Well this is sad, Mom tells police ''DEVIL'' made her do it.

[JuanBolio]

Its also partly about total insurance that that particular individual never gets to repeat their crimes.

All right, I can agree with that. Put them in rehabilitation, and only let them loose if the chance of repeat is ver small. That gets you the same outcome; they'll never repeat their crimes. There is still a very small chance that wouldn't be there if you shot them, but by what you can learn from them, the chance of new lunatics arising will be less. So at the least, it evens out. And at best, it gives you less lunatics to deal with in the future.

and I'm perfectly willing to spend time and resources trying to rehabilitate a fellow human being... AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT MURDERERS.

So you would if they would simply be child abusers? rapists? If they'd done the most horrible crimes in existence, just short of murdering someone? I'm trying to find why a murderer is a special case for you.

Murder, depriving someone of their life unjustly, is FAR worse to my mind than any child abuse or sexual misconduct. Those things can be gotten oven. Murder? Not so much. The only thing that inspires the same total lack of compassion in me and makes me call for death are officials who abuse their power - such things cannot be tolerated.

As for rehabilitation and imprisonment - that costs money, which will probably be wasted. They can escape. They can be released prematurely and do it again - no matter how small the chance. For what good? When was they last time we cured or vaccinated against a mental illness?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Murder, depriving someone of their life unjustly, is FAR worse to my mind than any child abuse or sexual misconduct. Those things can be gotten oven.

Tell that to traumatized people who've been abused for 10 years straight. Murder would probably be far preferable to some. But, we can agree to disagree.

As for rehabilitation and imprisonment - that costs money, which will probably be wasted. They can escape. They can be released prematurely and do it again - no matter how small the chance. For what good?

a) They deserve to be taken care of, since they are human beings, an no action they might have done is enough to throw that way, and
b) to learn from them, see how we might prevent such things from happening in the future. You can hardly learn much about someone's mental state if he's dead.

When was they last time we cured or vaccinated against a mental illness?

The fact that a mental illness isn't easily "cured" or "vaccinated against" is exactly the reason why we try to help and understand people with such illnesses.

 

[JuanBolio]

Tell that to traumatized people who've been abused for 10 years straight. Murder would probably be far preferable to some. But, we can agree to disagree.

Myself, I'd always prefer to be alive. As long as I am, there's always a chance thing will get better. But, sure, agree to disagree.

a) They deserve to be taken care of, since they are human beings, an no action they might have done is enough to throw that way, and

I can think of lots of human beings who do not deserve to be taken care of. Being human is no special condition. We're animals - nothing more, nothing less.

b) to learn from them, see how we might prevent such things from happening in the future. You can hardly learn much about someone's mental state if he's dead.

Can the experiements at least be as cruel and inhumane as necessary?

That is exactly the reason why we try to help people with mental illnesses.

Maybe... maybe we're just beating our heads against a brick wall.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I can think of lots of human beings who do not deserve to be taken care of. Being human is no special condition. We're animals - nothing more, nothing less.

Who does not deserve to be taken care of? I'd argue that even someone like Hitler, for example, deserves being taken care of, no matter what he has done.

Perhaps it's because of my core belief that Humans are good, and any negative actions on the part of a Human being is due to frustration, loneliness, anger or any other sort of negative emotion, which stem from negative experiences in life, which is then amplified into the extreme until a person "snaps". We aren't born how we are, society has a role in making us how we are. In that aspect, you and I are no different from murderers. In that aspect, we are also no different from animals; a dog can be trained to be a killer by punishing it too much; same with a human being.

Can the experiements at least be as cruel and inhumane as necessary?

Sounds as if that would give you some personal satisfaction.

 

[JuanBolio]

Personal satisfaction? Perhaps it would. I never denied being sadistic - though I do limit my sadism to those whom I feel deserve it.

I agree that there are always circumstances that make us who we are, and I agree than MOST people are basically good. To my mind, however, that doesn't excuse wasting effort on those who seek to kill or cannot help but kill. Do do so brings no good except to those who deserve, by way of their actions, to have no good done unto them. You and I are different from murderers in that we ignore the voices and don't act on the impulses. We think about or actions and realize the effect it would have on us and other people if we were to kill everyone we wanted to.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

You and I are different from murderers in that we ignore the voices and don't act on the impulses. We think about or actions and realize the effect it would have on us and other people if we were to kill everyone we wanted to.

I agree, except that I actually never, in my whole life, had an impulse to kill or physically hurt someone (doesn't mean I don't knock a guy out when he's rude to girls in a club ). I never heard voices, either. Perhaps that makes me insane?

 

[Goliath]

Your own country's declaration of independence says that every man has a right to life

Noble, but not really true.

Why not?

What, after all, is a 'right to life'? Nothing but a general agreement to refrain from killing each other, except under certain circumstances.

Are you saying that you don't agree? That you refuse to sign this particular social contract? That you reserve to yourself the right to decide who should be killed, and who shouldn't?

If so, it sounds to me like you're the one who's truly dangerous, and should be put down, for being hostis humani generis--an enemy of all mankind, like the pirates whose flag you fly.

I think killing someone and eating their flesh qualifies as something to deserve it.

You didn't let me finish. Please let me finish before you reply.

In any case, your position is clearly untenable.

No act, in and of itself, is necessarily deserving of any kind of punishment. Not even 'killing someone and eating their flesh.' Everything depends on the circumstances under which the act was committed.

If I was trapped in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with another man. And if that man tried to murder me, to eat my flesh, and I killed him in self-defence. And if I then ate his flesh, to keep me alive--then what wrong would I have committed? What punishment would I deserve?

