toldailytopic: Should being diagnosed insane excuse capital punishment?

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, did I not post I wasn't sure how my post would relate, I just happen to remember what had happened and how it turned out.

Apparently it mattered to the man's attorney and the judge, and that might be the case.

It matters because intent matters; will matters. If I am incapable of understanding the quality of my actions and their consequence then putting me to death is as senseless as destroying a weapon in punishment. We note the distinction in will all the time. Kill a man to protect yourself and you're justified. Kill a man for pleasure and you're condemned. Intent controls the way we value an act. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The mind must match the action for guilt to attach.
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
It matters because intent matters; will matters. If I am incapable of understanding the quality of my actions and their consequence then putting me to death is as senseless as destroying a weapon in punishment. We note the distinction in will all the time. Kill a man to protect yourself and you're justified. Kill a man for pleasure and you're condemned. Intent controls the way we value an act. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The mind must match the action for guilt to attach.

This is exactly right. I am not understanding the point of view of people I usually agree with 100%. How does the bible call for the execution of people who do not fit the above bill?
 

Ted L Glines

New member
OSLO (AP) – Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik belongs in psychiatric care instead of prison, prosecutors in Norway said Tuesday after a mental evaluation declared him legally insane during a bomb-and-shooting rampage that killed 77 people. "After having read the documents of the case, the conclusion did not come as a surprise," Prosecutor Svein Holden told AP.

Breivik, 32, has confessed to setting off a bomb that ripped through Oslo's government district, killing eight people, then opening fire at the summer camp of the governing Labor Party's youth wing. Sixty-nine people died in the mayhem at Utoya island, outside the Norwegian capital, before Breivik surrendered to a SWAT team. He denies criminal guilt, saying he's a commander of a resistance movement aiming to overthrow European governments and replace them with "patriotic" regimes that will deport Muslim immigrants. Investigators have found no sign of such a movement and say Breivik most likely plotted and carried out the attacks on his own. "The conclusion of the forensic experts is that Anders Behring Breivik was insane" and that he, during an extended period, "developed the mental disorder of paranoid schizophrenia, which has changed him and made him into the person he is today."

In Norway, an insanity defense requires that a defendant be in a state of psychosis while committing the crime. That means the defendant has lost contact with reality to the point that he's no longer in control of his own actions.

The 243-page report will be reviewed by a panel from the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine, which could ask for additional information and add its own opinions. The head of the panel, Dr. Tarjei Rygnestad, called the conclusions "interesting."

Stine Renate Haaheim, a 27-year-old Labor Party lawmaker who survived the Utoya shootings, said she believes in Norway's legal tradition of not punishing criminals who are declared mentally ill. "But at the same time society has to protect itself," she added.

In neighboring Sweden, the forensic psychiatrist who examined the man who killed Foreign Minister Anna Lindh in 2003, expressed doubts about Breivik's diagnosis, given his extensive planning and the gruesome efficiency with which he slaughtered youth at Utoya. Disguised as a police officer, Breivik lured youths from their hiding places, then executed them. He also reportedly had calculated how many victims he would be able to kill before being arrested.

"It is difficult to see this as criminal insanity," Anders Forsman told AP. "He seems to have carried out the killings in a rational way. He is an efficient killing machine."

Holden said Breivik claims he committed the atrocities "out of love for his people" and describes himself as a crusader knight with special powers to decide "who is to live and who is to die." Breivik considers himself a future ruler of Norway and was planning to establish "breeding projects" for Norwegians, Holden said.

Yep, Breivik was/is stone cold crazy, or he is highly intelligent; capable of establishing an elaborate insanity defense to match the intricate execution of his 77 targets.

Breivik's trial is set to begin in April. If declared mentally fit and convicted of terrorism, he would face up to 21 years in prison or an alternative custody arrangement that could keep him behind bars indefinitely.

