by Elsewhere 149 Replies latest jw friends
Robyn; Why are you still chewing this over?
Chewing this over? I get to this forum when I can--which isn't very often. I believe that if I want to give my answer to a post a day, a week, or a month later I can do so. My problem has been that I tend to forget about the discussions/subjects that have occurred here. This subject, however, is on my mind because it's local news.
Seems to me that it is you who doesn't understand the psychopathic/sociopathic personality.My dear, sweet, little Google, a personality disorder is not quite the same as a mental illness regardless of what you think you read in the DSM IV. Please read the following: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/2/110 Personality disorders are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) as ?deeply ingrained and enduring behaviour patterns, manifesting themselves as inflexible responses to a broad range of personal and social situations?; they represent ?either extreme or significant deviations from the way the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels, and particularly relates to others? and are ?developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood? (World Health Organization, 1992a). They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p960239.html
oh my sweet little robyn, a psychopath/sociopath suffers a form of antisocial personality disorder. this is a mental illness. read the "diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders" (published by the american psychiatric association) if you don't believe what i say.
don't know where you get your quotes from, but they are either far from complete or cut out of context.
The problems with DSM-III and its 1987 revision (DSM-III-R) were widely discussed in the clinical and research literature (Widiger and Corbitt). Much of the debate concerned the absence of personality traits in the diagnosis of ASPD, an omission that allowed antisocial individuals with completely different personalities, attitudes and motivations to share the same diagnosis. At the same time, there was mounting evidence that the criteria for ASPD defined a disorder that was more artifactual than "real" (Livesley and Schroeder).
Psychopathy Checklist
Coincident with the publication of DSM-III in 1980, I presented some preliminary findings on efforts to provide researchers with an operational definition of psychopathy in offender populations (Hare 1980). During the next decade those early efforts evolved into the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Hare 1991), a 20-item construct rating scale that uses a semi-structured interview, case-history information and specific diagnostic criteria for each item to provide a reliable and valid estimate of the degree to which an offender or forensic psychiatric patient matches the traditional (prototypical) conception of the psychopath (Fulero; Stone). Each item is scored on a 3-point scale (0, 1, 2) according to the extent to which it applies to the individual. The total score can range from 0 to 40, with between 15 percent and 20 percent of offenders receiving a score of at least 30, the cutoff for a research diagnosis of psychopathy. To put this into context, the mean scores for offenders in general and for noncriminals typically are around 22 and 5, respectively.
A 12-item version of the PCL-R was developed for use in the MacArthur Foundation study on the prediction of violence in the mentally disordered (Hart and others 1994). Published in 1995 as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) by Hart and colleagues, it is highly correlated with the PCL-R and is used both to screen for psychopathy in forensic populations and as a stand-alone instrument for the assessment of psychopathy in noncriminal populations. The PCL:SV formed the basis for the psychopathic personality disorder items used in the DSM-IV field trial for ASPD.
The items fall into two clusters: One cluster, referred to as Factor 1, reflects core interpersonal and affective characteristics; the other cluster, Factor 2, consists of items that reflect a socially deviant and nomadic lifestyle. The similarity between these factors and the behaviors and characteristics described above in the FBI report are obvious.
Most psychopaths (with the exception of those who somehow manage to plow their way through life without coming into formal or prolonged contact with the criminal justice system) meet the criteria for ASPD, but most individuals with ASPD are not psychopaths. Further, ASPD is very common in criminal populations, and those with the disorder are heterogeneous with respect to personality, attitudes and motivations for engaging in criminal behavior.
As a result, a diagnosis of ASPD has limited utility for making differential predictions of institutional adjustment, response to treatment, and behavior following release from prison. In contrast, a high PCL-R score depends as much on inferred personality traits as on antisocial behaviors, andÑwhen used alone or in conjunction with other variablesÑhas considerable predictive validity with respect to treatment outcome, institutional adjustment, recidivism and violence (Hare 1991; Harris and others; Hart and Hare, in press).
For example, several studies have found that psychopathic offenders or forensic psychiatric patients (as defined by the PCL-R) are as much as three or four times more likely to violently reoffend following release from custody than are nonpsychopathic offenders or patients. ASPD, on the other hand, has relatively little predictive power, at least with forensic populations (Hart and Hare, in press).
