Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

I must say, it is a novel argument:
"The death penalty was grand when we could turn Protestants and other heretics over to the State to be executed, but now it might be used against us we should be anti-capital punishment."

Absolute classic!

It's just an idea I had - I'm not saying it is the policy of the Church.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

It's just an idea I had - I'm not saying it is the policy of the Church.

Oh I never suggested it was the policy of the Church. You appear to be very far removed from your Church's policy on the issue of capital punishment.

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

Oh I never suggested it was the policy of the Church. You appear to be very far removed from your Church's policy on the issue of capital punishment.

So it appears to you, a non-Catholic. You won't understand that there are things that good Catholics can disagree about amongst themselves whilst all the while remaining Catholics in good standing. One of those areas is the application of such things as the death penalty. Another would be liturgical preferences. Then there are things we cannot disagree about, for example the non-possibility of women priests, contraception, abortion, or homosexuality.

The Church teachings about the death penalty require application, which the Church would leave to the state to apply.

''The teaching on the death penalty has a prudential requirement built into it; but who gets to make the judgment?'' See here for a discussion between good Catholics.

As far as the Church is concerned, the death penalty is not always morally wrong.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

So it appears to you, a non-Catholic. You won't understand that there are things that good Catholics can disagree about amongst themselves whilst all the while remaining Catholics in good standing. One of those areas is the application of such things as the death penalty. Another would be liturgical preferences. Then there are things we cannot disagree about, for example the non-possibility of women priests, contraception, abortion, or homosexuality.

The Church teachings about the death penalty require application, which the Church would leave to the state to apply.

''The teaching on the death penalty has a prudential requirement built into it; but who gets to make the judgment?'' See here for a discussion between good Catholics.

As far as the Church is concerned, the death penalty is not always morally wrong.

Not at all. Your Church's Catechism on this subject is perfectly easy to understand by any literate Catholic or non-Catholic:

Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church wrote:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Btw, the quotation at the end is from Pope John Paul II.

Tenerife, as part of Spain, certainly has the facilities to protect the public by keeping this guy in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

According to your own Church's catechism the only possible justification for executing someone is if the State is incapable of finding another way to protect the public. Cost is not a factor. The severity of the crime is not a factor. Your opinions on this issue are plainly in defiance of your own Church's teaching.

Unless, of course, you want to allegorise the Cathechism so the words don't really mean what they actually say ........

thebullkf

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Because no statistically valid study has shown the death penalty to be a deterrent, at least that I'm aware of.



In 2008 a study was carried out which found that 88% of the US' leading criminologists believed there to be no correlation between the death penalty and decreased crime rates. The believed it wasn't a deterrent. link.

Beyond that, even take a look at the per popula murder rates in non-death penalty states vs. the rates in death penalty states. link. The opposite is startlingly true, though. States with the death penalty have, on average, year after year, a higher homicide rate.

Does it matter that he's an economist? I'd have thought the statistics provided would speak for themselves. Typical ad hominem.



No, I'm asking you to think about it yourself and see does it make logical sense to conclude that the death penalty is a deterrent.



Ok, you've admitted half of what I've asked. "Crimes of passion are rarely logical", that's true. So do you think the person commiting the crime is really thinking about the consequences of his actions? Is he reasoning whether or not to kill the person based on logic? I doubt it. So, it's hardly a deterrent.

Would it be a deterrent to somebody who's mentally unsound? Again, I doubt it. They're hardly in a position to think thoroughly about the consequences of their actions.

And finally, you'll find that premeditated murders are often very logical. The person often considers every conceivable possibility, yet they still commit the crime. Would the death penalty appear to be a deterrent to them?

please see the lins i've provided.

it is a deterrent, proven.

