This makes me sick to the stomach... Watch

Sk1lLz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#201
Report 10 years ago
#201
This is disgusting.
0
quote
reply
Sanyore
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#202
Report 10 years ago
#202
(Original post by jjbristol)
no i'm suggesting that we offer ''help'' to people in prison who HAVEN'T as of yet killed/raped anybody but are likely to do so. You can often predict who the future murderers are using the exact psychology you have been advocating. So why not target the possible murderers of tomorrow (saving lives) rather than waste the energy on someone who has already had their chance and taken a life?

There is a difference between a mentally ill patient who talks of killing someone and a convict who already has done. I know where i'd prefer my tax be spent.
I can understand offering help to mentally ill people who talk of killing someone, but to use "psychology" to "predict" that someone is going to murder sounds, in all frankness, like a determinist nightmare a-la The Minority Report.
0
quote
reply
necessarily benevolent
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#203
Report 10 years ago
#203
(Original post by Sanyore)
Yes, because she would be able to do that behind iron bars in a concrete prison.
And, I'm assuming that since you're saying that all death should be rewarded with death, that Barry George should've been executed in 2001? When it turns out he's actually innocent? Along with all the misjudged trials in history? Do tell, Almighty judge of morality, how you plan to prevent such errors of judgement in the future? And accidental deaths? A hit-and-run while talking on the phone on a deserted road should be rewarded with death? A firearm accidentally going off should be rewarded with death? Yes, you'll say "But they had no premeditated malice, your honour!" Alright. Do you know what, I have much faith in the hearts of evil men & women to think "Wahey! That's a loophole, since they can't read my mind, but killing is bad, so I won't." Very likely.
And people who claim they did in fact, kill someone by accident, with no premeditated malice, even though they have motive to kill someone?
If they're in prison it would just be an indicator of weakness to the masses and would have a detrimental impact on prison spaces (which are bursting right now btw) which should be reserved for those who deserve to live. In reference to your second comment, a tragedy of course, but some slip through the net and you'll see that through history there are always casualties when it comes to implementing ideas. Think of all the lives that could be saved at the expense of one or two. And no, there are always indicators as to whether a death was or was not premeditated, and my above comment portrays why, even the rare mistakes in this case, might serve a greater purpose.
0
quote
reply
jjbristol
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#204
Report 10 years ago
#204
Renal, if you were in charge of this woman's fate what would you have done? Would you send her to prison for life, release her or offer her psychiatric help (if so, for what reason?).

It's just that your comment ''who is this lady a risk to?'' suggests that you think she may as well walk the streets immediately (which seems to contradict previous posts of yours). After all why would you support psychiatric help if she is of no risk to anybody?
0
quote
reply
Renal
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#205
Report 10 years ago
#205
(Original post by jjbristol)
no i'm suggesting that we offer ''help'' to people in prison who HAVEN'T as of yet killed/raped anybody but are likely to do so. You can often predict who the future murderers are using the exact psychology you have been advocating.
I'd love to hear you explain how, short of identifying a patient with acute illness with persecutory hallucinations and homicidal ideation (those who do come into contact are treated held if necessary). However, you read above what kind of person commits infanticide, so unless you have some fantastic new insight that nobody else has grasped, you know that we can't identify those at risk any more than we already do.


There is a difference between a mentally ill patient who talks of killing someone and a convict who already has done. I know where i'd prefer my tax be spent.
Guess where your tax is spent. :rolleyes:

