Brain Scans Used In Murder Sentencing

sciencehabit writes "For what may be the first time, fMRI scans of brain activity have been used as evidence in the sentencing phase of a murder trial. Defense lawyers for an Illinois man convicted of raping and killing a 10-year-old girl used the scans to argue that their client should be spared the death penalty because he has a brain disorder. Some experts say the scans are irrelevant because they were taken 20+ years after the crimes were committed. Others point out that the scans are only being considered because the sentencing phase of a trial has less stringent standards about evidence than those used to establish a defendant's innocence or guilt." In the Illinois case, the fMRI defense didn't help the defendant, whom a jury sentenced to death.

Comments

OK slashdot.

[Icegryphon]

Don't think about pink elephants or Fp's

Re:OK slashdot.

[Penguinisto]

Err, what if he's thinking about Chewbacca? Might even get him acquitted.

Re:OK slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, what if he's thinking about Chewbacca? Might even get him acquitted.

That does not make sense.

Re:OK slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it makes sense. You just don't watch South Park.

Re:OK slashdot.

[jamesh]

neither do you, obviously.

Google for 'Chewbacca Defense' and you'll see why it "does not make sense".

(yes, i'm grumpy that someone beat me to the "that does not make sense" post :)

Re:OK slashdot.

[fractoid]

No, I'm fairly sure it does not make sense, because Chewbacca is a Wookie on Endor.

Re:OK slashdot.

[Requiem18th]

I was thinking about the game...

Re:OK slashdot.

[Z34107]

I was thinking about the game...

YOU JUST LOST THE GAME.

Re:OK slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, Chewy is getting moded to the top, /. is getting pretty sad

Re:OK slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a Wookie doing on Endor?

Great defence!

[Quasar1999]

If anything, it would help the jury decide to sentence him to death... obviously they're helping him by not letting him live, thus his horribly diseased brain won't make him suffer any longer... Really it's the humanitarian thing to do... :P

Re:Great defence!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There are some specific cases where brain abnormality evidence seems like it would be very valuable to the defendant. This guy for instance. Initially pretty normal. Gradually develops increasingly problematic sexual misbehavior. Just before being sent to jail, goes to the ER with a headache and neurological symptoms. They MRI him and chop out a huge tumor pressing on his frontal lobe. Sexual misbehavior stops.

Some time later, it starts up again. They check, and the tumor has partially regrown. Tumor is again resected, and patient is again fine.

In a case like that, there seems to be a compelling argument to be made that the defendant's behavior is a medical problem rather than a criminal one(and a treatable medical problem, not an "well, enjoy the secure ward for the rest of your life" medical problem). If, though, your plea is basically "But, but, this MRI shows exactly the part of my brain that makes me a violent shitbag..." That seems fairly useless to you(though it might be helpful in the long term, if it helps us figure out how to stop producing people like you). Obviously, with sufficient scientific knowledge, it will be possible to identify the anatomic basis of your behavior. So what?

Re:Great defence!

[Runaway1956]

Thanks to actions taken by Nazi Germany almost 70 years ago, eugenics is a dirty word in most of the world today. But, eugenics actually makes sense. If this fool is defective, then those defective genes should be flushed from the gene pool.

We have actually been practicing the reverse of eugenics. We assist congenitally deformed and defective infants to survive to adulthood, so that they can pass on their congenital conditions. It's admirable to accept Downs' syndrome children, for instance. As a society we invest huge amounts of resources to make their lives better, and more rewarding. But - what exactly do those children contribute to society? More faulty genes, of course.

I don't have the stomach to put all defective children out for the wolves to eat, like the Romans and the Spartans are claimed to have done. But, really, it's time we stopped working so very hard to ensure that every defective child matures to breeding age. It does nothing but weaken us, as a race. (I mean the "Human" race - I do NOT mean anything at all like the Nazi's, or white supremacists mean by "race".)

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

Mod parent up. It is ALL about whether or not the 'bad thing' can be prevented from occurring again.

Re:Great defence!

[jamesh]

From a purely scientific point of view it does make some sense. The trouble is that you would be putting people in charge of who gets to breed and who doesn't, and we've already demonstrated that people are not capable of running a bank properly so imagine what's going to happen if you put them in charge of something like this... Once someone in power decides that pointing out flaws in the government is not a good trait to have, it all goes downhill really fast - there doesn't need to be a 'real' gene for it either, once the system is corrupt people can make up whatever they want.

Also, have a look at some of the defects in some of the greatest people of our time. Einstein had a majorly lopsided brain etc. Obviously not necessarily genetic though.

Re:Great defence!

[hairyfeet]

You know, I always thought is was how a person was raised, and not their DNA, that made them who they were, that is, until it happened in my own family.

My two cousins, lets call them Rick and Don, were raised exactly the same way, in fact until Rick turned 16 and everything came out we all thought they were biological brothers. It turned out my Aunt and Uncle had been told when they lived in Texas they couldn't have kids, and therefor adopted Rick at less than a week old, naturally boom a year later Don is born. They were very "all children are gifts from God" and spending many a night in their home and living down the street from them I can attest they never treated either kid differently from the other. But before Rick was even 12 there were problems-torturing animals, stealing, vicious behavior, bullying, etc. Finally they managed to get the court records unsealed and ....damn.

It turned out Rick's mom was a whore who was doing 10-20 for cutting up a John over a fee with a razor, and his dad was her pimp who I swear was a fricking axe murderer! No shit, they guy got into an argument over cash, went to his truck, got an axe and chopped the guy into little pieces and got life without parole. Now Rick is locked up in the same prison where his biological dad died, charged as a habitual offender he most likely will never get out again. My aunt and uncle spent huge sums of money trying to help him, therapy, drugs, etc all to no avail. Don is about as boring as you can get, I don't think he or his wife have ever gotten so much as a traffic ticket.

So I really have to wonder if there is something in the DNA. My aunt looked up his biological family and both sides were nothing but violence-rapes,beatings, killings, etc as far back as she could find.And as I said both boys were raised side by side, same house, food, treatment, etc, in a house filled with love and caring parents. So maybe there is something to the "bad gene" idea, who knows. Maybe we can isolate the genes and hopefully get rid of them. But watching it unfold in my own family killed the whole "it is just the environment they are raised in" BS for me. Because they got Rick straight from the hospital and he had never been exposed to his family, nor would he or any of us even known they existed if things hadn't gone so wrong.

Re:Great defence!

[kcitren]

But, really, it's time we stopped working so very hard to ensure that every defective child matures to breeding age. It does nothing but weaken us, as a race. (I mean the "Human" race - I do NOT mean anything at all like the Nazi's, or white supremacists mean by "race".)

It's not that we should ensure that they reach breeding age, it's that, in the case of genetic diseases, we should ensure that they don't breed [assuming, of course, that they would be a burden on society, and have no positive impact]. There's no harm in letting disabled people live [minus any extra burden it may put on their family, etc].

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on your definition of "weaken." After all, our greatest asset is our brains. I mean we have already given up our biological armor (soft bodies, no shell), weapons (no claws, weak teeth), etc, and traded that for a bigger brain that can make all sort of tools. See, we use tools as more flexible enhancements that let us do all sorts of things. We have very little innate talents other than our brains.

So yeah, maybe some day we will be these weak deformed blobs but have incredible tools that let us do anything we need.

Re:Great defence!

[fractoid]

Is it, though? Now we're getting into the philosophy of punishment. There are three basic motivations that I can see for punishing someone for a crime (as distinct from forcing them to make reparations):

• To reduce the likelihood of re-offending (especially applies to incarceration).
• To serve as an example, to deter others from perpetrating the same offense
• Revenge

Imagine a kiddy fiddler of the worst order. He's molested scores of children, caused untold harm to them, etc. Now imagine that, on the day that he's caught, they can for whatever reason clinically prove that he's 'cured' and would be constitutionally unable to re-offend. Should he go free? I imagine the response would be a universal and emphatic "no, of course not!" The only motive for incarcerating or executing him at this point would be revenge.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

You say "revenge" - I would have said "justice". But perhaps they should be two separate points on the list.

We all do everything we do because of our brains, and none of our brains are perfect. The real question is whether the person is responsible for their crime. With some types of brain damage or mental illnesses then, no, of course they aren't. But you wouldn't say "This person has naturally high testosterone levels and he can't help being agressive so his sentence should be lighter". It helps us to know why some people are more agressive - but we need to accept that humans vary in what they are. Otherwise we will be on our way to diagnosing anyone who isn't a happy, uncritical extrovert as having "a brain abnormality"

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not disagreeing, but if we follow that train of thought we wouldn't have people like Steven Hawking making the contributions he does. He may be alive but certainly he would be marginalized.... Part of our survival as a (human) race is making the scientific leaps people like him make.

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

I'd say yep. I'd probably suggest he change his name and move though. I'd imagine he'd need a lot of counseling afterward.
I suppose I should have said the only good reason for prison is to stop people from doing bad things. Reducing re-offending is most of it. Making an example is a tiny bit. Min I think the latter half should be done through education.

People going around not-murdering because they could get caught and get prison time are scary either way. That type of person is a short burt of adrenaline away from murdering someone.

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

You missed the point of GGP. A person having a lower sentence because they have an illness that makes them stab people is clearly insane. BUT if the illness is cureable and they get it fixed then the sentence SHOULD be reduced. Clearly a person that we KNOW is likely to stab people should get a longer sentence since he'd be a 'high-risk' case.

Also we already started down that slope in the 60s... we are well down the hill. Many mental 'diseases' are just something being out of the normal range. People that fall into the bottom 3% of being able to pay attention all have a 'disease'. Just wait for that # to go up to 5% maybe 10%. Also if you look at all of the different things that are classified in this way (maybe 100s) It is likely that over 60% of this board could be classified with something.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

Taken the Voight-Kampff lately? Maybe it's just your ugly language. "Defective". "Deformed". "Faulty". What a way to describe human beings!

And what's the point of your quest? You say: it "does nothing but weaken us, as a race". Is our race weak? We certainly don't seem to be circling the drain as a species at the moment - in fact we're thriving in plague numbers. Numbers enough to share our resources with people who can't help themselves.

Stop trying to perfect the human race. All we need is for most of us to be OK enough. And we are, more or less.

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

Also, justice in modern usage IS revenge. It doesn't have to be personal revenge mind you. And it doesn't have a guilt stigma to it. But otherwise they are the same.

How often do you hear justice refer to someone getting something good vs bad? Getting one's just deserts? Maybe 1/20times are these words used to convey something good.

Re:Great defence!

[fractoid]

I agree with you. I also think that revenge has gotten a bad rap from the politically correct pussification brigade, to the point where we shy away from admitting that it's actually what we're doing. If someone I loved was murdered, I would hunt the killer down and take them apart at the seams. That's revenge, but in my book it's also totally justified.