It might be argued that a diagnosis of ASPD is useful in civil psychiatric settings, particularly as a general risk factor for substance abuse (Leal and others). Even here, however, psychopathy may be more important than ASPD in understanding substance abuse (Alterman and colleagues; Cacciola and others).
The differences between psychopathy and ASPD are further highlighted by recent laboratory research involving the processing and use of linguistic and emotional information. Psychopaths differ dramatically from nonpsychopaths in their performance of a variety of cognitive and affective tasks. Compared with normal individuals, for example, psychopaths are less able to process or use the deep semantic meanings of language and to appreciate the emotional significance of events or experiences (Larbig and others; Patrick; Williamson and others).
It is worth noting that it is the interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy (as measured by PCL-R, Factor 1) that are most discriminating in these experiments. In sharp contrast, those with a diagnosis of ASPD (in which interpersonal and affective traits play little role) differ little from those without ASPD in their processing of linguistic and emotional material.
DSM-IV
Widespread dissatisfaction with the conceptualization and criteria for ASPD led the American Psychiatric Association to initiate a field trial in preparation for DSM-IV. A stated goal of the trial (Widiger and others) was to improve coverage of the traditional symptoms of psychopathy. Included with the DSM-III-R criteria for ASPD was a 10-item version of the PCL-R, referred to in the trial as the psychopathic personality disorder criteria. Many researchers and clinicians hoped that the field trial would bring the diagnosis of ASPD back on track, but it did so in only a limited sense (Hare and Hart 1995).
The field trial clearly indicated that most of the personality traits that reflect the traditional symptoms of psychopathy were just as reliable as those of the more behaviorally specific DSM-III-R items (Widiger and colleagues). Thus, the original premise for excluding personality from the diagnosis of psychopathy/ASPD (in DSM-III) turned out to be untenable. There was now a firm empirical basis for increasing the content-related validity of ASPD in DSM-IV, without a reduction in reliability. Yet this did not happen, partly because, it was argued, the average clinician would not use the carefully structured approach to the assessment of personality traits used in the field trial.
It may come as a surprise to most clinicians that the criteria adopted for DSM-IV were not actually evaluated in the field trial. What was evaluated was the 10-item set of adult symptoms (Criterion C) for ASPD listed in DSM-III-R. The seven-item set listed in DSM-IV was derived from the 10-item set; this derivation was logical rather than empirical. Further, the field trial did not include evaluations of Criterion B (conduct disorder before age 15), a criterion listed in DSM-IV as a necessary condition for a diagnosis of ASPD.
Things become even more problematic when we consider that the DSM-IV text description of ASPD (which it says is also known as psychopathy) contains many references to traditional features of psychopathy. But in many respects the text account is incongruent with the formal diagnostic criteria. Further, the "Associated Features" section of the text contains this statement, and I paraphrase: Lack of empathy, inflated and arrogant self-appraisal, and glib, superficial charm are features of ASPD that may be particularly useful in prison or forensic settings wherein criminal, delinquent and aggressive acts will be less specific to the disorder.
The words used to describe these and related affective and interpersonal features are those typically associated with psychopathy and were based heavily on the 10-item psychopathic personality disorder set derived from the PCL-R. It is difficult not to conclude that DSM-IV contains two sets of diagnostic criteria for ASPD, one consisting of antisocial and criminal behaviors, and the other consisting of these behaviors plus clinical inferences about personality. The clinician is not provided with guidelines on how to make these inferences.
Some Problems
An unfortunate consequence of the ambiguity inherent in DSM-IV is likely to be a court case in which one clinician says the defendant meets the DSM-IV definition of ASPD, another clinician says he does not, and both are right! The first clinician uses only the formal diagnostic criteria whereas the second clinician agrees that the defendant meets the formal criteria but argues that he or she does not have the personality traits described in the "Associated Features" section of the DSM-IV text.
The failure to differentiate between psychopathy and ASPD can have serious consequences for clinicians and for society. For example, most jurisdictions consider psychopathy to be an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor in determining criminal responsibility. In some states an offender convicted of first-degree murder and diagnosed as a psychopath is likely to receive the death penalty on the grounds that psychopaths are cold-blooded, remorseless, untreatable and almost certain to reoffend. But many of the killers on death row were, and continue to be, mistakenly referred to as psychopaths on the basis of DSM-III, DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria for ASPD (Meloy). We donÕt know how many of these inhabitants of death row actually exhibit the personality structure of the psychopath, or how many merely meet the criteria for ASPD, a disorder that applies to the majority of criminals and that has only tenuous implications for treatability and the likelihood of violent reoffending. If a diagnosis of psychopathy has consequences for the death penalty- or for any other severe disposition, such as an indeterminate sentence or a civil commitment- clinicians making the diagnosis should make certain they do not confuse ASPD with psychopathy.
