|
If you commit a crime because of mental illness, and that mental illness can be cured, then you should be able to get treatment and then be released. Please note I'm talking about mental illnesses that were caused by birth defects or mental illnesses that were caused by circumstances beyond your control, like PTSD.
The fact of the matter is, if you were having, say, blackouts where you did stuff, and one time that stuff happened to be murder, you didn't kill the guy. Your medical condition did, and there was nothing you could do to avert either the murder or the mental condition. Honestly, blaming someone like that for murder is like blaming a guy with Autism for being socially incompetent.
Justice doesn't always have to be vengeance, folks. Justice is doing the right thing, and sometimes people need help more than they need punishment.
|
On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem.
During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't.
How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
|
On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem. During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't. How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
That's not a problem with this specific case. It's a problem (if it is even a problem - which I doubt) with the criminal justice system.
From my brief stint working at a Law School I recall being told that jury's are notorious for convictions.
|
On December 13 2012 18:48 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 18:18 Callynn wrote:
I am however glad that there is not a bunch of idiots you can influence as a laywer that 'vote' whether or not someone is guilty. The jury system is something I'm glad about that it's not here. The jury system is a display of democracy. Do you not like democracy?
Democracy is not inherently good.
|
On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:
How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
I guess the answer is that the prosecution has to prove the case. If the case is too complicated to be understood by normal people then it's fair to say that it hasn't been proved.
If the jury doesn't know who to believe then they have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
|
On December 14 2012 05:31 ziggurat wrote:
If the jury doesn't know who to believe then they have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
That's probably what happened.
|
On December 13 2012 15:50 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life? So if you get drunk then run over a person (and kill them), you can go to AA and your Murder charges are dropped? I don't think so T.T
You can control if you want to drink or not. You don't have control over mental disorders.
|
On December 14 2012 04:10 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem. During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't. How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry? That's not a problem with this specific case. It's a problem (if it is even a problem - which I doubt) with the criminal justice system. From my brief stint working at a Law School I recall being told that jury's are notorious for convictions.
it's interesting because jury have different tendancies from juges, are way more prone to convictions except in some cases where there is a divide between which morality is accepted and what the law prone. I think it's the same in every developed country and looking at the differences between the juries and the judges is rather insightful.
|
On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem. During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't. How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
The point of a jury is not to discover the truth, that's the job of the investigators, the prosecutors and the defendants. A jury's job is to take all evidence given in court and come to a conclusion using only that evidence.
If, at any point, a jury member is trying to override testimony using his/her own expertise or knowledge, then they are committing an injustice.
|
But by society's "standards," all killers of children are sick people. Mentally disturbed. This label works to their advantage. Oh I did something horrible? Pity me, for I am not well. I require care, not punishment.
What the case amounts to is that children's lives are worth about 9 months each in a cozy facility. Not only are institutions far more pleasant than the average federal prison, but the sentences sure seem a lot shorter too! How opportunistic!
Just another example of Western culture's trend towards overindulgence of victimization. Nothing is our fault anymore. Let's not be too hard on each other. Accidents happen. Whoops, killed the kids. See you in 18 months guise
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
