"DC Sniper" to take his rightful place in hell tonight.

[s.rwitt]

The "DC Sniper" is set to be executed tonight. Is there any reason he should be pardoned?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/...iper_execution

[Phier]

I object that its not by firing squad.

[mrmouth]

he gone...

[Phier]

he gone...

Hawkism?

[mrmouth]

Hawkism?

Yeah, I immediately began to look for a soundbite, that would only further confuse people...

I figured you might get that though.

[Farnan]

I wouldn't say he goes to Hell as no man is past redemption (not saying he should have been pardoned, redemption is a personal, not legal matter).

But cue anti-Islam in 5...4...3...

[Pickle_mole]

I wouldn't say he goes to Hell as no man is past redemption (not saying he should have been pardoned, redemption is a personal, not legal matter).

But cue anti-Islam in 5...4...3...

Well he killed innocents for his religion, which happens to be islam, this is weird its almost like islam drives people to kill non muslims, A pattern seems to be emerging, we should probably ignore it and put on our "multiculturalism blindfold" and put our heads in the ing sand, it makes it easier.

[s.rwitt]

It's not about Islam (in the sense that Islam had nothing to do with me starting this thread). Like Hasan, I see this guy as a nutball that happened to be Muslim. Just like the dude that killed the abortion doctor inside a church was a nutball that happened to be Christian.

[Farnan]

It's not about Islam (in the sense that Islam had nothing to do with me starting this thread). Like Hasan, I see this guy as a nutball that happened to be Muslim. Just like the dude that killed the abortion doctor inside a church was a nutball that happened to be Christian.

Not talking about you, waiting for the usuals...

[Ænema]

Good. Get his ass off this earth.

[Mythos]

The "DC Sniper" is set to be executed tonight. Is there any reason he should be pardoned?

Moral high ground?

[s.rwitt]

No.

If we wanted the moral highground we'd let him go as soon as he said he was sorry and wouldn't do it again.

[Mythos]

No.

If we wanted the moral highground we'd let him go as soon as he said he was sorry and wouldn't do it again.

I don't think so. Taking the moral high ground in this case is prison for life without parole, not releasing him. Killing him only makes us and the state drop to this level.

[Denny Crane!]

Hell? Hmmm. Eternal damnation for something that was probably outside of his own control. Interesting. I've absolutely no doubt that in the case of all serial killers we will be able to see exactly what went wrong with them neurologically but I don't believe anyone rationally decides to kill many many people.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Hell? Hmmm. Eternal damnation for something that was probably outside of his own control. Interesting. I've absolutely no doubt that in the case of all serial killers we will be able to see exactly what went wrong with them neurologically but I don't believe anyone rationally decides to kill many many people.

Determinist much?

[WrathofTulkas]

Hell? Hmmm. Eternal damnation for something that was probably outside of his own control. Interesting. I've absolutely no doubt that in the case of all serial killers we will be able to see exactly what went wrong with them neurologically but I don't believe anyone rationally decides to kill many many people.

They're called sociopaths... they have no consciences.

[Denny Crane!]

Determinist much?

No but I do have an interest in evolutionary psychology and how it effects us. Anyone who doesn't take the middle ground obviously isn't very educated.

To quote John Searl ''anyone who thinks the brain doesn't have an effect on consciousness should drink a bottle of whisky then tell me that''

Similarly there is an interesting thread coming about automatism in the ethos dealing with the effects of someone suffering and suffering autonomous behaviour and culpability.

It isn't determinist, it is just plain fact that neurological illness/abnormalities can be responsible for behaviour. Hell there is evidence that little things like social pressure can change behaviour irrespective of choice. Not just a little evidence, great big steaming piles of it.

People do irrational things every day. In this case he, and another, obviously thought long and hard about it.

And that thinking process was obviously not normal. Or are you telling me that the only thing that stops you randomly killing tons of people is that you often think and stop, no I'd like to but I can't balance that with my morality. It is just an abhorrent thought to anyone not suffering.

They're called sociopaths... they have no consciences.

Yes they are ill.