Interesting point about responsibility for crimes. That's something I've always wondered about - at what point do we stop saying "you chose to do X and will take the consequences" and start saying "you have a disorder which caused you to do X and cannot be held accountable". I think they key is identifying exactly how much choice the person had in the matter - I suspect in the future we're going to need statistical models to assign some kind of 'free will index' to each person based on their psych profile and maybe genetic factors (insert ob. Gattaca reference), which would determine their level of responsibility and freedom, as well as the consequences they suffer for misbehaviour.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

The question is whether or not the illness means that they are not responsible (or less responsible) for their crime. The illness should be cured either way, of course, but they shouldn't get a lesser sentence just because an fRMI can show up patterns consistant with people who "lack empathy"? or "are agressive" or "act on their impuses without thinking". Just because we can detect these things on a scan? No way. "Your child was killed. We are giving him a lighter sentence because he was born without empathy!"

I agree completely with the second part of what you said.

Re:Great defence!

[ZosX]

I have a 10 year old daughter. He played the game of life wrong. Hang him high!

Re:Great defence!

[Nefarious Wheel]

o To reduce the likelihood of re-offending (especially applies to incarceration).

o To serve as an example, to deter others from perpetrating the same offense

o Revenge

I'd like to add "public safety" to that. It's similar to point one, but with a slightly different emphasis. Incarceration is often seen as the only way to rehabilitate the offender. In point of fact, the public generally demands these extreme cases be met with a punishment that involves removing them from society altogether.

The ultimate best outcome would be for the offender to be completely and perfectly rehabilitated and the public to accept this, but outside some form of Clockwork Orange solution, you can't depend on it, nor am I sure it would be a good idea to go that route.

Balancing is the poor likelyhood of the public accepting that the rehabilitation is real and trustworthy.

To sum it up, it doesn't matter if the offender is rehabilitated or not, the public wants him out of the way.

I was very liberal about crime and punishment until I had daughters of my own. That changes things somehow. And yes, I'm glad he's gone.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why take the example of a bank. People throughout the late-19th, early-20th consistently tried to do this with disastrous consequences (and no - not only Germany. USA as well rejecting "undesirable" immigrants at Ellis Island and prominent politicians proposing practicing eugenics).

Re:Great defence!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I suspect that a lot of the increase is simple mis/over-diagnosis, there is another factor that is worth noting: In a sense, "diagnosis" is something that is only worth doing if it serves some further end, ideally successful treatment and cure(though lesser outcomes, such as determining that a given treatment would be hopeless, or gathering information for classification and future research, are also worthwhile).

Back in the day, when the tools of psychology and psychiatry were incredibly crude, dubiously effective, and rather ghastly, the only meaningful diagnoses were of fairly horrible extremes. As they became subtler, safer, and more effective, though, a larger collection of conditions become amenable to treatment. Frankly, as long as we keep the patient's right of autonomy in mind, I don't think that this is a bad thing.

Take my case. If all we had were institutionalization, ECT, and maybe old-school antidepressants, with all their hairy side effects, then there would be no point in classifying me as anything other than "shy" or "melancholy". With modern SSRIs, though, a diagnosis of "depression" and "anxiety" has made me a great deal more functional, with minimal side effects and fairly low cost(particularly compared to the cost of being unable to work effectively).

Some diagnoses are just plain crap, and there are definitely fads; but the meaningful scope of diagnosis is also defined by the technology available to respond to what you identify.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

I meant by "justice" the basic codification of our desire for fairness and balance - a sense of things being put right. Revenge is more to do with sating a desire to do harm to those who have harmed us. "Revenge" seems very old testament - "an eye for an eye". Justice takes the desire for revenge into account, but tempers it with consideration of the motives and circumstances of the person who did the harm as well. The courts, if you like, versus the lynch mob. The mother who says "you must share your toys with your sister even if she hit you and she must apologise for hitting you" rather than the one who confiscates your toy and locks your sister in the basement.

Re:Great defence!

[fractoid]

"Public safety" is only an issue if the offender has some likelihood of re-offending, unless you count the (questionable) effect of deterring other offenders by 'making an example'. I will grant, though, that "for the offender's protection" is another reason for incarceration (although not necessarily strictly a punishment).

Re:Great defence!

[sg_oneill]

"Lacks empathy" wont get you off. Sociopathy generally is NOT a defense in criminal trials, because a sociopath knows his actions are wrong and harmful, he just doesn't give a damn.

A schizophrenic who believes he's james bond and kills his mother because he believes shes about to set off a nuclear bomb that will level new york, however will probably get a prolonged stay in the happy-ward because it can be shown that he believed he was doing the right thing, as a government agent, to save lives. Even if in reality he had actually just murdered his mother whilst loudly singing "jingle bells".

The difference is that in the first case it can be shown the defendant was still in charge of his own behavior and had the agency to chose not to. The Schizophrenic however had diminished responsibility, because an organic brain fault made him think he had no choice but to save the world.

In the case of the brain tumor, diminished responsibility can probably be demonstrated because an organic brain fault had broken the dudes brain into thinking kiddy fiddling was acceptable and desirable (and perhaps the guy was even on automatic mode of some sort).

Unfortunately Juries have very little experience in determining these things well, and theres a tragic history of Schizophrenics on death row that belong in hospital, not in the chair, and theres probably also a few cases of sociopathic assholes getting off be feigning craziness.

God only knows my years working in courts taught me that despite juries being a good theory, in reality its a huge game of russian roulette with peoples freedoms, determined by whether or not the defendant is able to afford a lawyer expert not in good law but bamboozling the jury.

So the poor , probably ethnic, guy who shot the sherriff , believing himself to be self-defending against a martian assassin, gets fried, while the sleazy billionare who shoots some girl because she wont put out cops ten years and Oprah winfrey interview on release.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure genetics can cause predisposition to be more violent such as having an extra chromosome(I believe Y) will make you much more aggressive and an extra X will make you more umm feminine I believe might be a good word to use. But there are also people who don't have that history and don't have that violent upbringing and turn out to be psychos just as well. Its a fine line to walk and you can argue very well on both sides. I think the problem a lot of people have is that for about 70% of people even once we understand much more about it, things will still be more about choices they make and not their genetics but everyone will always to use the "Oh but its my genes", sure you can have more violent or aggressive tendencies but what makes you act on them is the big thing and that can really be blurred as to saying you made the choice or what.

Re:Great defence!

[xero314]

If this fool is defective, then those defective genes should be flushed from the gene pool.

But who is supposed to determine what is and what is not defective? And who is to determine what intermediary steps will lead to detriment or benefit? Had Neanderthal's employed eugenics would Homo Sapiens exist?

It takes many many generations to determine if a certain variation is beneficial to the species. Sometimes it takes variations of detrimental variations to finally come to a beneficial variation. Eugenics only perpetuations the current state or a specific evolutionary path chosen by those practicing eugenics.

Now if anyone was up for it I would love to see some one carry out an experiment where one group of people, lets say a couple thousand, practiced eugenics, and another group did not. Then say 100k years from now we see which one is showing more beneficial variations, and then again a million years from now.

Just imagine if Stephen Hawking had been victim to eugenics. But I guess we don't really need his contributions to science of quantum gravity. And that's not to mention the multitude of convicted criminals that have upon release contributed highly to society.

Re:Great defence!

[Kjella]

Funny, I never thought that... That people can inherit traits of their parents, I find just as natural as a child inheriting height, skin color, eye color, hair color, facial characteristics, genetic diseases and whatnot from their parents. Even the relatively homogeneous group of children I grew up with, sharing our school time and most of our spare time, we were always very different people and not just because of social groupings. But all of us, like pretty much everyone that don't belong in a mental institution, were in control of our actions. Even the most bubbly over-the-top happy and cheerful extrovert could button it down for a solemn funeral.

Some people are impulsive, aggressive and low on empathy by nature, but I don't believe people are compelled to act out those impulses. I've wanted to beat the crap out of many, but never did. I've lusted for many things, but never stolen them. I've desired many pretty women, but never raped any of them. I don't think people could function without basic impulse control, not without ending up as mental three year olds. And that's why I also think it's always a choice, they choose to go with what they want to do rather than what they know is right. Lord help us if "I blame my DNA" becomes as much of an excuse as "I blame society".

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

Good point. It is in the phrasing I guess. The change from the traditional meaning of justice seems to be this. Justice used to mean specifically for all. Now depending on the phrasing it can mean 'unilateral justice' which seems near indistinguishable from revenge. A common poor misuse I suppose.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

Agreed, but re the "sociopathy is not a defence" if you read the article, that's exactly what was being used. No, it didn't work, but more and more as researchers find the brain areas associated with sociopathy, it's going to cause confusion.

The logic seems to be: "Most people are normal and if they commit a crime it's because they chose to do it. Because we have free will. Some people are ill or "brain damaged", so it wouldn't be fair to hold them responsible for their actions." And that's good, except, over in lab x someone is showing that a sociopath's brain functions differently. And then - as in the article - it's argued that the person has a genetic "brain abnormality". So people reason "Well, he was born that way so he can't help it. We can't say he is responsible for the rape to the same extent as someone normal would be. Because normal people choose to rape but this guy was determined by his biology."

No, that didn't happen, but the article says that it took the jury four hours rather than 4 minutes to decide.

The average person in our society believes that most of us ("normal people") have free will, which the mentally ill and those with brain injuries lose. Psychologists in the main accept that we all (normal or not) do what we do because of our brains.

So where does this leave sociopaths in a world where neruological research is fast heading towards showing that "failing to give a dam" whether your behaviour is right or wrong has a specific genetic basis?

Re:Great defence!

[PitaBred]

The unfortunate thing is that he spent 9 months and a week with his biological mother. Who knows what she ate and how much proper nutrition he got while developing, what drugs she did, how well she took care of herself. There's research showing that children start out crying in their native languages, which means they can be affected quite a bit by pre-natal environmental conditions. It's hard to separate DNA from "environment" when you really can't tell what the environment was for a large portion of his quite literally most formative time.

Re:Great defence!

[P0ltergeist333]

Nature vs nurture is an extremely old argument, not likely to be resolved either simply or easily. While I understand the reasoning behind your statements, I believe they falsely assume that your feelings of lust, etc. are exactly the same for you as they they would be for someone with a biological tendency towards such behaviors, and that your reactions to these feelings are exactly the same as someone with a biological tendency towards such behaviors. I believe these are unsupported assumptions and as such contain the fallacy of false cause.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

Sorry, I re-read your post and understand your point. A person who can be "cured" should get a lighter sentence? Right. Well OK, so I have untreated bipolar disorder I get into fights all the time and medication will help me then that should be taken into acocunt in sentencing?

OK, but this guy was described as being a "psychopath". Given that there is no cure, are you still saying the sentence should be reduced?

