User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Should People Who Have Mental Illness/Retardation Be Tried As An Adult?

  1. #31
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,544
    Thanks
    8,741
    Thanked 6,926 Times in 4,592 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147744
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Why would a six-year-old be killing people? That's what I wanna know...

    Wouldn't his parents be around to teach him that it's wrong to hurt people?
    Well, maybe they just didn't understand that an action they do could result in someone's death, did you think of that? The kid is six years old so they're not developed enough to fully understand morality or consequences. There's been tragic cases of kids killing but never once has a six year old been tried as an adult that I'm aware of and for obvious reasons. You still haven't answered the question either. Should a six year old child be tried and executed if they've killed someone?

    Oh wait, I forgot. Leftists would rather have parents put their kids in schools where quizzes are given that have "no right or wrong answers," yet have questions like "if you could kill anyone and get away with it..."...

    :darwinism:


    Um, no, you didn't "forget", you just went on some bizarre, ill informed and irrelevant sidebar that has nothing to do with the subject. Please stay on the topic at hand.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Kit the Coyote (September 14th, 2018)

  3. #32
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,850
    Thanks
    21,284
    Thanked 6,113 Times in 3,889 Posts

    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147595
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well, maybe they just didn't understand that an action they do could result in someone's death, did you think of that?
    That's the responsibility of the parents to teach them those things. Hence my comment about the public schools.

    If the parents aren't teaching their children right from wrong, then why would you expect a relative stranger to do so to someone who is not their child?

    The kid is six years old so they're not developed enough to fully understand morality or consequences.
    If a kid is playing with a loaded gun because the parents failed to teach their child not to play with guns, and it goes off and kills his sister, it's the fault of the parents for not teaching their child not to play with guns.

    If a kid has been taught that playing with guns will end up with someone getting killed, and then points the gun at someone, and pulls the trigger and kills someone, that person's blood is on him, and he should be executed.

    If a kid accidentally kills someone with a gun because he was never taught that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger will end up with that person being killed, then he is not at fault, but his parents are, it's capital negligence.

    There's been tragic cases of kids killing but never once has a six year old been tried as an adult that I'm aware of and for obvious reasons.
    Duh, it's because the law doesn't allow for children to be tried as adults, except in unusual cases.

    Which is wrong, because God never gave different standards for adults and children, rich or poor, smart or stupid, talented or untalented.

    The law applies equally to all.

    You still haven't answered the question either. Should a six year old child be tried and executed if they've killed someone?
    See above.

    Why it's so hard to understand that if someone did not commit a capital crime they wouldn't be found guilty or executed, and if they did commit a capital crime they would be found guilty and executed, is beyond me...



    Um, no, you didn't "forget", you just went on some bizarre,
    It's a true story, and it happens in many public, government run schools every year.

    ill informed
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/12...arre-quiz.html

    And no, this isn't the first time something like this has happened.

    and irrelevant sidebar that has nothing to do with the subject. Please stay on the topic at hand.
    It's perfectly relevant.

    Parents should teach their children right from wrong, not leave it up to the public schools that they send their children to, because they do a terrible job of it, and it's starting to show in society.

  4. #33
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,544
    Thanks
    8,741
    Thanked 6,926 Times in 4,592 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147744
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    That's the responsibility of the parents to teach them those things. Hence my comment about the public schools.

    If the parents aren't teaching their children right from wrong, then why would you expect a relative stranger to do so to someone who is not their child?
    For starters, not all kids are brought up in responsible and loving households and would get a better education at school. I realize you have an aversion to public school education but that isn't the topic of this thread.

    If a kid is playing with a loaded gun because the parents failed to teach their child not to play with guns, and it goes off and kills his sister, it's the fault of the parents for not teaching their child not to play with guns.
    A responsible parent wouldn't have a loaded gun anywhere within reach of a child, just like they'd have a medicine cabinet and household domestic products safely locked away.

    If a kid has been taught that playing with guns will end up with someone getting killed, and then points the gun at someone, and pulls the trigger and kills someone, that person's blood is on him, and he should be executed.
    Wow, at least you've finally admitted it in black and white. A six year old is a kid. He/she wouldn't have the capacity to understand death or the ramifications anywhere like the capacity of an adult even if taught.

