Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

[Jefferson]

Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

This is the show from Tuesday December 9th, 2014

Summary:

While the culture has sympathy for the women, like 23-year-old Alicia Englert in Utah, who attempt to kill, and do kill, their newborn children, Bob Enyart points out that the more we refrain from punishing these people, the more that other women will kill their newborns, and even their older children. Please see www.kgov.com/death-penalty.

 

[gcthomas]

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill, so a fear of the judicial processes will not even cross their minds. Punishing them severely to prevent further deaths would therefore be ineffective and immoral.

 

[Rusha]

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill, so a fear of the judicial processes will not even cross their minds. Punishing them severely to prevent further deaths would therefore be ineffective and immoral.

OR perhaps they have determined that using this very excuse will give them an easy out for murdering their newborn ...

Also, punishing them severely would save the life of any potential children they might have in the future or have contact with.

Frankly, I am tired of seeing people (especially parents) use the insanity defense. Anyone insane enough to kill their newborn presents a danger to society.

 

[Tambora]

Frankly, I am tired of seeing people (especially parents) use the insanity defense. Anyone insane enough to kill their newborn presents a danger to society.

I agree.
Whatever your "problem" is, you are not fit for society.

 

[republicanchick]

Mothers who kill their newborns are not thinking rationally, being usually temporarily mentally ill, so a fear of the judicial processes will not even cross their minds. Punishing them severely to prevent further deaths would therefore be ineffective and immoral.

this is nonsense. People KNOW that murder is wrong. If they don't agree it is morally wrong, they all KNOW it is LEGALLY wrong

 

[gcthomas]

Frankly, I am tired of seeing people (especially parents) use the insanity defense. Anyone insane enough to kill their newborn presents a danger to society.

I agree.
Whatever your "problem" is, you are not fit for society.

Why would someone with postpartum psychosis be a risk to anyone other than the child or herself?

this is nonsense. People KNOW that murder is wrong. If they don't agree it is morally wrong, they all KNOW it is LEGALLY wrong

Do you know anything or care about people with short term mental problems brought on by sudden hormonal changes, drop in blood volume/pressure, metabolism changes, sleep deprivation and anxiety from lifestyle changes?

The causes of post-natal baby killings are usually medical. It doesn't indicate a character flaw if there was no indication of such before the event.

 

[Rusha]

Why would someone with postpartum psychosis be a risk to anyone other than the child or herself?

Because anyone who would kill their own child is capable murdering any child who is unfortunate enough to cross their path.

I am not going to buy into the "My hormones made me do it" excuse when it comes to the lives of children.

 

[aikido7]

Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

This is the show from Tuesday December 9th, 2014

Summary:

While the culture has sympathy for the women, like 23-year-old Alicia Englert in Utah, who attempt to kill, and do kill, their newborn children, Bob Enyart points out that the more we refrain from punishing these people, the more that other women will kill their newborns, and even their older children. Please see www.kgov.com/death-penalty.

Some time ago a soft-spoken Christian woman drowned her young children in her bathtub. Later, she admitted that she heard the voice of God telling her that her children were demons and needed to be destroyed.

She was doing what she thought God told her to do.

In one sense, you can't argue with that.

There was a man who brutally stabbed a woman because he got the message from God that he needed to be born again. And that is why he cut into the woman to find her fallopian tubes. He was convinced that he would turn into a zygote and would enter into her reproductive organs and be "born again."

Like Nicodemus in the Book of John, he took things sort of too literally.

 

[WizardofOz]

The causes of post-natal baby killings are usually medical. It doesn't indicate a character flaw if there was no indication of such before the event.

Nah, killing your newborn isn't a character flaw. lain:

If the same woman with the same imbalance killed her husband would that be an indication of a character flaw?

Forget the death penalty for a minute. What should happen to this woman in either circumstance?

 

[gcthomas]

Because anyone who would kill their own child is capable murdering any child who is unfortunate enough to cross their path.

What proportion of these women go on to kill someone in the street? Is guess none at all. Do you know differently? Is there really a risk of that our are you partaking in some wishful thinking?

 

[gcthomas]

I am not going to buy into the "My hormones made me do it" excuse when it comes to the lives of children.

If the same woman with the same imbalance killed her husband would that be an indication of a character flaw?

Here is a scenario for you both.

Someone spikes your drink in a bar, with LSD. During the subsequent hallucination you firmly believe that everyone in the bar is an alien trying to kill you. You shoot one dead before you are restrained.

Question. Should you be executed for your crime carried out during your mental imbalance?

 

[WizardofOz]

Here is a scenario for you both.

Someone spikes your drink in a bar, with LSD. During the subsequent hallucination you firmly believe that everyone in the bar is an alien trying to kill you. You shoot one dead before you are restrained.

Question. Should you be executed for your crime carried out during your mental imbalance?

No because I was illegally drugged by someone else. That person is culpable.

Who is culpable when a woman kills her newborn?

 

[gcthomas]

No because I was illegally drugged by someone else. That person is culpable.

