This is a tragic event. Let's not derail the thread with a gun control debate. Posts from page 9 onward will be moderated for steering the discussion towards gun control.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
Erm, you know that I wasn't using "treat the symptoms" in a medical sense? I never said execution was a viable medical treatment, heh. I wasn't even talking about execution there, I was talking about the criminal justice system.
And yup, I know he was raised (sort of) like us. At least, he was exposed to the same sort of values that we are. Who's to say he internalized them the same way? In any case, I just don't think you should be so quick to jump from "deviant behaviour" to "mental illness". Yes, there's something wrong with him, but it's a stretch to go from that to insanity (with the implication of reduced responsibility that it carries). While there are obviously cases in which full-blown insanity can lead to this kind of behaviour, I claim there are also cases where a person in full command of their mental faculties is capable of such a deed, and we should assume him sane until proven otherwise.
I'm kind of interested to know what you think about my views on capital punishment, too.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
By your logic, every criminal is just insane.
Actually no - considering I could be considered a criminal I would be calling myself insane. You have to remember - the law IS NOT the definitive moral code of (even the majority of) the human population. This is a HUGE problem with modern society - the lemming mentality that many people seem to have. "You broke the law? You must be a bad person." You can break the law for all the right reasons.
You have to move past "Did he know he was breaking the law or not?" It's not a question of whether he has multiple personality disorder and blacked out for the period of time when the shooting occurred. Even if he was in complete control of his faculties - the guy thinks he is the Joker and shot a baby. Those are not things that you do if you are in perfect mental health - not even fair mental health. You have to be pretty fucked up to get to that point.
In this case I think he is at the very least highly mentally unstable - if not completely insane.
Stoner who smokes weed on weekends - probably not insane.
Guy who thinks he is the Joker and shoots up a movie theatre - probably insane.
On July 24 2012 09:53 NEOtheONE wrote: So apparently the sad excuse for a church (Westboro Baptist Church) is planning to protest the prayer vigil being held for the victims of the shooting. They'll do anything for attention it seems. Makes me sick.
That turned out to be a "prank" by them apparently. Doesn't make much sense, considering it only made more people choose to come... of course living in the state that their based out of, I know pretty well that they're idiots anyways.
I was kinda bored at work today and I did a lot of reading about a lot of mass murders that have occurred in the past. And I've concluded that it's just something I can never understand. It's been a weird deal for me, I never knew any of these people before the incident but for a while I felt so close to everybody involved. To me, it's a shame that people on social media (Twitter) and what not have forgotten about everything so quickly, but I guess that's just the short attention span of people that exists nowadays. I think there's so many lessons to be learned from this, such as going out of your way to be nice to people and trying to light up a world that seems to be so full of hatred.
Speaking of hatred, is that what makes these people do it? I do not understand how you can hate anyone you don't know, so I guess it's just a hatred for humanity mixed with a little bit of indifference. In some ways, I think it's even more eerie that the guy simply surrendered rather than killing himself like other mass murderers tend to do.
One thing I found amazing is that Don Lemon, Mike Huckabee, and President Obama all refused to say the shooter's name. This seems like something that should be standard, and at some times I think it can be unavoidable, but it was nice to see some important people taking a stand like that. I think in every person exists a little part that wants to get their name known, be it in academics, athletics, or even something like Starcraft. Unfortunately, some people have warped minds and figure that perhaps creating a tragedy would be the solution for that. I hope that in the future, the media continues to focus on the victims rather than the "suspect".
anyways sorry for the random rant, I've had a lot of feelings held up in me since I've heard about the shooting on Friday and sometimes I feel like people are already forgetting about the whole incident, which I just find so sad. However, I'm glad to see an active discussion still going on here.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
By your logic, every criminal is just insane.
Actually no - considering I could be considered a criminal I would be calling myself insane. You have to remember - the law IS NOT the definitive moral code of (even the majority of) the human population. This is a HUGE problem with modern society - the lemming mentality that many people seem to have. "You broke the law? You must be a bad person." You can break the law for all the right reasons.
You have to move past "Did he know he was breaking the law or not?" It's not a question of whether he has multiple personality disorder and blacked out for the period of time when the shooting occurred. Even if he was in complete control of his faculties - the guy thinks he is the Joker and shot a baby. Those are not things that you do if you are in perfect mental health - not even fair mental health. You have to be pretty fucked up to get to that point.
In this case I think he is at the very least highly mentally unstable - if not completely insane.
Stoner who smokes weed on weekends - probably not insane.
Guy who thinks he is the Joker and shoots up a movie theatre - probably insane.
Except the fact that he is being tried in a court of law...