And also, you are assuming that psychopathy is a "illness". I'm not sure I agree with you. I can never decide whether it's a deficit (of empathy and autobiographical memory funtioning) in which case, yes it probably is an "illness" in the same sense as autism or Downs syndrome is an "illness". But maybe it isn't, maybe it's an extreme (some people are really nice, some nice, some average, some jerks, some arseholes and some sociopaths). In which case, I say, nah, lock up the evil ones.

Re:Great defence!

[t_ban]

If the ultimate goal of eugenics is a good life for everyone (the genetic strengthening of the race being just an intermediate step), then we're already doing that by helping the disabled lead better lives.

Or did you mean better lives only for those who have no perceptible genetic flaw, after eliminating those who do?

If we can use technology to improve the lives of everyone, and not only the fortunate, why is that not an acceptable solution to you?

By your logic, cancer research should stop, because all it does is improve the lives of those who will then pass on a dangerous gene to the next generation.

What about myopia? Hearing problems? Allergies?

In fact, isn't the whole of medical science a sheer waste, because in the absence of modern medicine, eugenics shall be vastly accelerated, and within a few generations we shall have the cream of the crop.

You see where your argument is going, and do you want to go there?

Life is vast and mysterious. Do not presume to know what should be. No one knows that.

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

"so I have untreated bipolar disorder I get into fights all the time and medication will help me then that should be taken into account in sentencing?" - right.

"Given that there is no cure, are you still saying the sentence should be reduced?" - definitely shouldn't. I might even argue that since the guy has no control rehabilitation attempts are far less likely to matter. Therefore he should get a longer sentence, for protection of others.

And I'm not sure of that either. I put 'diseases' in quotes due to that uncertainty. But in either case it actually shouldn't matter a ton when it comes to sentences. An incurable disease that makes you an asshole and you naturally being an unchanging asshole... seems like semantics to me from a punishment POV. I would have both of them locked up longer to protect other people from them. Since they effect the world in the exact same way.

Also, only semi-related for the 'untreated bipolar disorder' person. If you knew this was a risk and were aware of your condition it should have been treated. And it having not been treated lays blame on either you or your doctor depending on the condition. (ie. Doc sees the guy with stabbing syndrome, does nothing and puts him on the streets where he stabs people... the doc should take some blame, or likely hospital insurance.).

I view it the same way as drug use/abuse. If you get really stoned and kill someone you sure as fuck don't have an excuse. If your doctor gave you drugs that made you high, you went and killed someone it is the docs fault.

Re:Great defence!

[StackedCrooked]

I remember reading this story before on slashdot. I think its plausible that there is such a thing as a "bad gene". However we should fight the temptation to jump too quickly to a conclusion. In the end this is just one story, which would be considered "anecdotal" for scientific point of view.

Re:Great defence!

[StackedCrooked]

Perhaps some of these people with "faulty genes" have found a way to channel their compulsion into more positive or creative endeavors. I remember reading somewhere about similarities between highly successful people and criminals.

Re:Great defence!

[Your.Master]

Neither universal or emphatic.

If he's cured of being a dickbag, problem solved. Revenge goes from being insufficient in my opinion, to just plain inappropriate. It's like punishing the unwilling back-seat passenger of a car for speeding. Even if the speeding causes an accident in which busloads of children are killed.

Re:Great defence!

[hairyfeet]

Actually this is one question I know the answer to-It was the early 70s and she spent pretty much all of her pregnancy handcuffed to a bed, since she was in the pen over the whole "cutting the guy's face all to shit" with a razor thing. So she couldn't have been more than a month or so along when she ended up in prison, since of course cutting a guy is a parole violation that tends to get your ass thrown back in pretty quick. From what I understand they gave vitamins and decent food to pregnant women in the joint, or so I have heard. And I don't think she'd be able to score dope too well in a prison maternity ward. He was born in the pen and then taken to the hospital where my aunt got him.

I know all this because my aunt damned near worked herself into the ground trying to find something that would help Rick. She found out everything she possibly could about every single relative of his she could find hoping to find something they could treat, and spent many a night crying on my mom's shoulder. Unfortunately there isn't exactly a treatment for "mean muthafucka" which is pretty much what his biological family was. Wife beaters, killers, hell I bet you could probably go back 100 years with that family tree and not find a single one that wasn't scummy. Sad but true. With Rick there was pretty much ZERO impulse control. I mean none, zip zero zilch. No empathy or remorse either.

So while he may be a member of my family I say the best thing society could do is NEVER let that dude breathe a breath of free air again. Because if you let him out he would be robbing, beating, whatever probably before he even got 20 miles down the road. Maybe study him and try to figure out what in his DNA creates somebody like that, because we sure as hell don't want a bunch of him running loose. But from what I was told there pretty much wasn't a single member of that family without a rap sheet as long as your arm. Really nice bunch, huh?

Re:Great defence!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Really? You've been working at Microsoft for that long?

Re:Great defence!

[fractoid]

It's like punishing the unwilling back-seat passenger of a car for speeding. Even if the speeding causes an accident in which busloads of children are killed.

Not quite. It's more like punishing the driver of a car who deliberately sped and then crashed into a busload of school children... even though you know he'll never do it again.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, why are you leaving out "to serve as an example" in this case? You haven't explained this motivation away at all.

And what is wrong with revenge in the first place? If I kill you, I can NEVER kill you again and neither can anyone else so there is no-one to deter. Therefor the murder of you should not be punished as it simply is only revenge. Agree?

Re:Great defence!

[big_paul76]

Stephen J. Gould said something about how any evidence that suggests nurture over nature, could usually be used just as well to suggest a nature over nurture.

It turns out that nature vs nurture is a false dichotomy. For example, there have been genes identified in rats that are ONLY turned on by specific maternal behaviors.

So genes matter, but environment is at least as important. Without the environment that "turns on" a gene, nothing happens.

Re:Great defence!

[Ihlosi]

What about myopia? Hearing problems? Allergies?

You're thinking too short. Let's ban clothes and cooking. Requiring nonnatural protection against the elements and treatment of food with unnatural high temperatures clearly indicates genetic flaws in humans.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Implying that kiddy fiddling is a problem in the first place.

Re:Great defence!

[mike2R]

I think the word that is usually used is retribution. I had a friend at University who was an enthusiastic law student and I remember him going on about the 4 reasons for criminal punishments: Retribution, Rehabilitation, Deterrence and Containment.

You can argue that retribution is actually the most important. Fundamentally as a society we believe in and support the rule of law; that is that we allow a third party (the state) to punish those who commit crimes against us. For this to be acceptable retribution has to be part of it. since if people do not feel they are getting justice then they will take the law into their own hands and we are back to the old ways of blood-feud.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, my parents are 2 prof's and 2 Masters, and I did not turn out so well, didn't even finish high school, so may be they have bad genes?, nonsense, my grandfather lived to 92 and the other to 90 nonsense, genetics play a roll but I have not seen any convincing evidence that genetic determine behavior I am living proof
Otherwise it would be rich and perfect

Just because your cousin was a destructive retard does not mean that you can determine anti social behavior did we figure it out for the banker's that have destroyed the world economy ?
did they torture cats ? I don't know but probably they went to Harvard and tortured all of the people of the F*** world,
Psychopathy is endemic and it isn't a DNA problem it's a people problem, I have not murdered or raped anyone not because of my genes but because my parents where not total scumbags

Theft rape and murder is the norm in western society what F@@@*** planet have you been living on?

Re:Great defence!

[AlecC]

You miss the most important one: deterrence. The basic point of the legal system is that it says "If you do bad things, we will punish you". In order for this to retain credibility, if people do bad things the punishment must be delivered. If you can show that they could not help themselves, that they could not be deterred, then the punishment is pointless and should, on humanitarian grounds, not be carried out: this is why we allow an insanity defence.

If someone it truly barking mad, and everybody can see this, it works. The problem comes when someone is only a bit mad. The whole point of deterrence is to stop people doing something the actually want to do. If someone wants to do it a bit more than the public at large, what you need is more deterrence not less. If someone knows they get violent when drunk, you need to deter them from getting drunk. So if someone only has a tendency to misbehaviour, rather than a completely uncontrollable drive, this is no reason to reduce sentence.

And the people who have to be satisfied about the madness, or otherwise, are not the specialists but the public - the people who have to be deterred from doing the same thing. Of course they may, and probably should, take and try to trust the judgement of specialists. But it is reasonable to use the jury as a proxy for the general public - that is their basic function. But to say, in this case, that because the guy is a little bit barmy he gets a little off his sentence is, I think, wrong. Either he was in control, in which case he gets the full sentence, or he was not, in which case he is get psychiatric attention not imprisonment.

Re:Great defence!

[Viol8]

"I also think that revenge has gotten a bad rap from the politically correct pussification brigade,"

Wish i had mod points as that pretty much sums it up. Too many women and ball free feminised men seem to be making judgements about justice these
days and we can see where its leading.

Re:Great defence!

[hairyfeet]

I think I may be able to help you "see" how it might not be as cut and dried as you make it, from an example of one of Rick's earlier "mishaps". One day I got to listen to him and his parents fight (he was about 12 IIRC) over an incident earlier that day. Apparently he had walked around a corner and bumped a neighbor's cat, which had become startled and scratched him. He (very calmly from what I remember) reached down, picked up the neighbor's cat, and bashed its head against a tree in a single blow powerful enough to splatter its brains all over the tree.

Now the "funny" part, which I always remember about the incident, is nobody was ever able to explain why he shouldn't do that in a way he could understand. To him it was very logical, cat scratched him, kill the cat, cat won't scratch him no more. He simply couldn't understand why everyone made a big deal about that, or why he should care that the neighbor loved the cat, or anything of the sort. His mind simply didn't work that way. No empathy, no feelings for others, no concept of how his actions would affect others or have repercussions, no concept at all of these things. It was like trying to explain to an alien what it was like to live as a human being-he could understand the words, but they simply didn't have any meaning to him. You might as well have been speaking German for all he understood.

And THAT is what makes him different from you, me, and a good portion of the planet. You talk about having "self control" but if you simply don't understand WHY you should have self control then really, how good would your self control be? Some call it a soul, some a conscience, whatever it is that makes a person see that other living beings have value and that feelings other than you own at THAT moment have meaning and are just as real, whatever that part was, he just didn't have it. So I don't see how you could say it is a cop out, although I could see how some might try to abuse it, but it really wouldn't be hard to look at a history of someone like Rick and see a pattern. For him the only real person is him. Only his emotions are valid, the concept of caring about how others feel is simply an alien thought process to him.