Had DSM-IV accepted the results of its own trial, ASPD and psychopathy might now be more or less synonymous constructs. Instead, the failure to explicitly bring personality back into the diagnosis of ASPD means that the disorder is ambiguous and continues to lack congruence with traditional conceptions of psychopathy.
Perhaps this situation- an unfortunate and unnecessary one in my view- will be rectified in DSM-V. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that interpersonal and affective traits are more discriminating of the construct of psychopathy than are the socially deviant behaviors reflected in the DSM-IV criteria for ASPD (Cooke). Diagnostic confusion about the two disorders has the potential for harming psychiatric patients and society as well. Last but not least:
Just out of interest, have there been any ancient societies where the death penalty wasn't a part of justice?
I suspect an internal sense of justice/revenge will continue to hover around in the human psyche. However the safety of others should surely be a factor. Locking someone away for a long time doesn't guarantee this, nor does it seem that humane. Lethal injection seems humane, but I think I'd rather a bullet to the brain than a couple of 14 guage needles.
I disagree with the public element of such proceedings. It smacks too much of mob-mentality. As does the proferring of pictures of the perpetrators, which never show their best side, given that they are usually stressed, upset, or insane.
Gyles:
May I take up this point with you?
But you guys (Americans) have been desensitised to death. You have a murder rate at least five times higher than Europe. Killing people for serious crimes is as natural and obvious a thing to do - for you guys - as hanging a child for stealjing an egg was to an English person in the reign of Victoria. It is socially acceptable.
Is it not possible that the reverse has happened here in Europe. We are so distanced from nature that we have become desensitised to reality? For all the concrete and tarmac we are not immune from natures call, as the recent Tsunami demonstrated.
Do you agree with putting a dog that has turned feral (e.g.Alsatian) to sleep?
What's the difference between that and a duplicitous human, where a cure isn't forthcoming?
Robyn
You are saying that you would know if your friends were secretly murderers, thieves, or sex offenders?
Despite the fact that most who secretly murder, steal or sexually offend have friends up until the discovery of their crimes?
You can keep that pleasing little dellusion if you like; it's simply not worth arguing about it.
Also, we agreed that sometimes the death penalty is warranted. So, what is there to argue about?
No we don't agree the death penalty is 'sometimes warranted'. Read what I said. I just started analysing various implementations of the death penalty to illustrate that the death penalty is unjust if
... let alone the traditonal graduations of seriousness based on motivation and premeditation.
This was to demonstrate that the number of people one could kill using the excuse 'they were evil' would be a small minority of murder cases.
You seemed to have missed this; the point is that if is is a small overall number, killing them is a CHOICE, as there are other means of ensuring they are not a threat to Society.
This means that, logically one (this not about you, it is about justifications for the death penalty) has to accept that being in favour of the death penalty is a CHOICE, largely based on emotional factors.
Trying to build a 'moral' justification for it, or a logical argument that "it is okay because of x, y and z", fails; or at least no one on this thread has yet presented a cohesive argument to that end.
If people are honest enough to say they feel safer knowing the worst murderers are killed, fine.
I think people find it hard to be that honest with themselves as characterising themselves as someone who will agree to the death of another essentially on grounds of comfort is something they feel troubled doing... possibly because killing people is wrong?
Without such personal honesty, one (this is not about you, it's about the justifications people use for judicial killing) is just kidding onesself about the real reasons for being in favour of it
I am well aware of your stand on the death penalty: That in cases of insanity or a brain tumor that the death penalty is not appropriate. So far, Montgomery does not appear to be insane or ill. So, in your opinion, what should the state of Missouri, the state I live in, do about her?
Robyn, if you've been following what I said, how do you come up with 'brain tumors'? I've said some people kill because they are criminally insane, but I don't equate that with an automatic physically detectable fault or defect in the brain.
