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

[genuineoriginal]

What you propose flies in the face of justice and ethics.

Your ideas of justice and ethics are unjust.

In order for someone to commit a crime they either have to be aware of what they're doing or not deliberately become intoxicated to the point of impairment hence the drink/driving analogy.

Those qualifications only work in an unjust system.

Did I say he was a man-killer? No, I didn't.

I asked because you did not say whether your schizophrenic friend was a man-killer or not and we had been discussing the mentally ill who are a danger to society because they kill people.

He isn't

Thank you for answering my question.
I am glad your friend is not a danger to society.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is no need to burden the society with the expense of providing an appropriate facility to house the criminally insane people

Sure there is: our own humanity.

putting them to death will safeguard the general public

So will taking them out of the general public.

without the expense.

A tragic standard.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Sure there is: our own humanity.
So will taking them out of the general public.
A tragic standard.

Here is humanity:

Jeremiah 17:9 9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?​

Here is God saying He is offended with your solution.

Ezekiel 13:19 19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your ideas of justice and ethics are unjust.

Of course they aren't. I don't propose anything along the lines that you do for starters.

Those qualifications only work in an unjust system.

Nah.

I asked because you did not say whether your schizophrenic friend was a man-killer or not and we had been discussing the mentally ill who are a danger to society because they kill people.

The point is, he could have been a danger without his meds as his "reality" wasn't real. He thought he was surrounded by demons and saw people as being alien in appearance so it's quite possible that he could have killed someone thinking they were a demon. According to you he should have then been killed even though with his medication being restored he'd be no danger to anybody.

Thank you for answering my question.
I am glad your friend is not a danger to society.

He could be if his medication was stopped. He'll admit that much as he would have no idea what he was doing.

 

[Town Heretic]

Here is humanity:

No, that's our sinful nature. Our humanity is found in how we care for one another. Executing people who don't understand their actions AND using money as part of that evaluation is simply wrong.

Here is God saying He is offended with your solution.

No, that's you trying the old serpentdove shtick. Don't bother if you're going to abuse the Bible to proffer insult.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here is humanity:

Jeremiah 17:9 9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?​

Here is God saying He is offended with your solution.

Ezekiel 13:19 19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?​

If you think that that verse supports your position of killing children and people with severe impairments then you need a reality check.

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem wasn't in the example, but in your inability to process it contextually. Do you have Asperger's? We've had a few people here with that condition. I know inference can be problematic for people with that condition. Lighthouse struggled with that.

It's telling that he didn't respond to you on this and it's hardly an insult if he has the condition. It would explain a fair bit.

 

[Stripe]

If you're going to abuse the Bible to proffer insult.

He quoted it. It's there for all to read. It says: "Execute without mercy."

The only abuse of scripture is from the likes of you who think the law no longer applies.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

... He isn't but when he was off his medication then he lost touch with reality and if he had then he wouldn't have had a clue about what he was doing.

and if he voluntarily goes off his meds (as many schizos do)?

would he then be accountable for the crimes he commits, even though as an unmedicated schizo he is incapable of recognizing the ramifications of his actions?

 

[genuineoriginal]

and if he voluntarily goes off his meds (as many schizos do)?

would he then be accountable for the crimes he commits, even though as an unmedicated schizo he is incapable of recognizing the ramifications of his actions?

That would be the same as a person who decided to risk going into a bar, getting drunk, and driving home, right?

A drunk driver who was fully aware of what could happen before he decided to risk going to a bar and driving home is utterly different.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The point is, he could have been a danger without his meds as his "reality" wasn't real. He thought he was surrounded by demons and saw people as being alien in appearance so it's quite possible that he could have killed someone thinking they were a demon. According to you he should have then been killed even though with his medication being restored he'd be no danger to anybody.

He could be if his medication was stopped. He'll admit that much as he would have no idea what he was doing.

There is a difference between putting a person to death because he could possibly maybe become a danger to society in some circumstance that hasn't happened and putting a person to death because they have already killed another person.

 

[ok doser]

There is a difference between putting a person to death because he could possibly maybe become a danger to society in some circumstance that hasn't happened and putting a person to death because they have already killed another person.

Unless you're retarded

In that case, they're equivalent

 

[Arthur Brain]

There is a difference between putting a person to death because he could possibly maybe become a danger to society in some circumstance that hasn't happened and putting a person to death because they have already killed another person.

There's a difference between how the law treats those who kill with premeditated intent and children and those with diminished mental capacity. The law makes sense, you don't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That would be the same as a person who decided to risk going into a bar, getting drunk, and driving home, right?

Not necessarily. When my friend was wrongfully taken off his sickness benefits he figured he must be well enough to stop taking his meds. He couldn't have foreseen just how much he would lose touch with reality and he's admitted he'd never have come off them if he'd known the results. What he went through was no picnic and that's even before he was sectioned in a psychiatric ward for a month until they could get him back on his treatment and back in touch with reality. Thankfully he's back on sickness benefits, has been for years and he takes his meds each day.

 

[ok doser]

There's a difference between how the law treats those who kill with premeditated intent and children and those with diminished mental capacity. The law makes sense, you don't.

Lenny killed curly's wife without premeditated intent

Justice demanded that lenny pay for that crime



Thompson and venables kidnapped, tortured and killed bulger with premeditated intent

Justice demanded that they pay for their crimes





If I get blind drunk and ***without premeditated intent*** plow through a schoolyard killing scores of children, justice would demand that I pay for my crime as well