Euthenasia Or Compassion For The Insane? (1 Viewer)

[Monk-Eye]

"Euthenasia Or Compassion For The Insane?"

Psych Exam Ordered in Case of Slain Mom

What are the public opinions here?

What is one to do with this type of animal?

 

[reaganburch]

"Euthenasia Or Compassion For The Insane?"

Psych Exam Ordered in Case of Slain Mom

What are the public opinions here?

What is one to do with this type of animal?

My opinions have been consistent and unchanging on this. You murder, there is beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. DNA can prove it, not just circumstantial evidence, you die... period...

I don't care if you are sane, insane, crazy, had a momentary lack of control, whatever... you die... As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for your room and board for the rest of your miserable existence...

If it's proven by evidence that isn't circumstantial that this 'lady' killed the pregnant woman, her unborn child, and her 3 children... she dies... period... I don't care if she's eat her own excrement crazy...

I will debate this until I turn blue... I won't flame or bomb throw, but my opinions on this are strong...

 

[Monk-Eye]

Semantics

"Semantics"

My issue is with "beyond a reasonable doubt", this allows statistical morons to think.

In cases of murder where the punishment levied is a capital sentence the criteria should be proof without a doubt, meaning hard physical evidence.

The concept that the state has the burden of proof depends upon the representation. Prosecutors act as a breed of @$$hole unimaginable to the general public. Truth is set aside for victory. They view hiding the truth as their responsibility if it exhonorates the accused.

If you have ever faced by a jury, innocent, and falsely accused by a prejudicial, lying, perjuring witness, you would understand that one must prove their innocence. Juries are dumb and it is difficult to undo a lie. Few jurors are willing to hold out in principle, and needing for continuing elsewhere, to argue against the majority who vehemently want to convict the innocent over letting the guilty go free.
Heresay accusations come down to a 10 minute job interview to weigh credibility. Resume, background, and circumstantial history are not offered for consideration. Rather than divulge the past, some lawyers see the solution as a gauntlet of whimsical luck, saying as many do here - the burden is on you - prove it. Juries think that foundation is nonsense. The accused is accused and must be guilty, if not of this crime then something. Juries are highly likely to find the person guilty for being caught in the system and needing a scapegoat, they then use the penalty to reflect their doubt.

 

[reaganburch]

Re: Semantics

"Semantics"

My issue is with "beyond a reasonable doubt", this allows statistical morons to think.

In cases of murder where the punishment levied is a capital sentence the criteria should be proof without a doubt, meaning hard physical evidence.

The concept that the state has the burden of proof depends upon the representation. Prosecutors act as a breed of @$$hole unimaginable to the general public. Truth is set aside for victory. They view hiding the truth as their responsibility if it exhonorates the accused.

If you have ever faced by a jury, innocent, and falsely accused by a prejudicial, lying, perjuring witness, you would understand that one must prove their innocence. Juries are dumb and it is difficult to undo a lie. Few jurors are willing to hold out in principle, and needing for continuing elsewhere, to argue against the majority who vehemently want to convict the innocent over letting the guilty go free.
Heresay accusations come down to a 10 minute job interview to weigh credibility. Resume, background, and circumstantial history are not offered for consideration. Rather than divulge the past, some lawyers see the solution as a gauntlet of whimsical luck, saying as many do here - the burden is on you - prove it. Juries think that foundation is nonsense. The accuse is accused and must be guilty, if not of this crime then something. Juries are highly likely to find the person guilty for being caught in the system and needing a scapegoat, they then use the penalty to reflect their doubt.

I think you & I are on the same page here. I believe in our system of justice, beyond a reasonable doubt, except in capital cases...

There has to be more evidence to sentence to death than just 'he said-she said", circumstantial evidence. There has to be hard evidence, i.e. multiple witnesses, a verifiable confession, DNA, etc. But once that criteria is met, then I believe whole-heartedly in the death penalty... for the non-insane, the criminally insane, even the mentally retarded...

For instance, from what I read about the Scott & Laci Peterson case... the death penalty shouldn't have been given out. There was no hard evidence that he murdered her, just all circumstantial... He was a scoundrel and an a$$wipe, no doubt. I don't doubt he was the murderer, but am I 100% sure? No, and therefore, I cannot give the death penalty.

What about this guy in Florida who confessed to kidnapping, raping and killing Carlie Brucia while high? Death... easy... he confessed and it was verified...

What about the lady in Texas, Andrea Yates, who drowned her 3 sons? Death... easy... she confessed, it was verified, it was definately heinous. Who cares she's insane? She's still a murderer...

The death penalty, as it stands now, is doled out arbitrarily(sp?) by a local prosecuter with more than likely higher aspirations on his/her mind... Unless there is HARD evidence that this person perpetrated(sp?) the crime, then that person gets life...

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I don't believe in the concept of moral culpability. A person who kills without just cause is dangerous, and society has an obligation to make such people not dangerous.

If they can be made not dangerous by treatment, so be it. If not, they can be made not dangerous by execution.