And finally to show this wasn't some "act" that he used only when it was in his favor, he once flipped a bug convertible and broke his neck. Rather than wait for help he crawled out of the wreck held his head up by pulling his hair with his hand and walked to the dope dealer's house, who had the good sense to call an ambulance. Why did he do that? Because he wanted some dope. It never occurred to him that he could be paralyzed, or that by doing so he was causing damage that ended up with him being in a halo for twice as long as it otherwise would have been, to him crawling out and walking to where the dope was with a broken neck was just as logical as could be. That was just how he brain worked.

Re:Great defence!

[qazsedcft]

What you wrote seems to fit the description of a psychopath pretty well. Actually, the Wikipedia article suggests that there may be genetic factors involved.

Re:Great defence!

[Gravitron 5000]

Mod parent up. It is ALL about whether or not the 'bad thing' can be prevented from occurring again.

That's where the death penalty comes in. Dead men commit no crimes.

I could see the jury thinking that since there is something wrong with his brain, the likelihood of rehabilitation is low, and hence they would lean more towards the death penalty than against.

Re:Great defence!

[fractoid]

You miss the most important one: deterrence.

• To serve as an example, to deter others from perpetrating the same offense

I thought that covered it somewhat. ;)

I agree with the endpoints of what you're saying, but you really need a sliding scale. So if someone has impaired emotional regulation and as such finds it significantly harder to control impulse actions when they're angry, in a perfect system they would be held less accountable, but also prevented from getting into situations where they could cause damage.

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

With modern SSRIs, though, a diagnosis of "depression" and "anxiety" has made me a great deal more functional, with minimal side effects and fairly low cost(particularly compared to the cost of being unable to work effectively).

Be very careful with modern SSRIs, though.... Usually, anti-depressants are prescribed as part of a collection of treatments including therapy/psychiatry. Longer-term use of SSRIs will affect your brain chemistry. And if you ever go off them, there can be serious side effects depending on how long you were using them.

I was taking Escitalopram for 6 months, and when I went off it I was getting dizzy spells that made it difficult to work and extremely unsafe to drive for about 3 weeks... for a while there I actually needed to have somebody drive me to/from work, as I couldn't even take the bus. (couldn't stand up for more than a couple of minutes at a time)

Re:Great defence!

[StikyPad]

A large portion of criminals have mental illnesses of some degree. The problem is that it's difficult to demonstrate causation in such cases, and it may even be counter-productive to society (and indeed the individual) if people are released or exonerated for such reasons. After all, mentally ill != stupid, and if people can use their illness as an excuse for their behavior, then they will, whether or not it was the cause.

In that respect, it may have just been a(n un)happy coincidence that the individual in question had a brain tumor in conjunction with his criminal acts. Involuntary mental impairment should certainly be considered, but in conjunction with other evidence, not to the exclusion of all else.

Additionally, inability to reoffend does not excuse the initial offense. If a rapist desexes himself, that doesn't mean he should automatically be set free.

Re:Great defence!

[fractoid]

See, this is where it gets REALLY interesting. Ultimately, as we learn more about the brain's structure and function, I believe that we will find it harder and harder to escape the fact that free will is an illusion, a product of complex electrochemical interactions rather than something mystical.

I've always found it annoying that it's socially verboten to harass someone for being stupid, instead you have to pussyfoot around it, but it's perfectly OK to harass people for other similar flaws (for instance, what if you're very smart, but too lazy to do much with it? There must be many, many people here who fit that description). Why should a defect in the "abstract reasoning" part of your brain be mollycoddled and covered up while a defect in the motivation part just gets you derision?

Re:Great defence!

[mcgrew]

I saw this yesterday:

A man strangles his wife while dreaming about fighting off intruders in his sleep. Does that make him mad, bad or innocent? Recent research is helping to unpick these issues, and may help reveal who, if anyone, bears responsibility in such cases.

Last week, British man Brian Thomas appeared in court on a murder charge after strangling his wife as they slept in their camper van. The prosecution withdrew the charges after three psychiatrists testified that locking him up would serve no useful purpose. The judge said that Thomas bore no responsibility for his actions.

Re:Great defence!

[HuguesT]

A new species, the Nazi Eugenist Troll,

Actually now we have reliable and safe in-utero genetic and physical tests, combined with legal and safe abortion, so the incidence of Down syndrome, spina bifida etc is lower than ever in Western societies, except perhaps bigoted locales where abortion is not legal. I personally know several couples who aborted for these reasons.

In addition people with (say) Down syndrome who are actually born may contribute their "faulty" gene only if they do reproduce. Now we have safe and effective, long-term contraceptives.

Also it happens that quite often in spite of their genetic "defects" Down syndrome children are still loved by their parents and siblings. In the name of what irrational dogma are you going to put down someone like that who is doing no harm ?

Further everybody has genetic defects, you do too (that is quite obvious in fact given how callous you sound). Shall we put you down now because you might come down with some form of disease one day ? Even I would not advocate it.

Eugenics is a very slippery road.

Re:Great defence!

[HuguesT]

The plural of anecdotes is not data.

Re:Great defence!

[mcgrew]

That's the flip side of what I've been saying about bleeding heart conservatives who are adamantly for the death penalty. When I die it will most likely be horrible - from heart disease, cancer (a truly horrible way to die,) alsheimers (shudder), ALS, accident... Meanwhile someone who rapes and tortures a child to death is painlessly "put to sleep" like a beloved pet.

I say keep him locked up for life, let him think about what he's done, not knowing when or how he's going to die. I don't mind my tax money going for keeping murderers locked up.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone I loved was murdered, I would hunt the killer down and take them apart at the seams.

So would any normal human being, but that doesn't make it productive behavior. Vigilantism, vendettas, and feuds can tear an entire community apart. There's a good reason for having judges, juries, and a professional police force - they provide the promise of a fair and final resolution. (Whether or not they deliver is a different story.) Otherwise, a dinged door in a parking lot escalates into a multigenerational bloodbath.

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

Also we already started down that slope in the 60s... we are well down the hill. Many mental 'diseases' are just something being out of the normal range. People that fall into the bottom 3% of being able to pay attention all have a 'disease'. Just wait for that # to go up to 5% maybe 10%. Also if you look at all of the different things that are classified in this way (maybe 100s) It is likely that over 60% of this board could be classified with something.

They're in the process of classifying and re-classifying a number of mental illnesses. I can name several things that've been de-listed as mental illnesses in past versions of the DSM: Being homosexual or bisexual, for example, was classed as a mental illness in DSM-III, and was de-listed in DSM-IV. Being transgendered is going to be de-listed when DSM-V comes out in the next couple of years. There's others, but those are the ones that leap immediately to mind (as a member of the LGBT community myself).

Sometimes, they broaden the definitions, as their understanding of an illness and its causes increases... Autism is a great example of this. It used to be that illnesses like Asperger's Syndrome were seen as something completely different from Autism, with different causes and different treatment. As they have learned more about Autism, and Asperger's, they've actually come to realize that they're caused by the same thing, and that they're actually just two different extremes of the same disease. In this way, a large number of syndromes that were previously thought unrelated have all been reclassified as Autism Spectrum Disorder.

So it's not quite as bad as you make it seem... yes, sometimes they're broadening the definitions. Sometimes they're tightening them. Sometimes they're dropping the idea that it's a mental illness entirely.

As to your point about whether the illness should be taken into consideration, I would agree with you. In that case a few weeks back where a guy's sentence for murder was reduced because he showed he was genetically predisposed towards aggression and violence, my reaction was, and remains, that they should have *increased* his sentence for it, not decreased it. He did, after all, argue that he was genetically predisposed to repeating the crime. But for something that's treatable, we should definitely take that treatment into account when considering their sentence. I firmly believe that the purpose of prison sentencing is to protect society from the chance of a repeat offense, not to make sure that people get punished for doing wrongs.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas we don't use the word revenge...we call it Justice!

In all seriousness it is justice. The offense was against the children and the community, the community needs to punish him for the crime for themselves and for the children that were harmed. Without consequences for actions such as these your second example comes into play, others will see they can get away with the same thing, eventually insanity and chaos ensues and the community is destroyed. The universe is based on principals, one of these is consequences for actions, if you walk into the big bad woods without a club your going to get eaten by a saber tooth tiger (if you look like food you will be food), and now we have the Darwin awards to use as wonderful examples of consequences for actions.

This is the basis of any civilization, rules are put into place and enforced, without the enforcement the rules become useless. In some situations the rules are negative (in perspective) and in other proactive and still others just Fu*ked up crooked.

In Alaska some of the remote villages will throw out a family if members of the family have been incarcerated or causing trouble in the community. This means they are homeless, jobless and left in the wild to survive, they can go to a another village but being kicked out of one is not a good rap to have. The community does this for it's own self preservation.

So charge up the electric chair we're doin some grillin tonight!!!

       

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

for fuck's sake, warn me when you're going to tell a story like the one about the cat. good god. you could have just said he killed the cat. I did not need that image.

Tara

Re:Great defence!

[Runaway1956]

Perhaps we don't speak the same English language. Nowhere did I propose that we "put down" a child with bad genes. I DID say that maybe we shouldn't go to the heroic efforts commonly used today to preserve the life of an infant who can't survive in the "real world". We've seen the stories of kids living in tents, children allergic to everything imaginable, children who simply COULD NOT have survived 100 years ago or more.

There's a vast difference between withholding some ultra-expensive treatment, and taking some kid with a deformity out behind the barn to put a bullet in his head. Don't put words in my mouth - as it seems some others have done above.

Re:Great defence!

[mcgrew]

But that doesn't explain Amy and Tami, who I mentioned in my slashdot journal yesterday. Here's the relevant part (no need to read the whole journal)

The difference between Amy and Tami are striking. Tami's about ten years older than Amy, who was raised under horrible conditions; she was the result of two teenagers tripping on acid in the snow on high school property. She was shuffled from one foster home to another; she's told me some terrible horror stories, which she overcame, went to college and got a nursing degree and license. She lost her license and children after her ex-husband beat her so badly he went to prison for felony assault and she started drinking, and is vainly trying to get off the booze and back to work.

Tami was brought up in a rich family who owned show horses. I've seen photos of her as a teenager riding the horses at state fairs. She went on to become a liar and a thief and a parasite.

Amy's mother is a schitzophrenic homeless drug addict, her biological father died a couple of years ago from MSRA. From what she's said, he was as bad off as her mother. Aside from her alcohol problem and clinical depression, Amy's completely normal.

Re:Great defence!

[hmar]

The problem with this is that it is not that far a jump from "defective" to "undesirable." People cannot be given the choice of who gets to breed, we as a species are far too immature.

Re:Great defence!

[Larry_The_Canary]

A better example to banks would be dog breeding. In order to create todays "standard" breeds humans selectively picked the dogs that had traits they thought were desirable and bred those dogs and their offspring together in order to preserve those traits. Now it's turning out that many pure-bred dogs have _predictable_ problems, meaning the deficiency is a result of their genetics which were, in effect, selected by humans.

Re:Great defence!

