• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

mentally chalenged criminals

if they didnt know any better should mentally ill people be sent to jail?

  • yes(full sentance)

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • no, send them to a specail facility

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • no, no punishment

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • other

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
F

flaherty12

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
3
Location
florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
should mentally chalenged people that commit a crime be sent to jail if they didnt know that what they were doing was wrong?
 
it depends on what they did...........
 
There's absolutely no sense putting them in prison if they're not capable of learning to behave as proper citizens. All you're doing is punishing them.

Depending on how dangerous their crimes, and how treatable their illness, they should either be placed in supervised care or euthanized.
 
flaherty12 said:
should mentally chalenged people that commit a crime be sent to jail if they didnt know that what they were doing was wrong?
Click to expand...

I say yes send their *** to prison/jail,being mentally challenged does not change the fact the crime happen nor does it change the fact that person commit the crime.
 
jamesrage said:
I say yes send their *** to prison/jail,being mentally challenged does not change the fact the crime happen nor does it change the fact that person commit the crime.
Click to expand...

But what is the point of punishing them if they don't understand what they did?
 
Kandahar said:
But what is the point of punishing them if they don't understand what they did?
Click to expand...

Alot of times it is about getting justice for the victims by punishing those who wronged them.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
There's absolutely no sense putting them in prison if they're not capable of learning to behave as proper citizens. All you're doing is punishing them.

Depending on how dangerous their crimes, and how treatable their illness, they should either be placed in supervised care or euthanized.
Click to expand...

sound thinking:2wave:
 
1069 said:
Hells yeah! Euthanize the mentally handicapped. That's using the old noggin.

(... for a hat rack :roll: )
Click to expand...

Why don't you go after the guy who suggested it? are you afraid of going after a monitor? You obviously were not following the thread.
 
TurtleDude said:
Why don't you go after the guy who suggested it? are you afraid of going after a monitor? You obviously were not following the thread.
Click to expand...

I thought I was... :confused:

And no, I'm not afraid of Korimyr.
Despite his intimidating appearance and reputation, he's just a big fuzzy-wuzzy cuddle bear.
Isn't that right, Kori?
 
1069 said:
I thought I was... :confused:

And no, I'm not afraid of Korimyr.
Despite his intimidating appearance and reputation, he's just a big fuzzy-wuzzy cuddle bear.
Isn't that right, Kori?
Click to expand...

I guess that is a belated attempt by you to admit you F' up:mrgreen:
 
1069 said:
Hells yeah! Euthanize the mentally handicapped. That's using the old noggin.
Click to expand...

When a dog is rabid and becomes a danger to society, we find the dog, capture the dog, and put it to sleep. When dealing with sick dogs, we rightfully realize that they are dangerous, but that their condition is not their fault; we don't yell at or beat sick dogs, but at the same time, we know better than allow them to run loose, and we know better than to kennel them with other sick dogs.

Yet we do not apply this sensible reasoning to sick humans-- a species that is at once both much more dangerous than a dog, and more deserving of our sympathies.

I am not suggesting that we euthanize all of the mentally handicapped, or even a significant portion of them. I am suggesting only that we euthanize people whose mental handicaps make them a danger to society-- to spare us the danger they represent and to spare them the indignities that others in this thread would visit upon them.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
When a dog is rabid and becomes a danger to society, we find the dog, capture the dog, and put it to sleep. When dealing with sick dogs, we rightfully realize that they are dangerous, but that their condition is not their fault; we don't yell at or beat sick dogs, but at the same time, we know better than allow them to run loose, and we know better than to kennel them with other sick dogs.

Yet we do not apply this sensible reasoning to sick humans-- a species that is at once both much more dangerous than a dog, and more deserving of our sympathies.

I am not suggesting that we euthanize all of the mentally handicapped, or even a significant portion of them. I am suggesting only that we euthanize people whose mental handicaps make them a danger to society-- to spare us the danger they represent and to spare them the indignities that others in this thread would visit upon them.
Click to expand...


an honest position that has a great deal of common sense behind it
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
When a dog is rabid and becomes a danger to society, we find the dog, capture the dog, and put it to sleep. When dealing with sick dogs, we rightfully realize that they are dangerous, but that their condition is not their fault; we don't yell at or beat sick dogs, but at the same time, we know better than allow them to run loose, and we know better than to kennel them with other sick dogs.

Yet we do not apply this sensible reasoning to sick humans-- a species that is at once both much more dangerous than a dog, and more deserving of our sympathies.

I am not suggesting that we euthanize all of the mentally handicapped, or even a significant portion of them. I am suggesting only that we euthanize people whose mental handicaps make them a danger to society-- to spare us the danger they represent and to spare them the indignities that others in this thread would visit upon them.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. In the case of a mentally ill person harmful to society I believe death is a better fate than being locked up in a psycho ward, but that of course is for the family to decide. It's like the Terri Schiavo situation; in my opinion we shouldn't take the risk of the patient going through extreme suffering and let them die.