As for this woman? Well, maybe we should let professionals decide on whether she is mad or not? If she is found guilty and there are no grounds for mental incompetence, then she can be locked in a cage and studied like a rat for the rest of her life for all I care. Maybe we might learn how someone gets so twisted?
If I'd walked in on her I'd have killed her in an eye-blink, and not feel guilt for it at all. But now to kill her with premeditation and calculation... well, to ME, that reduces me to the level of someone who would kill with premeditation and caluclation.
For the umpteenth time I think (due to the social issues I've previously mentioned) I would support the death penalty if I was raised in the USA, and that you would not, so please don't see this as me good you bad.
It's a discussion about whether the justifications for judicial killing are valid, and for why societies very similar in many respects (the US and Europe for example) can differ over the dp whilst the US has most in common in this regard with soieties it apparently has little in common with (Saudi and China).
Ross
Is it not possible that the reverse has happened here in Europe. We are so distanced from nature that we have become desensitised to reality? For all the concrete and tarmac we are not immune from natures call, as the recent Tsunami demonstrated.
I think the point is that IF killing killers made a real difference, there would be more of an argument for it. The REALITY of the situation is that the death penalty can't be linked to low murder rates.
It would seem that those who approve of the death penalty might be more desensitised to reality if they feel if does anything other than make them feel better.
Do you agree with putting a dog that has turned feral (e.g.Alsatian) to sleep?
What's the difference between that and a duplicitous human, where a cure isn't forthcoming?
A dog isn't a sophont being. It being savage may be as a result of environment, illness, etc., but at the end of the day if a non-sophont organism is a threat to a sophont organsism, we have well-established principles held by most humans that make it acceptable to kill the non-sophont life-form.
A human is a sophont being. It being savage may be as a result of environment, illness, etc., but at the end of the day it a sophont organism. Humans normally hold ideas about the sanctity of human life, whatever culture they come from.
This has not always been fully expressed historically; women, children, slaves, other races, other religions, the poor; all have been held to have less important than other human lives.
We now recognise this and part of the social break-throughs of the past hundred years has been an increasing acceptance that EVERYONE has the same right to life. We have developed concepts of human rights which mean even undeniable scum are treated as though they deserved it, because we have decided as societies that people deserve to be treated like people. A full acceptence of human right does sit well with judicial execustions, as although murder is a violation of human rights, two wrongs do not make a (human) right.
I see the move away from the death penalty as part of the increasing social development of human society on this planet. By making the right human sophont life an invioble cornerstone we do more good than we do by killing a few people as examples.
Jesus said 'love your enemies'. Which part of killing is loving Ross? Also, the Dali Llama seems to feel it's wrong too;
"The death penalty fulfills a preventive function, but it is also very clearly a form of revenge. It is an especially severe form of punishment because it is so final. The human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it. Before advocating execution we should consider if criminals are intrinsically negative and harmful people and whether they will remain perpetually in the same state of mind in which they committed their crime or not. The answer, I believe, is definitely not. However horrible the act they have committed, I believe that everyone has the potential to improve and correct themselves. Therefore, I am optimistic that it remains possible to deter criminal activity, and prevent such harmful consequences of such acts in society, without having to resort to the death penalty."
Of course, just because we don't kill those who DO present a risk of re-offending doesn't mean we have to be at risk. Certain classes of prisoner could be kept jailed indefinately.
But, in general, "the majority of murderers are probably the safest group of prisoners with the lowest rates of reoffending" (Howard Leauge for Penal Reform http://www.howardleague.org/press/2003/070503.htm ).
Put it this way; if revenge and punishment is the motivation, kill them.
But if preventing further murders is the goal, underscoring the sanctity of life by not allowing the government to take it is not going to cause problems.
Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant! was never a particulary smart argument.
Gyles:
I think the point is that IF killing killers made a real difference, there would be more of an argument for it. The REALITY of the situation is that the death penalty can't be linked to low murder rates.
Does terminal incarceration improve that rate any?
I fail to see why treating someone like a hamster in a cage is any better than treating them like a dog with rabies...
Why don't we lobotomise them, and send them back out onto the street? Would THAT be more humane?
Surely there is a dilemma here, whatever the decision...
Sophont or non-sophont, I don't think the dog wanted putting down any more than the human - that's a humanistic distinction, not one that has regard for sanctity of life. Which side are you really batting for?
Personally I've not made my mind up on the subject. I'm discussing it because it's of interest to me, and you are generally one of the more worthy debators...