[Wyatt Earp]

"Thanks to actions taken by Nazi Germany almost 70 years ago, eugenics is a dirty word in most of the world today. But, eugenics actually makes sense. If this fool is defective, then those defective genes should be flushed from the gene pool."

Slippery slope there, to flush those genes we need to remove brothers/sisters, first cousins, children, and what else? Mother and father too?

Re:Great defence!

[hairyfeet]

Sorry girlfriend, but I thought it was important to show how his mind worked, and your reaction is a good proof of what I was trying to get at. To you or me that would not only be brutal, but frankly total overkill as well. Yet for Rick he saw nothing wrong in that at all. He didn't think it was anything more than...say you stepping on a bug as you crossed the street.

And to me that was what made him a truly scary person. The older he got the less he was able to see that those behaviors were not only not normal, but were in fact overkill and destructive not only to those around him but to himself. For someone like him threats of jail, or even the death penalty mean absolutely nothing, because he never thinks beyond the moment. I have no doubt that sitting in prison he would have no problem doing to a human what he did to the cat if they annoyed him. And good luck trying to explain why that wouldn't be a good idea.

That is why I ultimately think guys like Rick need to be studied, because it is obvious that their brains simply don't function anywhere near what we would call normal. And since he has never had significant brain injury I can only conclude it has to be something genetic. Because even most hardcore criminals will attempt to plan, cover their tracks, gain advantage, etc, but not him. His brain simply doesn't work that way.

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is wrong with revenge as a motive? Revenge is Human. By spinning your web of logic you end up depriving yourself of your humanity.

Re:Great defence!

[electrons_are_brave]

Yes, although I'd say that only part of the "complex electrochemical interactions" are preprogrammed (i.e. genetic). Humans aren't born with a fully formed brain, and even the adult brain is quite plastic in the way that the nerual networks work (i.e. we can learn new stuff, including new patterns of behaviour). So I'd say that we all have genetic boundaries we operate within, we're are so flexible within these boundaries that any sort of simplistic biological determinisim is just as wrong as the "free will" camp.

Re:Great defence!

[Idiomatick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Re:Great defence!

[Mattskimo]

... and you weren't the littlest bit disturbed by the image of his biological father killing someone with an axe and cutting them up into pieces?

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

It was bothersome, but I was warned that this was what he was getting to when he said "the guy's father was an axe murderer, no really, an actual axe murderer". That kind of set up the expectation that I might hear a story about somebody being killed with an axe.

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

Sorry girlfriend, but I thought it was important to show how his mind worked, and your reaction is a good proof of what I was trying to get at. To you or me that would not only be brutal, but frankly total overkill as well. Yet for Rick he saw nothing wrong in that at all. He didn't think it was anything more than...say you stepping on a bug as you crossed the street.

I'm actually a Buddhist, and actively avoid killing insects and animals when I can... but I understand your point. Still... a little warning next time so I can prepare myself for it, or deliberately avoid reading that part, yeah? Gods, I'm still creeped out by your story.

You're right that his mind doesn't work the way a normal person's would. From what you've said, he actually fits the clinical definition of a psychopath, and shouldn't actually be locked up in a prison, but rather a mental institution. I wonder if he's ever undergone a state-ordered psychiatric evaluation?

Re:Great defence!

[hairyfeet]

Sorry about that. I guess when you live with it in your family it is easy to forget how truly brutal somebody like Rick was. But the problem with putting Rick in a hospital is this-unless you are gonna lock him up in solitary forever (which to me would be more cruel than taking someone out back and putting them down like a dangerous animal) he has just gotten too dangerous to be anywhere but a maximum security facility where he is surrounded by those just as "mean" if you will, as he.

He really doesn't have hardly any control left, even when it comes to actions that could affect even his own survival. let me give another example, and I shall warn you it has racially offensive language- I remember this story vividly because his brother Don never could figure out "why", but I think Rick is beyond why when it comes to self control now. One of the very first days he was in prison, a black man accidentally bumped into him as everyone was shuffling in for chow. According to Don this was quite a large person muscle wise, but it wasn't intentional, just standard crowded prison conditions. Rick just tilted his head and said "I hate fucking niggers getting in my way" and proceeded to try to bury a fork in this guy's neck. Needless to say in a prison with a large black population this statement wasn't the smartest to say, and quickly it turned into a riot. Rick got to spend nearly a year in the hole for that little stunt.

Now Don thought that maybe this was part of some big "plan" in the fact that the ABT (Aryan Brotherhood of Texas) suddenly considered Rick one of their own and he was quickly elevated to what is known as a "barn boss" but after observing Rick for most of my teenage years I honestly don't believe that was the case. For there to be a plan there had to be forethought, and Rick's mind simply doesn't function in that way, to him there is only the "now". I believe in Rick's less than fully functional brain it seemed quite logical. Black gets in your way, irritates you, destroy irritation. It never occurred to Rick that he was giving up 75+ pounds compared to the guy, that he was new there and had no backup, that he could end up with a half dozen of his teeth shattered (which he did), etc.

Sadly with Rick those things are in the "other" which is something he never ever considers, and what IMHO makes him a truly dangerous individual. Because to Rick there is only the "now". No past, no future, no consequences, none of these things which normally will give a pause while they weight their options. And that is why whether they were to lock him up in a mental ward or in a max security prison I just hope they never let him breathe free air as long as he lives. Because there will never be a way that I can foresee of making Rick non dangerous, short of taking him out back and putting him down like a rabid dog.

As for whether he is a true psychopath I have no idea. I always heard those were manipulators, and Rick simply doesn't do that. To me he has always been more like that old description of Michael Myers "You would look into his eyes...and there wasn't any life there at all. No conscious, no soul, just an empty void" and to me that would describe him pretty well. Whatever that 'spark' is that one would call a soul, it was very dim from birth before finally flickering out completely before he reached his teens. I would just hope that we would study those like him in the hopes of finding a way to treat or prevent future Ricks from being born. Because even a small increase in Ricks in the general pop would be a recipe for a nightmare. Oh and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

As for whether he is a true psychopath I have no idea. I always heard those were manipulators, and Rick simply doesn't do that. To me he has always been more like that old description of Michael Myers "You would look into his eyes...and there wasn't any life there at all. No conscious, no soul, just an empty void" and to me that would describe him pretty well. Whatever that 'spark' is that one would call a soul, it was very dim from birth before finally flickering out completely before he reached his teens. I would just hope that we would study those like him in the hopes of finding a way to treat or prevent future Ricks from being born. Because even a small increase in Ricks in the general pop would be a recipe for a nightmare. Oh and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

Psychopaths don't have to be manipulative, they just have to have no empathy or conscience. I have no idea what causes it, but apparently there's a missing link in psychopaths between the emotion center and the self control center. Maybe in Rick's case, there simply isn't a self control center. :/ But statistically, as much as 1% of the population is a psychopath, and that thought makes me very uncomfortable.

*shudders* you're right, though. We don't need more people like him in the world. I strongly oppose the death penalty, and I'm fundamentally optimistic in that I still prefer to believe that everybody has a right to be given a chance at redemption (and in spite of it all, I still like to think that everybody --who isn't a clinical psychopath, at least-- has it within themselves to have that redemption). I don't believe in the death penalty, or in life imprisonment without chance of parole, but I guess that's just me showing myself for the kind of person I am.

BTW, did you know that some mental asylums are themselves max or supermax prisons? Or rather, that the level of security that they have for the residents would qualify as either maximum or super-maximum security in the prison world? Sending somebody into protective custody at a mental hospital does not mean that you're automatically going to mix them in with all of the residents... after all, if somebody is a clinical sadist and psychopath, you probably wouldn't want them in the same room as somebody who's clinically depressed and has masochistic tendencies... :)

Anyway... have a happy Thanksgiving. I'll take it in the spirit it was offered, but ours was a little over a month ago this year. :) (and it was good) Enjoy the long weekend... when is it, anyway? :P

Re:Great defence!

[hairyfeet]

It is today here, although me personally will be having mine on Saturday on account of getting new furniture put in tomorrow. Kinda hard to have Thanksgiving when your dining table is in storage. Now as for "supermax" mental institutions, yes I know, but gues what? In those things the others are crazy! ZOMG!

Seriously, I think the only reason Rick isn't in pretty much constant trouble in prison is the other around him are NOT crazy, and because of his status as a barn boss follows the rules that keeps Rick out of trouble. Basically the rules are thus-Don't touch Rick, don't get in Rick's way, don't talk to Rick unless he talks to you, and if Rick wants it, Rick gets it. Since the others in a mental institution have just as many problems if not more than Rick, they would nopt follow the rules, and somebody would end up dead. So they would have to keep him in solitary forever, and to me that is worse than the death penalty.

And I agree completely about the death penalty but for different reasons. One, it is kinda hard to go "oops" if it turns out later you grabbed the wrong guy, Two I believe that prison shouldn't be just 'three hots and a cot' but like they do here in AR they should be forced to work to provide restitution (not that you really can in most cases) and to be forced to pay their own way. Finally I believe too often the death penalty is too unfairly applied, with the poor and black getting sent to the chamber while the rich can 'lawyer up' and get out of it. Just look at the DuPont heir that was found with a head in his closet that got acquitted.

And finally I have to agree about the 1% giving me pause. I think this is why we must study people like Rick, because what if this condition can also be caused by environmental triggers? What is this "lack of soul gene" or whatever it is, is lying dormant in a lot more than 1%, but for whatever reason that gene never got flipped? If we don't know how a process works we can never hope to prevent that process from occurring, and that is what we must ultimately do for the good of us all. Because as I said, just imagine a large group of Ricks loose in the general pop. It would make Hannibal the Cannibal look like Strawberry Shortcake, the amount of destruction would be incredible. And if they actually had even a little bit of control, unlike Rick? I shudder to think how many rapes, murders, how much total carnage a group like that would be able to get away with before finally being caught. This is a condition that is simply too dangerous to ignore.

Just out of curiosity though-which country are you from that you had your Thanksgiving last month? I didn't think there was any major holidays for anybody in October except for All Hallows Eve?

Re:Great defence!

[realityimpaired]

Just out of curiosity though-which country are you from that you had your Thanksgiving last month? I didn't think there was any major holidays for anybody in October except for All Hallows Eve?

Canuckistan... and I call that other holiday in October "Samhain" :)

When Thanksgiving falls varies from year to year, but it was on October 12 this year. I have issues with having Thanksgiving later in the year... I think it's too close to xmas/yule in the US, actually. *shrugs* Anyway, have a good time this weekend. I expect that I'll be playing Dragon Age: Origins. :P

Re:Great defence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I mean check out that cripple Hawking, what's he ever done? And what of president Obama - his skin is the wrong colour entirely! I agree eugenics hasn't done enough for the world.

Re:Great defence!