    If a kid accidentally kills someone with a gun because he was never taught that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger will end up with that person being killed, then he is not at fault, but his parents are, it's capital negligence.
    If parents leave a loaded gun lying around for a kid to pick up then the responsibility is solely theirs through negligence.

    Duh, it's because the law doesn't allow for children to be tried as adults, except in unusual cases.

    Which is wrong, because God never gave different standards for adults and children, rich or poor, smart or stupid, talented or untalented.
    So, you think God would be happy with a six year old child being swiftly, publicly and painfully executed then?



    The law applies equally to all.
    The law reflects common sense and takes into account the age and development of a person. Which is why it doesn't advocate executing toddlers.



    See above.
    Saw it the first time and that was enough.

    Why it's so hard to understand that if someone did not commit a capital crime they wouldn't be found guilty or executed, and if they did commit a capital crime they would be found guilty and executed, is beyond me...
    Why you think six year old's should be tried as adults is beyond me as it is with society in general.

    It's a true story, and it happens in many public, government run schools every year.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/12...arre-quiz.html
    Fox news?! Pass...

    Do bizarre things happen in public school curriculum from time to time? Sure. The norm, nope...

    And no, this isn't the first time something like this has happened.
    See above.

    It's perfectly relevant.

    Parents should teach their children right from wrong, not leave it up to the public schools that they send their children to, because they do a terrible job of it, and it's starting to show in society.
    No it isn't. If you want to vent about public schools and the like then please do it elsewhere.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  5. #34
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,850
    Thanks
    21,284
    Thanked 6,113 Times in 3,889 Posts

    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147595
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    For starters, not all kids are brought up in responsible and loving households and would get a better education at school.
    I wonder why that is... Oh right, it's because most parents today went to public schools themselves.

    Talk about the blind leading the blind...

    I realize you have an aversion to public school education but that isn't the topic of this thread.
    And yet, it IS related...

    A responsible parent wouldn't have a loaded gun anywhere within reach of a child just like they'd have have a medicine cabinet and household domestic products safely locked.
    A responsible parent would teach their child that a gun is not a toy.

    Wow, at least you've finally admitted it in black and white. A six year old is a kid.
    And if he commits a capital crime (which would make him a criminal), he should be punished just as any other criminal would be.

    Still don't know why that's so hard to understand...

    He/she wouldn't have the capacity to understand death or the ramifications anywhere like the capacity of an adult even if taught.
    If a child commits a crime, who are you to say he's not a criminal?

    Criminals should be punished. If a child is a criminal, then he should be punished.

    See how that works?

    If parents leave a loaded gun lying around for a kid to pick up then the responsibility is solely theirs through negligence.


    So, you think God would be happy with a six year old child being swiftly, publicly and painfully executed then?

    If the six-year-old committed a capital crime, yes.

    The law reflects common sense and takes into account the age and development of a person. Which is why it doesn't advocate executing toddlers.

    You must not be talking about the same Law that I'm talking about...

    Because "common sense" has nothing to do with the law we have today.



    Why you think six year old's should be tried as adults is beyond me as it is with society in general.
    Why you think kids, if they are criminals, shouldn't be punished as criminals is beyond me.

    Honestly...

    Fox news?! Pass...


    That was the first link that I saw. There are other news sites that talk about the same woman. All you have to do is look.

    Do bizarre things happen in public school curriculum from time to time? Sure. The norm, nope...
    Then you probably don't pay enough attention to the news. Because stuff like that is a regular occurrence.

    See above.
    Saw it the first time and that was enough.



    No it isn't.
    Sure it is.

    If you want to vent about public schools and the like then please do it elsewhere.
    Not venting. Just stating facts.

  6. #35
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,544
    Thanks
    8,741
    Thanked 6,926 Times in 4,592 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147744
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I wonder why that is... Oh right, it's because most parents today went to public schools themselves.

    Talk about the blind leading the blind...
    Oh, so you equate a public school education with a lack of responsibility and intelligence where it comes to parenting? Silly thing to say as a public school education has nothing to do with whether a parent is loving or responsible and is just insulting and condescending to responsible parents. You're not very old are you?