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

You copy and paste a Pro arguement from a website that argues the pros and cons. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

I'd say that the jury is out (not, as I've said, that it holds too much importance for me).

pro arguement???

it gives stats on both sides.

thebullkf

PDN wrote: »

I have to say that is one of the most cack-handed examples of interpretation of the Bible I've ever seen.

it wasn't meant as an intepretation, it was for comparison purposes. ffs:rolleyes:

The big problem, of course, is that you can use it to argue that the crime of theft deserves not just the death penalty, but a slow lingering painful death in public.

well you could.

So, do you advocate that shop-lifters should be tortured to death in Grafton Street?

yes, yes thats exactly what i'm saying.

*not actually true*

thebullkf

thebullkf wrote: »

please see the lins i've provided.

it is a deterrent, proven.

It's been proven? Oh, so 88% of the US' top criminologists in the survey I've linked to are just spouting rubbish? How foolish of them. I suppose all of my other points were just rubbish too, then.

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Your Church's Catechism on this subject is perfectly easy to understand by any literate Catholic or non-Catholic:

Btw, the quotation at the end is from Pope John Paul II.

Tenerife, as part of Spain, certainly has the facilities to protect the public by keeping this guy in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

According to your own Church's catechism the only possible justification for executing someone is if the State is incapable of finding another way to protect the public. Cost is not a factor. The severity of the crime is not a factor. Your opinions on this issue are plainly in defiance of your own Church's teaching.

Unless, of course, you want to allegorise the Cathechism so the words don't really mean what they actually say ........

Noooo PDN...

The bit you quoted from the Catechism includes an opinion of Pope John Paul II which is not binding.

In matters governing social stability and public safety, prudential judgement is inevitable. Moreover, the authority for judgement in this sphere is not given to the Church. It is the province of the “secular arm”—the legitimately constituted civil authority—to decide what is and is not sufficient to protect public safety.

Now, since the Church teaches that non-lethal means of punishment must be used whenever they are sufficient, no Catholic politician or ruler worthy of the name will attempt to impose the death penalty in cases where he does not believe it necessary to protect the public safety. But politicians, rulers, States and, indeed, the man in the street, may reasonably differ over whether capital punishment is necessary to protect the public safety in our time and under our circumstances.

In Evangelium Vitae 27, the Pope states that “modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.” And, as we have seen in Point 2 cited above, in EV 56 he argues specifically that the improvement in modern penal systems renders the death penalty unnecessary for the protection of public safety.

It is, I think, unfortunate that this prudential judgement was added to the Catechism. No matter how valuable it may be, the protection of the Holy Spirit does not apply to it, nor can such judgements ever be part of the Church’s Magisterium. The Church has no special gift for discerning the capabilities of the modern age in comparison with past ages, the quality of the world’s penitentiaries, or —to return to the main point—what is necessary for the protection of the public safety. For this reason, her opinions on this subject do not properly belong in catechisms. URL="http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=15"]Source[/URL

Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the CDF under Pope JPII said the following, with regard to Catholics' worthiness to receive Holy Communion:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.

For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

So there you have it, from the very man who helped put the Catechism together and is now Pope! I can disagree with Pope John Paul II (or even Benedict XVI) about the particular application of the death penalty or war, and still be in perfect communion with my Church. I can argue my case that this man is a danger and will remain so even in prison where officers (who are members of society and deserve protection) and all who come into contact with him might be at serious risk. I can also argue that his crime warrants death in reparation for his crime. I can do all this whilst still remaining a good Catholic.

That's the great thing about Catholicism - only in the Catholic Church can the saying attributed to St. Augustine be truly applied:

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

thebullkf

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's been proven? Oh, so 88% of the US' top criminologists in the survey I've linked to are just spouting rubbish? How foolish of them. I suppose all of my other points were just rubbish too, then.

why would assume that?...is it because you dismissed my linked articles
too easily.

Dudess

Donatello wrote: »

False compassion.

"False" because it suits your argument to say it is? How are you so sure it's false seeing as you're very doubtfully a mind-reader? I don't have much sympathy for the guy, but I have a tiny bit (even if it's hugely eclipsed by my sympathy for the woman and her loved ones) because if he wasn't ill, he wouldn't have done it. He should be detained for life or until he is without doubt well enough (the latter an unlikely scenario).

