A Schizophrenic Murderer

[rigney]

How can a person brutally murder another, and then only expect to be locked up in an asylum for the remainder of their life or until they are fit to stand trial? And all at tax payers expense? Me, I believe these individuals should be dispatched as soon as the law permits. The guy in question butchered a female psychitrist because she happened to be in the office he went to rob. A meat cleaver no less, to do the job. What I am saying is; where do we draw the line? If you are unfit to stand trial for such a murder, why should you be fit enough to live at tax payers expense for God knows how long? We shoot horses and sick cattle don't we?

 

http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/cleveland/today/news/national/article.cox?articleId=D9JCQ69G0&moduleType=apNews

Edited November 10, 2010 by rigney

[Rhiaden]

I have had this discussion before (My boyfriend is a theologian), it comes down to whether or not you can ever justify taking a human life.

 

I personally could not morally, or ethically justify this in any situation, nor could I ever view another human being in the same way as a horse or cow. The only time it even comes close to that comparison for me is in the case of euthanasia.

 

It is not for me to decide whether or not someone else lives or dies, no matter what horrific act they have committed. It seems to me the justification used is "They did a bad thing while mentally ill, therefore we kill them because they are sick". I am much more in favour of treating people and ensuring they dont commit these acts.

 

I have seen first hand the difference in schizophrenics when they stop taking their meds..usually because "I feel better therefore I dont need my meds anymore". As a society, my personal opinion is that we should prevent rather than knee-jerk after the fact...Care in the community for example, could be much improved, and some people released from hospital under the scheme quite clearly should have stayed there, or been more carefully monitored.

 

All the above is strictly IMO, and based on personal (sometimes too personal) contact with people who really should have been sectioned or kept taking their meds.

[John Cuthber]

"How can one person brutally murder another, and then only be locked up in an asylum for the remainder of their life or until they are fit to stand trial?"

The simple answer is that it's at least as wrong for us, sane, deliberate, clear-thinking people to kill someone as it was for someone who didn't have those advantages (for whatever reason) to do so.

 

If killing is wrong, why do it?

If killing isn't wrong then what are you complaining about?

[rigney]

I have had this discussion before (My boyfriend is a theologian), it comes down to whether or not you can ever justify taking a human life.

 

I personally could not morally, or ethically justify this in any situation, nor could I ever view another human being in the same way as a horse or cow. The only time it even comes close to that comparison for me is in the case of euthanasia.

 

It is not for me to decide whether or not someone else lives or dies, no matter what horrific act they have committed. It seems to me the justification used is "They did a bad thing while mentally ill, therefore we kill them because they are sick". I am much more in favour of treating people and ensuring they dont commit these acts.

 

I have seen first hand the difference in schizophrenics when they stop taking their meds..usually because "I feel better therefore I dont need my meds anymore". As a society, my personal opinion is that we should prevent rather than knee-jerk after the fact...Care in the community for example, could be much improved, and some people released from hospital under the scheme quite clearly should have stayed there, or been more carefully monitored.All the above is strictly IMO, and based on personal (sometimes too personal) contact with people who really should have been sectioned or kept taking their meds.

 

/quote]

There are many reasons that murders happen, but none of which are a pleasant thing to discuss. Say for instance a woman who has constantly been mistreated and beaten by an abusive husband, finally comes to an end point where she grabs up a knife and stabs him to death. Should we lock her up or kill her? A couple of homophobics who beat a defensless young gay to death. Should they be locked up or executed? A drunken driver with two or three DUIs already in his dossier, kills a family in an auto crash while on another drunken spree. Do we jail him or kill him? I could go on at length making an argument either for or against the death penalty. In New England, two men on trial are accused of raping, and murdering three female members of a family. One of them has already confessed, been tried, found guilty and is awaiting sentencing. What should we do with him, regardless of his sanity?

 

"How can one person brutally murder another, and then only be locked up in an asylum for the remainder of their life or until they are fit to stand trial?"

The simple answer is that it's at least as wrong for us, sane, deliberate, clear-thinking people to kill someone as it was for someone who didn't have those advantages (for whatever reason) to do so.

 

If killing is wrong, why do it?

If killing isn't wrong then what are you complaining about?

 

[/quote name=rigney] Cuthber, are you actually serious in both of your assessments?

Edited November 9, 2010 by rigney

[A Tripolation]

Tarloff told police he went to Faughey's Manhattan office to rob the psychiatrist who shared her office, Dr. Kent Shinbach. Tarloff's goal was to get $50,000 to whisk his mother out of a nursing home and take her to Hawaii, he said in a video-recorded statement.

 

He encountered Faughey instead and believed she was going to attack him, he said.

 

Faughey was slashed 15 times, and Shinbach was seriously hurt as he tried to save her, authorities said.

 

This shows he was competent enough to know he was going to rob someone. And then he reacts incredibly violently to a perceived threat. I'm unable to comment on his mental stability, bit if he IS this insane, it seems a lot more humane to kill him than let him live out the rest of his life locked up constantly hearing voices.

