I love how you jumped on that one point there. Totally predictable. No one is calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped, legally insane being treated in facilities, or the crazy homeless guy who pisses on your car every morning. It was a poor choice of words that you jumped on to further attempt to push your argument.
People are calling for the execution of this particular sociopath
Cool, so, you admit he in fact is crazy.
Let's learn from him then.
I never said he was crazy. I said he was a sociopath. There is a difference.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
I'm not quite sure what your beef is here. Death penalty is on the table, and unless they pass the rather high bar for insanity, then he's going to be executed. And even if he isn't executed, he's locked away for life and will never hurt anyone again. Seems like a decent set of outcomes given the circumstances. So I'm not really sure what you're mad about.
I love how you jumped on that one point there. Totally predictable. No one is calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped, legally insane being treated in facilities, or the crazy homeless guy who pisses on your car every morning. It was a poor choice of words that you jumped on to further attempt to push your argument.
People are calling for the execution of this particular sociopath
Cool, so, you admit he in fact is crazy.
Let's learn from him then.
I never said he was crazy. I said he was a sociopath. There is a difference.
Are you of the opinion that antisocial personality disorder is not a mental illness?
I love how you jumped on that one point there. Totally predictable. No one is calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped, legally insane being treated in facilities, or the crazy homeless guy who pisses on your car every morning. It was a poor choice of words that you jumped on to further attempt to push your argument.
People are calling for the execution of this particular sociopath
Cool, so, you admit he in fact is crazy.
Let's learn from him then.
This is exactly what I'm talking about
We can learn what makes crazy killers tick. Hey, that's great. Not even being sarcastic here; that is genuinely fascinating, working out the mental blueprint of someone that can commit a heinous crime such as this.
What I'm curious about is what the hell good does it do? How often, if at all, are events like this prevented? We can learn all day from crazy people after the fact that they've done something horrible; how does that really "help"?
I love how you jumped on that one point there. Totally predictable. No one is calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped, legally insane being treated in facilities, or the crazy homeless guy who pisses on your car every morning. It was a poor choice of words that you jumped on to further attempt to push your argument.
People are calling for the execution of this particular sociopath
Cool, so, you admit he in fact is crazy.
Let's learn from him then.
I never said he was crazy. I said he was a sociopath. There is a difference.
Sociopathy is a mental illness misunderstood by most thanks to misinformation from the media.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
How do you know we can't learn anything from him? Have you tried?
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
I love how you jumped on that one point there. Totally predictable. No one is calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped, legally insane being treated in facilities, or the crazy homeless guy who pisses on your car every morning. It was a poor choice of words that you jumped on to further attempt to push your argument.
People are calling for the execution of this particular sociopath
Cool, so, you admit he in fact is crazy.
Let's learn from him then.
I never said he was crazy. I said he was a sociopath. There is a difference.
What is your definition of "crazy"? Because sociopathy is a usually considered a subset of Antisocial personality disorder, which is a pretty serious psychiatric disorder.
I love how you jumped on that one point there. Totally predictable. No one is calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped, legally insane being treated in facilities, or the crazy homeless guy who pisses on your car every morning. It was a poor choice of words that you jumped on to further attempt to push your argument.
People are calling for the execution of this particular sociopath
Cool, so, you admit he in fact is crazy.
Let's learn from him then.
This is exactly what I'm talking about
We can learn what makes crazy killers tick. Hey, that's great. Not even being sarcastic here; that is genuinely fascinating, working out the mental blueprint of someone that can commit a heinous crime such as this.
What I'm curious about is what the hell good does it do? How often, if at all, are events like this prevented? We can learn all day from crazy people after the fact that they've done something horrible; how does that really "help"?
It's impossible to know how many crimes are prevented because of our knowledge of mental illness. This doesn't mean that none are stopped.
It helps in that we can learn to recognize people having his problems or similar ones earlier and put systems in place to help these people before they hurt others or themselves.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
Again, the court will decide the extent of his illness. It doesn't matter whether or not keeping him alive will help. What matters is that he will never hurt anyone ever again.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
And nothing anybody can tell you will change yours; this doesn't mean that discussion is useless, since understanding the opposite point of view on an issue is never a bad thing.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
Oh, and no, the ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person probably won't change my mind. Duh.