You may think you know a fair bit, you might do, but it's sure as hell ain't law, mental illness or psychiatric resources.
0
quote
reply
Reagan Smash
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#206
Report 10 years ago
#206
Urgh thats awful. Microwave her. This is one of the cases where it makes me glad that they still have the death penalty!
0
quote
reply
jjbristol
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#207
Report 10 years ago
#207
(Original post by Sanyore)
I can understand offering help to mentally ill people who talk of killing someone, but to use "psychology" to "predict" that someone is going to murder sounds, in all frankness, like a determinist nightmare a-la The Minority Report.
Very well. But what is the point of offering this woman any help. Trying to rehabilitate her is pointless unless it is planned that she could one day be released. So i'm assuming you support her release. Do you think it is acceptable that a woman who put her own baby in the microwave to die because she was scared of losing her boyfriend should one day be allowed to walk free amongst us? I'm sorry but i find the idea ridiculous.
0
quote
reply
Laura26
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#208
Report 10 years ago
#208
The death penalty is not an ideal course of action within any society - for a start, mistakes are made and people who are innocent of the crime are executed. And where would you draw the line? As someone earlier pointed out, we cannot base our legal judgements on emotion (ie. Oh my gosh, she murdered a poor 1 month old baby in a microwave and subsequently should receive harsher punishment than the Saturday night chav who got drunk the other night and stabbed a fellow chav (both are murder but which one gets executed? Or do they both? [And if both, is it really fair to treat people who may have had the ability to reform/respond to "help" and treatment in the same way as the "no hopers"?])

As many have pointed out, it is not a deterrent either...but is it really meant to be?

Perhaps there is a reason the USA are so rich - they get rid of the sickos we in Britain would "help" and place in a cosy prison cell...at a cost of over £40,000 a year per prisoner (oh and some prisons even have Playstations now...). The death penalty is a cheaper way of getting shot of the people in society who have gone past the point of help.
0
quote
reply
jjbristol
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#209
Report 10 years ago
#209
(Original post by Renal)
I'd love to hear you explain how, short of identifying a patient with acute illness with persecutory hallucinations and homicidal ideation (those who do come into contact are treated held if necessary). However, you read above what kind of person commits infanticide, so unless you have some fantastic new insight that nobody else has grasped, you know that we can't identify those at risk any more than we already do.


Guess where your tax is spent. :rolleyes:

You may think you know a fair bit, you might do, but it's sure as hell ain't law, mental illness or psychiatric resources.
I have no innovation which allows me to predict murders. What i was implying is that a mentally stable society is one less likely to commit heinous acts. SO perhaps the money it would cost to try and rehabilitate every single convicted criminal (if you do one you have to do them all) would be much better spent on mental health for those who have not murdered anybody. After all those in prison for life are already removed from society and it is frankly a pointless exercise (of no benefit to society) to suggest that resources be wasted on her.
0
quote
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#210
Report 10 years ago
#210
Enter the shock doctors - electrocute her until she has no memory of anything and then remould her to be a perfect citizen.
Or prison - either would be fine.
0
quote
reply
Mya_Lou89
Badges: 0
#211
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#211
(Original post by iwilson03)
Enter the shock doctors - electrocute her until she has no memory of anything and then remould her to be a perfect citizen.

Has someone been watching a tad too much ClockworkOrange? :p:
0
quote
reply
Vesta
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#212
Report 10 years ago
#212
(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
As I said, it would be the weakest option and foolish to take a risk on this kind of thing. Her mental state is irrelevant, the action justifies the punishment.

P.S. I am a Darwinist, Conservative (slightly authoritarian) and an act utilitarian. I can still be benevolent as well as sticking by my views.
Her mental state is not irrelevant, though. Were she not mentally-ill, perhaps she would not have killed her baby. The mental illness is probably what caused her to commit the crime in the first place. How can you say it's irrelevant?
0
quote
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#213
Report 10 years ago
#213
Has someone been watching a tad too much ClockworkOrange?
No lol , good film/book though.