 

I don't believe anyone so violent should be allowed to live.

[divagreen]

I don't believe anyone so violent should be allowed to live.

 

The irony of this statement struck me as particularly funny... :lol:

 

 

 

While many countries do not believe in the death penalty, I do for certain occasions...

 

War criminals.

 

 

And confirmed serial killers.

 

Like this one.

 

A violent response to violence? Yes.

 

But I believe it should be used very sparingly...

 

IMO.

Edited November 10, 2010 by divagreen

[A Tripolation]

The irony of this statement struck me as particularly funny... :lol:

 

I do not see the killing of violent, murderous people to be a violent act at all. So the irony no longer applies. I find that amusing.

[divagreen]

I do not see the killing of violent, murderous people to be a violent act at all. So the irony no longer applies. I find that amusing.

 

At least I can recognize irony when I am guilty of it... :lol:

[ydoaPs]

I do not see the killing of violent, murderous people to be a violent act at all. So the irony no longer applies. I find that amusing.

What if they don't see the killing of their victims as violent? It must be okay. So, by your logic, the offenders should NOT be killed. Hmm....something seems off

[A Tripolation]

You all are right. They should just be locked up with food, shelter, and water for the rest of their life. That's some harsh punishment right there.

[ydoaPs]

That's some harsh punishment right there.

Why punishment vice rehabilitation? Fixing whatever was wrong with them to cause the aberrant behaviour seems like a better option than eye for an eye.

 

Also, what do you deem a fit punishment, then, for those that you don't think are 'evil' enough to kill?

Edited November 10, 2010 by ydoaPs

[A Tripolation]

I personally don't believe in rehabilitation efforts. I support punishment. I only think people should be 'put down' when they've murdered someone. They have no respect for life and are therefore not deserving of it.

 

Petty crimes should serve jail time/fines/ ect. More intense crimes should be met with true solitary confinement.

[ydoaPs]

I personally don't believe in rehabilitation efforts. I support punishment.

Because "I'm gonna hurt you because you hurt me!" is a sentiment that fits in a civilized society. Perhaps a society of 3 year olds.

 

Petty crimes should serve jail time/fines/ ect. More intense crimes should be met with true solitary confinement.

Yet you've already said that jail is not a punishment. It's free room and board!

[John Cuthber]

"If killing is wrong, why do it?

If killing isn't wrong then what are you complaining about?

 

Cuthber, are you actually serious in both of your assessments? "

 

It doesn't matter if I'm serious or not; you still need to answer the questions.

[HerpetologyFangirl]

I'm by no means a religious person, but even I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever. They should be locked up so they can't hurt decent people, but we have no right to take their lives, only God has that right, and if we killed them, who is to say that we'd be any better than they are, just because they're criminals, and we're doing it legally? I don't believe in war either, or soldiers killing each other. To me that's just as evil as anything else. I would rather die young, than die an old woman with blood-soaked hands. I'm a Ghandi fan. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[rigney]

"If killing is wrong, why do it?

If killing isn't wrong then what are you complaining about?

 

Cuthber, are you actually serious in both of your assessments? "

 

It doesn't matter if I'm serious or not; you still need to answer the questions.

 

You're not looking for answers John. Both of your questions are loaded and dichotomous to the point of filling a book. Perhaps ydoaPs could give you a hand with your problem, since he seems to understand it much more clearly than I. Then look at the information below and tell me, who are you trying to kid?

 

http://gothamist.com/2007/07/30/murdered_mother.php

 

I'm by no means a religious person, but even I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever. They should be locked up so they can't hurt decent people, but we have no right to take their lives, only God has that right, and if we killed them, who is to say that we'd be any better than they are, just because they're criminals, and we're doing it legally? I don't believe in war either, or soldiers killing each other. To me that's just as evil as anything else. I would rather die young, than die an old woman with blood-soaked hands. I'm a Ghandi fan. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

Look at the information below. Perhaps "let he without sin cast the first stone" was prophetic two thousand years ago, but do you think the man who uttered those words would attest that same philosophy today?

 

http://gothamist.com/2007/07/30/murdered_mother.php

 

I do not see the killing of violent, murderous people to be a violent act at all. So the irony no longer applies. I find that amusing.

 

by: rigney I understand your position on the issue Trip. Sadly, attorneys today have created a trail of meandering BS to simulate a linkage between killing a person, or murdeing the same. The vagueness is hard to distinguish and almost impossible for a prosecuter to walk through. Unfortunately, most is done pro bono, and pertaining only to a particular case. Not free mind you! These guys don't display their talents for a pittance. Next bull out of the chute is an entirely different story with a different spin to it. Our legal system has all but been destroyed. A practice that men like Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln and others tried so hard to make a pure science. It's gone!. Killing is a metaphor meant in most instances, as a means of doing justice.

Murder on the other hand is either a calculated plan to coldly take someones life, or an impromptu action as the result of a planned crime. This case up in New England shines a very strong light in relating to what is wrong with the system.