Execution advocated by followers of Jesus Christ. I despair...

Donatello

Dudess wrote: »

"False" because it suits your argument to say it is? How are you so sure it's false seeing as you're very doubtfully a mind-reader? I don't have much sympathy for the guy, but I have a tiny bit (even if it's hugely eclipsed by my sympathy for the woman and her loved ones) because if he wasn't ill, he wouldn't have done it. He should be detained for life or until he is without doubt well enough (the latter an unlikely scenario).

Execution advocated by followers of Jesus Christ. I despair...

False compassion, I said before, has more sympathy for criminals than victims.

You may remember that the God of the Old Testament (Who happens to be the God of the New Testament) allowed for the death penalty. People have this fluffy idea of Jesus as someone who stroked kittens all day and helped old ladies cross the road and never had an angry word about anyone. I suggest they read the Gospels. Not only that, but the Church teaches with Christ's authority and allows for the death penalty in limited circumstances.

So, are you telling me that the only people who do bad things are mentally ill?

Hitler = mentally ill?

Stalin = mentally ill?

Jack the Ripper = mentally ill?

Tenerife headhunter = mentally ill?

So, is there any scope for personal sin and responsibility? Is it just the mentally ill do bad things, like kill, rape, etc...

Have you seen the wicked look in the eyes of serial killers, rapists, and child abusers? Do you not believe in the reality of evil? Do you deny that people can give themselves over the evil?

See, this is the problem. When you remove the whole concept of sin, all you are left with is claims of mental illness, and then nobody can really be held responsible for anything bad that they do. free will also goes out the window because we are all just animals, slaves to our disordered passions.

Even people who do other stuff of a less serious nature, like steal cars, can appeal to a poor upbringing leading to emotional disturbance and unhappiness leading to acting out by stealing cars. They're mentally ill, right? Or maybe just unstable. Or unbalanced. Or unhappy.

Does personal responsibility for wrong-doing (/sin) figure at all in your world?

The God of the OT sure did have a penchant for the death penalty. By my last count he killed 371,186 himself, and ordered the deaths of a further 1.86 million; figures that would put some of the 21st century's worst dictators to shame! But I digress...

wolfsbane

The Biblical argument for CP is not that it is more economical than life imprisonment - though it certainly is, if we cut out the endless appeals.

Neither is it that it is a better deterrence. I'm not sure that life-without-parole is not more terrible a prospect to many.

It is this: CP is the fitting punishment for murder. Loss of the murderer's life reminds society of the gravity of the offence - a violation of the sacredness of human life. The perpetrator is sent immediately to face God for his crime.

The objection that it merely compounds the offence - another killing of a human being - is invalid, for it is not by man's idea or authority that CP is carried out. It is God who has authorised it. He has determined the correct punishment for murder, so it is not another murder.

**************************************************************************
Genesis 9:5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Numbers 35:33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The God of the OT sure did have a penchant for the death penalty. By my last count he killed 371,186 himself, and ordered the deaths of a further 1.86 million; figures that would put some of the 21st century's worst dictators to shame! But I digress...

Really? 21st century? We've not had much opportunity to engage in mass killing ony ten years in to the new century, so let's look at the 20th century:

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000

Dudess

Wo... lots and lotsa assumptions in your post - as expected.

Donatello wrote: »

False compassion, I said before, has more sympathy for criminals than victims.

Who has?
I specifically stated I have much more compassion for the victim by the way (shouldn't need to say it, but I'd a feeling I would ).

You may remember that the God of the Old Testament (Who happens to be the God of the New Testament) allowed for the death penalty. People have this fluffy idea of Jesus as someone who stroked kittens all day and helped old ladies cross the road and never had an angry word about anyone. I suggest they read the Gospels. Not only that, but the Church teaches with Christ's authority and allows for the death penalty in limited circumstances.