Execute him? I believe killing Breivik would establish a mortal sin for the executioner, if we are to uphold "Thou shalt not kill". Do we view this scripture as having the overarching authority of God, or shall we treat it as a suggestion; the folly of Moses?
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
This is exactly right. I am not understanding the point of view of people I usually agree with 100%. How does the bible call for the execution of people who do not fit the above bill?
It's not always about punishment; sometimes it is solely about protecting others.
 

PyramidHead

Active member
If a person can systematically load, aim, and shoot a gun, they know exactly what they are doing.

Even if they're hallucinating wildly due to chemical reactions in their brains they had no choice in and can't control (paranoid schizophrenia)?
 

PyramidHead

Active member
OSLO (AP) – Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik belongs in psychiatric care instead of prison, prosecutors in Norway said Tuesday after a mental evaluation declared him legally insane during a bomb-and-shooting rampage that killed 77 people. "After having read the documents of the case, the conclusion did not come as a surprise," Prosecutor Svein Holden told AP.

Breivik, 32, has confessed to setting off a bomb that ripped through Oslo's government district, killing eight people, then opening fire at the summer camp of the governing Labor Party's youth wing. Sixty-nine people died in the mayhem at Utoya island, outside the Norwegian capital, before Breivik surrendered to a SWAT team. He denies criminal guilt, saying he's a commander of a resistance movement aiming to overthrow European governments and replace them with "patriotic" regimes that will deport Muslim immigrants. Investigators have found no sign of such a movement and say Breivik most likely plotted and carried out the attacks on his own. "The conclusion of the forensic experts is that Anders Behring Breivik was insane" and that he, during an extended period, "developed the mental disorder of paranoid schizophrenia, which has changed him and made him into the person he is today."

In Norway, an insanity defense requires that a defendant be in a state of psychosis while committing the crime. That means the defendant has lost contact with reality to the point that he's no longer in control of his own actions.

The 243-page report will be reviewed by a panel from the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine, which could ask for additional information and add its own opinions. The head of the panel, Dr. Tarjei Rygnestad, called the conclusions "interesting."

Stine Renate Haaheim, a 27-year-old Labor Party lawmaker who survived the Utoya shootings, said she believes in Norway's legal tradition of not punishing criminals who are declared mentally ill. "But at the same time society has to protect itself," she added.

In neighboring Sweden, the forensic psychiatrist who examined the man who killed Foreign Minister Anna Lindh in 2003, expressed doubts about Breivik's diagnosis, given his extensive planning and the gruesome efficiency with which he slaughtered youth at Utoya. Disguised as a police officer, Breivik lured youths from their hiding places, then executed them. He also reportedly had calculated how many victims he would be able to kill before being arrested.

"It is difficult to see this as criminal insanity," Anders Forsman told AP. "He seems to have carried out the killings in a rational way. He is an efficient killing machine."

Holden said Breivik claims he committed the atrocities "out of love for his people" and describes himself as a crusader knight with special powers to decide "who is to live and who is to die." Breivik considers himself a future ruler of Norway and was planning to establish "breeding projects" for Norwegians, Holden said.

Yep, Breivik was/is stone cold crazy, or he is highly intelligent; capable of establishing an elaborate insanity defense to match the intricate execution of his 77 targets.

Breivik's trial is set to begin in April. If declared mentally fit and convicted of terrorism, he would face up to 21 years in prison or an alternative custody arrangement that could keep him behind bars indefinitely.

Execute him? I believe killing Breivik would establish a mortal sin for the executioner, if we are to uphold "Thou shalt not kill". Do we view this scripture as having the overarching authority of God, or shall we treat it as a suggestion; the folly of Moses?

The thing about being insane is that it in no way diminishes your intelligence, just the information that you're working with.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I believe killing Breivik would establish a mortal sin for the executioner, if we are to uphold "Thou shalt not kill". Do we view this scripture as having the overarching authority of God, or shall we treat it as a suggestion; the folly of Moses?
Mortal sin? Are you Catholic?