Abbaddon:
Robyn You are saying that you would know if your friends were secretly murderers, thieves, or sex offenders? Despite the fact that most who secretly murder, steal or sexually offend have friends up until the discovery of their crimes? You can keep that pleasing little dellusion if you like; it's simply not worth arguing about it.
So, which one are you saying? Friends or acquaintances? My friends are not sex offenders, murderers and thieves. My acquaintances may be. Calling the morals and ethics of my friends my "little dellusion" does not change the fact that my friends are not of the above described ilk. Since you do not know my friends, you insisting that they must be secretly murderers thieves and sex offenders is your "little delusion" and you are correct, it's not worth further discussion.
Abaddon:
Also, we agreed that sometimes the death penalty is warranted. So, what is there to argue about? No we don't agree the death penalty is 'sometimes warranted'. Read what I said. I just started analysing various implementations of the death penalty to illustrate that the death penalty is unjust if there is not absolute proof there is mental illness there are contributory social factors to the offense or differing sentencing outcomes based on social factors... let alone the traditonal graduations of seriousness based on motivation and premeditation. This was to demonstrate that the number of people one could kill using the excuse 'they were evil' would be a small minority of murder cases. You seemed to have missed this; the point is that if is is a small overall number, killing them is a CHOICE, as there are other means of ensuring they are not a threat to Society. This means that, logically one (this not about you, it is about justifications for the death penalty) has to accept that being in favour of the death penalty is a CHOICE, largely based on emotional factors. Trying to build a 'moral' justification for it, or a logical argument that "it is okay because of x, y and z", fails; or at least no one on this thread has yet presented a cohesive argument to that end. If people are honest enough to say they feel safer knowing the worst murderers are killed, fine. I think people find it hard to be that honest with themselves as characterising themselves as someone who will agree to the death of another essentially on grounds of comfort is something they feel troubled doing... possibly because killing people is wrong? Without such personal honesty, one (this is not about you, it's about the justifications people use for judicial killing) is just kidding onesself about the real reasons for being in favour of it I am well aware of your stand on the death penalty: That in cases of insanity or a brain tumor that the death penalty is not appropriate. So far, Montgomery does not appear to be insane or ill. So, in your opinion, what should the state of Missouri, the state I live in, do about her? Robyn, if you've been following what I said, how do you come up with 'brain tumors'? I've said some people kill because they are criminally insane, but I don't equate that with an automatic physically detectable fault or defect in the brain. As for this woman? Well, maybe we should let professionals decide on whether she is mad or not? If she is found guilty and there are no grounds for mental incompetence, then she can be locked in a cage and studied like a rat for the rest of her life for all I care. Maybe we might learn how someone gets so twisted? If I'd walked in on her I'd have killed her in an eye-blink, and not feel guilt for it at all. But now to kill her with premeditation and calculation... well, to ME, that reduces me to the level of someone who would kill with premeditation and caluclation. For the umpteenth time I think (due to the social issues I've previously mentioned) I would support the death penalty if I was raised in the USA, and that you would not, so please don't see this as me good you bad.
Abaddon, you keep saying the same thing over and over but you still haven't answered any question that I have posed to you. You seem to be wanting to straddle the fence on this one and that's fine with me. I have never seen this situation in such a black and white way as to say "me good, you bad". You are the one who has brought it up. Since you have, it must be your opinion.
You say that if you walked in on this situation you would have killed Montgomery and not felt guilty about it. And yet you say that if Missouri kills her it is pre-meditated and unjust. How is your defending the innocent by killing Montgomery immediately any different than what the state is doing? Both scenarios are for protecting the innocent. The latter situation, while not occurring immediately, still has the same out come--protecting members of society.
Another thing: At least the state is going to assume she is "innocent until proven guilty" and then will decide her punishment if she is guilty. This is, in some ways, is preferrable to you rushing in and killing her without knowing the true facts of what has occurred.
For your information, my being raised in the US has nothing to do with my support of the death penalty. At one time, when I was younger, I did not support it. There are many in this country that do not support the death penalty.
Robyn
No one knows the deep heart, true or cruel, of an individual, as some are very good actors.
John Wayne Gacy's wife didn't know he was a killer. Robert Yates' wife (Green River serial killer) had no clue. Aileen Wuarnos' gay lover didn't know she was out killing, until she told her. There are many examples of murderous people who appeared to others to be friendly, upstanding members of the community, outgoing, and socially acceptable, and their friends, and even their own spouses didn't know!
