Colorado Shooter - Life Without Parole

[Tallpine]

Wouldn't have so many in jail if we hanged 'em like we used to 

[De Selby]

You're right. We could go back to the crime rate of the 70s. We have that option.

We also could have a revival of the people that results in the citizens of the country actually acting like Christians rather than just calling themselves that.

Those are pretty much the only options. I suppose we could also go back to institutionalizing the insane, but that pretty much only has an effect on the splashy crimes liberals love.

My guess is we are headed for option 1, though. I'll keep praying for option 2, miracles do happen.

Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?

That seems a bit narrow focused.

[cordex]

My view of government enforced death penalty has steadily declined over the decades, but only because my view of competence of the government has steadily declined.  In cases like this where there is no debate that the "suspect" committed the murders as he was caught in the act, and where even his own defense did not question that he pulled the trigger I don't have a problem with it.  As for mental health issues, at some point I think insanity as a "defense" wears thin.  Not sure exactly where, but I think a dozen fresh corpses and five or six dozen in the hospital probably does it.

If he goes to prison and put into general population, he will be dead in a few years. He is not the typical criminal that goes to prison.

So locking him up is essentially willfully executing him by proxy?  As someone who opposes the death penalty in all cases, are you okay with that?

What is the value in executing someone  who is obviously insane?

The same value served by executing anyone.  And simultaneously the same value in caging someone for the rest of their life when they are obviously insane.  Neither is intended to reform the criminal.  Both are intended to prevent recidivism, at least for crimes committed outside of prison.  Both are intended to take away the remainder of the criminal's life.

It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.

First of all, it takes an awful lot to be committed for treatment.  Plenty of bat *expletive deleted*it crazy people out there who cause a lot of trouble but either don't cross the threshold for commitment or else are released after a few hours or days.
Second, whether or not the government definition of crazy is sufficient, just about everyone who commits multiple-murders are crazy for some definition of the word.  That doesn't mean they bear no responsibility for their actions.

[230RN]

Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?

That seems a bit narrow focused.

One way to reduce crime is to reduce crimes.

You send those lawmakers to the various legislative bodies and what do you think? They feel duty-bound to make laws.  

They even copy each others' statutes and ordinances just to show they've "done something" during their tenure.

"Hey, they did it in Montanissippi,  why not here in Missontana?"

They bend over backwards to dream up laws just to have something to do.

I'd prefer to vote for someone who has something to un-do.

Terry

[vaskidmark]

Skid, it is not a distraction to observe that the legal definition of "insane" both for criminal responsibility and eligibility for punishment bears no relationship to common sense or reality.  It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.

So apparently you choose not to research the SCOTUS decision, which says essentially the same thing you are jumping up and down on your soapbox about.  Which makes discussing anything except the existence of the ruling a distraction.  But for the sake of carrying this ad absurdium I'll let you instruct me on how someone *expletive deleted*it crazy can effectively participate in their defense and understand the import of both the crime they stand accused of and the penalty they face.  SCOTUS did leave open the door for the *expletive deleted"it crazy who could be restored to those levels by medical treatment (generally psychotropic medication).

Just as an aside, are you aware than in the 1970s America deinstitutionalized over 90% of the *expletive deleted*it crazy people that were previously locked away in mental wards because they were not a threat to themself or to others?  And yet here we are talking about some guy who most likely is not *expletive deleted*it crazy who has clearly demonstrated that he was a danger to others.

e]As for American prisons, it's bizarre that you'd require no examination of anywhere else in the world as an option.  But anyway, how about the US before the 90's?  We didn't always imprison millions of people every year.  We still don't have to.

Whoa, there!  I thought we were discussing the option of life imprisonment vs. the death penalty.  Where did all these other millions of folks get tickets to join the conversation?

But to honor your request for an explanation of why I asked to limit the discussion to American society and the American penal system - it is because American society is just as unique as, for instance, Japanese or Finnish or Norwegian or even British societies and like those the odds of changing American society to even remotely resemble those would take, at a rapid (read: forced) pace, something like eight generations.  FYI America finds itself in, depending on how you want to  count it, either  the 1st or 2nd generation of an attempt to force such a change.  I am sure you are aware of the pushback that effort is receiving.  Remember, it takes less than 5% of the population to run an effective resistance, while it takes around 65% over two to three generations to allow changes to be made "for" them.

stay safe.

[De Selby]

Cordex, the legal standard for insanity in criminal cases is higher in every jurisdiction in America than it is for treatment - you might do well to look up in your state how much easier it is to be committed for treatment than found not guilty by reason of insanity.  Commitment is much, much more common everywhere.  Since John Hinckley insanity is basically not a defense.