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
It's almost as if there's a difference between being excused from complete responsibility, and being excused completely from responsibility.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
Oh, and no, the ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person probably won't change my mind. Duh.
But you always trust the word of the mentally ill, so long as it supports your POV.
And if it contradicts what you think? Whatever, that dude is CRAZY!
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
Again, the court will decide the extent of his illness. It doesn't matter whether or not keeping him alive will help. What matters is that he will never hurt anyone ever again.
What's the cost difference between death and life in jail?
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
It's almost as if there's a difference between being excused from complete responsibility, and being excused completely from responsibility.
Try telling that to my non-English speaking GRE students. They try to convince me of all sorts of strange things.........
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
So have you.
So it's your opinion that people with a mental illness should be executed if they can't control their mental illness?
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
Again, the court will decide the extent of his illness. It doesn't matter whether or not keeping him alive will help. What matters is that he will never hurt anyone ever again.
What's the cost difference between death and life in jail?
It depends on whom you ask but most evidence points to the death penalty costing substantially more than life in jail.
But the gist is that sentencing someone to death usually costs more than life in prison because of the high cost of appeals. If you think that avoiding the execution of the innocent is of tantamount importance (which I think most people would agree about), the appeals process is necessary. Even with it, states have executed people later found to be innocent.
So in theory, the death penalty could be super cheap. But in practice, making it reasonably fair and just winds up costing far more than life in prison.
Edit: I'll try to post more on this in the morning.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
So have you.
So it's your opinion that people with a mental illness should be executed if they can't control their mental illness?
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
So have you.
So it's your opinion that people with a mental illness should be executed if they can't control their mental illness?
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Please explain what you mean by "something else entirely" there.
Discussion seems to be over as far as I can tell. You're not going to learn shit from this guy and even the bleeding heart folks know that, they'll just never admit it. If you're so concerned with changing things and making things better, become a cop and stand guard at events like the one Loughner attacked.
If you think the discussion is over you can go away now...
I mean, we're still chatting here.
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
Again, the court will decide the extent of his illness. It doesn't matter whether or not keeping him alive will help. What matters is that he will never hurt anyone ever again.
What's the cost difference between death and life in jail?
It depends on whom you ask but most evidence points to the death penalty costing substantially more than life in jail.
But the gist is that sentencing someone to death usually costs more than life in prison because of the high cost of appeals. If you think that avoiding the execution of the innocent is of tantamount importance (which I think most people would agree about), the appeals process is necessary. Even with it, states have executed people later found to be innocent.
So in theory, the death penalty could be super cheap. But in practice, making it reasonably fair and just winds up costing far more than life in prison.
Edit: I'll try to post more on this in the morning.
Avoiding the execution of innocents is obviously very important. What I want and am essentially arguing for won't ever happen anyway, which would be exceptions to the system in cases similar to this. Kill him quickly and cheaply without worrying about appeals or any of that, since his guilt is clear. But like I said that probably won't ever happen.
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
Most murderers do not fit the criteria he named. Specifically, they usually try to conceal their involvement in order to avoid the consequences.
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
What would you consider a sane reason to murder someone?
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
It's arguable that any murderer that doesn't make any attempt to evade being caught is. At least to some extent, if the crime is not completely spontaneous.
Of course, we have more than enough evidence that Jared was mentally ill even aside from the whole "killing a bunch of people" thing.
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
Most murderers do not fit the criteria he named. Specifically, they usually try to conceal their involvement in order to avoid the consequences.
Fair enough, though I think that's skirting around it.
I think anyone that's murdering is committing a horrific act regardless of consequences (because there is a damn good chance they will be caught).
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
What would you consider a sane reason to murder someone?
Money. Anger. To avoid incarceration (such as killing witnesses to a separate crime).
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
What would you consider a sane reason to murder someone?
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
A lot of people, even as kids, never care about consequences. Take the 15 year old who killed that homeless guy, there was an article about it on Penny Arcade (I'll find the link later if anyone wants to read it). The mother sent an email in that the kid had basically always been a little shit who didn't care about anything for his entire life.
