This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
9 dead in USA Church Shooting.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 23 Jun 15 9.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 6.26pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 4.35pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 4.22pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm
How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? The option isn't simply kill them or release them. There's the third option of not letting them out, to kill again.
If someone goes on a rampage with either a gun, machete or any other weapon that should be a starting point for a whole life tariff regardless of how many people they killed or injured. I'd put those who plant bombs in the same bracket too, regardless of their "cause". Another prime example. Depends, on whether he is mentally ill or not. If he is, then it is more complicated, because if he responds well to treatment, then it becomes increasingly difficult to retain someone under full secure psychiatric care (although its rare for someone to be released fully into the community, its not unheard of either). I remember this case, because at the time everyone was saying it was an Islamic attack.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stuk Top half 23 Jun 15 1.22pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jun 2015 9.48am
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 6.26pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 4.35pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 4.22pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm
How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? The option isn't simply kill them or release them. There's the third option of not letting them out, to kill again.
If someone goes on a rampage with either a gun, machete or any other weapon that should be a starting point for a whole life tariff regardless of how many people they killed or injured. I'd put those who plant bombs in the same bracket too, regardless of their "cause". Another prime example. Depends, on whether he is mentally ill or not. If he is, then it is more complicated, because if he responds well to treatment, then it becomes increasingly difficult to retain someone under full secure psychiatric care (although its rare for someone to be released fully into the community, its not unheard of either). I remember this case, because at the time everyone was saying it was an Islamic attack.
I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| sydtheeagle England 23 Jun 15 2.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. On an emotional level I agree. But it's still a decision best left to the experts.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Jun 15 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. Legally he's incapable of being guilty. Not guilty by way of insanity, which means he is held indefinite treatment. By way of UK law, he lacked capacity for his actions, and as such is not guilty under the definition of mens and actus rae, which establish the definition of his crimes. The only way he can be released is by demonstration of successful psychiatric treatment (typically then released on a gradual basis into society). Its rare, though not unheard of, for patients to be fully integrated back into a community after successful intervention, most usually end up somewhere in between like sheltered accommodation etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 23 Jun 15 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 23 Jun 2015 2.11pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. On an emotional level I agree. But it's still a decision best left to the experts. It's simply not worth the risk. It's never the experts that suffer the consequences, it's another member of Joe Public. The experts also have a very, very dubious track record, particularly in this part of the country it would seem.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 23 Jun 15 4.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jun 2015 2.19pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. Legally he's incapable of being guilty. Not guilty by way of insanity, which means he is held indefinite treatment. By way of UK law, he lacked capacity for his actions, and as such is not guilty under the definition of mens and actus rae, which establish the definition of his crimes. The only way he can be released is by demonstration of successful psychiatric treatment (typically then released on a gradual basis into society). Its rare, though not unheard of, for patients to be fully integrated back into a community after successful intervention, most usually end up somewhere in between like sheltered accommodation etc.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Jun 15 4.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 4.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jun 2015 2.19pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. Legally he's incapable of being guilty. Not guilty by way of insanity, which means he is held indefinite treatment. By way of UK law, he lacked capacity for his actions, and as such is not guilty under the definition of mens and actus rae, which establish the definition of his crimes. The only way he can be released is by demonstration of successful psychiatric treatment (typically then released on a gradual basis into society). Its rare, though not unheard of, for patients to be fully integrated back into a community after successful intervention, most usually end up somewhere in between like sheltered accommodation etc.
He'll be in one of the secure units. They've never had an escape from a secure unit, which arguably tops most prisons. Springfield excepted.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Jun 15 4.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 4.06pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 23 Jun 2015 2.11pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. On an emotional level I agree. But it's still a decision best left to the experts. It's simply not worth the risk. It's never the experts that suffer the consequences, it's another member of Joe Public. The experts also have a very, very dubious track record, particularly in this part of the country it would seem. In none of those cases were people who'd be sectioned for murder actually involved in murders on release. Although in fairness Springfield psychiatric hospital sounds utter turd. Also of course sometimes you have no choice but to release people (absurdly even if they don't want to leave) That said, caution is necessary, and I think that whilst some people who respond really well to treatment can be released into the community, that should be the exception rather than the rule, and even then it should be regulated with support and monitoring by community mental health workers. My worry is that people tend to be released more for 'economic' rather than medical reasons.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 23 Jun 15 4.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jun 2015 4.40pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 4.06pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 23 Jun 2015 2.11pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. On an emotional level I agree. But it's still a decision best left to the experts. It's simply not worth the risk. It's never the experts that suffer the consequences, it's another member of Joe Public. The experts also have a very, very dubious track record, particularly in this part of the country it would seem. In none of those cases were people who'd be sectioned for murder actually involved in murders on release. Although in fairness Springfield psychiatric hospital sounds utter turd. Also of course sometimes you have no choice but to release people (absurdly even if they don't want to leave) That said, caution is necessary, and I think that whilst some people who respond really well to treatment can be released into the community, that should be the exception rather than the rule, and even then it should be regulated with support and monitoring by community mental health workers. My worry is that people tend to be released more for 'economic' rather than medical reasons. You can't be sectioned for murder as this case has proved. You can be sectioned, but not sectioned and guilty of murder. As I said, to me it's not worth the risk. Or the potential cost savings.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 24 Jun 15 9.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
I've said it before on similar emotive topics where an individual has committed an atrocity, and my view remains that if you decide to act in an inhuman way, you do not deserve to be treated as one.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jun 15 9.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 24 Jun 2015 9.10am
I've said it before on similar emotive topics where an individual has committed an atrocity, and my view remains that if you decide to act in an inhuman way, you do not deserve to be treated as one.
The key phrase though is decide. If you're say, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, the capacity responsibility is diminished. In these cases, they don't think those two cats and woman is a demon, they know with certainty, which tends to lead to such dramatic consequences. Of course, in the instance of the shooter, he appears to have been more or less capable of rationalizing his actions, planning them in advance and his escape afterwards, which suggests to me, on surface reading, a person capable of responsibility. He might be somewhat disturbed, have some history of mental illness or personality disorder, but his actions lack the 'spontaneity and irrationality' of a 'diseased' mind.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jun 15 9.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 4.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jun 2015 4.40pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 4.06pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 23 Jun 2015 2.11pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Jun 2015 1.22pm
He is and unbelievably he's been found not guilty. I don't care if he's mental or not, but he's definitely guilty of killing someone in a very gruesome way. He should still get life, as anyone capable of that is never not going to be a danger to society. On an emotional level I agree. But it's still a decision best left to the experts. It's simply not worth the risk. It's never the experts that suffer the consequences, it's another member of Joe Public. The experts also have a very, very dubious track record, particularly in this part of the country it would seem. In none of those cases were people who'd be sectioned for murder actually involved in murders on release. Although in fairness Springfield psychiatric hospital sounds utter turd. Also of course sometimes you have no choice but to release people (absurdly even if they don't want to leave) That said, caution is necessary, and I think that whilst some people who respond really well to treatment can be released into the community, that should be the exception rather than the rule, and even then it should be regulated with support and monitoring by community mental health workers. My worry is that people tend to be released more for 'economic' rather than medical reasons. You can't be sectioned for murder as this case has proved. You can be sectioned, but not sectioned and guilty of murder. As I said, to me it's not worth the risk. Or the potential cost savings. Notably paranoid schizophrenics fall into a higher risk category, I'd definitely be wary of releasing someone with paranoid schizophrenia who had killed someone.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.