[JimFive]

That's something I've always wondered about - at what point do we stop saying "you chose to do X and will take the consequences" and start saying "you have a disorder which caused you to do X and cannot be held accountable"

Why are those the options? Just because someone has a disorder doesn't mean society can't impose consequences. What about: "you have a disorder which caused you to do X and we will do Y to ensure you can never do it again." Y ranging from: imposing cure to death penalty. Someone having a disorder causing them to do harm is WORSE than someone doing harm from their own will. I don't need to be protected from the guy who killed his wife's lover. I need to be protected from the nutcase who kills arbitrary people.
--
JimFive

In that case

[DigiShaman]

Keep him/her locked up for life then. After all, we do have "medical" evidence that proves they were and continue to be a threat to society. Under no circumstances should they be allows to mingle with the rest of society out in the open.

Re:In that case

[Idiomatick]

In this situation were he mentally ill you would likely keep him in prison forever due to the chance of helpful drugs/treatments coming out.

Re:In that case

[Anonymous Coward]

In this situation were he mentally ill you would likely keep him in prison forever due to the chance of helpful drugs/treatments coming out.

Even assuming such unlikely things as such a medication actually being developed, his being able to afford it, his being willing to take it, and his being able to always take it on schedule, where's the precedent for a happy pill that's 100% effective (besides lethal injection)? And if it's any less than 100% effective, do we really want to chance letting him out? Would you want him living in your neighborhood? If so, I suspect you are in a very, VERY tiny minority.

Re:In that case

[Idiomatick]

If you are going to do that then why aren't we currently tracking down all people that may have such illnesses? I'd say a good 80% of the populace have something that is diagnosable if you look deep enough. A person that has been rehabilitated and on drugs if they are shown to be not statistically worse than the rest of the populace afterward then it doesn't make any sense to not let them into the neighborhood.

"Would you want him living in your neighborhood? If so, I suspect you are in a very, VERY tiny minority."
Making decisions from fear or by popularity seems a bit fallacious.

Capital Punishment

[RichardJenkins]

Sure stops re-offending, not sure about a deterrent effect but I could buy it. I just don't think I have the stomach for it.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital punishment can encourage heinous crimes. If a suspect has already committed a crime that warrants capital punishment, then that suspect will have nothing to lose by committing more crimes.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

I just don't think I have the stomach for it.

We wouldn't need capital punishment if we'd lock violent criminals up for the rest of their miserable lives. The vast majority of first-time murderers already had violent criminal records. Seems to me that if we kept them behind bars where they belong that we'd have a much lower murder rate.

Re:Capital Punishment

[radtea]

Sure stops re-offending,

Except in the all-too-common case when the Organs of the State kill the wrong person.

As for the deterrent effect: Texas has the death penalty and has for a long time, and the State of Texas is aggressive about killing people on Death Row. Texas has one of the highest murder rates in the US.

North Dakota does not have the death penalty, and as far as I know never has. It has one of the lowest murder rates in the US.

Anyone who is not batshit insane will look at those facts and ask, "What is it about North Dakota that keeps the murder rate so low, and what can we do to make Texas more like that?" Instead, ideological idiots distract everyone from the debate with their data-free imaginings.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Penguinisto]

I just don't think I have the stomach for it.

You do realize that most execution methods don't require obesity as a factor, right? ;)

There was once a time when mere prison sentences would serve as a deterrent - getting chained to a straw-covered floor and being brutalized, underfed, and half-frozen tends to do that, and hard labor was usually thrown in for good measure. By the time you got out, you definitely did not want to get thrown back in. Executions were usually pretty ugly, and getting killed after sentencing was a swift near-certainty.

Nowadays? The two biggest things most convicts have to worry about are not angering the other cons, and not getting a horny cellmate. Otherwise, the system basically supports you for however long you're locked up. Even an execution can take years if not decades to arrive, and by then the condemned is likely so damned bored with life that he looks forward to it as a means of release.

So yeah - deterrence isn't so much a factor these days IMHO. I once supported capital punishment, since it seems to make the most sense (removed from society while at the same time incurring the minimum amount of expense). OTOH, the vindictive side of me prefers them to live on for years, forgotten by society, world+dog moving on, as they are driven slowly mad by the monotony of knowing they will amount to nothing, in spite of whatever brief notoriety they might have had.

Once in a blue moon they drag out ol' Charlie Manson and interview him... and every year he became less of an icon of fear, and more of a caricature or parody. In 1969, the citizens of LA feared him terribly. In 2009, he's just some crazy old nutjob that people crack jokes about, the majority not even bothering to think of him at all. And there isn't jack that he can do about it. That, especially to some fame-seeking crackpot, is the cruelest punishment of all, no?

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Short of the ability to alter the weather (Texas is a hot, humid, weather oppressive place to live), you're never going to turn Texas into North Dakota.

Re:Capital Punishment

[The Grim Reefer2]

Sure stops re-offending,

Except in the all-too-common case when the Organs of the State kill the wrong person.

As for the deterrent effect: Texas has the death penalty and has for a long time, and the State of Texas is aggressive about killing people on Death Row. Texas has one of the highest murder rates in the US.

North Dakota does not have the death penalty, and as far as I know never has. It has one of the lowest murder rates in the US.

Anyone who is not batshit insane will look at those facts and ask, "What is it about North Dakota that keeps the murder rate so low, and what can we do to make Texas more like that?" Instead, ideological idiots distract everyone from the debate with their data-free imaginings.

Texas has the second highest population of the US states and North Dakota is the second lowest.

Population of Texas: 24,326,974
Pop. of North Dakota: 641,481

So we should just execute 23.5 million people, or so, in Texas and the problem's solved. Oh, and maybe carve some presidents faces in a mountain or something in Mexico (since there's no state directly south of Texas) just for good measure.

Re:Capital Punishment

[LordNimon]

If a suspect has already committed a crime that warrants life in prison without parole, then that suspect will have something to lose by committing more crimes.

Re:Capital Punishment

[digitalunity]

I could see that. Bank robbery goes wrong, accidentally kills someone, robber keeps killing because they've already crossed a line they didn't want to cross...

Even if you're wrong, it certainly seems that capital punishment does little to reduce crimes we currently deem worthy of capital punishment.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so outlaw capital punishment. Then we have a new problem.

Life imprisonment can encourage heinous crimes. If a suspect has already committed a crime that warrants life imprisonment, then that suspect will have nothing to lose by committing more crimes.

See where this is going?

I'm not in favor of capital punishment either, but your argument against it is specious.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

Capital punishment can encourage heinous crimes. If a suspect has already committed a crime that warrants capital punishment, then that suspect will have nothing to lose by committing more crimes.

I'm not convinced that most violent criminals are worried about what they have to lose. Take armed robbery for instance. People who hold up convenience stores rarely walk away with more than $100. For that marginal gain they are risking 10 to 20 years of their freedom, more if they used a weapon in the commission of their crime. No sane person could look at the risk to reward ratio of armed robbery and conclude that it's a worthwhile endeavor -- yet people still engage in such behavior.

I don't think the point of prison and/or the death penalty is to deter crime. Clearly neither one is effective at doing so. The point is to extract the debt that is owed to society for such behavior. The only method of payment for such debt is to require that you forfeit some of your limited time on this planet back to society.

In the case of the death penalty, if your crimes are heinous enough (treason, murder, kidnapping and rape should all qualify IMHO) then I don't see any problems with society putting you out of our collective misery. My only issue with the death penalty is the fact that no justice system is 100% perfect, although I'm not convinced that spending your entire life behind bars for a crime that you didn't commit is anymore humane than being executed for it.

Re:Capital Punishment

[MarkvW]

"We wouldn't need capital punishment if we'd lock violent criminals up for the rest of their miserable lives. The vast majority of first-time murderers already had violent criminal records. Seems to me that if we kept them behind bars where they belong that we'd have a much lower murder rate."

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Arguments like this are made by politicians only for the purpose of attracting stupid people.

It is nonsense because it will never, ever happen. The same people who cry out for prisons and law and order also scream for no new taxes. People will NEVER pay for the long term lockup of violent offenders. Hell, the USA already has one of the highest imprisonment rates among Western countries. The law and order folks will balk when it comes time to settle up the bill for increased imprisonment. It's all pure jive talk.

Get real.

Re:Capital Punishment

[nomadic]

Actually, and I say this as a liberal lawyer who thinks prison should be rehabilitative, there is strong evidence to suggest that the plummeting murder rates in the latter half of the 90s were a result of longer prison sentences of violent offenders.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

> the USA already has one of the highest imprisonment rates among the WORLD.

FTFY

Re:Capital Punishment

[izomiac]

The same could be said about life without parole. What matters is that they reached the endpoint of what the law can do. Having an extra high-end punishment should actually help in that regard. Or at least it would if such extreme criminals were using logic at the time.

Example: a level 5 crime gets you life without parole, a level 7 crime warrants capital punishment. If someone commits a level 6 crime then without the death penalty they'd might as well go to level 10, whereas with the death penalty it'd be in their best interest to leave it at 6.

Re:Capital Punishment

[evanbd]

In the case of the death penalty, if your crimes are heinous enough (treason, murder, kidnapping and rape should all qualify IMHO) then I don't see any problems with society putting you out of our collective misery. My only issue with the death penalty is the fact that no justice system is 100% perfect, although I'm not convinced that spending your entire life behind bars for a crime that you didn't commit is anymore humane than being executed for it.

I tend to agree with you; however, the major reason I oppose the death penalty isn't that it's inhumane; it's that we make mistakes. Given an imperfect justice system (as all are), a life sentence made in error can be partially corrected later if new evidence comes to light. It's rare, but there have been a decent number of life sentences later reversed because of new evidence (in particular DNA evidence).

We owe it to the convicted to acknowledge that, in some cases, we make mistakes.

Re:Capital Punishment

[jd]

If you kept all the violent and really evil, sick, twisted people locked up, who would we have for lawyers? Politicians? Accountants? CEOs?!

The Huge Manatee!

Please, please, think of the scumbags!

(Seriously, I don't have any objection to people who need to be locked up being locked up. I do have an objection to that being the sole purpose of the legal system - people can change and it's fair to give them the means and opportunity even if they stay incarcerated. It also seems reasonable to give those who will be released the motive to try an alternative. Punishment alone never works and resentment is a great way to encourage people to think of other ways of being crappy to others.)

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

although I'm not convinced that spending your entire life behind bars for a crime that you didn't commit is anymore humane than being executed for it.

It's not, but if the mistake is discovered while you're still alive, something meaningful can be done about it (i.e. immediate release & compensation).

Re:Capital Punishment

[radtea]

Texas has the second highest population of the US states and North Dakota is the second lowest.

Assuming for some reason that population plays a role in murder rate--which seems a little weird to me--the more reasonable solution would be to break Texas up into lots of little states, if you really think that the number of people who happen to fall inside an accidental political boundary is determinative of the murder rate therein.