The death penalty, and I do believe in it, is a very controversial punishment. I believe it should be used only in cases where there is 100% positive proof that the person committed the crime; i.e., DNA, eye-witnesses, circumstantial, TOGETHER. I used to be a strong supporter of it, but then I started realizing that over 100 people have been released from Death Row cells in the last 10 years or so because of the advance of technologies that proved their innocence, and it just scares me how many innocent people can/have been/will be put to death because of their inability to pay for a good attorney. All those years of all those lives, wasted, and spent in a cell.. knowing the day their life would come to an end.. and the fear, frustration and agony of living each of those days, is very painful to me. There is no justice in that.. nor do I believe that they can recover recompense for all those wasted years. I may be wrong on that, but I don't think so.
I *do* believe that justice and revenge are two very different concepts. Justice is the just and fair punishment of a person for their crime. Revenge is the calculated mistreatment of a person with blatant disregard for their human rights of defense and justice.
jus·tice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j
n.
re·venge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es
n.
There are many cases that outline the inefficiency of state-supported defense counsel. One attorney was caught napping during most of his clients' murder trial. The guy was sent to Death Row. Luckily, this was a nationally broadcast item, and brought attention to the case. Unfortunately, the Appeals Court overlooked this and sent him back to where he came from. I am not sure if he was given a new appeal or not. I certainly hope so. Defense attorneys, state-supported, often do not show up to visit with their clients until the day of trial. It's very scary...
While I do understand both sides of this argument, and I am mostly on the fence about it at this point, I do think the Death Penalty, until it can be perfected, should be temporarily suspended until the kinks can be worked out.
Life is precious ... and I think our Department of Justice demands that respect for life in ONE way, and then is hypocritical in others. That is why it costs so much to house Death Row inmates... it costs so much for appeals, of which I think in Texas they have (one mandatory) three. On the other hand, they supply crappy public defense attorneys that simply do not care enough to properly investigate, file motions on time, etc. and don't meet with the defendant until shortly before trial. They don't pay them enough to care, which is sad. They argue with them to take a plea, and then the person gets so much time that they come out of prison worse than they went in.
I worked for a public defender one time, and he used to argue with me over my paycheck to the MINUTE. But he did really care, and he would literally cry when someone was sentenced to death. He did it because he wanted to save lives. I admired him for that.. but I used to just read the prep stuff and just think "Why does he do this to himself?" Then I realized that he really did care about people, and wanted to see them have justice. He knew the *real* percentage of thsoe who were sent to Death Row that were innocent. But he didn't have enough resources from the state to give them a fair shake. Our justice system isn't perfected, but there *are* people out there who want to see it better! I'm fairly optimistic that at some point in time it will become more of a just and humane system, instead of the big commercial enterprise that is has become due to privatization of the correctional system.
This woman has the right of assumption of innocence until declared guilty by jury trial or judge. One can assume all one wants, and speculate all one desires, but it neither changes the outcome of this case, nor brings people closer together in discussing what could be/should be a valuable discussion about the benefits/disadvantages of the death penalty, mental illness in reference to criminality, etc. I think this could turn into a really wonderful conversation if we just kept the personal attacks out of it.
Whether she was mentally ill, evil or not, is not relevant at this point. For us, it's all speculation at this stage of the game. If she did do this, and there was a psychosis-driven episode preluding it, then does she deserve to get help in a facility designed to house those persons judged criminally insane until she can be accountable, or does she deserve to get help and then be set free? And, if not, then she will have no choice but to accept the punishment currently deemed appropriate by a jury of her peers, or a Judge, which will be determined by the current politcial, social, economic, and ethnic climate of her venue of jurisdiction.
Anyway, just wanted to add my thoughts here. Don't really want to scream at people or rant... just kind of wanted to summarize my thoughts on this thread.
Country Girl
I enjoyed your post CG, it pretty much sums up my own thoughts on the subject.
Ross
Does terminal incarceration improve that rate any?
I would only feel 'terminal incarceration' was appropriate if there was a risk of re-offending.
And it isn't about whether 'terminal incarceration' is a better alternative to the dp. It's about killing people is bad unless it stops them killing someone. Bars do that too.