Who is culpable when a woman kills her newborn?

In both cases the person was not in control of their mind. One by drug, one by illness. Both had the same level of control and the same level of responsibility for their actions. The precise biological causes of their loss of control were different, but neither choose their course of action. How is their a moral difference?

Why does someone have to be culpable when their is a death? Must you lay the blame on someone? Does that make you feel better in your righteous wrath?

 

[Jefferson]

The insanity defense is a crock. If it were legitimate then 50% of people claiming to have gone "temporarily insane" would have donated all their money to charity instead of murdering someone.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Trying To Get People Executed, In Christian Love

This is the show from Tuesday December 9th, 2014

Summary:

While the culture has sympathy for the women, like 23-year-old Alicia Englert in Utah, who attempt to kill, and do kill, their newborn children, Bob Enyart points out that the more we refrain from punishing these people, the more that other women will kill their newborns, and even their older children. Please see www.kgov.com/death-penalty.

How many eyewitnesses are able to stand up in court and testify that they saw her kill her children? (The same eyewitnesses must be able to be put to death themselves if they provide false testimony)
If there are not 2 or 3 of them, then there is no reason to put her to death for the murder of her children.

 

[WizardofOz]

In both cases the person was not in control of their mind. One by drug, one by illness. Both had the same level of control and the same level of responsibility for their actions. The precise biological causes of their loss of control were different, but neither choose their course of action. How is their a moral difference?

And what should happen to each of the three: the woman who murders her newborn, the man who drugged the drink and the man who kills while drugged?

Nothing?

Why does someone have to be culpable when their is a death? Must you lay the blame on someone?

In murder cases, someone is culpable. That's how cases are solved by investigators. They figure out just who is.

Does that make you feel better in your righteous wrath?

What "righteous wrath"? It's about justice for victims of homicide.

 

[gcthomas]

And what should happen to each of the three: the woman who murders her newborn, the man who drugged the drink and the man who kills while drugged?

Nothing?

One of the three is guilty of a criminal offence. Do you need help working out which it is?

"The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts."

In murder cases, someone is culpable. That's how cases are solved by investigators. They figure out just who is.

Only if the crime of murder has been committed. Not all killers are murderers. There is manslaughter, murder of the first and second dergee, killings while insane etc. You get it, I'm sure.

What "righteous wrath"? It's about justice for victims of homicide.

Is it justice to execute people who were not sane and were unable to consider the morality of their actions? Your legal system says no, which is why no campaign to execute the sufferers of postnatal psychosis will succeed. Your law provides protection for such people and, I hope, support and treatment.

 

[WizardofOz]

And what should happen to each of the three: the woman who murders her newborn, the man who drugged the drink and the man who kills while drugged?

Nothing?

One of the three is guilty of a criminal offence. Do you need help working out which it is?

"The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts."

You didn't address the question. If you truly feel that the drugged person who kills or the woman who kills her newborn should face no punishment at all, at least address what you feel should happen to the one who you feel actually committed a crime.

Is it justice to execute people who were not sane and were unable to consider the morality of their actions? Your legal system says no, which is why no campaign to execute the sufferers of postnatal psychosis will succeed. Your law provides protection for such people and, I hope, support and treatment.

I said to forget about the death penalty for now. How about any repercussions at all?

Should all 3 walk free? Should they face involuntary therapy mandated by the court?

Enough about what you feel should not happen. What should?

 

[Rusha]

In both cases the person was not in control of their mind. One by drug, one by illness.

Being drugged against one's will is entirely different that committing horrific acts under the guise of mental illness.

Are you claiming that people who use this excuse have no prior symptoms and just snap?

IF they are truly that far gone, why kill someone who they are suppose to protect rather than take their OWN life?

Both had the same level of control and the same level of responsibility for their actions. The precise biological causes of their loss of control were different, but neither choose their course of action. How is their a moral difference?

IF someone in the state you are claiming is coming at one of your loved ones swinging an axe, would you defend your loved one even if it meant taking their life?

IF you would, WHY? They are, by your claims, not responsible, so back off and let em get it over with.

Why does someone have to be culpable when their is a death? Must you lay the blame on someone? Does that make you feel better in your righteous wrath?

When someone is murdered, there is always a responsible party. The very same thing could be said about my friend who, with her parents, witnessed her brother being shot to death by his best friend. He was in a blackout state due to alcohol. Not his fault, huh?

 

[gcthomas]

You didn't address the question. If you truly feel that the drugged person who kills or the woman who kills her newborn should face no punishment at all, at least address what you feel should happen to the one who you feel actually committed a crime.



I said to forget about the death penalty for now. How about any repercussions at all?

Should all 3 walk free? Should they face involuntary therapy mandated by the court?

Enough about what you feel should not happen. What should?

You want to execute people who actually had not control over their behaviour, so no murder was committed. Why don't you comment on that? That is what the thread is about, sin't it?

I answered your questions, so your turn - should the two people in the example I gave be executed? Ye or no. Then we have something to discuss.