Been reading 'The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein'. They actually practised it out but on innocent people in the USA.
0
quote
reply
flugelr
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#214
Report 10 years ago
#214
If they electrocute her she will suffer similar burns. Unfortunatly it will take a short time.
0
quote
reply
necessarily benevolent
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#215
Report 10 years ago
#215
(Original post by Vesta)
Her mental state is not irrelevant, though. Were she not mentally-ill, perhaps she would not have killed her baby. The mental illness is probably what caused her to commit the crime in the first place. How can you say it's irrelevant?
In the grand scheme of things it's irrelevant. Every action is influence by the mentality of the perpetrator but this doesn't necessarily mean it's right. The fact is, she sizzled a baby, she pays the price. Simple logic.
0
quote
reply
Mya_Lou89
Badges: 0
#216
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#216
I think she should be subjected to spending the rest of her life in Solitary confinement.
Literally no connection to the outside world.
I'd find that far more devastating to face.
0
quote
reply
Sanyore
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#217
Report 10 years ago
#217
(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
If they're in prison it would just be an indicator of weakness to the masses and would have a detrimental impact on prison spaces (which are bursting right now btw) which should be reserved for those who deserve to live. In reference to your second comment, a tragedy of course, but some slip through the net and you'll see that through history there are always casualties when it comes to implementing ideas. Think of all the lives that could be saved at the expense of one or two. And no, there are always indicators as to whether a death was or was not premeditated, and my above comment portrays why, even the rare mistakes in this case, might serve a greater purpose.
An indicator of weakness to the masses? That's the point, these "masses" that you talk about are the same ones who talk of grotesquely hanging unconvicted pedophiles on their testicles and issuing virtual fatwas on any pedophile that walks the earth, convicted or not. What lives could be saved? Are you under the assumption that I'm saying "Oh, gawrsh, can't kill 'em, just let 'em off into the streets."

And that's what I'm saying, that this merciless "Death for death" approach will lead to those who are truly innocent being executed. What possible greater good can this serve? An illusion that things are safer when they aren't? The illusion that we are just even after we put innocent people to death? The idea that humans, beyond a certain point, are irredeemable so that they cease to draw breath?
"There are always indicators as to whether a death is an accident" - No there isn't. Two people rendezvous, one lives in a dangerous neighbourhood with intent to kill the person he's meeting. If the person with the intent is clever enough to make it look like an accident, he can claim he takes the gun with him because of his dangerous neighbourhood.

A drunk person in a hit-and-run who's been waiting to have a person they want to die to cross a road can kill someone, and claim it was the influence of the alcohol that led him to driving badly. Yes, this person will probably know the victim; but the indicators of "accident" supersede it, because it isn't unheard of; people in hit-and-runs that know each other. And on the other hand, person A's wife gets raped by person B and the wife can't bear to go through a trial. person A is driving under the influence, or has an argument with person B that escalates, and person B accidentally dies. What happens? person A put to death?

(Original post by jjbristol)
Very well. But what is the point of offering this woman any help. Trying to rehabilitate her is pointless unless it is planned that she could one day be released. So i'm assuming you support her release. Do you think it is acceptable that a woman who put her own baby in the microwave to die because she was scared of losing her boyfriend should one day be allowed to walk free amongst us? I'm sorry but i find the idea ridiculous.

Something tells me you've had practise in putting words in someone's mouth. Slow down there, buddy boy. No, I don't think she deserves to walk the street. Potentially ever again. A life-sentence in a prison-***-mental facility. If rehabilitation proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be successful after her sanity being repeatedly verified (which will no doubt take a few decades) then let her go. If not, she stays in prison for life.

The thing is, I'm against capital punishment, but it's not something I'd go arms up in pickets for, because I'm still a bit on the fence. One thing I do believe though, is that it's something that, due to people such as yourself, could be in danger of being used unjustifiably frequently. And of course "eye for an eye" in all cases, which I find so utterly ridiculous.
0
quote
reply
*Dreaming*
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#218
Report 10 years ago
#218
I feel quite sick now....
0
quote
reply
lilangel890
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#219
Report 10 years ago
#219
(Original post by Sanyore)
Got a source for that? I heard that, and did tout it for a while; until my Philosophy teacher told me that the cost of the execution is pretty high too. She could be talking ******** though.

Torture to whom? The murderer?
I quote from an american site

"the average annual cost of federal incarceration is about $65371"

Cheap!

Those saying she deserves rights. What about the rights of the baby? :no:
0
quote
reply
Meteorshower
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#220
Report 10 years ago
#220
(Original post by lilangel890)
I quote from an american site

"the average annual cost of federal incarceration is about $65371"

Cheap!

Those saying she deserves rights. What about the rights of the baby? :no:
The baby is dead, there is nothing that can be done for it. That's a pointless question
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (135)
18.6%
No (440)
60.61%
Not really bothered about them (151)
20.8%

Watched Threads

View All