Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What do you think should happen to a mentally ill person who beats a child to death? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    And in cases such as this, I believe capital punishment to be justice.
    What does that even mean? What good does killing this person do for literally anyone, anywhere?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Executed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The provision for mental health and social care was probably poor in the country and that's why the man and child weren't protected from things escalating to this kind of disturbing and tragic outcome.

    This kind of thing should be prevented it shouldn't be a case of now let's burn he **** out of this guy there should be measures to protect mentally ill and vulnerable children. The child lost it's life nothing they do to this guy now is going to bring him back. It's about prevention.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    What does that even mean? What good does killing this person do for literally anyone, anywhere?
    It fully and permanently removes them as a danger and burden to society, whilst simultaneously dishing out a suitable punishment.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them. At the end of the day, they killed someone, mental illness shouldn't be a get out of jail card. As a society, we want equality, therefore you either treat them as anyone else, or you let everyone get away with murder.

    Sure, give them help with their condition, but mental illness should not be used as a get out of jail card. You'd want them locked up if they killed your kid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Institutionalise 'em, although I feel that 'mental illness' is banded around far too much in modern society (no-one is responsible for their actions) :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    It fully and permanently removes them as a danger and burden to society, whilst simultaneously dishing out a suitable punishment.
    The burden to society of keeping someone alive is vanishingly small. And if killing someone because they're a burden to society were a reasonable course of action then we might as well just kill all other handicapped people, the homeless and the unemployed who claim benefits.

    And what are you talking about regarding punishment? This whole notion that there's some intrinsic societal benefit to killing someone because of something they've done (which is in the past and can't be changed) and who is no longer a thread is barbaric and something we should strive to evolve out of.

    The only purpose of retributive justice is to prevent others from committing the same crime, but people are already pretty well incentivized not to kill children.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Jailing or killing him won't help. He needs psychiatric support.
    Jailing him would only make things worse. And as for killing, I'm against the death penalty in general anyway.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A mentally ill person does not have the capacity to hold a mens rea, thus he/she should not be punished. Psychiatric treatment is the most appropriate course of action.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When judging the morality of human acts, one has to consider three variables:

    -The subject’s intention
    -The act itself, which has an inherent moral nature independent of the subject’s intention
    -The circumstances (ie. context)

    In this case:

    -Intention: to defend themselves (and plausibly the world) against an evil (the demon)
    -Act: murder, which is intrinsically wrong, intention and context be whatever
    -Circumstances: in the words of the thread starter, “this person was severely mentally ill and from their point of view they were dealing with a demon.”

    This last sentence is key. Circumstances and intentions are not enough to turn moral an act that is immoral in and of itself (to wit, killing). But they can lessen culpability, and even redeem the offender of it. If what the thread starter said is true (I'd never heard of this case before) and they saw no child but a demon before them, then they had no knowledge of what they were ACTUALLY doing. If ignorant of so crucial a piece of information, if trying to kill a demon when actually beating up a child, then I reckon they cannot possibly be held responsible for the unfortunate event.

    Therefore,if the subject is not accountable for what happened they shouldn’t go to prison. But, for the sake of public safety (and for their own, too), they ought to be confined and, if possible, fixed. That’s what the committal is for.

    (Original post by Wellzi)
    ...we have to pay for them to continue living. I see them as a waste of precious resources.
    On this basis, should we also execute pensioners? And the unemployed? And the terminally-ill (who willingly choose to live)?


    *Edited to remove copy and paste deficiencies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone that wants the man tortured to death knowing full well his mental condition is worst than the man himself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    The burden to society of keeping someone alive is vanishingly small. And if killing someone because they're a burden to society were a reasonable course of action then we might as well just kill all other handicapped people, the homeless and the unemployed who claim benefits.

    And what are you talking about regarding punishment? This whole notion that there's some intrinsic societal benefit to killing someone because of something they've done (which is in the past and can't be changed) and who is no longer a thread is barbaric and something we should strive to evolve out of.

    The only purpose of retributive justice is to prevent others from committing the same crime, but people are already pretty well incentivized not to kill children.
    I don't think killing is barbaric at all, in war for example; while it is unfortunate that such conflict occurs, it does so because violence is sometimes necessary, and capital punishment is another such case. I disagree with all the emotional reactions of "two wrongs don't make a right". No, two wrongs don't make a right, but killing a serial killer is not wrong, it's the correct thing to do. Either that or put them to use somehow, which would be much more efficient than trying to rehabilitate them.

    (Original post by IreneG)
    On this basis, should we also execute pensioners? And the unemployed? And the terminally-ill (who willingly choose to live)?

    You're just twisting my words. I never said that all burdens should be removed from society, only those who have made themselves a burden by grotesquely damaging society should be removed, for they are a tumour that must be removed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We should stop being so sensitive. Murder is murder, and it's impossible to be 100% sure that someone claiming they are mentally ill is actually telling the truth. Anyone else would serve prison time or would be put to death, depending on where they are- the same should apply to them.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think they should re enforce the death penalty especially for them
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    I don't think killing is barbaric at all, in war for example; while it is unfortunate that such conflict occurs, it does so because violence is sometimes necessary, and capital punishment is another such case. I disagree with all the emotional reactions of "two wrongs don't make a right". No, two wrongs don't make a right, but killing a serial killer is not wrong, it's the correct thing to do. Either that or put them to use somehow, which would be much more efficient than trying to rehabilitate them.
    What does "correct" mean here? Why is it correct? Would this be serving any purpose?


    (Original post by Wellzi)
    You're just twisting my words. I never said that all burdens should be removed from society, only those who have made themselves a burden by grotesquely damaging society should be removed, for they are a tumour that must be removed.
    Once they're incarcerated they're no longer damaging, so the situation is not analogous to a tumour. Again, at this point they're as much of a burden as the homeless or prisoners locked up for lesser crimes. Whatever they'de done in the past doesn't change this.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.