    And yet, it IS related...
    Only if you're that wrapped up in a false dichotomy.

    A responsible parent would teach their child that a gun is not a toy.
    Sure, just as a responsible parent would also understand that their six year old child wouldn't be fully capable of understanding the ramifications of mortality and the ramifications of pulling the trigger.

    And if he commits a capital crime (which would make him a criminal), he should be punished just as any other criminal would be.

    Still don't know why that's so hard to understand...
    Well, if a six year old child (he or she) kills then it isn't a capital crime because the child would lack sufficient understanding of what it is they've done. The only reason why I think this can possibly escape your grasp is because of something that would affect such reasoning like Asperger's Syndrome or similar. That, btw, is not an insult if you happen to have it or akin.

    If a child commits a crime, who are you to say he's not a criminal?
    Because he/she is a child and at age six then they're not old or developed enough to be tried as an adult.

    Criminals should be punished. If a child is a criminal, then he should be punished.

    See how that works?
    So if a four year old child of yours "stole" some cereal off of your plate would you ring the cops to have them hauled off to receive "due punishment"?

    If the six-year-old committed a capital crime, yes.
    Okay, I sincerely hope you do have a condition that affects the empathic centers of the brain because otherwise, there is just no excuse for holding to such an outright sick position as having six year old kids swiftly, publicly and painfully executed. None at all.

    You must not be talking about the same Law that I'm talking about...

    Because "common sense" has nothing to do with the law we have today.
    Oh, whichever law you're talking about right now is anyone's guess...

    Why you think kids, if they are criminals, shouldn't be punished as criminals is beyond me.

    Honestly...
    Because they're kids. You've set your stall out and it'll be interesting to see who else agrees that six year olds should be executed if they're "guilty" of committing a "capital crime"...





    That was the first link that I saw. There are other news sites that talk about the same woman. All you have to do is look.
    And? Regular? Nope.

    Then you probably don't pay enough attention to the news. Because stuff like that is a regular occurrence.
    No, it isn't but thanks for playing.




    Sure it is.



    Not venting. Just stating facts.
    Well, no and no.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (Today)

  8. #36
    Censorship is the height of vanity Rusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    13,058
    Thanks
    19,027
    Thanked 4,574 Times in 2,612 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147746
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Do you think the child should have been "executed" when he was six years old?
    Michael Myers? Well, there certainly wouldn't have been any sequels.

    On a serious note, IF that is the type of example being used, outside a lobotomy, how else could this person have been stopped from killing people years later? Based solely on the age,. the DP would be harder to support ... because I am a mother and my first instinct is to protect children. However, that wouldn't be the typical situation.

    There needs to be some kind of assurance that anyone who is mentally ill or incompetent or a child are handled in such a manner that they will never be a threat again.
    As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
    When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics."
    When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty
    -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
    - ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Joshua F. Speed, August 22, 1855





  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rusha For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (Yesterday),Town Heretic (Today)

  10. #37
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,869
    Thanks
    1,081
    Thanked 1,268 Times in 961 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    499556

    Eight-year-old who beat baby girl to death charged with murder

    AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD boy beat a baby girl to death to stop her crying while her mother was out partying at a nightclub, US police said today, charging him with murder.

    The children – six in total, according to local media – were left unsupervised while the child’s mother and her friend were gone from roughly 11.00pm until 2.00am.

    “It is believed that while the mother and friend were at the club, the eight-year-old viciously attacked the one-year-old because the one-year-old would not stop crying,” police said in a statement.

    “The one-year-old suffered from severe head trauma as well as major internal organ damage which ultimately led to her death.”

    The mother told police on the morning of October 11, a Sunday, that she found the baby unresponsive in her crib.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Today)

  12. #38
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,869
    Thanks
    1,081
    Thanked 1,268 Times in 961 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    499556
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusha View Post
    There needs to be some kind of assurance that anyone who is mentally ill or incompetent or a child are handled in such a manner that they will never be a threat again.
    True.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  13. #39
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,971
    Thanks
    3,515
    Thanked 7,590 Times in 4,368 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147818
    To be held responsible for your actions you need to recognize the nature and consequence of your actions and intend those actions. Say someone with a serious mental impairment strikes and kills someone in anger. Thereafter they see a dead body. They understand the person should not be dead and that they have done something to cause it. They then attempt to hide the body.