The guy is clearly mentally ill when you compare him to everyone else, but if it's who he is as a person, how will you extract any valuable information from him? How can you apply his mind to others? He might as well be autistic, and by that I mean his mind and motivations are as foreign as an autistic mind. My close friend has an autistic son, and she has never really understood him. Doctors and psychologists don't understand him, and tons of people have worked with him. He's never been able to be changed and every autistic kid is different in their own way. Loughner's mind wouldn't be worth examining even if you could get something solid from it. And whatever you got from it that's solid couldn't be applied to other people who could one day do what he did.
I think anyone that's murdering is committing a horrific act regardless of consequences (because there is a damn good chance they will be caught).
Indeed.
One might even say they'd be crazy to do so.
No, a high enough percentage of murderers get away with it that I don't think it's "crazy" to kill somebody, given motive, if you take every possible precaution to avoid capture and conviction. Because most people overestimate their own abilities (half of all people being of below-average intelligence, and all). They figure that they won't get caught like those other guys, because those guys were dumb.
So a person who values presumably a large sum of money over not killing a person is sane? I'm assuming the same goes for someone who's angry at a guy who wronged them? And then a crime of passion, something specifically defined as an unstable state of mind?
It's your opinion that all of those are a perfectly sane state of mind that doesn't hinder a person's ability to operate in society?
So a person who values presumably a large sum of money over not killing a person is sane? I'm assuming the same goes for someone who's angry at a guy who wronged them? And then a crime of passion, something specifically defined as an unstable state of mind?
It's your opinion that all of those are a perfectly sane state of mind that doesn't hinder a person's ability to operate in society?
Yup.
One can be sane and still unable to operate in society.
Posts
Because why?
I never said he was crazy. I said he was a sociopath. There is a difference.
I'm not quite sure what your beef is here. Death penalty is on the table, and unless they pass the rather high bar for insanity, then he's going to be executed. And even if he isn't executed, he's locked away for life and will never hurt anyone again. Seems like a decent set of outcomes given the circumstances. So I'm not really sure what you're mad about.
Are you of the opinion that antisocial personality disorder is not a mental illness?
This is exactly what I'm talking about
We can learn what makes crazy killers tick. Hey, that's great. Not even being sarcastic here; that is genuinely fascinating, working out the mental blueprint of someone that can commit a heinous crime such as this.
What I'm curious about is what the hell good does it do? How often, if at all, are events like this prevented? We can learn all day from crazy people after the fact that they've done something horrible; how does that really "help"?
Sociopathy is a mental illness misunderstood by most thanks to misinformation from the media.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_sociopaths_crazy#ixzz1BBZvUwby
How do you know we can't learn anything from him? Have you tried?
You're not saying anything new. You and others just keep playing the mental illness card, excusing him from complete responsibility and thus making the "him living can help" argument make sense. Nothing anyone will tell you, including Loughner himself, will change your mind.
What is your definition of "crazy"? Because sociopathy is a usually considered a subset of Antisocial personality disorder, which is a pretty serious psychiatric disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Sociopathy
Anyone with this would pass the standard definition for crazy.
It's impossible to know how many crimes are prevented because of our knowledge of mental illness. This doesn't mean that none are stopped.
It helps in that we can learn to recognize people having his problems or similar ones earlier and put systems in place to help these people before they hurt others or themselves.
If his illness (and he is ill, that's fairly obvious) prevented him from distinguishing fantasy from reality, then yes, he will be excused from complete responsibility in that he will not be executed. Now, he'll never see the world outside either a mental institution or prison whether or not he's legally insane, so the difference from a practical standpoint is virtually nil.
Again, the court will decide the extent of his illness. It doesn't matter whether or not keeping him alive will help. What matters is that he will never hurt anyone ever again.
And nothing anybody can tell you will change yours; this doesn't mean that discussion is useless, since understanding the opposite point of view on an issue is never a bad thing.
Ha. The "mental illness card."
Well, my friend, you just played the Card Card. Which is always amusing. More often than not, when one accuses anybody else of playing a "card" that means they've run out of useful arguments.
Oh, and no, the ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person probably won't change my mind. Duh.
