Sephiroth Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 I do not agree with the death penalty anyway, I believe mentally retarded convicts should be treated the same as any other convict.... jail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Macaiodh Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 [COLOR=darkblue]oi, what a touchy subject. first of all, i completely disagree w/ the death pentalty. murderers are basically playing god, so what right do the courts have to do the same? so, no, i don't agree w/ this at all. secondly, all "mentally retarded" people are different in their mental capacity for understanding, so there's no way of knowing whether they realized what they did or not. third, i don't really think mentally handicapped people should not be in regular jails at all, purely for the harassment they'd receive. they probably wouldn't even understand why it was happening. the only solution left is to put them in institutions, but this is hardly humane & basically amounts to them being "warehoused." no matter how you look at it, the situations sucks hardcore.[/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyGirl Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i] [B]Because retarded people [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]V_V;; I'm waiting for the day when we stop calling them "retarded people" and start saying "someone with a mental disability". They shouldn't have to be classified as a lesser 'people' just because of a mental condition.[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B]I think it doesn't matter if they're retarded or not. It's whether they know it's right or wrong, that's the main point. If you have some guy that knows it's wrong to slaughter a whole family and does it anyway, it doesn't matter if he's retarded. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Some mental disabilities leave people who are age 25 with the mental capability of a 3 year old...and it keeps degenerating after that. Now tell me, if a 3 year old killed someone in YOUR family, would you want that 3 year old put to death because of it?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted June 24, 2002 Author Share Posted June 24, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B] [color=deeppink]V_V;; I'm waiting for the day when we stop calling them "retarded people" and start saying "someone with a mental disability". They shouldn't have to be classified as a lesser 'people' just because of a mental condition.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I'm sorry Babygirl, but I just don't see anything wrong with the phrase if it is used correctly. The fact of the matter is, the term "retarded" means that someone is slow or limited in intellectual development. As long as the term isn't used in an abusive way, there is nothing wrong with it. Mental retardation is a condition that I don't make light of, so take into consideration the fact that I'm not throwing around the term in an attempt to degrade anyone. Anyway, when someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind. I feel that if murderers [I]knew[/I] that the death penalty would surely follow their crimes, they wouldn't be so quick to act. Now, even a three year old should understand that hurting people is wrong. Unless they find a gun and accidentally shoot someone, chances are that they'll be stuck in an institution for an extended period of time. More than likely, a child would [I]accidentally[/I] kill someone in the case of a parent's ignorance, because they don't have the physical capabilities to carry out murder. Anyway, in response to Lady Macaiodh, there is a certain area in which people can be removed from death row based on IQ level. Before being relieved from the sentence, it must be proven that they indeed did not comprehend the wrongfulness of the crime they committed. It seems that everyone is ignoring one of the most important issues though. Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims. Everyone keeps putting down the death penalty as a whole, when in fact, if it were done away with, many killers would lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. The family of a victim should not have to live with that, looming over their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Delian [/i] [B] That statement is absolutely ridiculous . How can you even compare a mentally retarded person who kills someone with a merciless psychopath. The latter is completely aware of what they are doing and the consequences of their actions. A mentally unstable person who kills someone is partially or fully unaware of their actions and consequences. However, it's not like they will be set free if they don't receive the death penalty. Most likely they'll got to a gaol for the mentally unstable (or whatever those facilities are called) and receive psychiatric treatment, in some cases indefinately. Convicted killers who are in their fully right mind should receive a life sentence with no parole. Depending on each case, sometimes the death penalty should play a part [/B][/QUOTE] Easy, if you have a psychopath kill someone, he wont' care. If you have a retarded person kill someone, probably won't care because he doesn't understand what he did fully. Like I said, you never know when the Supreme Court will call the Death Penalty unconstitutional and prisons will overflow then eventually a killer would be released. It happened in Texas. And it statistics show that those psychiatric treatment centers don't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyGirl Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B] Easy, if you have a psychopath kill someone, he wont' care. If you have a retarded person kill someone, probably won't care because he doesn't understand what he did fully. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]But that's the difference. The psychopathic killer [i]knows[/i] what he is doing, unless of course they have a mental illness, which differs from a mental disability. And it's not that the person with a mental disability chooses not to care about what they did, they don't have the mental ability TO care about it. Someone with a perfectly "normal" mind knows exactly what they are doing, and they ARE capable of caring about it. Crazy White Boy- That comment wasn't directed towards you, but to whoever said that and to people in general. It's kind of like the whole "f[i][/i]aggot" deal. You wouldn't call someone who is homosexual a "f[i][/i]aggot" person", since "f[i][/i]ag" is seen as a degrading slang term. It's the same with "retard", which is another degrading slang term..."retarded person"...bah...it just sounds horrible :p[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 There are pros and cons that can be argued all day. The fact is, if someone is mentally handicapped beyond the point of being able to reason, they can't logically be punished on the same level as some perfectly capable of telling right from wrong. Executing someone who is handicapped beyond being able to reason because they kill someone is like executing them just because they have a disability. Now, as for the issue of punishing them, I have no answer. I can't believe that someone like that should be thrown into a prison, and I can't say that he should just go unpunished. It's one of the few things I don't have an opinion on. