If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should.
An example to who? The other crazy people who don't care at all about the consequences?
The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
You quite simply don't know this at all. And as has been linked, information from people like Loughner has indeed proven useful.
To the first part, yes, to the second part, I haven't seen said links and would like to see real world examples of someone just like him giving info that helps stop killers.
I like how he seems to regard the concept of studying these people as only valuable if it's some kind of interrogation where he would reveal the secrets to stopping murder.
I am not in agreement with the idea that in order to commit murder a person must be insane.
That's placing the concept of sanity on a sort of pedestal.
People can and do make absolutely heartless decisions, replete with self interest as well as an utter disregard for other people all the time. Taken to an extreme, you get situations where a criminal commits murder simply to eliminate witnesses. Gangsters and the mafia murder people to eliminate rivals, settle disputes, and intimidate others.
These are terrible acts, but they aren't insane. A fully rational, sane normal person can look at these actions and readily understand why they happened, and what the murderer expected to gain from doing the deed (even as it fills them with disgust).
Compare that to a murder committed by a legitimately insane person, which leaves everyone scratching their heads, because it makes no sense.
And psychiatry/psychology doesn't presume that all anti-social behavior, even severe criminal behavior is automatically "insanity".
So I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. It sounds a lot more like wishful thinking to me. The idea that no one means to do bad things, they just have a 'problem', perhaps chemical or due to upbringing and are therefore not responsible.
I am not in agreement with the idea that in order to commit murder a person must be insane.
That's placing the concept of sanity on a sort of pedestal.
People can and do make absolutely heartless decisions, replete with self interest as well as an utter disregard for other people all the time. Taken to an extreme, you get situations where a criminal commits murder simply to eliminate witnesses. Gangsters and the mafia murder people to eliminate rivals, settle disputes, and intimidate others.
These are terrible acts, but they aren't insane. A fully rational, sane normal person can look at these actions and readily understand why they happened, and what the murderer expected to gain from doing the deed (even as it fills them with disgust).
Compare that to a murder committed by a legitimately insane person, which leaves everyone scratching their heads, because it makes no sense.
And psychiatry/psychology doesn't presume that all anti-social behavior, even severe criminal behavior is automatically "insanity".
So I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. It sounds a lot more like wishful thinking to me. The idea that no one means to do bad things, they just have a 'problem', perhaps chemical or due to upbringing and are therefore not responsible.
Bullshit.
That is definitely not the case at all.
Like I said, all manner of selfish and/or amoral behavior already places your life or happiness above that of others. Murder is, often, just the extreme end of that.
Shooting a cashier because it lowers your chances of being arrested and convicted? About as sane and rational as it gets. That you were robbing the place to begin with? You wanted money, and didn't want to spend the time working for it (or didn't have access to a job).
Loughner murdered because he was crazy, but he's not crazy just because he murdered.
I am not in agreement with the idea that in order to commit murder a person must be insane.
That's placing the concept of sanity on a sort of pedestal.
People can and do make absolutely heartless decisions, replete with self interest as well as an utter disregard for other people all the time. Taken to an extreme, you get situations where a criminal commits murder simply to eliminate witnesses. Gangsters and the mafia murder people to eliminate rivals, settle disputes, and intimidate others.
These are terrible acts, but they aren't insane. A fully rational, sane normal person can look at these actions and readily understand why they happened, and what the murderer expected to gain from doing the deed (even as it fills them with disgust).
Compare that to a murder committed by a legitimately insane person, which leaves everyone scratching their heads, because it makes no sense.
And psychiatry/psychology doesn't presume that all anti-social behavior, even severe criminal behavior is automatically "insanity".
So I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. It sounds a lot more like wishful thinking to me. The idea that no one means to do bad things, they just have a 'problem', perhaps chemical or due to upbringing and are therefore not responsible.
Bullshit.
That is definitely not the case at all.
Like I said, all manner of selfish and/or amoral behavior already places your life or happiness above that of others. Murder is, often, just the extreme end of that.
Shooting a cashier because it lowers your chances of being arrested and convicted? About as sane and rational as it gets. That you were robbing the place to begin with? You wanted money, and didn't want to spend the time working for it (or didn't have access to a job).
Loughner murdered because he was crazy, but he's not crazy just because he murdered.