I fail to see why treating someone like a hamster in a cage is any better than treating them like a dog with rabies...
Ask the hamster. And we would cut the dog up and study its disease; why is the study of the criminally insane wrong? (As long as it is bound by medical ethics.)
Why don't we lobotomise them, and send them back out onto the street? Would THAT be more humane?
No, because we would deprive them of their humanity in a way far more final, brutal and pervasive than four walls can.
And I think if killing people is wrong, destroying their humanity in a way that only really differs in that what is left has a pulse is in no way good.
Sophont or non-sophont, I don't think the dog wanted putting down any more than the human - that's a humanistic distinction, not one that has regard for sanctity of life. Which side are you really batting for?
Of course the dog didn't want putting down. First of all it would not be capable of contemplating such a concept. It is a dog. It might not like needles as they are sharp and hurt, but a dog isn't aware their life is being terminated.
Secondly, if it was able to conceive such a thing, it obviously wouldn't want it; survival is a strong instinct.
And what if it didn't want it? It is a rabid dog; it's a mercy to kill it and an act to preserve public safety.
But when is it a mercy to kill a human who is physically healthy? Is killing someone who presents a future threat to public safety more likely to preserve public safety than permanent incarceration?
I, personally, cannot justify judicial execution as it fails at every test I put it to.
Robyn
Abaddon, you keep saying the same thing over and over but you still haven't answered any question that I have posed to you. You seem to be wanting to straddle the fence on this one and that's fine with me. I have never seen this situation in such a black and white way as to say "me good, you bad". You are the one who has brought it up. Since you have, it must be your opinion.
Nope, I ignorantly thought stating this at the outset would prevent anyone getting over-excited. I was wrong.
You say that if you walked in on this situation you would have killed Montgomery and not felt guilty about it.
Uh-huh.
And yet you say that if Missouri kills her it is pre-meditated and unjust.
Yes.
How is your defending the innocent by killing Montgomery immediately any different than what the state is doing?
Because one is in the heat of the moment. The other is a CHOICE to kill when other methods would equally serve to protect public safety.
Both scenarios are for protecting the innocent.
No, the slaughter of someone who had done that to my girlfriend if I happened upon it would be pure rage and hate, a lust for revenge, and perhaps to save someone immediately imperilled.
Afterwards I hope I would not try to pretty it up by claiming I did it to protect the innocent in general. Judicial killing has viable alternatives.
Another thing: At least the state is going to assume she is "innocent until proven guilty" and then will decide her punishment if she is guilty. This is, in some ways, is preferrable to you rushing in and killing her without knowing the true facts of what has occurred.
Yes, and you yourself cited her as an example of someone who was obviously guilty; I don't know where you are going with falsely suggesting I want anything done to her without due process, but it isn't working very well, is it?
For your information, my being raised in the US has nothing to do with my support of the death penalty. At one time, when I was younger, I did not support it. There are many in this country that do not support the death penalty.
Mmmmm... which is why I say 'one', and talk of society and the US and Europe. It isn't about you, it is about the topic we are discussing. On average an American will support the death penalty. Overwhelmingly Europeans are against it.
All the best
Country Girl
There are many cases that outline the inefficiency of state-supported defense counsel. One attorney was caught napping during most of his clients' murder trial. The guy was sent to Death Row. Luckily, this was a nationally broadcast item, and brought attention to the case. Unfortunately, the Appeals Court overlooked this and sent him back to where he came from. I am not sure if he was given a new appeal or not. I certainly hope so. Defense attorneys, state-supported, often do not show up to visit with their clients until the day of trial. It's very scary...
This is my main concern. I feel it contributes a lot to the disparity of sentencing outcomes between White and Black Americans for comparable murders; obviously there is racism in the system, but the intention is not racist. It is simple demographics that result in Black people more often having lousy defence.
But is it okay for a system to racially biased in its outcome as long as that is not its intention?
I don't think so.
No, the slaughter of someone who had done that to my girlfriend if I happened upon it would be pure rage and hate, a lust for revenge, and perhaps to save someone immediately imperilled.Afterwards I hope I would not try to pretty it up by claiming I did it to protect the innocent in general. Judicial killing has viable alternatives.
So, you yourself are harsh? You have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? But the people of the state do not. I see...It's alright if YOU kill but not if others do so.
The term "hypocrit" comes to mind. I see all I care to see.
Discussion is over.
Robyn
