America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

If they are deemed mentally ill though by medical professionals then I think it's probably best to commit them to a life in a high security mental health facility.

Why? To study them?

 

[BobK]

If there's one case of a person being killed by the state who is then proven not to have been guilty, is that enough to convince us that there's always a possibility of it happening again? & therefore sway our judgement of the death penalty away from saying that it should be in place?

Should the state even have a say in who gets to live & who must be killed?

What if the perp' is guilty but was compelled by mental illness? & what if that illness is diagnosed after the guilty but ill person has already been killed?

That's actually my biggest issue with the death penalty. As long as mistakes are made handling evidence, as long as there are prosecutors more interested in getting another conviction than truly seeing justice done, then there's too great a chance of innocents being sentenced to death.

The thing is, I'm fine with the concept of capital punishment. But only if we could be certain beyond all doubt that the accused did it.

 

[xyloscissor]

Why does it matter if they are mentally ill? They did it...

We believe that a man must show the capacity of knowing the difference between right and wrong, some do not. To punish someone not capable of understanding why is inhumane.

 

[polysmut]

Why does it matter if they are mentally ill? They did it...

As a hypothetical but plausible example:
Say you suffer from a psychotic episode during which you cause a person's death. You're not evil, your mind was playing tricks on you when it happened.
If we can't safely say that you are a safe person to have on the streets then I can see the case for locking you in a hospital. I can't accept the idea that we have to kill you though.

 

[xyloscissor]

As a hypothetical but plausible example:
Say you suffer from a psychotic episode during which you cause a person's death. You're not evil, your mind was playing tricks on you when it happened.
If we can't safely say that you are a safe person to have on the streets then I can see the case for locking you in a hospital. I can't accept the idea that we have to kill you though.

Handing out psychotropic drugs to kids like candy comes to mind.

 

[Joey D]

Why? To study them?

No so they serve out a sentence. Most of those places are just prisons that happen to have mental health care and I don't think it's a really glamorous life. Although you could probably study them, even though I'm not sure that's entirely ethical.

With mental illness it's hard to draw a line, if someone is clinically depressed an goes out and murders 25 people then I don't really think you have a valid defense and should just end up with the same sentence anyone else would have. If someone who has the mental capacity of a 5 year old gets a gun an kills their family because they thought they were playing, then I think that's a different story. I think it just really needs to be looked at closely by a medical professional and if it can be determined you know the difference between "right and wrong" or "have an understanding of the law" then I think you can stand trial and serve out your sentence in the same way that someone else who committed those crimes would have.

 

[polysmut]

I also think people shouldn't kill people. I don't know how to explain that logically it's just a human feeling that I have.

If one is to form a logical argument, one aspect to consider needs to be who should be the ones charged with deciding who should live or die & why are they the ones to decide.

 

[xyloscissor]

@BobK

The bit about what I would consider zealous prosecution, the position of DA is all too often used as a stepping stone into a political career. That stinks right from the get go imo, we all have a responsibility to serve or give back to our country, the positions where never intended to become super star places as they now are.

@S_Bridge

That's simple, if you threaten my life I can die or take yours, if you take another's you lose your right to your own. You don't have to agree but that is the premise and it's black and white.

 

[ryzno]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't he deemed unfit for trial but proceed to represt himself after that was his teams argument? For someone mentally ill, he seems to know exactly what he's doing.

I don't which way to throw the flaw but I smell one.

 

[Northstar]

he seems to know exactly what he's doing.

Apparently he doesn't since he was found guilty and only now figured out that a lawyer or two may not be a bad idea.

 

[polysmut]

That's simple, if you threaten my life I can die or take yours,

Self defence is entirely legitimate but if you can negate the threat with x-amount of consequence then I'd prefer to go no further than that amount.

if you take another's you lose your right to your own. You don't have to agree but that is the premise and it's black and white.

I understand your view & see where you're coming from but to me there's room for nuance.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As a hypothetical but plausible example:
Say you suffer from a psychotic episode during which you cause a person's death. You're not evil, your mind was playing tricks on you when it happened.
If we can't safely say that you are a safe person to have on the streets then I can see the case for locking you in a hospital. I can't accept the idea that we have to kill you though.

If you're interested, it might be worth reading Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. It's about the Clutter family murders, a violent home invasion and multiple homicide in rural Kentucky in 1959. Capote follows the investigation and the perpetrators and the impact the crime had on the community. He also covers the trial, and looks at the state of mind of the perpetrators and how the courts handled it.

 

[Lizard]

Not in direct relation but I'll continue my thoughts about our justice system and it might be even more controversial though I don't mean it that way.