Excerpt on an article in regards to insanity pleas:
"Wrong" means legal wrong, rather than moral wrong, as demonstrated in Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, where the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose I'll hang for this." It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed. There are cases where the mentally ill know that their conduct is legally prohibited, but it is arguable that their mental condition prevents them making the connection between an act being legally prohibited and the societal requirement to conform their conduct to the requirements of the criminal law.
You're saying I can go on a killing spree and as long as I kill a child and then claim that I'm Two-Face, I get spend a couple years in a padded cell instead of dying on a cold table?
On July 24 2012 04:45 ticklishmusic wrote: The purpose of the criminal justice system, as far as I understand, is to rehabilitate the criminal, not for society to "get even". If we torture someone for committing a crime, we're no better than him/her. "But he/she did it first!" is a terrible argument and leads only to more escalation and so forth. Pretty sure that's taught in kindergarten.
A guy meticulously planning a massacre is not the same as torturing that same guy. People keep trying to make this false equivalency. Why are they equally bad? Let's quantify. On the one hand, we have a guy who has caused irreparable damage to multiple families. Now let's look at the damage from torturing him. Nothing bad will result from it. Nobody cares about this worthless piece of crap, not even his family would dare defend him. So not the same. Eye for an eye does not leave the world blind, because very few people are sociopaths who go on killing sprees.
What utter nonsense. First of all, you assume that his family suddenly lost all feelings for him. If you knew anything about humans you would know that this is incredibly unlikely and an insult to his parents. Second, you claim 'nothing bad' would come from torturing him. That's not just an ignorant claim, it is outright stupid and disgusting. Torture is never a valid course of action for any government. Third, you achieve nothing by torturing people, unless you are a sadist pig who gets off on this shit.
Will never be able to understand what drives people to do this. Yes, their " motives" are often stated in trials after, but the actual wrinkle in the head these people have to have to follow through on their twisted views is so ...... i just can't understand it.
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
What?
What??
Really? What? Really? What? I'm sorry. I'm just so flabbergasted that someone could possibly think an appropriate "justice" system is a choice between life in prison and the death penalty. It would seem you have about as much respect for human life as Lrrr from the planet Omicron Persei 8. Or maybe HAL from 2001: ASO. What? WHAT!>?!?!!?>!
I'm with the guy you quoted 100%. Life in the labour camp or death penalty sounds even better, tho. Gives them a chance to pay something back.
When society started to "understand" sadistic and / or psychopatic individuals it took a massive wrong turn. We need to backtrack on that and start protecting the victims instead of the criminals.
Who gets to rehabilitate the past and future victims of the poor little misunderstood antisocial deviants?
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
By your logic, every criminal is just insane.
Actually no - considering I could be considered a criminal I would be calling myself insane. You have to remember - the law IS NOT the definitive moral code of (even the majority of) the human population. This is a HUGE problem with modern society - the lemming mentality that many people seem to have. "You broke the law? You must be a bad person." You can break the law for all the right reasons.
You have to move past "Did he know he was breaking the law or not?" It's not a question of whether he has multiple personality disorder and blacked out for the period of time when the shooting occurred. Even if he was in complete control of his faculties - the guy thinks he is the Joker and shot a baby. Those are not things that you do if you are in perfect mental health - not even fair mental health. You have to be pretty fucked up to get to that point.
In this case I think he is at the very least highly mentally unstable - if not completely insane.
Stoner who smokes weed on weekends - probably not insane.
Guy who thinks he is the Joker and shoots up a movie theatre - probably insane.
Frustrates me when someone counters a point very objectively and then the response starts to USE CAPITALS to emphasize and follow it by completely making random shit up and generalizing everything to try and bolster the meager argument (or counter-argument) that they try to present.
It is obvious the person, Arghmyliver, does not know the definition of mental illness/insanity or anything in relation.
EDIT: There is no conclusive evidence he "thinks he's the joker" -.- Many political statements are disguised in a symbol, his symbol is that of the joker. If your argument is that he has multiple personalities or he had no idea that he was commiting the offense or any number of mental disorders etc. than that is fine, but you can't just label him insane because he shot people. psychopath =/= insanity, it is a mental disorder.