If you're going to reify political boundaries in this way you're going to have to explain why the US as a whole doesn't have a higher murder rate than Texas: after all, it has a much higher population.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder rate is typically per capita.

Re:Capital Punishment

[shentino]

We'd have plenty of room in the jails AND on the corrections budgets if we set our priorities straight and stopped locking up druggies.

We the people are quite justified in asking to have our cake and eat it too, because the chef wasted all the frosting making pretty sculptures instead of covering the cake.

Properly rationed our jails can hold plenty of people that NEED to be held.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Ethanol-fueled]

In the case of the death penalty, if your crimes are heinous enough (treason, murder, kidnapping and rape should all qualify IMHO) then I don't see any problems with society putting you out of our collective misery.

Gladiator fights. 100% voluntary for those sentenced to life or death. Tax the hell out of the seats and the pay-per-view revenue and we're set. It could be as simple as UFC without the ref, or we could have different classes with weapons. Winners would never be released into the public, but they'd get perks like cartons of smokes or a T.V. Big money-earning gladiators would have the possibility to downgrade their death sentences to life.

Also - tax and regulate marijuana and prostitution.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

(removed from society while at the same time incurring the minimum amount of expense)

Unless you operate your capital punishment without proper process, it actually costs more (over the whole length of the sentence) to execute someone than keep them in prison for life.

Re:Capital Punishment

[binarylarry]

REHABILITATION!

I'm totally with you scro!

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

A very large subset of that huge population is in jail for drug use. Now, I don't use drugs and think they are stupid to do, but locking someone up (and paying a ton for it) for smoking a few joints seems stupid to me.

If anyone is using drugs and drives I say we throw the book at them, which we don't even do right now with drunk drivers. Some guy who is getting his 13th DUI is far more of a danger to society than someone smoking stuff at home.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Urza9814]

My only issue with the death penalty is the fact that no justice system is 100% perfect, although I'm not convinced that spending your entire life behind bars for a crime that you didn't commit is anymore humane than being executed for it.

The question usually isn't people who we never discover are innocent - the question is those cases where we do. Look at Troy Davis - the only evidence against him was the testimony of 9 witnesses. 7 of those have since claimed that their testimony was coerced by the police, and several even implicated one of the remaining two witnesses as the true killer. Yet even after this was discovered he remains on death row. The Georgia courts have refused to examine this new evidence. Thankfully his case got national media attention and he has received several stays of execution, with the supreme court finally ordering a federal district court to reexamine his case. But not everyone gets so lucky. A significant percentage of people that we execute we discover after the fact that they are innocent. Sure, losing 40 years of your life for a crime you didn't commit is horrific, but it's a hell of a lot better than dying for it.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Locke2005]

Incarceration is not for punishment or revenge; it serves 3 purposes to society:
1) Deterrent
2) Rehabilitation
3) Preventing the criminal from re-offending, at least for the time period they are incarcerated.
Of these, it can only be proven effective at accomplishing the 3rd purpose. People with a high probability of re-offending should be kept locked away indefinitely for the protection of others. Capital punishment is probably cheaper than keeping somebody in jail for the rest of their lives, but risking the execution of even 1 innocent person before they are exonerated is not a risk I'm willing to take. Finally, truly twisted criminals tend to not last very long in prison anyway; they are eventually given the Jeffery Dahlmer treatment where they are left alone with a lifer who hates them while the guards look the other way. Even cold blooded killers have no stomach for someone who rapes and kills little girls, and I probably wouldn't go out of my way to protect them from the rest of the prison population either.

Re:Capital Punishment

[TooMuchToDo]

If it's your 10 year old daughter who is raped and murdered, you have more than the stomach for it. You have your own muscle and a sharp object.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

People will NEVER pay for the long term lockup of violent offenders

Stop spending ~$43,000 per prisoner to house them in Club Fed and revert prison to what it should be: Three square meals and the chance to break big rocks into little rocks. Stop locking up non-violent druggies (you'll note that I was talking about violent crimes in my previous post) and use the free space/money to lock up violent criminals that actually pose a threat to the rest of us.

A shoplifter deserves a shot at rehabilitation. An armed robber does not. Both sought unearned material gain -- but the latter was willing to threaten violence against his fellow human beings in order to obtain it. Once you demonstrate that you are willing to do that then I don't think you deserve to live among the rest of us. You are no better than a rapid dog and deserve to be treated accordingly.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Thinboy00]

-1 Troll != -1 Disagree

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is to extract the debt that is owed to society for such behavior.

What in the name of hell is wrong with you? Prison is used for rehabilitation and/or to segregate dangerous elements, not to "extract the debt".

• Prisons don't "extract debt", they COST money*. If it were about "extracting debt", they'd be closer to either paupers' prisons, or like slave camps (and although prisons do have workshops, they aren't turning a net profit - private prisons profit mainly by government contracts).
• We're not barbarians (well, I'm not). Punishing people just to feel better about ourselves reeks of the sort of ignorance common in the middle ages and earlier.
• it's called the Department of CORRECTIONS, not the Department of Extracting Debt.

Now, keep in mind before anyone gets all huffy about how this conflicts with their opinion on death penalty or whatever, this thought is in no way incongruous with the death penalty or life imprisonment or anything like that - remember, segregating dangerous elements and discouraging other criminals** is still a large part of what imprisonment should accomplish. In fact, this stance (which punishment nuts might think of as "weak"/"soft") is actually tougher in cases such as TFA - although he does not deserve punishment (assuming the brain scan can be regarded as accurate), the point is not to punish but to rehabilitate where possible and segregate where it isn't - and therefore this would have the criminal in TFA imprisoned.

*Yes, yes, prisons are managed by the government, and government wastes money like it's going out of fashion, and could never realistically be profitable, blah blah blah.

** You've argued that violent criminals are not deterred by punishment, but it's based an inherently flawed assumption - you cannot measure a negative; vis, you cannot measure how many people MIGHT have committed a crime but for the deterrent. You can compare to other similar jurisdictions opposing stances on the death penalty, but you cannot conclusively conclude that the reason for any differences in crime rate is the death penalty - there are far too many variables.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

the only evidence against him was the testimony of 9 witnesses. 7 of those have since claimed that their testimony was coerced by the police, and several even implicated one of the remaining two witnesses as the true killer.

Why aren't those 7 people in prison for perjury?

Sure, losing 40 years of your life for a crime you didn't commit is horrific, but it's a hell of a lot better than dying for it.

I disagree. I'd rather be executed than spend that much time behind bars for a crime I didn't commit. In fact I'd probably off myself in prison if the state was unwilling to do it for me.

Re:Capital Punishment

[dissy]

I don't think the point of prison and/or the death penalty is to deter crime. Clearly neither one is effective at doing so. The point is to extract the debt that is owed to society for such behavior. The only method of payment for such debt is to require that you forfeit some of your limited time on this planet back to society.

What type of payment are you expecting out of a dead person? Fly bait?

(Note that past here, 'you' doesn't mean you personally, it means those whom believe in that sort of punishment. I'll try to use the generic 'they' instead.)

That sounds just like the governments logic however.
For example, if you owe them some money, in order to get that money from you, they take away your right to drive (IE to get to the places that give you money for your time) and ban you from getting a job (IE the very places willing to give you money)
So logically, if you are not allowed to make any money, then you could only possibly pay your debt back faster! Oh wait...

No, such thoughts come from the revenge obsessed animal part of the brain. There is no logic placed to it, other than the minimal needed to not look like the illogical thoughts they really are.

Oh, and unless you are already 60+ when you are convicted, then 'SOME of your limited time on this planet' has been far far exceeded by putting someone to death.

There is also the detail of murdering innocent people which you touched on. A fraction (sadly, a rather large fraction, as far as fractions go) of wrongful convictions aren't discovered until later. In the case of death sentences, way too late.

Fortunately in this country, unless you plan on leaving it soon, it is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN you will be wrongfully arrested, or someone you know or love, who truly did not commit any crimes.
I suspect only then will people change their mind on how OK it is to put people to death, have them tortured and raped daily as a matter of course while laughing at it, on top of destroying the lives of everyone that knows that person.

I don't have an answer to the problem, but the issue is neither do they yet they are pushing for the wrong one just so they have an answer.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of the death penalty, if your crimes are heinous enough (treason, murder, kidnapping and rape should all qualify IMHO) then I don't see any problems with society putting you out of our collective misery.
 
I really like the way you put that. BTW, I am strongly in favor of capitol punishment.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Thinboy00]

Hell yeah!

Re:Capital Punishment

[Arancaytar]

So that's what people mean when they say the weather is murderous.

Re:Capital Punishment

[h4rr4r]

Mod parent up. He makes a reasonable statement that is not trollish in anyway.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

Maybe next time you should try reading my entire post before going off on a four paragraph rant. You might have noticed that I commented on the death penalty separately from the theory of paying back a debt to society.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about the life sentencing that is being reversed because of new evidence (in particular DNA evidence) is that the new evidence being used to show past mistakes is being used to prevent new ones.
 
I agree 100% that our justice system is way screwed up, in many ways because it is penalizing victims while defending repeat offenders. It is making it harder and harder to legally defend yourself, although this trend is being reversed. In those cases where there is NO question of guilt (Mt Hood anyone....) I say pop em off and be done with it. Innocent until proven guilty, but I figure a dozen witnesses, video footage, and being caught on the scene are enough to prove guilt even without a jury. (Not talking only about Mt Hood, there are plenty of cases where guilt is well known and already proven, but we still spend God knows how much "defending" them)
 
For the case at hand, I dont care if you were doped up, depressed, had a brain tumor, angry at your wife, were told by God or the monkeys in your closet, or just wanted to have fun. You did the crime, you pay for it. As someone earlier said, even knowning it was a mental condition, would it be humane to make him live the rest of his life as a crazy? Their victims are just as dead as if they were sane.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Thinboy00]

Population density may make a difference, in which case artificially introduced boundaries won't change a thing.

Re:Capital Punishment

[hedwards]

That's a specious argument to make. Life imprisonment has already been shown to do just that, with or without the death penalty. The third strike tends to be much more violent than the previous two offenses.

Really what that's an argument for is bringing some degree of sanity to the whole process. Which can't really happen since a substantial portion of the populace defines the death penalty as the punishment for murder then says that somebody has been let off the hook if they don't get the death penalty, merely 80 years in prison.

Re:Capital Punishment

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Mistakes are an issue(and they aren't just mistakes, some of the "prosecutorial misconduct" that gets pulled is basically judicial murder).

What I would be very interested to see studied, though, is whether getting the death penalty, because of its high profile and controversial nature, actually improves the quality of representation, access to appeals, and the like. The ideal comparison would be between otherwise similar groups of inmates, some of whom got death, and some of whom got life or various long terms.