I'm going off on a tangent, but my grandpa recently was in the hospital for a week or so and died. My dad and his brother were at the hospital while he was suffering a lot and was barely staying alive. The doctors (at a Catholic hospital) wanted to pull the plug and so did my dad, but my uncle pulled out the Catholic card and wouldn't let him die, even though he was obviously in an extreme amount of pain. He finally succumbed after hours of arguing, but those hours were horrible for my grandpa and I still don't see my uncle the same. It could be the same with mentally ill people; they could be in mental and emotional pain and even more so being locked up in something basically the same as prison. Once again euthanasia is a good idea.
 
In every respect, Korimyr's is an excellent post. I am not sure I agree with everything in it, but I find it reasonable and persuasive.

Korimyr the Rat said:
When a dog is rabid and becomes a danger to society, we find the dog, capture the dog, and put it to sleep. When dealing with sick dogs, we rightfully realize that they are dangerous, but that their condition is not their fault; we don't yell at or beat sick dogs, but at the same time, we know better than allow them to run loose, and we know better than to kennel them with other sick dogs.

Yet we do not apply this sensible reasoning to sick humans-- a species that is at once both much more dangerous than a dog, and more deserving of our sympathies.
Click to expand...

The only problem I have with this is precisely that we are talking humans here, instead of a dog. I consider 'crimes' committed by the truly insane to be the result of a force of nature, like a tornado or earthquake. However, even though I don't think that they are responsible to us, I think we ought to be responsible toward them. Shouldn't we attempt to cure them? If we can't, then shouldn't we attempt to find a cure, so that in the future we will be able to cure them? If we had a cure for rabies, I think we would certainly cure the dog rather than kill it. However, in the case of insane humans, we have to keep them around in order to devise a cure.
 
Dezaad said:
The only problem I have with this is precisely that we are talking humans here, instead of a dog. I consider 'crimes' committed by the truly insane to be the result of a force of nature, like a tornado or earthquake. However, even though I don't think that they are responsible to us, I think we ought to be responsible toward them. Shouldn't we attempt to cure them? If we can't, then shouldn't we attempt to find a cure, so that in the future we will be able to cure them? If we had a cure for rabies, I think we would certainly cure the dog rather than kill it. However, in the case of insane humans, we have to keep them around in order to devise a cure.
Click to expand...

My problem with keeping people alive that have to be locked up is that those aren't suitable living conditions for someone who is obviously in a lot of mental and emotional pain. If the person can live at home then by all means let them, but unless the family insists I don't think someone who committed no crime deserves to live in pain. Of course it's a case-by-case judgment on the pain, but if they're obviously suffering why keep them alive in an asylum?

I agree we need to keep some people around to help find a cure, but why make someone wait in pain on the hope of a cure when there's no definitive chance one will be discovered?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
When a dog is rabid and becomes a danger to society, we find the dog, capture the dog, and put it to sleep. When dealing with sick dogs, we rightfully realize that they are dangerous, but that their condition is not their fault; we don't yell at or beat sick dogs, but at the same time, we know better than allow them to run loose, and we know better than to kennel them with other sick dogs.

Yet we do not apply this sensible reasoning to sick humans-- a species that is at once both much more dangerous than a dog, and more deserving of our sympathies.

I am not suggesting that we euthanize all of the mentally handicapped, or even a significant portion of them. I am suggesting only that we euthanize people whose mental handicaps make them a danger to society-- to spare us the danger they represent and to spare them the indignities that others in this thread would visit upon them.
Click to expand...


I was going to post something like this, but you posted it first and much better than I could have said in the first place... I agree 100%
 
Dezaad said:
However, even though I don't think that they are responsible to us, I think we ought to be responsible toward them. Shouldn't we attempt to cure them?
Click to expand...

Certainly. However, we must balance our responsibility to cure them with our responsibility to refrain from subjecting them to abuse and indignity-- not to mention our responsibilities to everyone else.

My original post did mention supervised treatment, as long as it was both humane and secure. The problem is, I am not convinced that our current system is either, and current attempts at reform-- whether to increase humanity or to increase security-- seem to be operating from misguided priorities.
 
i think that metally challenged criminals should go to an insane asilum or somewhere where they can get treated. depending on the criminal of course, i don't believe that they knew what they we doing was wrong.
 
nort_12345 said:
i think that metally challenged criminals should go to an insane asilum or somewhere where they can get treated. depending on the criminal of course, i don't believe that they knew what they we doing was wrong.
Click to expand...

But why should they be punished for doing something they didn't do? Asylums are horrible places and many mentally ill people are in a lot of emotional and mental pain, so why lock them up? Of course this is for the family to decide and it depends on a case-by-case judgment of pain.
 
saggyjones said:
I mean something they didn't voluntarily do, sorry.
Click to expand...

well they should not be free to go where they want because they already commited a crime. they are mental so they most likely will do it again or commit a different crime. if the person is so mental that they commit a crime that they didn't know was wrong or something like that, then they shouldn't be free to do what they please.
 
nort_12345 said:
well they should not be free to go where they want because they already commited a crime. they are mental so they most likely will do it again or commit a different crime. if the person is so mental that they commit a crime that they didn't know was wrong or something like that, then they shouldn't be free to do what they please.
Click to expand...

I don't think you read any of my earlier posts, so I should have clarified. I agreed with Korimyr in that we should euthanize these mentally ill people who are a threat to society but would undergo a great deal of pain and suffering in an asylum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom