He did it again-Interpol is looking for him

[John Picard]

My point is - if they are born without the abilty to empathise, born without a conscience - is it their fault, even though they know that society will regard their actions as crime? Should we punish them both for their sickness and their crimes? Would you be happy to see them tortured?

In my country (and most Western countries) putting them to death isn't an option so all we have if "life imprisonment - never to be released". There is only one prisoner with this sentence in Tasmania.

Um, kind of a no-brainer. If the individual cannot effectively function as a part of society without harming other individuals, then the individual should be segregated from society. Period.

I have said he should be separated from society - what I am asking is if he should be put to death or tortured in any way i.e. "punished" beyond being locked up to keep society safe.

Yes, you did say that and I apologize for not addressing those questions.

Torture and the death penalty should not be condoned. Life imprisonment is sufficient punishment along with observation and treatment.

There are sociopaths in society who do not commit murder, rape, or any other number of crimes.

 

[scotpens]

My view of that only a sick society wants to stoop to the same level of killers it despises.

This is true. Mental illness is as much beyond the control of the patient as diabetes or a cleft palate or any other medical condition.

But how do we define mental illness? There's a difference between a psychotic and a psychopath (or sociopath). A delusional schizophrenic, for example, may believe he's God's avenging angel or may hear voices in his head telling him to kill. He has diminished mental capacity and may be judged not responsible for his acts. A sociopath, by contrast, is well aware of what he's doing, and knows it's wrong. At least in theory, he has free choice in his behavior. And he voluntarily CHOOSES to do evil.

As for the ethics of the death penalty per se, I think that's a topic for another thread.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The etiology can be studied and diagnosed by professionals, but anybody who is deficient enough in conscience to want to kill and chooses to do it is suffering from a mental illness, which is beyond their control.

 

[scotpens]

The etiology can be studied and diagnosed by professionals, but anybody who is deficient enough in conscience to want to kill and chooses to do it is suffering from a mental illness, which is beyond their control.

The entire criminal justice system is predicated on the notion that adults are personally responsible for their acts. If a deficiency of conscience excuses a killer from being held accountable for his actions, then what about the habitual criminal? The rapist? The child molester? I mean, we're talking MAJOR slippery slope here.

 

[Miss Chicken]

We are not saying that there should not be a consequence for their actions - in fact I have said that sociopaths who kill should be locked up for the remainder of their lives because, at this stage, their condition cannot be cured.

However I cannot condone the killing or torture of a person if their actions are a result of them being mentally ill. Actually I cannot condone killing and torture of anyone, no matter their crime.

The justice system should be primarily concerned about rehabilitation and the containment for those who cannot be rehabilitated.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

This is true. Mental illness is as much beyond the control of the patient as diabetes or a cleft palate or any other medical condition.

What's horrifying is the allegedly sane people who use tragedies like this as an excuse to express their own lust for violence and death.

QFT.

Illness is one thing. If you have a diagnosable, provable condition to where you literally did not have any idea what you were doing or that it was wrong (and this should be a strict standard, as NOT all mental conditions cause a break with reality or loose all restraints on your actions), then absolutely being committed to a mental health facility for life is the appropriate response for someone who has done something violent. If you cannot make a provable medical diagnosis, then it is a matter of the decision you made, and decisions have consequences.

 

[Data Holmes]

The etiology can be studied and diagnosed by professionals, but anybody who is deficient enough in conscience to want to kill and chooses to do it is suffering from a mental illness, which is beyond their control.

I wouldn't agree with that. I'd say it's more of a social illness than a mental one. Because the placement of such actions on the "wrong/bad" side of the equation is done so solely because of socially imposed definitions of right and wrong, and currently dictated by society laws. Both of which can, have, and do change over the course of time.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Nonsense. We're not talking about a crime of passion or whether a society allows dueling. We're talking about somebody who kills without remorse; in this case, repeatedly.

The entire criminal justice system is predicated on the notion that adults are personally responsible for their acts. If a deficiency of conscience excuses a killer from being held accountable for his actions, then what about the habitual criminal? The rapist? The child molester? I mean, we're talking MAJOR slippery slope here.

The entire criminal justice system is not predicated on the notion that all adults are personally responsible for their actions. The law is well aware of mental illness, and accounts for it.

Illness is one thing. If you have a diagnosable, provable condition to where you literally did not have any idea what you were doing or that it was wrong (and this should be a strict standard, as NOT all mental conditions cause a break with reality or loose all restraints on your actions), then absolutely being committed to a mental health facility for life is the appropriate response for someone who has done something violent. If you cannot make a provable medical diagnosis, then it is a matter of the decision you made, and decisions have consequences.

Repeatedly killing without remorse is proof. Beyond that, it's just the details of the diagnosis.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

If you have not truly broken with reality, though, then you know what you're doing and you have a choice in it. Being an alcoholic does not excuse you from the consequences of drunk driving, for instance, and being depressed (which I HAVE experienced periods of, so I speak from experience) does not automatically mean you will lash out at yourself or others...it IS possible to recognize what's going on and with much effort, continue to make rational decisions. Someone who is outright delusional, however, lacks the proper information to make such a decision. And it's up to the professionals to make that judgment call on a case-by-case basis.

 

[scotpens]

The entire criminal justice system is not predicated on the notion that all adults are personally responsible for their actions. The law is well aware of mental illness, and accounts for it.

Notice I didn't say ALL adults. The default assumption is that an adult is responsible for his or her behavior unless proven to the contrary.

Repeatedly killing without remorse is proof. Beyond that, it's just the details of the diagnosis.

When someone repeatedly kills without remorse -- assuming the person hasn't lost touch with reality and knows what he's doing is wrong -- it's proof that the killer is simply evil.

As Nerys Ghemor pointed out, it's up to the psychiatric profession to make the call. The point is, there IS a significant difference.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Only if

born without the ability to empathise = evil
born without a conscience = evil

without to ability to emphasis a sociopath would have no more of a guilty conscience to killing as he would have to stealing a packet of chewing gum. He would know that society regards one as more serious but he himself would never feel an emotion difference between the two.

I don't believe that people can be evil as I don't believe in the existence of evil. I do believe that there is good in nearly all people and that that sociopaths lack that 'goodness' but that is not saying that that makes them evil. Evil would have to be the addition of something else.

I would say that sociopaths are morally blind. They cannot empathise with other people so they can only do what they think is good for themselves. The fact that the only person that matters to them is themselves is their sickness, but it is a sickness not evil.

As I said they should be imprisoned to safeguard society but they should not be punished for a sickness they cannot help. No-one makes a conscious choice to be a sociopath.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I would also like people to tell m if there was anything wrong with my statement

The justice system should be primarily concerned about rehabilitation and the containment for those who cannot be rehabilitated.

Should the justice system be doing anything more than these two things?

Edited to add - I would also consider deterrence should be an aim of the justice system.

What I think shouldn't be an aim part of the justice system is vengeance.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Rehabilitation is for minor criminals--those who simply made a bad decision and already show remorse. Containment should be for all others. Securing restitution and peace for the victims SHOULD also be an aim of the justice system. While some of that goes through the civil courts (particularly when it comes to financial damages), restitution is key in any case. That isn't revenge--that's restoring to the victim what is rightfully theirs. And frankly I am of the mindset that when life is taken (and I personally think rape should fall in this category too, because of the extreme damage to the spirit), then since the act cannot be done or the life cannot be restored, then something must stand in for that restitution. The criminal should either be put to death or imprisoned for life.

Now, I do think we have to exercise great caution with the death penalty--I think that the standard of evidence has to be very high and I would not be averse to a law that DNA evidence would be required for a death-penalty conviction. The state should have to pay for that and IMHO it should be confirmed by two labs. But if this rigorous standard can be satisfied then I do think the death penalty can be applied. I do not view this as revenge and I do not think it should be enjoyed, but rather mourned. But I truly think there are those that are too dangerous to be permitted to live.

 

[Miss Chicken]

If a battered wife kills her abusive husband while he sleeps should she be executed?

What about the possibility of a man's DNA was found at a murder scene but he not being the killer? For example he had consensual sex with a woman and that woman is later raped and killed by a man wearing a condom.

 

[RJDiogenes]

If you have not truly broken with reality, though, then you know what you're doing and you have a choice in it. Being an alcoholic does not excuse you from the consequences of drunk driving, for instance, and being depressed (which I HAVE experienced periods of, so I speak from experience) does not automatically mean you will lash out at yourself or others...it IS possible to recognize what's going on and with much effort, continue to make rational decisions. Someone who is outright delusional, however, lacks the proper information to make such a decision. And it's up to the professionals to make that judgment call on a case-by-case basis.

Being delusional is not the only type of mental illness.

When someone repeatedly kills without remorse -- assuming the person hasn't lost touch with reality and knows what he's doing is wrong -- it's proof that the killer is simply evil.

No, it's proof that the killer is mentally ill. If somebody kills repeatedly without remorse, they are mentally ill. These actions would not be committed by a sane person.

As Nerys Ghemor pointed out, it's up to the psychiatric profession to make the call. The point is, there IS a significant difference.

Yes, a psychiatrist can make a specific diagnosis. There are many types of mental illness. But it's still mental illness.

I would also like people to tell m if there was anything wrong with my statement

The justice system should be primarily concerned about rehabilitation and the containment for those who cannot be rehabilitated.

She the justice system be doing anything more than these two things?

Edited to add - I would also consider deterrence should be an aim of the justice system.

What I think shouldn't be an aim part of the justice system is vengeance.

I agree with all this.

And frankly I am of the mindset that when life is taken (and I personally think rape should fall in this category too, because of the extreme damage to the spirit)

So if somebody is kidnapped and their arms and legs are cut off, this is not as bad as rape?

 

[scotpens]

When someone repeatedly kills without remorse -- assuming the person hasn't lost touch with reality and knows what he's doing is wrong -- it's proof that the killer is simply evil.

No, it's proof that the killer is mentally ill. If somebody kills repeatedly without remorse, they are mentally ill. These actions would not be committed by a sane person.

Your personal definitions of "sanity" and "mental illness" differ from those established by the law and by the psychiatric profession. But, like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, some people think they can make words mean whatever they want them to.

 

[Miss Chicken]

A sociopath is mentally ill. It is a known condition. It isn't insanity but someone can easily be sane but mentally ill.

The term insanity really only has a narrow legal context and isn't used by medical professionals any more.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

If you have not truly broken with reality, though, then you know what you're doing and you have a choice in it. Being an alcoholic does not excuse you from the consequences of drunk driving, for instance, and being depressed (which I HAVE experienced periods of, so I speak from experience) does not automatically mean you will lash out at yourself or others...it IS possible to recognize what's going on and with much effort, continue to make rational decisions. Someone who is outright delusional, however, lacks the proper information to make such a decision. And it's up to the professionals to make that judgment call on a case-by-case basis.

Being delusional is not the only type of mental illness.

No, but other types of mental illness (depending on the illness, and this again is a professional call) do not necessarily remove your ability to see the world and to know its rules. (And even someone who does not FEEL as others do can make the decision to obey the rules regardless of how they might feel about them.) As I said before--I have experienced depression, and also anxiety, and even WITH suicidal ideation I remained capable of recognizing that something was wrong and that I should not act upon those feelings either against myself or anyone else. If I had made the wrong choice, there would be absolutely no reason not to hold me responsible for what I did. Unless you've made a total break with reality, there is no reason to suggest that people should not be held responsible for their actions.

And frankly I am of the mindset that when life is taken (and I personally think rape should fall in this category too, because of the extreme damage to the spirit)

So if somebody is kidnapped and their arms and legs are cut off, this is not as bad as rape?

That sort of scenario should fall under that category too--I left it out but that is in the same category. Rape is a particularly severe form of torture, given the intimate nature of the violation, but I would have no problem seeing the sort of person you're describing being locked away for life, or put to death if the evidence threshold I outlined is met.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Any society that puts people to death is stooping to the level of the killer. By treating the killer humanely we are showing that we are more moral than the killer.

My state hasn't executed anyone since 1946 and my state only executed 3 men during the whole of the 20th century. Our society hasn't collapsed as a result of not executing murderers.

 

[opali]

That's a very good argument, Miss Chicken.

We still execute by lethal injection here in North Carolina. I think 2006 was the last execution, but there are over 100 on death row.