I'm talking about the dude who was born in Bethlehem and lived on earth.

So, are you telling me that the only people who do bad things are mentally ill?

I don't know - and it's quite a leap by you, seeing as I was only talking about one man who was diagnosed by folk who'd know a hell of a lot more about mental illness than you or I would, but... anyway... Peeps like you are quite fond of the auld strawmen aren't ye?

Hitler = mentally ill?

Stalin = mentally ill?

Jack the Ripper = mentally ill?

Maybe.

Tenerife headhunter = mentally ill?

I believe we have established that fact - do you really require confirmation again?

So, is there any scope for personal sin and responsibility?

There sure is.

Is it just the mentally ill do bad things, like kill, rape, etc...

I don't know - did I say that? Oh wait... no you just assumed I did because it suits you.

Have you seen the wicked look in the eyes of serial killers, rapists, and child abusers?

No, apart from the movies - as I'm sure is the case for you. I have seen some news footage all right - not a wicked look though, just a dead-eyed one. Of someone with no human empathy.

Do you not believe in the reality of evil? Do you deny that people can give themselves over the evil?

I, just like you, don't know. It's very easy to stick a label called "evil" on someone and forget about them. God forbid we'd actually research why a person's mind would be like that in order to go some way towards sick stuff not being repeated. It's comforting to just ascribe an otherworldly "evil" persona to someone - like a monster in a children's fairytale. The possibility that it could be a normal person with a messed up mind is too much for many to take.

See, this is the problem. When you remove the whole concept of sin, all you are left with is claims of mental illness, and then nobody can really be held responsible for anything bad that they do. free will also goes out the window because we are all just animals, slaves to our disordered passions.

Even people who do other stuff of a less serious nature, like steal cars, can appeal to a poor upbringing leading to emotional disturbance and unhappiness leading to acting out by stealing cars. They're mentally ill, right? Or maybe just unstable. Or unbalanced. Or unhappy.

Does personal responsibility for wrong-doing (/sin) figure at all in your world?

I love the way you imply with your "at all" that it doesn't. Why are you so sure it doesn't? It absolutely does - I'd be a bit Daily Mail-ish about personal responsibility actually. I consider the abdication of it to be a serious problem. I fully agree, despite a person's background - no matter how awful, despite a person being mentally ill (once they have control over their actions) personal agency figures in there too. Just because I consider it possible that Hitler was mentally ill doesn't mean I don't think he was a hateful degenerate who knew what he was doing. I believe he and all those you mentioned deserved to be punished.

The man in this case ("the maniac" as you put it - how mature ) was insane to the point of not having control over what he did. That's just a fact - it's not an attempt to divert blame from him, it's just the way it was. But he should be locked up forever as he is dangerous.

This is the problem with folks who have your views - you claim if someone doesn't agree with the death penalty they immediately have sympathy for the perpetrator, as if there's no in-between. There's a LOT in-between - and you'd do well to actually put some thought into it...

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Really?

My comment was intended as a lighthearted remark; I didn't actually want to compare the figures. I thought that would be obvious...

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

pro arguement???

it gives stats on both sides.

Yes. And you chose to c/p from one side only

thebullkf

Dudess wrote: »

Wo... lots and lotsa assumptions in your post - as expected.

how nice:)

I'm talking about the dude who was born in Bethlehem and lived on earth.

Peeps like you are quite fond of the auld strawmen aren't ye?

very respectful

I don't know - did I say that? Oh wait... no you just assumed I did because it suits you.

No, apart from the movies - as I'm sure is the case for you. I have seen some news footage all right - not a wicked look though, just a dead-eyed one.

what where you saying about assumptions...