The process we subject felons to is nothing more than a setup for failure, we let say a rapist for example out of jail, we label him, we force him to label himself, we make it all but impossible for the man to find residence or a job, no bank account etc. nothing but fingers pointing in all directions and then we say "see? Told you he was a criminal" We are not giving a choice or chance so I'll sincerely ask, why not just kill those ones also?

Ahh that is a well known theory in Sociology.... And I forget the name.

 

[xyloscissor]

Ahh that is a well known theory in Sociology.... And I forget the name.

I didn't know that but then again it's been many years since my freshman sociology class. It is a reasonable question though at least to me.

 

[xyloscissor]

Why is this happening? Call me crazy but it simply does not make sense to me, is it a nana? It won't affect the security so, why is this happening? Who needs leadership? It's over rated lol.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.e6f5c0b16600

“It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment,” Mendelson said.

 

[BobK]

Why is this happening? Call me crazy but it simply does not make sense to me, is it a nana? It won't affect the security so, why is this happening? Who needs leadership? It's over rated lol.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.e6f5c0b16600

This raises a couple of questions. Why does it require a general to run it? An organization that size is usually run by a colonel. Why is the commander a political appointment?

I understand the reasoning for the timing. Seems to me an exception should be made in his case to keep him on until after the ceremony is over.

 

[xyloscissor]

All I can think of is it's because D.C. is a federal district and not a state so they do things differently. I wanted to defuse the notion of conspiracy but also point out how silly I thought it was.

 

[Dotini]

All I can think of is it's because D.C. is a federal district and not a state so they do things differently. I wanted to defuse the notion of conspiracy but also point out how silly I thought it was.

There are going to be lot of protesters at the inauguration, and the threat of incidents is very high. Exactly how the protests are controlled or dealt with is going to be a matter of great scrutiny.

 

[ryzno]

I don't even want to share a link cause of his legal past.
That said, well known in Atlanta, Bishop Eddie Long passed away today from cancer at 63.

 

[Liquid]

Chelsea Manning will be released from gaol in May

 

[Blitz24]

Chelsea Manning will be released from gaol in May

Why doesn't Obama release Manson while he's at it?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why doesn't Obama release Manson while he's at it?

I hardly think they're in the same league.

 

[xyloscissor]

Why doesn't Obama release Manson while he's at it?

I'm pretty sure he is on his deathbed in a hospital.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Why doesn't Obama release Manson while he's at it?

I think that the more appropriate question is why doesn't Obama pardon Snowden while he was at it. It can be argued that Manning committed the more atrocious crime compared to Snowden when Manning leaked the diplomatic cables and embarrassed the Clinton State Department. At least with Snowden, regardless of where he ended up, he had our civil liberties in mind when he blew the whistle on PRISM and other NSA surveillance programs.

That is the big problem with the lack of a federal whistleblower protection law. You get cases like this.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It can be argued that Manning committed the more atrocious crime compared to Snowden when Manning leaked the diplomatic cables and embarrassed the Clinton State Department. At least with Snowden, regardless of where he ended up, he had our civil liberties in mind when he blew the whistle on PRISM and other NSA surveillance programs.

For one, Manning did damage to Clinton, so this could be interpreted as "no hard feelings" on Obama's part.

Secondly, while Snowden had civil liberties in mind, Manning exposed actions during the War on Terror that were in the public interest to know.

 

[Sanji Himura]

For one, Manning did damage to Clinton, so this could be interpreted as "no hard feelings" on Obama's part.

Secondly, while Snowden had civil liberties in mind, Manning exposed actions during the War on Terror that were in the public interest to know.

By exposing personal diplomatic cables to Jullian Assange? I'm sorry, but for what it is worth, the two do not necessarily equate.

At least Snowden TRIED to use the legal process to expose PRISM before he left for Russia. Manning made no such legal efforts before leaking the cables.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

By exposing personal diplomatic cables to Jullian Assange? I'm sorry, but for what it is worth, the two do not necessarily equate.

She sent Assange hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, didn't she? I doubt that she had enough time to review all of them. And she probably went to Assange because she didn't have the means to publicly release them herself.

Could she have handled it better? Certainly. But some of the things that were exposed were extremely important for the public to know.

 

[Liquid]

That is the big problem with the lack of a federal whistleblower protection law. You get cases like this.

I did read in a "macro on the internet" kind of way that the only person who has gone to gaol for the exposure of CIA torture abuses is the whistleblower.

I really hope that that is not true.

 

[x3ra]

It's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou

Stinks to high heaven.

@Blitz24 - what was your intention when you tried to associate Manson with Manning?

 

[xyloscissor]

I think there is a time and place for everything, in that way I believe I have a right to know but not always at a particular time if that makes sense. The prosecutions bother me with the stiff penalties, going all the way back to the nam whistlers.