At the other end of the spectrum though, MRI studies on psychopaths do find brain differences with the average population (and is also exactly the type of research we would carry out using cases like Loughner).
While I would say there's probably no definite metric you can apply here, I would say the guy who robs a liquor store and decides murdering the clerk will let him make a safe getaway, is working on an entirely different empathic or moral calculus to most the rest of us.
I've met people whom commited really really bad things that were rational, but some also have an understanding of morality and be a part of a charitable activity. I'm sure there are some inner conflicts but rationalzation could go a long way.
I think I missed how the "all murderers are insane" tangent got started.
However, Loughner, from everything I've seen about him, seems pretty clearly mentally unbalanced
Yeah, I really wouldn't be shocked if he were found unfit to stand trial.
If the thing I just posted about is indeed a tangent, I'll drop it. But I saw Quid mention it a couple times and just wanted to chime in.
Regardless of whether he's competent to stand trial or not, he's basically guaranteed to wind up in a state run facility for the rest of his life. Spree killers don't tend to get paroled, pardoned, or cleared of mental health issues. It isn't perfect, but it follows the letter of the law and has a chance to advance psychiatry/psychology such that other people may not go off the rails like Loughner did.
Posts
Regarding compassion though, I have a little for even the lowliest of souls.
To the first part, yes, to the second part, I haven't seen said links and would like to see real world examples of someone just like him giving info that helps stop killers.
It's right here on a page you've posted on.
How do you think we learn about crazy people?
Don't forget: according to reports, Loughner expected full and ready to be killed on scene.
The death penalty doesn't exactly seem to me like it would be much of a deterrent for people like him.
Now we'll never get our answer.
I was confused until I looked back up. I honestly didn't see that one coming.
That's placing the concept of sanity on a sort of pedestal.
People can and do make absolutely heartless decisions, replete with self interest as well as an utter disregard for other people all the time. Taken to an extreme, you get situations where a criminal commits murder simply to eliminate witnesses. Gangsters and the mafia murder people to eliminate rivals, settle disputes, and intimidate others.
These are terrible acts, but they aren't insane. A fully rational, sane normal person can look at these actions and readily understand why they happened, and what the murderer expected to gain from doing the deed (even as it fills them with disgust).
Compare that to a murder committed by a legitimately insane person, which leaves everyone scratching their heads, because it makes no sense.
And psychiatry/psychology doesn't presume that all anti-social behavior, even severe criminal behavior is automatically "insanity".
So I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. It sounds a lot more like wishful thinking to me. The idea that no one means to do bad things, they just have a 'problem', perhaps chemical or due to upbringing and are therefore not responsible.
Bullshit.
That is definitely not the case at all.
However, Loughner, from everything I've seen about him, seems pretty clearly mentally unbalanced
Like I said, all manner of selfish and/or amoral behavior already places your life or happiness above that of others. Murder is, often, just the extreme end of that.
Shooting a cashier because it lowers your chances of being arrested and convicted? About as sane and rational as it gets. That you were robbing the place to begin with? You wanted money, and didn't want to spend the time working for it (or didn't have access to a job).
Loughner murdered because he was crazy, but he's not crazy just because he murdered.
Yeah, I really wouldn't be shocked if he were found unfit to stand trial.
If the thing I just posted about is indeed a tangent, I'll drop it. But I saw Quid mention it a couple times and just wanted to chime in.
At the other end of the spectrum though, MRI studies on psychopaths do find brain differences with the average population (and is also exactly the type of research we would carry out using cases like Loughner).
While I would say there's probably no definite metric you can apply here, I would say the guy who robs a liquor store and decides murdering the clerk will let him make a safe getaway, is working on an entirely different empathic or moral calculus to most the rest of us.
I've met people whom commited really really bad things that were rational, but some also have an understanding of morality and be a part of a charitable activity. I'm sure there are some inner conflicts but rationalzation could go a long way.
Regardless of whether he's competent to stand trial or not, he's basically guaranteed to wind up in a state run facility for the rest of his life. Spree killers don't tend to get paroled, pardoned, or cleared of mental health issues. It isn't perfect, but it follows the letter of the law and has a chance to advance psychiatry/psychology such that other people may not go off the rails like Loughner did.