Of someone with no human empathy.

is that not a close enough comparison to evil?.. for to have no empathy, is to have no compassion,or feeling for wht the other person is feeling

I, just like you, don't know. It's very easy to stick a label called "evil" on someone and forget about them. God forbid we'd actually research why a person's mind would be like that in order to go some way towards sick stuff not being repeated. It's comforting to just ascribe an otherworldly "evil" persona to someone - like a monster in a children's fairytale. The possibility that it could be a normal person with a messed up mind is too much for many to take.

i disagree, i think there are too many labels bandied about for causes of peoples actions, once something has a label, actions can be ascribed to it, and 'treatment' is sought.

I love the way you imply with your "at all" that it doesn't. Why are you so sure it doesn't? It absolutely does

so he can't be totally sure....but you can

- I'd be a bit Daily Mail-ish about personal responsibility actually. I consider the abdication of it to be a serious problem. I fully agree, despite a person's background - no matter how awful, despite a person being mentally ill (once they have control over their actions) personal agency figures in there too. Just because I consider it possible that Hitler was mentally ill doesn't mean I don't think he was a hateful degenerate who knew what he was doing. I believe he and all those you mentioned deserved to be punished.[

agree.

The man in this case ("the maniac" as you put it - how mature )

"dude"... "peeps"....:)

was insane to the point of not having control over what he did. That's just a fact - it's not an attempt to divert blame from him, it's just the way it was. But he should be locked up forever as he is dangerous.

good point

This is the problem with folks who have your views - you claim if someone doesn't agree with the death penalty they immediately have sympathy for the perpetrator, as if there's no in-between.

why do you assume that

how many people do you know with "his views" ?

There's a LOT in-between - and you'd do well to actually put some thought into it...

as would you, you expected lots of assumptions in his post, yet provided some of your own, seems hypocrital.:)

Stark

Donatello wrote: »

Hitler = mentally ill?

Hitler had millions of people do terrible things because he was able to whip the populace into a frenzy about the enemy in their midst. Same as with any other genocide in history. It's a slippery slope once you start running through your list of "undesirables" to be executed.

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. And you chose to c/p from one side only

i'll have to double check, as i thought it stated the cost for LWOP as opposed to CP


In ireland in 2009 it was 150k to keep a prisonerin jail.....

2010- 77,000...still the guts of 100,000 dollars...:eek:



EDIT: does this help?

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

dvpower

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is this: CP is the fitting punishment for murder. Loss of the murderer's life reminds society of the gravity of the offence - a violation of the sacredness of human life. The perpetrator is sent immediately to face God for his crime.

I don't get it. Not executing someone, even if they have committed the worst imaginable crime reminds society that human life is so sacred that it will not be taken unless there is no way around it.
When the state starts to take lives, it reduces the sacredness of human life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The objection that it merely compounds the offence - another killing of a human being - is invalid, for it is not by man's idea or authority that CP is carried out. It is God who has authorised it. He has determined the correct punishment for murder, so it is not another murder.

But even God's followers are split on the issue, never mind society at large. Perhaps it should be discontinued until there is a consensus, just to ally any fear that its just man made vengeance after all.

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

EDIT: does this help?

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

I wouldn't be putting forward California as a case study. They have the death penalty on the books but rarely use it (I think it an average of 1 per year). They still maintain the apparatus but it costs so much that it puts their cost per person executed at something around $100m.
A few years ago the Governor asked for a budget allocation of $200m to build a new death row.

Edit: I was wrong in my figure for that death row. It was $365m, not $200m, but they had the good sense to cancel it.
They've only executed 13 people since 1976.

Donatello

Dudess wrote: »

I'm talking about the dude who was born in Bethlehem and lived on earth.

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.

I think many non-Christians and even Christians have a mistaken understanding of Who this God is.

Check Romans 13 (The Inspired Word, btw):

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. [2] Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. [3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. [5] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

The fact is, God allowed for the death penalty in the Old Testament, as well as in the New.