How do you think insane people are affected by executions?  Is there some diagnosis of schizophrenia that leaves the hallucinations being stayed by executions of others?

Skid, I read that rant and see no rebuttal to my point.  You seem to be alleging that because insane people can be medicated to sanity for execution (even though they were so insane they couldn't be executed at the time of conviction!  Read that decision mate) there's therefore no issue of mental illness in death sentencing or criminal punishment.  I refer you to Aileen Wuornos' last video.  

Terry, inventing crime with long punishments is a key reason why more people are in prison.  I agree with you 100 percent - forcing legislatures to be part time would be a great benefit. More so if done fifty years ago.

[cordex]

Cordex, the legal standard for insanity in criminal cases is higher in every jurisdiction in America than it is for treatment - you might do well to look up in your state how much easier it is to be committed for treatment than found not guilty by reason of insanity.  Commitment is much, much more common everywhere.  Since John Hinckley insanity is basically not a defense.

As with so much of what you post, that is irrelevant.

How do you think insane people are affected by executions?  Is there some diagnosis of schizophrenia that leaves the hallucinations being stayed by executions of others?

Prevention of crime in others is not the sole - or even most important - purpose of criminal punishment. Lifelong imprisonment is equally useless in preventing other insane people from harming others.

[makattak]

Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?

That seems a bit narrow focused.

Well, from the American experience, those are the ones that have worked. There is, of course, the Levitt view that another effective means of decreasing crime is murdering in the womb those with higher potential for criminal behaviour, but I disagree with not only the means, but the effectiveness of that strategy. So that leaves me with two with a proven track record.

[De Selby]

Well, from the American experience, those are the ones that have worked. There is, of course, the Levitt view that another effective means of decreasing crime is murdering in the womb those with higher potential for criminal behaviour, but I disagree with not only the means, but the effectiveness of that strategy. So that leaves me with two with a proven track record.

So now it's three options?  You can't seriously be declaring the "American experience" as defined by those three, yet claiming to be an economist.

Cordex, I think pointing out that executing the mentally ill has no effect and that lots of mentally ill people get convicted of crimes is quite relevant to the thread.  After all, it's a thread about someone with obvious mental illness being convicted of a crime.  But we've explored our definitions of mental illness sort of - we haven't talked about what "relevant" means, and I suppose it's possible you don't accept any commonly known dictionary definition of relevant.

[makattak]

So now it's three options?  You can't seriously be declaring the "American experience" as defined by those three, yet claiming to be an economist.

Cordex, I think pointing out that executing the mentally ill has no effect and that lots of mentally ill people get convicted of crimes is quite relevant to the thread.  After all, it's a thread about someone with obvious mental illness being convicted of a crime.  But we've explored our definitions of mental illness sort of - we haven't talked about what "relevant" means, and I suppose it's possible you don't accept any commonly known dictionary definition of relevant.

No, it's two that have worked with a country made up as our currently is, the third is not an option. Unless, of course, you wish to proffer some other suggestions rather than playing games without actually adding to the discussion.

[cordex]

Cordex, I think pointing out that executing the mentally ill has no effect and that lots of mentally ill people get convicted of crimes is quite relevant to the thread.  After all, it's a thread about someone with obvious mental illness being convicted of a crime.  But we've explored our definitions of mental illness sort of - we haven't talked about what "relevant" means, and I suppose it's possible you don't accept any commonly known dictionary definition of relevant.

Execution absolutely does have an effect.  Indeed it has a near perfect preventative effect for repeat offenses, simply not necessarily for others who are sufficiently mentally ill.  The same can be said for any other punishment.

Again, imprisoning  the mentally ill for life or any other amount of time has no more preventative effect for others than execution.  For that matter, mentally ill persons actively under treatment often commit heinous crimes, so even prophylactic treatment is not effective in that regard. Does that mean those options should likewise be discarded?

I think your posts over the years have well demonstrated that you have a very different idea of relevance.

[De Selby]

No, it's two that have worked with a country made up as our currently is, the third is not an option. Unless, of course, you wish to proffer some other suggestions rather than playing games without actually adding to the discussion.

Less lead in the food chain, economic growth leading to reduced desperation, more advanced drug syndicates making the product available at cheaper prices for less seller risk, better education for more people, less racist violence... etc.

There are lots of reasons why crime might be down.  Those are just a few.

Note:  the combined magical effects of prayer plus any of the above might well make America as safe as Norway.  I'm assuming based on the statistics that we all quit praying, and that any reduction in crime takes account of the loss of its magical powers.

[De Selby]

Execution absolutely does have an effect.  Indeed it has a near perfect preventative effect for repeat offenses, simply not necessarily for others who are sufficiently mentally ill.  The same can be said for any other punishment.