On July 24 2012 06:38 cz wrote: My prediction, which I'm reasonably confident in:
1) It's revealed he's suffering from a mental illness, almost certainly schizophrenia. He was convinced he was the joker and was playing the role as a result of his mental illness. Or at least that's what medical professionals conclude. His withdrawal from school followed a trend of the disease manifesting itself for the first time or growing in strength. 2) He is revealed to be confused and horrified at his actions. 3) He is medicated for court hearings with anti-psychotics. 4) Court now has decision. This one I'm not absolutely sure about, but I'm going to say that they accept testimony of his psychiatric team and send him to some sort of psychiatric center for 5+ years until he is rehabilited. Option 2 is that his schizophrenic appeal is ignored and he goes to prison for rest of his life / death sentence, but I doubt it's going that route. 5) Him being sent to psychiatric center for rehabilitation causes widespread public anger and debate over mental illness and the judicial system. Public is assured he'll be confined but the eventual goal is to re-integrate him into society. 6) We all eventually forget about him until 3 years from now when he is beginning to be re-integrated into society. 7) 10 years from now he's living in the community again with partial supervision/check-ups from mental health people.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
By your logic, every criminal is just insane.
Actually no - considering I could be considered a criminal I would be calling myself insane. You have to remember - the law IS NOT the definitive moral code of (even the majority of) the human population. This is a HUGE problem with modern society - the lemming mentality that many people seem to have. "You broke the law? You must be a bad person." You can break the law for all the right reasons.
You have to move past "Did he know he was breaking the law or not?" It's not a question of whether he has multiple personality disorder and blacked out for the period of time when the shooting occurred. Even if he was in complete control of his faculties - the guy thinks he is the Joker and shot a baby. Those are not things that you do if you are in perfect mental health - not even fair mental health. You have to be pretty fucked up to get to that point.
In this case I think he is at the very least highly mentally unstable - if not completely insane.
Stoner who smokes weed on weekends - probably not insane.
Guy who thinks he is the Joker and shoots up a movie theatre - probably insane.
Except the fact that he is being tried in a court of law...
Excerpt on an article in regards to insanity pleas:
"Wrong" means legal wrong, rather than moral wrong, as demonstrated in Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, where the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose I'll hang for this." It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed. There are cases where the mentally ill know that their conduct is legally prohibited, but it is arguable that their mental condition prevents them making the connection between an act being legally prohibited and the societal requirement to conform their conduct to the requirements of the criminal law.
You're saying I can go on a killing spree and as long as I kill a child and then claim that I'm Two-Face, I get spend a couple years in a padded cell instead of dying on a cold table?
Cool beans, I could use a 2-5 year vacation. Brb.
If you are committed to a asylum for murder you don't ever come out.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
By your logic, every criminal is just insane.
Actually no - considering I could be considered a criminal I would be calling myself insane. You have to remember - the law IS NOT the definitive moral code of (even the majority of) the human population. This is a HUGE problem with modern society - the lemming mentality that many people seem to have. "You broke the law? You must be a bad person." You can break the law for all the right reasons.
You have to move past "Did he know he was breaking the law or not?" It's not a question of whether he has multiple personality disorder and blacked out for the period of time when the shooting occurred. Even if he was in complete control of his faculties - the guy thinks he is the Joker and shot a baby. Those are not things that you do if you are in perfect mental health - not even fair mental health. You have to be pretty fucked up to get to that point.
In this case I think he is at the very least highly mentally unstable - if not completely insane.
Stoner who smokes weed on weekends - probably not insane.
Guy who thinks he is the Joker and shoots up a movie theatre - probably insane.
Except the fact that he is being tried in a court of law...
Excerpt on an article in regards to insanity pleas:
"Wrong" means legal wrong, rather than moral wrong, as demonstrated in Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, where the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose I'll hang for this." It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed. There are cases where the mentally ill know that their conduct is legally prohibited, but it is arguable that their mental condition prevents them making the connection between an act being legally prohibited and the societal requirement to conform their conduct to the requirements of the criminal law.
You're saying I can go on a killing spree and as long as I kill a child and then claim that I'm Two-Face, I get spend a couple years in a padded cell instead of dying on a cold table?
Cool beans, I could use a 2-5 year vacation. Brb.
If you are committed to a asylum for murder you don't ever come out.
If I recall you can be let out as long as your psychosis is cleared over a series of years, that's why so many criminals (not not insane people) plea for insanity.
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
What?
What??
Really? What? Really? What? I'm sorry. I'm just so flabbergasted that someone could possibly think an appropriate "justice" system is a choice between life in prison and the death penalty. It would seem you have about as much respect for human life as Lrrr from the planet Omicron Persei 8. Or maybe HAL from 2001: ASO. What? WHAT!>?!?!!?>!
I'm with the guy you quoted 100%. Life in the labour camp or death penalty sounds even better, tho. Gives them a chance to pay something back.
When society started to "understand" sadistic and / or psychopatic individuals it took a massive wrong turn. We need to backtrack on that and start protecting the victims instead of the criminals.
Who gets to rehabilitate the past and future victims of the poor little misunderstood antisocial deviants?
