Dealing with the Criminally Insane

[jrosebud]

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.

Do we not foot an equal bill (or more) for the appeals process of those on death row?  Does it not cost just as much to kill a person in the name of justice as it does to let them live their lives?

I'm perfectly fine footing the bill.  It's a part of the system that (hopefully) keeps some of those people who have the misfortune of having an underdeveloped sense of empathy from harming me and my own.

And I'm sure we could make more room in the prisons if we would stop prosecuting those who comit victimless crimes.  But I suppose that's another thread.

[Loffler]

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

Which also is not what you said above.

"He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

[VanReal]

Do we not foot an equal bill (or more) for the appeals process of those on death row?  Does it not cost just as much to kill a person in the name of justice as it does to let them live their lives?

Great point, I also take issue with the appeals process and don't think they should have the length of time to appeal and the number of appeals they have now.  They should be able to appeal only if new evidence is uncovered, there was gross misrepresentation, or filing a writ of habius corpus (since that's a given).  Other than that we should user them on in.

I'm perfectly fine footing the bill.  It's a part of the system that (hopefully) keeps some of those people who have the misfortune of having an underdeveloped sense of empathy from harming me and my own.

I'm not sure where you live but in Texas the average cost of maintaing an inmate in prison is $26,000 per year, and that is not including medical expenses.  That's more than a lot of the working class in this state make working full-time.  I mind.

And I'm sure we could make more room in the prisons if we would stop prosecuting those who comit victimless crimes.  But I suppose that's another thread.

Yep, can't argue with that.  Although I don't believe in victimless crimes but I think that mandatory minimum sentencing is financially cripling us, and those are imposed on primarily non-violent crimes which means when over-crowding occurs it's the wrong population that gets early release.  Even with that removed we still have an over-population issue in our prisons and I'd rather not have my tax dollars drift away towards the care of someone who should be executed.

[Loffler]

Any argument based on taxpayers "footing the bill" for the dangerously insane could just as easily be used to justify executing all handicapped who represent a net drain.

[VanReal]

Any argument based on taxpayers "footing the bill" for the dangerously insane could just as easily be used to justify executing all handicapped who represent a net drain.

Not at all, that is a slippery slope statement.  There is no comparison between financially supporting the handicapped (most of whom support themselves or with family assistance) and indegent and supporting criminals to simply warehouse them for life.  

Again insanity does not equal mental illness.

[Loffler]

Any argument based on taxpayers "footing the bill" for the dangerously insane could just as easily be used to justify executing all handicapped who represent a net drain.

Not at all, that is a slippery slope statement.  There is no comparison between financially supporting the handicapped (most of whom support themselves or with family assistance) and indegent and supporting criminals to simply warehouse them for life.  

You're a mayor. You got two maniacs living in an institution. One killed a guy, one didn't. Why do you think it's to execute one and not the other?

Again insanity does not equal mental illness.

Yes, one is the accepted medical term and one isn't.

[VanReal]

You're a mayor. You got two maniacs living in an institution. One killed a guy, one didn't. Why do you think it's to execute one and not the other?

I'll play Governor since the mayor has no power over the death penalty. This a a strange question, not much information.  I have a schizophrenic in a mental hospital and a murderer who ate his victims liver in a prison ward?  The murderer dies because he knew better and didn't care and you can't correct that with talk therapy or medication.  Let's even go farther and say my schizophrenic killed someone thinking they were trying to strangle him, he lives as he did not know what he was doing and can be treated with medication and therapy to ensure the medication is working.

No comparison.

Yes, one is the accepted medical term and one isn't.

No "insane" is a legal term, it refers to whether a person was aware of what he/she was doing and did they appreciate the consequences of that action.  Mental illness is a medical condition that may render a person insane during a crime but does not equate with criminal or violent acts.  They are not interchangeable terms.  A person could suffer from a mental illness and commit a murder knowing that they are doing wrong at which point they are fully responsibile for that action.  A person can commit a horrifying crime and not be suffering a mental illness and know what they were doing and they are responsible for that crime.  A person that is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime having no knowledge of what they were doing or understanding the consequences is not responsible, regardless of their mental illness or lack thereof.

Much like Andrea Yates, who although she was suffering from severe post pardom depression knew full well that she was drowing her 5 sons and even called the polic to turn herself in, she was suffering a mental illness, she was not insane at the time of the murders, she got lucky at not getting the death penalty.  She was remorseful and able to recover, and probably not a danger to society, so she lives.

I'm not saying to kill the mentally ill, I'm saying kill the responsible murderer that showed no qualms or remorse at murdering, no matter how twisted his/her mind.  I think rapists should get the death penalty too.

[VanReal]

"He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

Hmmm, I knew I wasn't completely losing my mind.  You did make the sympathy argument here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2536&start=30#p33680 where you said that there is no reason for him to not have sympathy.  My original comments to you were that you do not need to have sympathy for anyone.

So again, you are saying he needs to sympathize and I am saying that there is no reason to.

