proceedings or assisting in his defense would be a farce. The integrity of the system requires a competent defendant. He's not going anywhere, so what's the big deal? You can't legally execute an insane person BTW.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThey can put him in a mental institution for the rest of his life, but he cannot be put on trial if he is not competent.
Lets take an extreme case: Suppose terrorists get hold of a small A bomb, carry it to central park and have a total madman pull the trigger from a remote 100 km away. So millions die. They then find out this madman set off the devise. Does he get a bye because he is nuts? Obviously there would be a lot of effort spent to find the rest of the gang but what about the nutcase who pulled the trigger?
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's an enemy combatant, which we're told are not allowed any rights.
Lets take an extreme case: Suppose terrorists get hold of a small A bomb, carry it to central park and have a total madman pull the trigger from a remote 100 km away. So millions die. They then find out this madman set off the devise. Does he get a bye because he is nuts? Obviously there would be a lot of effort spent to find the rest of the gang but what about the nutcase who pulled the trigger?
13 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseFrom : Divine Institutes, Book VI (Of True Worship)
Why can't they just say, look Jared, you did a very bad thing and we have to put you on this gurney and put this little tube up your arm, you will soon feel a lot better....
Chapter 20. Of the Senses, and Their Pleasures in the Brutes and in Man; And of Pleasures of the Eyes, and Spectacles.
Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius - 4th century A.D. Christian apologist
"For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal."
In essence, this is from whence the maxim "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes. As to the specifics of Jared Loughner's crime as reported by the press, Jared chose to engage in warfare and killing. The quote of Lactantius convicts Loughner of unjust warfare. Congressmen who vote for and manufacture unnecessary warfare under oath, as well as their supporters, bring down such similar unjust retribution.
20 Feb 12
Originally posted by Edward PalamarSo for you, there should be no retribution for killing so many people? Because he spouts ancient texts, that should exempt him from execution? So if I manage to kill every human on the planet except me, that would be ok and your god would not strike me down?
From : Divine Institutes, Book VI (Of True Worship)
Chapter 20. Of the Senses, and Their Pleasures in the Brutes and in Man; And of Pleasures of the Eyes, and Spectacles.
Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius - 4th century A.D. Christian apologist
"For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even ...[text shortened]... rfare under oath, as well as their supporters, bring down such similar unjust retribution.
20 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseSurely it depends on his motives for pulling the trigger:- If he did it because he is an enemy combatant and this was his last ditch attempt to save his own country from U.S aggression then you would treat him as sane; if on the other hand he did it because he thought the inhabitants of this U.S city had been replaced by Lizard men from the planet zarg either he knows something we dont or he is barking mad and should be treated accordingly. basically motives are at least as important as actions when trying to determine sanity.
Lets take an extreme case: Suppose terrorists get hold of a small A bomb, carry it to central park and have a total madman pull the trigger from a remote 100 km away. So millions die. They then find out this madman set off the devise. Does he get a bye because he is nuts? Obviously there would be a lot of effort spent to find the rest of the gang but what about the nutcase who pulled the trigger?
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Either way you don't let such a person re-enter society at large. He may never be able to be rehabilitated and so will be locked up in a psych ward for the rest of his life.
Surely it depends on his motives for pulling the trigger:- If he did it because he is an enemy combatant and this was his last ditch attempt to save his own country from U.S aggression then you would treat him as sane; if on the other hand he did it because he thought the inhabitants of this U.S city had been replaced by Lizard men from the planet zarg eit ...[text shortened]... rdingly. basically motives are at least as important as actions when trying to determine sanity.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouseNo you do not. I think one problem is that of defining what is curable in terms of mental illness; the worry with this particular case is that if Loughner is deemed unfit to stand trial or answer for his actions due to psychosis he may find a miracle cure not to far down the line. In Britain we have a legal option of detaining those deemed 'criminally insane' for an indeterminate length of time (possibly for the rest of their natural life) known as "At Her Majesty's Pleasure". Unfortunately I cannot see this sitting comfortably with the U.S constitution, or is there an equivalent?
Either way you don't let such a person re-enter society at large. He may never be able to be rehabilitated and so will be locked up in a psych ward for the rest of his life.