 

[Jay R]

If a dog mauls a child it gets put down. Nobody questions whether the dog is obeying its natural instinct, or if it was mistreated by an owner, or if it just felt a bit crappy that day. It's terminated before the headlines are even printed. It could be a damn good dog, the kid might have been a little s**t, shooting it with a bb gun. It could be a guard dog that was on it's owners property and the kid was tresspassing, maybe to collect a football, maybe to steal something out of his yard. None of that matters. The dog dies regardless. It is held to a level of social responsibility that, it could be argued, a dog is not capable of understanding in the first place.

Why is that a problem when dealing with lunatics? Because they just happen to be born a Homo Sapiens? If I was a dog I'd tell you that's a f**king gip.

There was a case in the UK of a guy who absolutely randomly stabbed a pregnant mother when they passed in the street. She and her twin babies died. No sooner had the newscaster informed us of this and I had already finished deliberating and passed sentence. "Terminate the bastard" (My exact words at the time.)

Then we were informed of his history of mental and psychological illness. Was I hypocrite enough to change my position? Did I roll over and pity this triple murderer? Did I hold him to a lower standard of responsibility than I would a dog? Or more pertinently, a lower standard of responsibility than that to which I would be held as an adult male in an identical situation?

I stand by the judgement I made when presented with solely the facts of the case, before any sentimental prejudice attached to mental illness was allowed to muddy the water. I still say terminate him.

[Incidentally, others in the room did tutt-tutt in my direction when I pronounced sentence, and upon hearing that the culprit was mentally unstable they looked at me, expectant of a compromise. I was delighted to outrage their polite sensibilities. :twisted: ]

 

[reaganburch]

If a dog mauls a child it gets put down. Nobody questions whether the dog is obeying its natural instinct, or if it was mistreated by an owner, or if it just felt a bit crappy that day. It's terminated before the headlines are even printed. It could be a damn good dog, the kid might have been a little s**t, shooting it with a bb gun. It could be a guard dog that was on it's owners property and the kid was tresspassing, maybe to collect a football, maybe to steal something out of his yard. None of that matters. The dog dies regardless. It is held to a level of social responsibility that, it could be argued, a dog is not capable of understanding in the first place.

Why is that a problem when dealing with lunatics? Because they just happen to be born a Homo Sapiens? If I was a dog I'd tell you that's a f**king gip.

There was a case in the UK of a guy who absolutely randomly stabbed a pregnant mother when they passed in the street. She and her twin babies died. No sooner had the newscaster informed us of this and I had already finished deliberating and passed sentence. "Terminate the bastard" (My exact words at the time.)

Then we were informed of his history of mental and psychological illness. Was I hypocrite enough to change my position? Did I roll over and pity this triple murderer? Did I hold him to a lower standard of responsibility than I would a dog? Or more pertinently, a lower standard of responsibility than that to which I would be held as an adult male in an identical situation?

I stand by the judgement I made when presented with solely the facts of the case, before any sentimental prejudice attached to mental illness was allowed to muddy the water. I still say terminate him.

[Incidentally, others in the room did tutt-tutt in my direction when I pronounced sentence, and upon hearing that the culprit was mentally unstable they looked at me, expectant of a compromise. I was delighted to outrage their polite sensibilities. :twisted: ]

I'm glad that I'm not the only person who thinks this way... I got chastised when I said the same thing about Andrea Yates when she murdered her children in a bathtub, lined them up on a bed and called her husband at work to tell him what she did... She should have achieved room temperature by now...

 

[Jerry]

"Euthenasia Or Compassion For The Insane?"

Psych Exam Ordered in Case of Slain Mom

What are the public opinions here?

What is one to do with this type of animal?

Are there any pro-choicers who see an added shock value in the fact that the murdered woman was pregnant?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Are there any pro-choicers who see an added shock value in the fact that the murdered woman was pregnant?

Certainly, for a number of reasons.

 

[reaganburch]

Certainly, for a number of reasons.

Mitigating & aggravating circumstances.... certainly makes the death penalty easier to dole out...

 

[Cammie]

My opinions have been consistent and unchanging on this. You murder, there is beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. DNA can prove it, not just circumstantial evidence, you die... period...

I don't care if you are sane, insane, crazy, had a momentary lack of control, whatever... you die... As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for your room and board for the rest of your miserable existence...

If it's proven by evidence that isn't circumstantial that this 'lady' killed the pregnant woman, her unborn child, and her 3 children... she dies... period... I don't care if she's eat her own excrement crazy...

I will debate this until I turn blue... I won't flame or bomb throw, but my opinions on this are strong...

If a dog mauls a child it gets put down. Nobody questions whether the dog is obeying its natural instinct, or if it was mistreated by an owner, or if it just felt a bit crappy that day. It's terminated before the headlines are even printed. It could be a damn good dog, the kid might have been a little s**t, shooting it with a bb gun. It could be a guard dog that was on it's owners property and the kid was tresspassing, maybe to collect a football, maybe to steal something out of his yard. None of that matters. The dog dies regardless. It is held to a level of social responsibility that, it could be argued, a dog is not capable of understanding in the first place.

Why is that a problem when dealing with lunatics? Because they just happen to be born a Homo Sapiens? If I was a dog I'd tell you that's a f**king gip.

I'll be lazy here and quote you both since I agree 100% and could not have said it better : )