[Loffler]

"He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

Hmmm, I knew I wasn't completely losing my mind.  You did make the sympathy argument here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2536&start=30#p33680 where you said that there is no reason for him to not have sympathy.  My original comments to you were that you do not need to have sympathy for anyone.

So again, you are saying he needs to sympathize and I am saying that there is no reason to.

You're not losing your mind, you're just not a very careful reader. Read it again, very carefully this time.

[Loffler]

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

I was. That is what I have been saying all along.

What I HAVE NOT said is anything about putting them out of their misery. He keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why.

If you feel the compulsion to respond to this post with "He doesn't need sympathy to put them out of their misery," then you have once again misunderstood.

[Ihateyoumike]

What I HAVE NOT said is anything about putting them out of their misery. He keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why.

Really?

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?

Ok, Loffler, Here is the first time I use the phrasing "putting me out of my misery." That phrase was used as a replacement for the words "killing me." Just another way of phrasing it. Semantics really. If I knew someone would be nit-picking my wording to fit their argument, I guess I still wouldn't care and word it the same way. Why? Because I'm not interested in changing your mind. I'm interested in having a discussion without resorting to being demeaning.

   

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]

You asked me to clarify. I did. Using the term once more to do so.

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.

I put this here because I was mentioned, along with the phrase, "put someone out of their misery." Perhaps you did not realize that was someone else using that phrasing in the discussion.

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

Really? We stuck in grade school?

Which also is not what you said above.

"He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

You bring it up again, to someone else. I have still not posted again, up to this point.
Oh, and may I point out that this was the second time you felt the need to compare me to a christian:

I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Just to prove my point. Which leads us back to...

What I HAVE NOT said is anything about putting them out of their misery. He keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why.

We've come full circle. By my count, and you can verify by simply reading the rest of the thread, that was two times which I mentioned "putting someone out of their misery." Once was the original, and the second was in response to a question you asked me. Hardly counts as "he keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why."
So, my point is, perhaps you should think twice before you attempt to drag someone else's name through the mud during an argument you're having which that person removed their self from earlier. There's no call for that type of thing on a civilized forum such as this one, although it sounded to me that you spend much more time on other forums than I do, which I'm thinking was possibly meant to be degrading in some way?:
   

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.

[VanReal]

I think Loffler has a multiple personality.

I never said that you said anything about putting someone out of their misery.  I said that you said you should have sympathy for them.  My comment was that he does not have to have sympathy for anyone in order to think it's okay to put them out of their misery.  Sympathy is not a requirement to thinking that's is the right thing to do.  

I'm not even sure why in the world you are hung up on that.

ilikemike does not have sympathy for them.  So what?  He doesn't have to.

The "putting out of misery" kept coming up because that is what you initially responded to with the whole requirement of sympathy comment.  

Once again an absolute and blanket statement from you creates an unfollowable thread.  Maybe 100 trees should fall on it.

[Loffler]

ihatemike,

I haven't put words in your mouth or dragged your name through the mud,

I wasn't saying you never read, just that you don't read my posts very carefully,

I'm not sure what all the quotes you linked to were supposed to mean, I think you and VanReal and I are talking about three completely different things,

Yes I compared you to a Christian and I never denied doing that (I wish this is what we'd talked about for these past few pages instead of this bizarre miscommunication we hashed out instead),

I think you have a very short fuse when it comes to disagreement, but there's nothing wrong with not visiting other forums, I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from, and

I do not want to talk about "putting people out of their misery" anymore. I have been trying to shake that phrase from this thread ever since it was uttered and you and VanReal will not leave it alone. For God's sake, please no one else use that phrase. It's like a miasma that's following me from page to page. I was only trying to talk about sympathy for the mentally ill.


This is a weird forum. I noticed there's not much disagreement here, so maybe that's why the debate skills are rusty. I'm cool with that and I can play along, but I don't like being referred to as having multiple personality after some veeeery light disagreement. It's not very "happyatheist."

[Loffler]

I think Loffler has a multiple personality.

I never said that you said anything about putting someone out of their misery.  I said that you said you should have sympathy for them.  My comment was that he does not have to have sympathy for anyone in order to think it's okay to put them out of their misery.

I agree! Why are you having so much trouble understanding this??

ilikemike does not have sympathy for them.  So what?  He doesn't have to.

?? Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Ok ok, I think I get it now: maybe people just aren't supposed to debate on this forum. Is that the answer to the riddle? I can swing that way, I just need someone to tell me I'm bringing assumptions with me to this forum. That would explain such cryptic statements as "ilikemike does not have sympathy for them.  So what?  He doesn't have to." Anywhere else it would be obvious why I'm "hung up" on it: I'm trying to debate the topic of the thread with him.

The "putting out of misery" kept coming up because that is what you initially responded to with the whole requirement of sympathy comment.  

Once again an absolute and blanket statement from you creates an unfollowable thread.

In both cases I was trying to refute a blanket statement.

[VanReal]

In both cases I was trying to refute a blanket statement.

What blanket statement were you trying to refute?