Again, imprisoning  the mentally ill for life or any other amount of time has no more preventative effect for others than execution.  For that matter, mentally ill persons actively under treatment often commit heinous crimes, so even prophylactic treatment is not effective in that regard. Does that mean those options should likewise be discarded?

I think your posts over the years have well demonstrated that you have a very different idea of relevance.

Life imprisonment has the same effect for the crazy, and doesn't require us stooping to execute well, the crazy. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Not even close. You offer up the lives of other prisoners and guards to keep you comfortable

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[charby]

.
So locking him up is essentially willfully executing him by proxy?  As someone who opposes the death penalty in all cases, are you okay with that?

No, I'm not. Just because a person can't function as a normal person in society, doesn't mean that they should be subjected to basically torture by death in a prison. If they are not mentally able to function in society according to the norms of society, they placing them in a mental health facility where they can be free of harm from others and unable to cause harm to others is probably the best thing to do. I know there are people that call psychology a pseudo science but the environment of the mental hospitals, especially the ones for criminals is a great place for advances in psychological science. These finding then can be used to better other people with mental health issues in the future.

[cordex]

Life imprisonment has the same effect for the crazy, and doesn't require us stooping to execute well, the crazy. 

As csd notes, there are other lives risked when you stick someone in a box for the rest of their life.  Besides that, pretending that locking someone up until they die is more moral than killing them outright takes some mental agility.

[cordex]

No, I'm not. Just because a person can't function as a normal person in society, doesn't mean that they should be subjected to basically torture by death in a prison. If they are not mentally able to function in society according to the norms of society, they placing them in a mental health facility where they can be free of harm from others and unable to cause harm to others is probably the best thing to do. I know there are people that call psychology a pseudo science but the environment of the mental hospitals, especially the ones for criminals is a great place for advances in psychological science. These finding then can be used to better other people with mental health issues in the future.

I agree that imprisoning some insane people may actually be more cruel than execution. I am less convinced that mental institutions are a better choice in any regard for handling people who have, for instance, slaughtered a dozen folks. I think that goes a bit beyond not being able to "function as a normal person."  For the mentally ill who haven't gone to those extremes i think there are probably plenty of better options than imprisonment.

[makattak]

Less lead in the food chain, economic growth leading to reduced desperation, more advanced drug syndicates making the product available at cheaper prices for less seller risk, better education for more people, less racist violence... etc.

There are lots of reasons why crime might be down.  Those are just a few.

Note:  the combined magical effects of prayer plus any of the above might well make America as safe as Norway.  I'm assuming based on the statistics that we all quit praying, and that any reduction in crime takes account of the loss of its magical powers.

The rising crime rates in Baltimore and New York belie your explanations for the change in crime rates since the 1970s.

And I love the "better education" throw-away. Any examples as to how that would and has worked? It clearly is not the cause of the drop in crime since the 70s.

[makattak]

Oh, I'd also like to know how we are going to get more lead out of the environment today, as well.

[Tallpine]

How do you think insane people are affected by executions? 

Well, I'm not a doctor, but I think it results in permanent cessation of respiration, circulation, and brain activity.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So many excuses so lil time
 Aside from the innate dishonesty of enabling bad behavior you also do those you enable no favors
 Key thing that has to change is folks need to learn is that bad behavior has consequences . It's apparently much harder than you would imagine

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[charby]

I agree that imprisoning some insane people may actually be more cruel than execution. I am less convinced that mental institutions are a better choice in any regard for handling people who have, for instance, slaughtered a dozen folks. I think that goes a bit beyond not being able to "function as a normal person."  For the mentally ill who haven't gone to those extremes i think there are probably plenty of better options than imprisonment.

They are not exactly hospitals one can check themselves in and out of, it's mental hospital for violent criminals or a mental hospital wing in a prison.

[zxcvbob]

As csd notes, there are other lives risked when you stick someone in a box for the rest of their life.  Besides that, pretending that locking someone up until they die is more moral than killing them outright takes some mental agility.

At least it's a reversible action, when the state gets it wrong.

[cordex]

At least it's a reversible action, when the state gets it wrong.

I am in complete agreement where there is an element of doubt. I don't think that comes into play here, does it?

They are not exactly hospitals one can check themselves in and out of, it's mental hospital for violent criminals or a mental hospital wing in a prison.

So we are back to boxing people up until they die.

[TommyGunn]

Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?

That seems a bit narrow focused.

Mass incarceration keeps the bad guys in a prison which seems to have the effect of greatly reducing their interactions with the public ... you know, like patronizing "stop & robs" (IE., small package stores) and ... well, commiting other unpleasantries. 
IMHO prayer is completly useless.  But it does give one a nice warm feeling inside....which is pretty much what I suspect it's like to be a liberal sometimes.