Thread: Shall the criminally insane be put down like a dog with rabies?

Originally Posted by singlewedge

To be fair. I did not read every post here. I voted no because the question was asked in two different ways.

Should the criminals be put down like a dog, Lethal Injection. I say no.

Should the criminals be shot dead in the street and left as a reminder to others, published on TV and the internet. A resounding Hell Yes.

I realize that may offend people, but I will not apologize for my hard line stance. If you murder, rape, or commit crimes against children there should be a 17 panel jury and one trial. No appeal unless a JUDGE rules that there was a mistake of law. If 13 or more people on the jury believe you are guilty, you are. No jury deadlock.

At the point of a guilty verdict the judge will have 30 days to make the final decision as to mistake of law only and then the person will be taken to a public forum and shot. The family of the offender sent the bill for the incarceration and bullet. Hardcore yes. Will it defer others from going down the same path. Not immediately, but give it six months of this and I guarentee that crime will drop. Will we get a few wrong, sure, but with the technology that we have and it is getting better, those numbers will go down.

No offense this is my feeling on the subject.

HOLY SH*T!!! Are you kidding me? With the documented history of wrongful convictions in this country and the world at large; convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony; convictions by biased juries; and not to mention all the cases that are now being reviewed in terms of DNA testing because the "13 jurors" got it wrong--to suggest public executions, including leaving the body on the street for as a symbolic "reminder" (of what exactly?) is nothing short of barbaric. "We'll get a few wrong"--hey-no problem there-as long as it's not you or someone important to you, I presume you meant. Thankfully we have something called a Constitution in this country that prohibits this kind of vigilante justice.
30 days for the judge to decide and no appeals?--unfortunately you haven't boned up on this country's criminal justice system. Perhaps you might want to check with the scores of those who were tried and convicted in capital offense cases, only to be found innocent by way of new evidence uncovered more than 30 days after they were found guilty.
I'm certainly grateful we don't live in a county were they execute people in the public square and leave the body on display. Perhaps you'd be more at home in one of those counties that do that sort of thing--Iran and Afganistan jump to mind...

"if intent can be proved, criminal charges can and have been brought"

Now you've hit upon the heart of the matter. In cases where the accused is determined to be criminally insane, that means the accused acted without intent because he lacked to mental capacity to do so. Once you understand the meaning of "criminally insane", your own definition is self-proved-namely, the truly criminally insane lacke the mental capacity to act with criminal intention.

QED

Originally Posted by JMS

Yes is my answer. Why not? We shoot horses don't we? we call it merciful. We put down dogs not only for being rabid, but for doing what comes natural to them? We call that protecting society. why not apply the same standards to the criminally insane? Would we put Hitler behind bars?

What say you?

Mark,

As has been discussed in other posts--there's a difference between really really bad men (Hitler, Bin Laden, etc) and those who are criminally insane. As I've said in other posts, the concept of criminal insanity has a legal meaning, and generally stands for the idea that if someone lacks the mental capacity to be able to differentiate between right and wrong, and therefore cannot understand or appreciate the import of their conduct, society and the criminal justice system does not mete out punishment in those circumstances, just like we don't put an infant in jail because he knocks over a lamp and causes a fatal fire. If someone is so mentally ill that they either can't control their own behavior or they have no moral concept of the consequences of their actions-they belong in a medical setting, not in jail or at the executioner's guillotine.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Mark,

As has been discussed in other posts--there's a difference between really really bad men (Hitler, Bin Laden, etc) and those who are criminally insane. As I've said in other posts, the concept of criminal insanity has a legal meaning, and generally stands for the idea that if someone lacks the mental capacity to be able to differentiate between right and wrong, and therefore cannot understand or appreciate the import of their conduct, society and the criminal justice system does not mete out punishment in those circumstances, just like we don't put an infant in jail because he knocks over a lamp and causes a fatal fire. If someone is so mentally ill that they either can't control their own behavior or they have no moral concept of the consequences of their actions-they belong in a medical setting, not in jail or at the executioner's guillotine.

Your post is well considered and not a hint of sarcasm. Hell, you even used my first name. Thanks. Great post! It was however yours and Jockeys posts in that other thread that inspired me to start this thread!
As for the criminally insane, unless they can be 100% rehabilitated with a 100% history proving that the rehabilitation will take, I say shoot them with precautions in the vein that singlewedge considered!

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Mark,

As has been discussed in other posts--there's a difference between really really bad men (Hitler, Bin Laden, etc) and those who are criminally insane. As I've said in other posts, the concept of criminal insanity has a legal meaning, and generally stands for the idea that if someone lacks the mental capacity to be able to differentiate between right and wrong, and therefore cannot understand or appreciate the import of their conduct, society and the criminal justice system does not mete out punishment in those circumstances, just like we don't put an infant in jail because he knocks over a lamp and causes a fatal fire. If someone is so mentally ill that they either can't control their own behavior or they have no moral concept of the consequences of their actions-they belong in a medical setting, not in jail or at the executioner's guillotine.

So if they have significantly different lifestyle or outlook on life they need to be institutionalized. Shall we apply that to none criminals as well? wed out the weaklings and the oddballs... is that what you would like?



figures!

no, beacuse i depend on criminals for my income if it werent for that id say i yes

alabama department of corrections

Originally Posted by jszabo

no, beacuse i depend on criminals for my income if it werent for that id say i yes

alabama department of corrections

That makes for a rather depressing commentary.

Originally Posted by jszabo

no, beacuse i depend on criminals for my income if it werent for that id say i yes

alabama department of corrections

well at least you are thinking about yourself. glad you have your priorities right!

Originally Posted by singlewedge

I realize that may offend people, but I will not apologize for my hard line stance. If you murder, rape, or commit crimes against children there should be a 17 panel jury and one trial. No appeal unless a JUDGE rules that there was a mistake of law. If 13 or more people on the jury believe you are guilty, you are. No jury deadlock.

Great. So if the defendant gets a crappy lawyer assigned who botches the trial, or if evidence is being witheld from the defense (yes it happens) or any of the other things that go wrong, then you end up murdering someone who didn't have to be murdered.

This is why the process is as complex as it is now. You are playing with people's lives.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

At the point of a guilty verdict the judge will have 30 days to make the final decision as to mistake of law only and then the person will be taken to a public forum and shot. The family of the offender sent the bill for the incarceration and bullet. Hardcore yes. Will it defer others from going down the same path. Not immediately, but give it six months of this and I guarentee that crime will drop.

Did you ever bother to put some research into this?
They tried this in England, 200 years ago I think (around the napoleonitic wars) public hanging, using the short drop method. They called it the hemp fandango because the drop didn't kill you, and victims kicked their legs until they passed out.

Anyway. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Death penalty in the US isn't working as a deterrent now, and no matter how much you step up the pace, it will never do. China executed 15000 people per year. It doesn't work there, and they follow your suggested approach to a T.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

Will we get a few wrong, sure, but with the technology that we have and it is getting better, those numbers will go down.
.

would you feel the same if it was YOU who'd sat there, innocent? Or your kid?
Sort of like 'yeah it sucks, but this one is for the team'

I just thanked BillyJeff because I actually agree with his post... What is the world coming to these days...