    That's not meeting the standard. That's also why temporary insanity is sometimes a defense for otherwise perfectly functioning adults, in terms of their cognitive process and why we distinguish between premeditated murder and all other taking of life.

    People with mental impairments can understand all of that and where they do should be tried as any other person would. Children, operating with tremendously impaired thinking relative to impulse control and recognition, largely tied into an insufficiently developed prefrontal cortex, aren't tried as adults because they prima facie lack both the experience and biological development to fully appreciate the nature and consequence of their actions. It's why we don't let them have credit cards or go to war.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (Today)

  15. #40
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,850
    Thanks
    21,284
    Thanked 6,113 Times in 3,889 Posts

    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147595
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    To be held responsible for your actions you need to recognize the nature and consequence of your actions and intend those actions. Say someone with a serious mental impairment strikes and kills someone in anger. Thereafter they see a dead body. They understand the person should not be dead and that they have done something to cause it. They then attempt to hide the body.
    The Bible deals with this quite clearly:

    then you shall appoint cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person accidentally may flee there.They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment.And of the cities which you give, you shall have six cities of refuge.You shall appoint three cities on this side of the Jordan, and three cities you shall appoint in the land of Canaan, which will be cities of refuge.These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally may flee there.‘But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies,or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.‘However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait,or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm,then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments.So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.But if the manslayer at any time goes outside the limits of the city of refuge where he fled,and the avenger of blood finds him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood,because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession.‘And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.And you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest.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.Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.’ ” - Numbers 35:11-34 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

    That's not meeting the standard. That's also why temporary insanity
    The "temporary insanity" plea is used by most murderers to get out of harsher punishments for their crimes, and should not be allowed.

    is sometimes a defense for otherwise perfectly functioning adults, in terms of their cognitive process and why we distinguish between premeditated murder and all other taking of life.
    Sometimes? If so, it's used more often than it should be.

    People with mental impairments can understand all of that and where they do should be tried as any other person would. Children, operating with tremendously impaired thinking relative to impulse control and recognition, largely tied into an insufficiently developed prefrontal cortex, aren't tried as adults because they prima facie lack both the experience and biological development to fully appreciate the nature and consequence of their actions. It's why we don't let them have credit cards or go to war.

  16. #41
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,869
    Thanks
    1,081
    Thanked 1,268 Times in 961 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    499556
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    To be held responsible for your actions you need to recognize the nature and consequence of your actions and intend those actions. Say someone with a serious mental impairment strikes and kills someone in anger. Thereafter they see a dead body. They understand the person should not be dead and that they have done something to cause it. They then attempt to hide the body.

    That's not meeting the standard. That's also why temporary insanity is sometimes a defense for otherwise perfectly functioning adults, in terms of their cognitive process and why we distinguish between premeditated murder and all other taking of life.

    People with mental impairments can understand all of that and where they do should be tried as any other person would. Children, operating with tremendously impaired thinking relative to impulse control and recognition, largely tied into an insufficiently developed prefrontal cortex, aren't tried as adults because they prima facie lack both the experience and biological development to fully appreciate the nature and consequence of their actions. It's why we don't let them have credit cards or go to war.
    There is no need for the ox to recognize the nature and consequence of his actions.

    Exodus 21:28
    28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.


    If a person has no more ability to recognize the nature and consequence of his actions than the ox, then there should be no problem putting the person to death.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Today)

  18. #42
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,971
    Thanks
    3,515
    Thanked 7,590 Times in 4,368 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147818
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    There is no need for the ox to recognize the nature and consequence of his actions.
    The ox is an animal who could can neither murder nor be murdered. That verse is largely about not transferring the responsibility for the act onto the owner. Now again, we aren't under Mosaic law, but within that context that's the point.

    If a person has no more ability to recognize the nature and consequence of his actions than the ox, then there should be no problem putting the person to death.
    That's literally a silly argument, preceding from a flawed foundation as noted above.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us