Dealing with the Criminally Insane

[Ihateyoumike]

I highly doubt it.

Me too, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't hope to be clear headed enough to just off myself. Problem is that if "I'm in the right mind" and I commit horrible violent acts, I probably would have no remorse or sympathy for anything or anybody. If I developed schizophrenia which "caused" me to commit horrible violent acts, it's almost completely unlikely that I would just "wake up" from it and suddenly realize the gravity of the situation. Either way, I would hope (but would almost certainly not) that I have the sense to just off myself.

People like you typically have trouble imagining that they could go crazy, so I was trying to put it into terms you understand. But ok, I won't be so cautious: if you developed schizophrenia, which is always a possibility, you would have no sympathy for yourself?

If I developed schizophrenia, and as a result I committed horrible violent acts, I would probably only have sympathy for myself after being caught. The voices in my head probably wouldn't help me understand the situation I'm in, and what I've done. If I was a schizophrenic who was put into a mental institution against my will without committing horrible violent acts, I would probably have sympathy for myself then as well, because that would be like being trapped in your own personal hell. Either way, having sympathy for myself, or not, would be unimportant to the situation I'm in. I'd still be schizophrenic. And, I'd still probably want it to end. Oh, and I worked with some children who suffered schizophrenia a few years back in a group home for troubled youth that I worked at, and most of them I felt sorry for because they wanted out of their hell so bad (and tried to find ways to kill themselves) but the state would not allow it. Instead they just pumped them full of drugs, and kept them as half-zombies locked up in a home. Pretty humane, right?

Of course you're capable of doing it again. That's the whole point.

So, if I'm capable of doing it again, and I'm suffering my own personal hell at the same time, tell me why I should be kept alive at the very high expense to the taxpayer? Why is that more humane than putting me out of my misery?


edit: screwed up my quoting. fixed it.

[Loffler]

You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Ihateyoumike]

You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

[jrosebud]

To you death is a matter of right and wrong, but to me what's wrong is extending severe and terrible suffering with no realistic hope of it's end.  But it doesn't matter, because this decision really isn't mine to make anyway.

But isn't that we do all day, every day?  Eliminating suffering is as simple as eliminating all life on Earth.

Why shouldn't we kill the broken?  Because there may be something that makes life meaningful for them.  Unless they show a willingness to die, they should live (as long as they are no longer a threat to the general population).

[VanReal]

Why shouldn't we kill the broken?  Because there may be something that makes life meaningful for them.  Unless they show a willingness to die, they should live (as long as they are no longer a threat to the general population).

And you are okay footing the bill for them to live out there lives in captivity?  And what about the threat they pose to the general population by raping and beating those other inmates that may only be incarcertated for a short period of time and then are let out to live amongst the general population again?  If we didn't have a ridiculously overcrowded prison system where "lifers" are living with the "short term" prisoners I could see it being more feasbile.  I don't want to foot the bill for people to live into their old age, and then pay for them to be hospitalized during geriatric years just for them to live out to a natural death.  We warehouse too many for far too long.

[Loffler]

You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

[Ihateyoumike]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Someone's playing a bit of devil's advocate here, I think. So, I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree with you. You're obviously not understanding that there is a difference between mental illness, and so farked-up-in-the-head-you're-a-threat-to-everyone illness. I've been speaking of the latter, whereas, I think you put them all in the former catagory. Fine with me, you have your views, I've got mine. And, btw, the car analogy is lame. No offense.

[VanReal]

You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Sympathy is overrated.  Sympathy implies a shared feeling towards something or someone.  Not everyone that kills and does "crazy" things like those deemed to be "criminally insane" are suffering from a mental illness.  Many of them don't deserve any sympathy.  There's a big difference between empathizing, sympathizing and showing mercy.

[Loffler]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Someone's playing a bit of devil's advocate here, I think. So, I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree with you. You're obviously not understanding that there is a difference between mental illness, and so farked-up-in-the-head-you're-a-threat-to-everyone illness. I've been speaking of the latter, whereas, I think you put them all in the former catagory. Fine with me, you have your views, I've got mine. And, btw, the car analogy is lame. No offense.