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char! Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 [color=teal]Before I jump in, I'll say only that I lightly skimmed over all these posts, so if I missed something, sorry. I think that some of you are missing the entire point. Just because these people are mentally handicapped, they have the same rights as anyone else. If anyone, regardless of their intelligence or state of mind, does something that requires in court the death penalty, then they should get the death penalty. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not some bloodthirsty person who thinks the death penalty is good, but isn't the US based on equality for all? And letting some murderers live and some die just because of their intelligence is neither equal nor morally right. If one person kills and gets put to death, why should another who kills in the same way be allowed life? It's just stupid.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyGirl Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Char! [/i] [B][color=teal] And letting some murderers live and some die just because of their intelligence is neither equal nor morally right. If one person kills and gets put to death, why should another who kills in the same way be allowed life? It's just stupid.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I see where you are coming from, but you have to take into consideration the fact that in many cases, criminals get lesser sentences if they are proven mentally unstable (in the case of mental illness). There's also plea bargaining...if someone admits to the crime of killing someone, they also receive a lesser sentece. If someone isn't capable of admitting to a crime...then how fair is that?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hikaru Ichijyo Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 -_- Hmm not sure exactly sure where I stand on this matter, well I certainly don't agree with the death penalty, it is morally wrong in my opinion, and actually people get off easier, as oppose to rotting in jail and being "Bubba's wife" or whatever cliche it is! As far as the mentally handicap, I hope thats the proper and polite way to put it, I really don't think they should get the death penalty or be executed due to the fact they are not in the right state of mind, and in most cases have the personality of a 5 year old that would not know any better! Interesting....topic. Makes you really think! I should stop ranting now. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamvis Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i] [B] Actually, it costs more money to execute someone than to keep them alive in jail. State and local governments pay for the prosecution as well as for the defense team--which consists of at least two lawyers and a battery of investigators and experts; much of this money is spent even if the defendent eventually gets a lesser sentence. I've heard that California alone, spends $90 million a year on the death penalty. Anyway, it's important to take into consideration the family of the victim's feelings. Does it hurt less just because a person who killed their loved one isn't considered fully aware of their actions? In this way, the death penalty can affirm life, because if action is not taken, we are signaling a lessened regard for the value of the victim's life. The mentally retarded person surely isn't serving any purpose. If the accused can't recognize the wrongfulness of murder, then they can be of no use in our society. So, in these respects I'm in agreement with Harry. [/B][/QUOTE] One, Texas sped way more than that and Two, it would be really better if we stuck with the guitillones... i mean WHACK! instantly dead as opposed to the really expensive drug that takes 3 seconds :rolleyes: I mean, sheesh... its not like we cant surgically put the head back on for burial.... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 I dunno if anyone's mentioned this, for I haven't looked at all the posts. But what about that lady who drowned her 4 or 5 kids? DO you think she should be put to death or life in prison? People have said she was mentally ill.. that she didn't "know any better"... PS: I think she's just a very good actress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 I agree, she's just a very good actress, trying to get herself off the hook. And her POS husband is helping her. In my mind, there is a difference in depression and a mental handicap... -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Raven Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 I agree with amphion that anybody who kills someone is not right in the head. And if they are retarded they should out them in a nut house, but definately don't let them go scot free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Macaiodh Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jamvis [/i] [B] Two, it would be really better if we stuck with the guitillones... i mean WHACK! instantly dead as opposed to the really expensive drug that takes 3 seconds :rolleyes: I mean, sheesh... its not like we cant surgically put the head back on for burial.... lol [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkblue]**vein starts bulging out of head** **passes out** no, seriously, i know it was a joke but this proves it exactly. the death penalty is just barbaric. if you think about it, what's the real difference between, say, a lynching & lethal injection? the end result is still the same. just b/c we've come up w/ more high-tech ways to execute, it doesn't mean we've made any real advancements as a species or culture.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 Well, there are just people in this world that would just as soon shoot you as say 'hello' to you. In my opinion, some of those people ain't even worth the bullets they shoot. Rapists, for example. There's no such thing as more low-down river-trash than that right there. But, to be honest, I'd rather have someone inject me with a painless toxin and kill me, than spend the rest of my life in prison. So, I guess if you're looking for a better punishment, a life sentence just seems worse to me. However, I still say that executing someone who can't reason as well as "normal" people is wrong. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted June 28, 2002 Author Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i] [B] [color=darkblue]the death penalty is just barbaric. if you think about it, what's the real difference between, say, a lynching & lethal injection?