[S.L.I.G]

Hell? Hmmm. Eternal damnation for something that was probably outside of his own control. Interesting. I've absolutely no doubt that in the case of all serial killers we will be able to see exactly what went wrong with them neurologically but I don't believe anyone rationally decides to kill many many people.

Have you never read up on Serial killers like Ted Bundy? Many are highly educated, rational people. They may have no conscience- but they are part of 4% of the population, many of which do not kill. The thing that sets them apart is the compulsion to kill, something which- again, by the admission of serial killers- has the capacity to be controlled.

Hell, one serial killer [name escapes me] turned himself in, because he realized what he did was twisted and was getting out of hand. So please do not fall back on that ignorant about how sociopaths or serial killers are ill and incapable of controlling themselves, understanding what it is they do or why [Ted Bundy studied Phychology, likely for kicks], because its just plain wrong. And worse than wrong, the implications of that are that we feel empathy and leniancy for utter monsters.

Isn't it always up to psychiatrists to determine if the accused is mentally ill or not?
I can't imagine a judge taking a lawyers "professional opinion" on any medical questions.

btw: in my country you don't have to go to jail if it was a mental illness that caused you to commit the crime, but instead you will just be locked up in a mental hospital instead (not as punishment, but to protect society).
And there you will stay until you're cured, or for the rest of your life if you can't get cured.
I think this is a very good system.

The only thing that will get you off from being guilty is being declared LEGALLY insane. "Insane" has nothing to do with medicine, its a legal definiton. You lack the capacity to understand what you did is wrong. Hearing voices, having compulsions, whatever it is, has no bearing on the case. If you know killing someone is wrong, you are sane. And considering this killer [and virtually all] do their very best to hide what they've done, falling back on the insanity defence hardly ever works.

[Erik]

The only thing that will get you off from being guilty is being declared LEGALLY insane. "Insane" has nothing to do with medicine, its a legal definiton. You lack the capacity to understand what you did is wrong. Hearing voices, having compulsions, whatever it is, has no bearing on the case.

What about psychosis?
People suffering from it can hallucinate and not be able to tell reality from fantasy, and in this state they can attack people without knowing what they are doing.
They can still understand that killing a human being is wrong, but they might for example believe that someone is a zombie or a vampire and must thus be killed.

A cousin of mine was psychotic once.
At one point he was waving a knife at a family member - which is something he would normally never do.
Luckily nobody got hurt, but if he did hit someone could he be jailed for assault in America?
In the Netherlands that could not happen, because it's very clear he didn't intent to harm anyone.

[S.L.I.G]

What about psychosis?
People suffering from it can hallucinate and not be able to tell reality from fantasy, and in this state they can attack people without knowing what they are doing.
They can still understand that killing a human being is wrong, but they might for example believe that someone is a zombie or a vampire and must thus be killed.

A cousin of mine was psychotic once.
At one point he was waving a knife at a family member - which is something he would normally never do.
Luckily nobody got hurt, but if he did hit someone could he be jailed for assault in America?
In the Netherlands that could not happen, because it's very clear he didn't intent to harm anyone.

Yeah, mens rea and actus reus- guilty mind and guilty act- are an issue in Canadian law. In that sense, for my country, he would be "ok" because he never intended to harm people. America does not have the concept of guilty mind; so long as you are capable of intellectually understanding morality and the effects of murder, you are not insane. You can hear a voice urging you to kill them, and be completly out of in terms of rationality and even an attachement to reality, so long as you understand that killing is wrong [and I mean in a general sense, you may not agree with it or think that it no longer applies, because of a vampire or to bring up an example of a Californian serial killer, you think the murders are a requirement to save people from destruction, it doesn't matter, its a general sense of understanding] and realize there are ramifications [i.e you hide the body], then you are sane enough to stand trial. Often, even if you are declared insane, once your mental health is back to par they will try you for murder- for example, ed gein.

Edit: Most Western countries are with America on this one, the concept of guilty mind is actually fairly rare in law, and AFAIK the legal understanding of insanity has influenced or is directly a part of, most Western law as well.