Dudess

thebullkf wrote: »

how nice:)

Wasn't meant to be nice - just stating what I expected. And I was right.

very respectful

Wasn't trying to be respectful - it was provoked anyway by all the assumptions, which weren't too respectful of me were they?

what where you saying about assumptions

Well ok, but from my own experience, a "wicked look in the eye" of rapists and murderers is more prevalent in the movies than in real life.

is that not a close enough comparison to evil?.. for to have no empathy, is to have no compassion,or feeling for wht the other person is feeling

I don't know whether "evil" exists is all I'm saying - it doesn't mean that I'm excusing awful acts though. Maybe evil does exist, but maybe evil things are done by people who are mentally damaged. Doesn't make them any better - they're still despicable and deserve to be punished.

i disagree, i think there are too many labels bandied about for causes of peoples actions, once something has a label, actions can be ascribed to it, and 'treatment' is sought.

Who gets treatment? For me, anything like that such as research would be for the greater good, not for the good of the person who has carried out heinous acts. Understanding what causes evil acts might help eradicate them surely?

so he can't be totally sure....but you can

Don't know what you mean - he was assuming I don't take into consideration personal responsibility, but I just told him that I very much do.

You only have to look at a number of threads on Boards at the moment, Bulk, to see how people who want this man executed have a very black and white view of the world and don't have any interest in critical thinking. "You don't agree with the death penalty? You obviously think prisoners deserve to stay in hotels" kinda stuff. Some people like to keep the world so simple as it's way too much hassle to face up to how extremely complex it is...

Asry

...As somebody with who has unfortunately spent the last decade in and out of psychiatric care, I find the premise for this thread absolutely disgusting and I'm surprised that it is being allowed to continue.

Free will has little to do with those who are afflicted by mental ill health. They need care, no guards and cells. By all means keep them contained in a maximum security facility, but the poor lady that man killed, and her loved ones, are not the only ones who are suffering. He should never be left in the position to do such an appalling thing again, but I firmly refuse to believe that the death penalty is the answer.

Aside from care during his lifetime, perhaps such a person could undergo even further study to enable humans to perhaps discover why such dreadful sicknesses could develop in the human mind - and to find ways of preventing them or curing them.

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

...As somebody with who has unfortunately spent the last decade in and out of psychiatric care, I find the premise for this thread absolutely disgusting and I'm surprised that it is being allowed to continue.

Free will has little to do with those who are afflicted by mental ill health. They need care, no guards and cells. By all means keep them contained in a maximum security facility, but the poor lady that man killed, and her loved ones, are not the only ones who are suffering. He should never be left in the position to do such an appalling thing again, but I firmly refuse to believe that the death penalty is the answer.

Aside from care during his lifetime, perhaps such a person could undergo even further study to enable humans to perhaps discover why such dreadful sicknesses could develop in the human mind - and to find ways of preventing them or curing them.

Lots of people are afflicted with mental health issues. I am sure only a small minority are a risk to other people.

I read somewhere that the greatest madman ever knows, in their deepest being, that what they do is evil.

This man should be placed out of reach of innocent persons. He can never be trusted again.

I do not advocate his death, but I would think it is a possibly justifiable option. I am saying that this case was cause for me to look again at my near blanket opposition to the death penalty, such that I now believe that some crimes are so bad that they call for it.

That poor woman did nothing wrong. She was stalked in the streets and then decapitated like an animal.

How would you feel if this man were detained for 8 years and then released, only to do the same again? Will you come back to me and plead mercy? One more chance? How many people must die before we take the action necessary to protect society?

Festus

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I really would love to see you make that argument. Fire away.

Already have. see this discussion

Festus

Asry wrote: »

Aside from care during his lifetime, perhaps such a person could undergo even further study to enable humans to perhaps discover why such dreadful sicknesses could develop in the human mind - and to find ways of preventing them or curing them.

Excorcism comes to mind.

One problem with your option. Can he give informed consent as per Helsinki Declaration?

Asry

LOL Festus you're silly :P Of course I didn't mean chop him up. Just observation and stuff, the way medical teams do with every patient in a hospital.