The difference in dangerous mental illness and non-dangerous mental illness is... one is dangerous. There is no other difference. You want them to be different so you can lump all criminals together. I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

[Loffler]

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Sympathy is overrated.  Sympathy implies a shared feeling towards something or someone.  Not everyone that kills and does "crazy" things like those deemed to be "criminally insane" are suffering from a mental illness.  Many of them don't deserve any sympathy.  There's a big difference between empathizing, sympathizing and showing mercy.

Which is why we should separate those who deserve sympathy from those who don't. Sounds like you agree with me and disagree with ihateyoumike.

[Ihateyoumike]

The difference in dangerous mental illness and non-dangerous mental illness is... one is dangerous. There is no other difference. You want them to be difference so you can lump all criminals together. I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Not when the title of the thread is: Dealing with the Criminally Insane.

Oh, and the difference between dangerous people, and dangerous people with a mental illness, just happens to be mental illness. I'm not going to tell you that you want to lump all of those people together, because like your statement, it would make no sense.


And, compare me with a christian again, and we'll probably have problems. Those are fightin' words.  

I have another question for you, but I'm not even gonna bother. Turns out, I'm done debating you on this topic, as it feels like a debate with our old friend messenger. No matter what I say, you turn it around and tell me what I'm really thinking, and frankly it's frustrating, and gets nowhere. So enjoy doing what you do, I'm just not having any more of it.

[VanReal]

Which is why we should separate those who deserve sympathy from those who don't. Sounds like you agree with me and disagree with ihateyoumike.

No, I am actually saying that sympathy isn't a required human emotion.  Sympathy implies a shared emotional understanding.  It is not necessary to sympathize with anyone to show mercy, and ihatemike said he believed it to be  merciful (paraprasing of course, my words not his) to end their lives, while he has no sympathy for them.  Sympathy is not required to do the right thing or put someone out of their misery.  Most criminally insane are not mentally ill, if they are genuinely mentally ill they would be hospitalized as such and would generally be determined "not guilty by reason of mental illness or mental defect" absent that they are just broken eggs and don't deserve any sympathy.

[Loffler]

The difference in dangerous mental illness and non-dangerous mental illness is... one is dangerous. There is no other difference. You want them to be difference so you can lump all criminals together. I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Not when the title of the thread is: Dealing with the Criminally Insane.

Oh, and the difference between dangerous people, and dangerous people with a mental illness, just happens to be mental illness.

Actually they're completely different. A person who kills without mental illness does so with evil, venal, or calculating motivation. They know what they're doing, they know they're hurting someone else, they use all of their competent mental faculties to consider the best course of action, and despite all this they do harm anyway.

In contrast, a mentally ill person kills because the Queen of Mars ordered them to in a secret message beamed directly to their brains. Or because they thought the person they were killing was a demon. Or because moving objects scare them. Or because they were abused to the point that their minds were destroyed in their childhood. Their rational faculties are not there. The brain, like I said, is an organ. And blaming someone for a sick brain is no different than blaming them for a sick liver.

It's an entirely different crime from top to bottom. Everything about a sane and insane criminal is different. The latter lack mental stability or reason. The former lack, well, adequate sympathy for their fellow man -- like someone else I could mention.

I have another question for you, but I'm not even gonna bother. Turns out, I'm done debating you on this topic, as it feels like a debate with our old friend messenger. No matter what I say, you turn it around and tell me what I'm really thinking, and frankly it's frustrating, and gets nowhere.

How peculiar, I got the opposite sensation from this exchange. Though I can understand why you feel frustrated. I wouldn't want to debate me either.

So enjoy doing what you do, I'm just not having any more of it.

I've replied to you a mere five times. This is the sixth. If that's too much for you, you must not have very much experience in online forums.

[Loffler]

Which is why we should separate those who deserve sympathy from those who don't. Sounds like you agree with me and disagree with ihateyoumike.

No, I am actually saying that sympathy isn't a required human emotion.  Sympathy implies a shared emotional understanding.  It is not necessary to sympathize with anyone to show mercy, and ihatemike said he believed it to be  merciful (paraprasing of course, my words not his) to end their lives, while he has no sympathy for them.  Sympathy is not required to do the right thing or put someone out of their misery.

Then this is a response to a statement I did not make, and he should change his name to ihatereading.

[VanReal]

I may have gotten lost in some of the exchange, it happens:)  I thought you said that he should have sympathy for them.