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I can answer that. A lynching is the victimization of an innocent person (usually based on ethnic prejudice). The death penalty is punishing someone for an actual crime. Thus, it's unfair to compare the two. Plus, as Justin mentioned, it's a bit cruel to keep someone imprisoned for an extended period of time. People are social animals. When they're cut off from society, their mentality can be weathered and further warped. My main point concerning this issue, is that there's no point in keeping a person that can't even reason, alive in an institution, when they are dangerous to others in an unsupervised environment. If they can't be rehabilitated, then what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyGirl Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i] [B]If they can't be rehabilitated, then what's the point? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Because they're human beings, too :)[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted June 28, 2002 Author Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B] [color=deeppink]Because they're human beings, too :)[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] That have killed another human being. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyGirl Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i] [B]That have killed another human being. ;) [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Touché ^_^ (I'm really trying to not get into too large a debate, even though it'd be a good thing, but I feel that if I start getting frustrated with my views, then personal anger will be exposed and that never gets me anywhere positive :)) But back to my response. I guess I was a little taken aback by the brashness of your comment, Crazy White Boy. And half of the people who commit homocide probably can't be rehabilitated, and yet those who admit to mental illness are sent to centers [i]for[/i] rehabilitation. Unless of course you're strictly speaking about the [i]exception[/i] to the death penalty (for those who are mentally challenged) as being pointless, then I hold no argument. [i]I really hope that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say, yet I'm having trouble actually saying it :p[/i][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 If they have the piece of mind to pick up a shotgun, go find a specific person, and blow their brains out, then I think they deserve to get whatever they've got comin. Besides, they wouldn't make it in prison; the inmates would beat the crap out of him/her just because he/she was different. Might as well put 'em out. Which brings up my next case--executions. Why must they take so long? Look at McVay or whatever his name was. Sure he wanted death, but how long did it take? At least five years since they knew it was him and got through trials. Well, why not just take him out back and shoot him? Why do we have to be so "kind" to someone who's ruined hundreds of lives, forcing some to die painfully under twenty ton pieces of cement? The solution to wasting millions of dollars on housing a psycho that blew up a building: drop a twenty ton block of cement on HIM. Make a building implode on HIM. Not make him spend five plus years in prision and give him a nice, slow, and peaceful death. Just take him out back after court and put him before a firing squad. This government is deminted with all of it's kindness policies towards mass killers' death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyGirl Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SuperSayian [/i] [B]If they have the piece of mind to pick up a shotgun, go find a specific person, and blow their brains out, then I think they deserve to get whatever they've got comin. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Actually, it's not as black and white as that. On the legal side of things it really depends on whether or not it was first or second degree murder, or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder is done with premeditation and malice, while second degree is done with only malice and no premeditation is involved. Voluntary manslaughter is if you're pushed to a certain point where you kill someone [i]as a result[/i] of how you've been treated, and involuntary is if you were acting in a reckless way that killed someone but had no intention of harming them. Chances are that someone who is mentally challenged isn't going to have the mental capacity to commit first degree murder, or maybe even second degree. If they're found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, then chances are slim to none that they'd even recieve the death penalty for it.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Macaiodh Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i] [B] I can answer that. A lynching is the victimization of an innocent person (usually based on ethnic prejudice). The death penalty is punishing someone for an actual crime. Thus, it's unfair to compare the two. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkblue]yeah, i see what you mean. "lynching" isn't quite what i was talking about. i was just using that as an example of those primitive methods used many years ago. and one more reason why i don't agree w/ capital punishment: can you all honestly say w/ surety that 100% of those executed have been guilty? i don't have that much faith in the legal system at all. [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B] [color=deeppink]Actually, it's not as black and white as that. On the legal side of things it really depends on whether or not it was first or second degree murder, or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder is done with premeditation and malice, while second degree is done with only malice and no premeditation is involved. Voluntary manslaughter is if you're pushed to a certain point where you kill someone [i]as a result[/i] of how you've been treated, and involuntary is if you were acting in a reckless way that killed someone but had no intention of harming them. Chances are that someone who is mentally challenged isn't going to have the mental capacity to commit first degree murder, or maybe even second degree. If they're found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, then chances are slim to none that they'd even recieve the death penalty for it.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Believe me, I know the degrees of murder. I hear "second degree" "first degree" "manslaughter" "self-defense" everyday. New Orleans is a hellova place to live. But if you notice, I said "then I think they deserve to get whatever they've got comin." Which means I feel that once they do ANY sort of crime, they should do the 'proper crime'. None of that humanitarian bull. They are human. Thus, they should be treated as if they were no different, since that's what they ask... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Macaiodh Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 [color=darkblue]so, SuperSayian, you're basically talking about an "eye for an eye" kind of thing? i suppose that's a belief people have to decide for themselves. or maybe i'm misunderstanding you?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now