Do you know why society needs to understand these people? To spot the warning signs the next time someone is slipping down this path. This guy is a lost cause. He's done his damage and his victims will never fully heal. But if we can understand him and where he came from, we can learn more about future psychopaths and stop them before this happens.
Contrary to what some would say, those who want to understand sociopaths aren't tree hugging hippies who think every murderer should get a pat on the back and set free. Understanding this behavior is critical to stopping it in the future. Not this guy's future. This guy is broken. But maybe next time we can see this pattern emerge and step in and do something before this happens again.
Understanding this behavior is about preventing there from being more victims.
I'm on the MKULTRA side of the debate. Listen to the questions this kind lady has in her video. I know she says she listens to Alex Jones, but don't be turned off by that (I almost was) just listen to the way she lines up her idea of how things went down and let me know what you think of her thoughts.
Creeepy, I was a freshman at UCR when this guy graduated it. I'm glad he didn't go bonkers when I was a freshman. I also ended up taking a neurosci course my junior year (don't become a neurosci major, as a Bio Major there w/ a 3.5 gpa, that neurosci course was ridiculously difficult)
With that being said, it has confirmed my suspicion that Riverside, CA is a craphole, and it drives sane people insane.
On July 25 2012 05:16 hp.Shell wrote: I'm on the MKULTRA side of the debate. Listen to the questions this kind lady has in her video. I know she says she listens to Alex Jones, but don't be turned off by that (I almost was) just listen to the way she lines up her idea of how things went down and let me know what you think of her thoughts.
Many Alex Jones listeners are just another brand of blind followers. I use Alex Jones as a source for topics to research on my own, things I wouldn't have heard about otherwise. I think that the way Alex presents information is actually a tactic to discredit people that bring up important information about the workings of government, intelligence, finance, and general history.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
It's actually quite the opposite. If you are aware a criminal act is wrong, and you engage in that act regardless, you are quite clearly sane. You are just a plain criminal. Now, if he was unaware of what he was doing was wrong despite being raised in an environment where it is known to be wrong, then you can make a claim for insanity.
By your logic, every criminal is just insane.
Actually no - considering I could be considered a criminal I would be calling myself insane. You have to remember - the law IS NOT the definitive moral code of (even the majority of) the human population. This is a HUGE problem with modern society - the lemming mentality that many people seem to have. "You broke the law? You must be a bad person." You can break the law for all the right reasons.
You have to move past "Did he know he was breaking the law or not?" It's not a question of whether he has multiple personality disorder and blacked out for the period of time when the shooting occurred. Even if he was in complete control of his faculties - the guy thinks he is the Joker and shot a baby. Those are not things that you do if you are in perfect mental health - not even fair mental health. You have to be pretty fucked up to get to that point.
In this case I think he is at the very least highly mentally unstable - if not completely insane.
Stoner who smokes weed on weekends - probably not insane.
Guy who thinks he is the Joker and shoots up a movie theatre - probably insane.
Except the fact that he is being tried in a court of law...
Excerpt on an article in regards to insanity pleas:
"Wrong" means legal wrong, rather than moral wrong, as demonstrated in Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, where the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, "I suppose I'll hang for this." It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed. There are cases where the mentally ill know that their conduct is legally prohibited, but it is arguable that their mental condition prevents them making the connection between an act being legally prohibited and the societal requirement to conform their conduct to the requirements of the criminal law.
You're saying I can go on a killing spree and as long as I kill a child and then claim that I'm Two-Face, I get spend a couple years in a padded cell instead of dying on a cold table?
Cool beans, I could use a 2-5 year vacation. Brb.
No. No I am not saying that. Absolutely the fuck not. That is absolutely disgusting and motherfucking libelous.
How the fuck do you get "I can go on a murder spree as long as I make like I'm insane" out of what I said? Jesus motherfucking Christ.
And then you go on to suggest that you yourself will go on a killing spree. Un-fucking-believable.
I did say that there is a difference between legislative and moral code. I don't think anyone is arguing that he didn't break the law. I am saying that you can be aware of breaking the law and still be insane. I'm trying to debate a point. You can refute it with your own argument backed up with scientific fact. Of course - it will be impossible to argue with someone who believes The Law = The Truth. My argument comes from a purely medical standpoint. "Because the United States of America's legislation says so" is not a valid scientific argument.
This guy did something absolutely intolerable. He killed innocent people. I am very much entirely against that in absolutely every possible sense. There should of course be repercussions - but how does it make any logical sense to be so against killing that you kill people for it. Ask yourself "Why?" Why did he do it? What he did is so against basic human morality that the thought process leading him to it requires insanity.
Edit: The two points I'm really trying to make are:
Have not enough people died already?
and
Things like this could be prevented through proper psychiatric evaluation and treatment.
EPT