It's almost as if there's a difference between being excused from complete responsibility, and being excused completely from responsibility.
But you always trust the word of the mentally ill, so long as it supports your POV.
And if it contradicts what you think? Whatever, that dude is CRAZY!
What's the cost difference between death and life in jail?
Try telling that to my non-English speaking GRE students. They try to convince me of all sorts of strange things.........
What's it matter? Unless you're actually suggesting we should execute him because it saves money. That what you're going with now?
So have you.
Yes. I said earlier shooting him in the head after a trial declaring death would be best.
So it's your opinion that people with a mental illness should be executed if they can't control their mental illness?
That's deep.
And as was pointed out that'd be incredibly foolish. Due process exists for a reason.
It depends on whom you ask but most evidence points to the death penalty costing substantially more than life in jail.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000
But the gist is that sentencing someone to death usually costs more than life in prison because of the high cost of appeals. If you think that avoiding the execution of the innocent is of tantamount importance (which I think most people would agree about), the appeals process is necessary. Even with it, states have executed people later found to be innocent.
So in theory, the death penalty could be super cheap. But in practice, making it reasonably fair and just winds up costing far more than life in prison.
Edit: I'll try to post more on this in the morning.
I don't know how you can prove that they have no control over it. Mental illness is one of the most overly used terms in the world, everyone I know has something "wrong" with them that's classified as a mental illness of some kind. What I'd like to know is how you distinguish between a fundamental part of the person and something else entirely.
Is it your opinion that someone willing to commits horrific acts regardless of the consequences, even death or a life of confinement, is suffering from a mental illness?
Please explain what you mean by "something else entirely" there.
Avoiding the execution of innocents is obviously very important. What I want and am essentially arguing for won't ever happen anyway, which would be exceptions to the system in cases similar to this. Kill him quickly and cheaply without worrying about appeals or any of that, since his guilt is clear. But like I said that probably won't ever happen.
Are you seriously suggesting that all murderers are mentally ill?
Most murderers do not fit the criteria he named. Specifically, they usually try to conceal their involvement in order to avoid the consequences.
What would you consider a sane reason to murder someone?
It's arguable that any murderer that doesn't make any attempt to evade being caught is. At least to some extent, if the crime is not completely spontaneous.
Of course, we have more than enough evidence that Jared was mentally ill even aside from the whole "killing a bunch of people" thing.
Fair enough, though I think that's skirting around it.
I think anyone that's murdering is committing a horrific act regardless of consequences (because there is a damn good chance they will be caught).
Money. Anger. To avoid incarceration (such as killing witnesses to a separate crime).
You can be a terrible person and still be sane.
Money. Personal grudges. A crime of passion.
Indeed.
One might even say they'd be crazy to do so.
A lot of people, even as kids, never care about consequences. Take the 15 year old who killed that homeless guy, there was an article about it on Penny Arcade (I'll find the link later if anyone wants to read it). The mother sent an email in that the kid had basically always been a little shit who didn't care about anything for his entire life.
The guy is clearly mentally ill when you compare him to everyone else, but if it's who he is as a person, how will you extract any valuable information from him? How can you apply his mind to others? He might as well be autistic, and by that I mean his mind and motivations are as foreign as an autistic mind. My close friend has an autistic son, and she has never really understood him. Doctors and psychologists don't understand him, and tons of people have worked with him. He's never been able to be changed and every autistic kid is different in their own way. Loughner's mind wouldn't be worth examining even if you could get something solid from it. And whatever you got from it that's solid couldn't be applied to other people who could one day do what he did.
No, a high enough percentage of murderers get away with it that I don't think it's "crazy" to kill somebody, given motive, if you take every possible precaution to avoid capture and conviction. Because most people overestimate their own abilities (half of all people being of below-average intelligence, and all). They figure that they won't get caught like those other guys, because those guys were dumb.
And a lot of them are right.
So a person who values presumably a large sum of money over not killing a person is sane? I'm assuming the same goes for someone who's angry at a guy who wronged them? And then a crime of passion, something specifically defined as an unstable state of mind?
It's your opinion that all of those are a perfectly sane state of mind that doesn't hinder a person's ability to operate in society?
Yup.
One can be sane and still unable to operate in society.