Anyway, the command is not, "Thou Shalt not kill," it is, "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You'd do better if you kept notes while you read along. See here.

This is somewhat of a false dichotomy but I think straw man is a better descriptor.
I understand.
You would rather spend $30,000 of other people's money per year to keep an insane murderer alive than to put him down like a rabid dog.
:wave2:
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Execute him? I believe killing Breivik would establish a mortal sin for the executioner, if we are to uphold "Thou shalt not kill". Do we view this scripture as having the overarching authority of God, or shall we treat it as a suggestion; the folly of Moses?

Romans 13:1-4
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.​

 

PyramidHead

Active member
I understand.
You would rather spend $30,000 of other people's money per year to keep an insane murderer alive than to put him down like a rabid dog.
:wave2:

or maybe he believes that if somebody acts detestably due to a treatable mental illness, maybe we should attempt to treat their mental illness instead of kill them. If you murder somebody because you are under the impression they are conspiring to kill Kennedy, then you are not in your right mind. That hypothetical action, in the mind of the insane person, would be to benefit the populace, although it was an action that was devastating to many and morally reprehensible. Do we treat his illness, or do we kill him? That's what this comes down to, not that somebody wants to spend other peoples money to pamper murderers, although construing it that way does make your position easier to hold.
 

PyramidHead

Active member
We put the insane murderer to death, of course. It is the only rational thing to do.

So the rational thing is to kill people who need professional psychiatric help? That's disappointing. What's the rational behind that, anyway? That it's too hard to treat them? Or that revenge is better then swallowing the hardest pill to swallow, and that is that we are all potential victims of unpredictable chemical imbalances in our brains that can make us unaware of what is real and what is not?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
So the rational thing is to kill people who need professional psychiatric help?
The rational thing is to put to death someone that murders 77 people in cold blood after he is caught by authorities.

He doesn't need professional psychiatric help any more, society needs for him to be put down.
 

PyramidHead

Active member
I remember when my mother, bless her soul, would occasionally have too much calcium in her blood stream, because her thyroid medication would interact with her anti psychotics and mood stabilizers in a way that made it difficult for her to absorb it properly. This, if it went on too long, would dehydrate her to points of delirium, in which she would have severe audio and visual hallucinations, as well as strange delusions. To think that you would have her treated in court (in the theoretical scenario, say for vehicular manslaughter) as though she was completely aware of her actions and their consequences, even though she would have obviously NOT been, is disheartening. To say the least.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I remember when my mother, bless her soul, would occasionally have too much calcium in her blood stream, because her thyroid medication would interact with her anti psychotics and mood stabilizers in a way that made it difficult for her to absorb it properly. This, if it went on too long, would dehydrate her to points of delirium, in which she would have severe audio and visual hallucinations, as well as strange delusions. To think that you would have her treated in court (in the theoretical scenario, say for vehicular manslaughter) as though she was completely aware of her actions and their consequences, even though she would have obviously NOT been, is disheartening. To say the least.

How many people has she killed? NONE?????
Then get her treatment so she doesn't kill someone.
 

PyramidHead

Active member
The rational thing is to put to death someone that murders 77 people in cold blood after he is caught by authorities.

He doesn't need professional psychiatric help any more, society needs for him to be put down.

Yeah, but not every person pleading insanity has murdered 77 people, and that's painting with a verrryyyy broad brush.
 

PyramidHead

Active member
And plus, you're ignoring my point:

Should somebody who is obviously not aware of reality, their actions and the consequences thereof, be charged in the EXACT SAME WAY as someone who is?
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
I understand.
You would rather spend $30,000 of other people's money per year to keep an insane murderer alive than to put him down like a rabid dog.
:wave2:

I like how you claim this is the "only rational way", yet this statement is anything but rational. If the offender is suffering from severe delusions that caused his actions, then he did not possess the agency that criminal justice requires. You are in effect saying that we should kill sick people. In the end your statement amounts to saying "kill a sick person because it is convenient economically speaking".
 
Top