 

http://gothamist.com/2007/07/30/murdered_mother.php

Edited November 10, 2010 by rigney

[ewmon]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; however, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart.

... and a corollary is that:

No absolute definition exists to determine what criminal act deserves the death penalty. The situation with the death penalty is that it actually seeks to eliminate a class of people from existence. If and when we do eliminate the class of criminals that we find intolerable, we will find a new class to eliminate, ad infinitum because the human need to compete, defeat and destroy is insatiable.

When authorities kill what they cannot tolerate, what does that teach our children?

 

And, currently in America, most killings end up in plea agreements, which is a swift and cheap conclusion. However, due to the lack of murder trials, society never learns what actually happened, and the legal system fails to advance toward its goal of perfect justice. The death penalty also forces some people plead guilty to something they didn't do rather than risk getting the death penalty.

 

Federal Justice William Campbell:

Today, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before a grand jury.

[Mr Skeptic]

You're not looking for answers John. Both of your questions are loaded and dichotomous to the point of filling a book.

 

All he's asking is how you justify your desire to kill without justifying the murderer's. It's certainly not a loaded question, but perhaps it is one you don't know how to answer?

[rigney]

All he's asking is how you justify your desire to kill without justifying the murderer's. It's certainly not a loaded question, but perhaps it is one you don't know how to answer?

Would you favor me by replying to his questions Mr. Septic, since I haven't a clue as how to answer them. I would appreciate any edification, especially at your level of understanding. Thanks.

 

I took this off the internet moments ago trying to get a better idea of what our nation is all about. Should these "murderous young bastards" go on trial and be committed to a minimum stay in an institution that will shortly let them back on the street to prove their point all over again? Is that punishment enough? I would hate to read where a guy with your intellectual attributes was caught in the same predictiment. What should we do about it then? Life to me is a precious thing! An imbicile ot a totally sane critter with a 150 IQ who indiscriminately destroys a humn life has no rights and should not be allowed to live. Check the below out, without gagging.

 

http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/cleveland/today/news/national/article.cox?articleId=D9JDB2000&moduleType=apNews

Edited November 10, 2010 by rigney

[HerpetologyFangirl]

Wow... can anybody say 'tension'? Meow.

[John Cuthber]

To be fair my questions were loaded.

For further examples of loaded questions please see the original post.

For answers to those questions see...

Oh dear, I don't seem to have received any.

[rigney]

To be fair my questions were loaded.

For further examples of loaded questions please see the original post.

For answers to those questions see...

Oh dear, I don't seem to have received any.

 

Mr Skeptic, on 10 November 2010 - 11:27 AM, said:

All he's asking is how you justify your desire to kill without justifying the murderer's. It's certainly not a loaded question, but perhaps it is one you don't know how to answer?

 

Skeptic was absolutely right, you should never bring a "knife to a gunfight", unless it's hidden in your boot.. I'm not nearly smart enought to go up against our modern day justice system. I was just listening to a TV program moments ago describing a father who was fined a $!,000 and put on 6 months probation for going on a school bus and reading the riot act to some bulling kids who brutalized his "slow" daughter. What if he had went off the deep end for only a moment and shot hell out of the entire bus? Would our judicual system have been more compliant and understanding? And my questions to begin the post were not meant to assume or placate my thoughts, the link would have given you full reign of your own feelings.

Edited November 10, 2010 by rigney

[zapatos]

I'm by no means a religious person, but even I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever. They should be locked up so they can't hurt decent people, but we have no right to take their lives, only God has that right, and if we killed them, who is to say that we'd be any better than they are, just because they're criminals, and we're doing it legally? I don't believe in war either, or soldiers killing each other. To me that's just as evil as anything else. I would rather die young, than die an old woman with blood-soaked hands. I'm a Ghandi fan. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Hmm. So in the example of the doctor whose wife and daughters were sexually assaulted and murdered, do you feel that if that was your family, that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?

And in the case of war, if your country was invaded, do you not feel you have a right to kill the invaders to stop them?

[John Cuthber]

"that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?"

Straw man alert!

To do something in order to stop them killing your family during an attack is not the same as killing the perpetrator, cold bloodedly, afterwards when it won't bring anyone back from the dead.

 

 

 

Fundamentally, I don't see how you can hope to be both a killer and morally better than a killer at the same time.

Since I can't be both, I know which I prefer to choose.

(for the record I don't see the moral difference between sentencing someone to death, killing them yourself, or handing them over to a judicial system that will kill them; it's like saying "I didn't kill him. The bullet I fired did that")

[zapatos]

"that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?"

Straw man alert!

Let's see. Herp said "I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever". There was no equivocation in her statement. I neither misrepresented her position nor attacked it. I asked a question to help clarify it. You'll have to explain why that is a straw man.

To do something in order to stop them killing your family during an attack is not the same as killing the perpetrator, cold bloodedly, afterwards when it won't bring anyone back from the dead.

Obviously. There are some times when people have the right to kill others. You seem to think you have the right under certain circumstances. I think I have the right under certain circumstances. We just disagree when it comes to what the circumstances are.