None. And most people, I think, would agree that severe mental illness would also represent a mitigating circumstance. Insane people are just not morally responsible agents. Their actions have no more moral significance than a traffic accident or a natural catastrophe. If anything, they deserve our pity.

Shooting an insane person in the head for committing murder makes about as much sense as shooting an automobile in the engine because it got into an accident after its brakes failed. That is to say, no sense at all.

I don't see it as a punishment. I see it as a combination of cure and protection for the rest of us.

Killing a mentally ill person doesn't cure mental illness, any more than killing a flu patient cures the flu. You don't even have the excuse of trying to prevent the disease from spreading.

And as for protecting the rest of us--you've already failed to do that. If you're so concerned with protecting the rest of us, then why aren't you calling for early detection and treatment of these kinds of mental illnesses?

Killing the mother won't protect that little boy. He's already dead. You already fucked that one up--and now you're trying to close the stable door after you let the horse escape, out of sheer indifference.

There's no need, now, to kill that woman to protect the rest of us. She's already in custody, and will likely remain there for the rest of her life. This problem has already been solved.

So the answer to your question "why waste the resources to keep them alive and locked up" is the same as "why waste the resources to keep you alive and free." If someone committed a crime against you, why should any of us pay for police to investigate this crime, and courts to judge, and prisons to punish? Why shouldn't you have to pay for the whole process yourself?

That's if there's doubt or dispute about the nature of the crime or who committed it. Cases like this where the murderer freely admits their guilt should not have resources wasted on them in the same manner.

You misunderstand. It has nothing to do with doubts about guilt or innocence. Read what I said again.

We pay the money to keep this woman alive because we've agreed that she, like everyone else, has a right to life. That is to say: for the same reason we pay money in an effort to deter people from killing you, with police, and courts, and prisons: because you, like everyone else, have a right to life.

If you're not willing to recognize and respect other people's rights, then why should anyone recognize and respect yours?

 

[Kelthaz]

^ Well, I've got nothing to say after that.

*applauds*

 

[RJDiogenes]

Because you advocate cold-bloodedly shooting Human Beings in the head?

Some people are better off shot in the head, and we are better off with them shot in the head as well.

Yup, you're a real super tough guy and you make me laugh. But I answered your question.

 

[JuanBolio]

What, after all, is a 'right to life'? Nothing but a general agreement to refrain from killing each other, except under certain circumstances.

I would consider losing your mind and killing and eating a child to be among those circumstances under which that right should be revoked.

Are you saying that you don't agree? That you refuse to sign this particular social contract? That you reserve to yourself the right to decide who should be killed, and who shouldn't?

I've always reserved that right.

If so, it sounds to me like you're the one who's truly dangerous, and should be put down, for being hostis humani generis--an enemy of all mankind, like the pirates whose flag you fly.

I've never acted on it, much less for evil cause. And I don't believe in preemptive punishment. If however, I did commit and unjust homicide, society would have every right to take my life, if they could. I certainly wouldn't surrender it willingly unless I felt an overpowering sense of guilt or obligation to do so.

No act, in and of itself, is necessarily deserving of any kind of punishment. Not even 'killing someone and eating their flesh.' Everything depends on the circumstances under which the act was committed.

If I was trapped in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with another man. And if that man tried to murder me, to eat my flesh, and I killed him in self-defence. And if I then ate his flesh, to keep me alive--then what wrong would I have committed? What punishment would I deserve?

I grant you that willingly and applaud the thought that went into it, but that clearly was not the case here.

If anything, they deserve our pity.

They have mine.

Shooting an insane person in the head for committing murder makes about as much sense as shooting an automobile in the engine because it got into an accident after its brakes failed. That is to say, no sense at all.

A car's brakes can be fixed, making is safe to drive on the road again. A person's mind is not so easy. And in a person's case, the road is life.

Killing a mentally ill person doesn't cure mental illness, any more than killing a flu patient cures the flu. You don't even have the excuse of trying to prevent the disease from spreading.

You have the reasoning that it will prevent any further atrocities due to that person's faulty hardware/software.

And as for protecting the rest of us--you've already failed to do that. If you're so concerned with protecting the rest of us, then why aren't you calling for early detection and treatment of these kinds of mental illnesses?

Because I don't believe in preemptive punishment, as I've said. Some people are capable of living with these things and harming no one. Until they've proven otherwise I see no reason to take their freedom.

Killing the mother won't protect that little boy.

Of course it won't, but it will prevent it from happening again with the same woman.

There's no need, now, to kill that woman to protect the rest of us. She's already in custody, and will likely remain there for the rest of her life. This problem has already been solved.

There's no guarantee of that.

You misunderstand. It has nothing to do with doubts about guilt or innocence. Read what I said again.

I read what you said. It had no bearing on what I was saying, so I clarified my position.

That is to say: for the same reason we pay money in an effort to deter people from killing you, with police, and courts, and prisons: because you, like everyone else, have a right to life.

I do not require these things, I am capable of detering people from killing me without them. As for her right to life, she forfeited that when she murdered and devoured an infant.

If you're not willing to recognize and respect other people's rights, then why should anyone recognize and respect yours?

I do, I just don't agree with your interpreatation of HER rights as they now stand. You said yourself that under certain circumstances that right is forfeit. In my opinion, this is one such circumstance. As for recognizing and respecting my rights, anyone who wishes to challenge them is welcome to try. That's the real world, after all. No one has any rights but those they can defend and enforce.

Yup, you're a real super tough guy and you make me laugh. But I answered your question.

This has nothing to do with ME being tough, or anyone. Using a gun to kill someone doesn't make you tough, not does executing a restrained prisoner. Both acts require hardly any effort, or skill, and almost zero bravery. I don't understand the point you're trying to make by calling my toughness into question. It is entirely beside the point.