Does being on death row attract the attention of more useful advocates or greater judicial scrutiny than does a life sentence or very long fixed term?

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital punishment is not cheaper than life incarceration. In fact is is several times more expensive, thanks to the long appeals process which is generally specially designed to prevent real appeals or new evidence from being considered, (well perhaps that is exaggerating, with the exception of the system in Texas which is in fact designed for that), among several other additional costs, such as attempting to revive any death row inmates who attempt to commit suicide, the additional costs for the higher security generally placed on death row inmates, the costs of building an maitaining a seperate part of the prison called death row.

Re:Capital Punishment

[gyrogeerloose]

I'd rather be executed than spend that much time behind bars for a crime I didn't commit.

I concur, but there's a flaw in your reasoning none the less: not everyone would agree with us. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that most people would not agree and would rather continue to live even if it is living in prison.

In fact I'd probably off myself in prison if the state was unwilling to do it for me.

Same here. The difference is we would have made the choice die on our own--which is our right as human beings--not have someone do it for us.

Personally, I'm ambivalent about capital punishment. On one hand, I can see some logic in it. But as others here have already said, all criminal justice systems are inherently flawed; perhaps it would be wiser if we did not allow them to make irreversible decisions.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Falconhell]

It appears if you present a sensible well reasoned anti death penalty opinion today, you get modded down.

  Thats it I am not going to waste any more mod points on modding down coolforsale, I will kepp them to prevent these abuses of the moderation system.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here, my friend.

Stories like this are far too common. For the most part, the cops and prosecutors are trying to do a good job, but it doesn't help when defense lawyers and judges just make the jails a turnstill.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Urza9814]

Why aren't those 7 people in prison for perjury?

I don't know. I do know that several of them were unaware of what they were doing - the police said 'sign this or you're going to jail' to people who couldn't read to get them to sign testimony against Davis. Plus, the statute of limitation on perjury is only 5 years, and it's now been close to 20. I'm not sure when exactly they recanted their testimony, but I would imagine it was past the 5 year point.

Re:Capital Punishment

[gyrogeerloose]

Capital punishment is probably cheaper than keeping somebody in jail for the rest of their lives

Actually, it's not. Because of the series of appeals required in most states, it actually costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.

Re:Capital Punishment

[toastar]

Mt hood, that's great....

Re:Capital Punishment

[atheistmonk]

Kinda like getting five wanted stars in GTA and not caring about blowing everything up afterward.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Artifakt]

The deterrent effect just doesn't happen. Looking at actual death penalty convictions, there's so few cases where the prisoner has shown any ability to imagine what their life might be like a mere six months down the road, they just aren't capable of thinking, "Ten years from now, if I do X, I could end up getting a lethal injection like that guy.".
          I don't see any way we could get the total time from arrest to execution down to six months in our legal system, and do anything remotely like justice. That's bad enough. But when so many of these cases can't even project six months ahead, any reasonable system of trial and punishment has zero deterrence.
        We have a case just finishing up in my area. Multiple defendants tried separately, for two murders with lots of additional nastiness like rape and torture. Going by what the two defendants convicted so far have said in the televised trial footage. if a program had come on the TV showing someone convicted of the exact crime they were planning, and how it took less than a week to get from the trial, to the graphically televised three day execution by slow torture, they would have still done it. You could have a 99.9% conviction rate and rotting heads on spikes on every street corner these idiots walked past, and they still wouldn't believe it was going to eventually happen to them.
        I'm not arguing for or against capital punishment, mind you, not taking a stand either way. I'm just saying a hope of deterrence shouldn't be why anyone decides to favor capital punishment, because the people who get it are just plain too stupid to deter.

Re:Capital Punishment

[my $anity 0]

It is more expensive in our society to dole out capital punishment as opposed to life inprisonment. This is due to the lengths which this drags out the appeals process. In order to be more certain innocent people aren't killed, we spend more to make sure we can kill the guilty. In a society where we don't care about the possibility of innocence, execution costs a bullet. Thankfully, we live in a society that attempts to be free and fair, but this means that capital punishment stops making sense.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Kral_Blbec]

Population density between Texas and North Dakota is hugely different. Sure Texas is huge, but they have major urban cities far far beyond anything in North Dakota. If you broke it down to counties and matched according to inhabitants per square mile, I'd wager that Texas and North Dakota would be very similar. The only exceptions being the big cities which would have no equivalent in North Dakota.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Runaway1956]

Anyone who claims that our prisons are rehabilitative are totally out of touch with reality. It is at least as accurate to say that petty criminals who find their way to prison get the opportunity to learn new and better ways of committing crime.

If we ever correct the serious disconnect between the idealists' vision of prison, and the reality of prison, then we MIGHT begin to correct the abortion we have today.

The United States has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. Those cells are built, and kept filled, more to keep revenue flowing throughout government and society, than to "rehabilitate" anyone. The prison system is so lucrative, private corporations are getting into the act.

Please, just drop the rehab crap. IF rehab is really a part of the prison system, it's so relatively unimportant that we can ignore it.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

Too bad one of those women didn't have a firearm. Might have ended differently.

Re:Capital Punishment

[hazem]

I was just reading Freakonomics and they make the case that part of that decline was also because of Row vs. Wade and the greater availability of abortion. They say the evidence supports the idea that Row vs. Wade made abortion available to women in poverty and that their aborted children were among the group that would have been most likely to become violent criminals. They do quite a few comparisons between states that legalized abortion at different times and other factors to show this.

I'm not sure I accept it, but it's an interesting argument.

Re:Capital Punishment

[gyrogeerloose]

So that's what people mean when they say the weather is murderous.

Yeah--for half the year, it's too damned cold in South Dakota to go outside long enough to commit a violent crime.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was up to me the judge involved in the case you linked to would be summarily executed without trial. Just take him out and shoot him in the head and then caution other judges to take a lesson from it.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Kral_Blbec]

The "proper process" is artificially inflated by people pointing at the "proper process". There is little reason that the trial should be held any different, and the judgement carried out swiftly.

Its also not so easy to point out and say Mr. X was wrongfully convicted (which is happening less and less each year) and so all capital punishment is wrong. If you let someone go free, either on parole or absolved of the charges, any future repeat offenses they carry out are on your hands. That means that failure to keep the guilty and dangerous locked up means you are complacent in the death/harm of an innocent just as if you locked up an innocent to begin with.

Re:Capital Punishment

[jackchance]

MOD PARENT UP!

Re:Capital Punishment

[Runaway1956]

I've often railed against our high incarceration rates. The problem is, non-violent, non-dangerous people are locked up along with violent, dangerous criminals.

Tax fraud? Why lock a man up for tax fraud? Penalize him FINANCIALLY! Double his taxes for 3 years for each year in which he committed fraud. Putting him in prison is a waste of resources, not to mention a waste of his talent.

More people are in prison for drug related crimes than anything else. Let's legalize and/or decriminalize drugs. Regulate and tax the damned stuff. End the "War on Drugs", which in reality is a war on US citizens.

With the end of that war, half our prison population will dry up and disappear.

Re:Capital Punishment

[registrar]

So allow the judge discretion --- when a person commits a crime that carries the possibility of life imprisonment, they should know that at every stage it is in their interests to co-operate because they can be shown lenience. Keep it going post-sentence too --- if someone is given a lenience sentence for whatever reason, and later on they show that lenience was not warranted, punish them more.

Suspended sentences, good behaviour bonds, ministerial pardons, etc.

Re:Capital Punishment

[shutdown -p now]

My thoughts exactly. I am not opposed to death penalty from a moral standpoint, like a lot of other lefties seem to be - I fully recognize that there are such human specimens who truly do not deserve anything better than that - but the price of a mistake is infinitely high. Life imprisonment is more expensive, but otherwise achieves the same goal eventually, and at least a mistake can be corrected.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Spykk]

You are no better than a rapid dog and deserve to be treated accordingly.

Forced to chase a mechanical bunny around a race track?

Re:Capital Punishment

[evanbd]

Actually, by the time you count increased legal bills from appeals and such, life imprisonment is normally cheaper.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Texas has the 26th highest population density in the United States...

Re:Capital Punishment

[Idiomatick]

The density wasn't given by GP.

Texas: 35.25ppl/km2
North Dakota: 3.58ppl/km2

1/10th. Mind you that just gives an average anyways, information about clusters and such would likely be more meaningful. Mind you these two points don't conclude a study they are just two points.

Re:Capital Punishment

[shutdown -p now]

There's one more point that just came to my mind, though it is, perhaps, somewhat U.S.-centric, and it may be my wrongful interpretation anyway as I'm not an American. If you start with the concept of inalienable rights, the famous "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then wouldn't any wrongful execution, being intentional deprivation of a person's life, violate his inalienable right? And therefore, unless you can guarantee with absolute certainty (meaning just that - 100% - not 99.9...%) that executions are never wrongful, death penalty as an institution is inherently in violation of the right to life?

(Yes, I know that the phrase comes from the U.S. Declaration of Independence rather than Constitution, and therefore has no legal force. Nonetheless, if one subscribes to the notion of inalienable rights in the first place, they are inherently above laws.)

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

You been playing Dragon Age origins too?

Re:Capital Punishment

[shutdown -p now]

I've heard that argued either way, but in the end, I do not think that it is really important anyway. Ultimately this isn't about saving money (I sure hope so).

Re:Capital Punishment

[jrumney]

Except "life" means about 14 years with time off for good behaviour. If you keep committing crimes because you think you've got nothing to lose, you'll end up with life with a minimum of 30 years stipulated, or something along those lines.

Re:Capital Punishment

[mathx314]

Honest question: suppose you're convicted of a crime you didn't commit, with no chance of being exonerated. You get to choose between spending the rest of your life in prison or being executed. Which would you choose? I think that I personally would probably prefer dying over having to spend the rest of my life locked up with actual criminals for a crime I didn't commit.

Re:Capital Punishment

[kcitren]

That's a specious argument to make. Life imprisonment has already been shown to do just that, with or without the death penalty. The third strike tends to be much more violent than the previous two offenses

Please list sources for this, I'm genuinely interested in any evidence to support this concept. I'm not a fan of three-strikes.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that capital punishment has no greater a deterrence effect than life imprisonment. You're probably correct, in which case why kill? Isn't cruel and unusual punishment forbidden? Don't we criticise other governments when the state kills their citizens? Are we no better than China or Afghanistan? How many innocent people weren't released from death row (we know over a hundred who were)? What happened to a right to life in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Re:Capital Punishment

[couchslug]

Compare the demographics of North Dakota and Texas...

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off druggie

Re:Capital Punishment

[Opportunist]

It's worse than that, too "hard" punishment for a "minor" crime can push people towards committing worse crimes when the difference in sentence isn't too big. A "three strikes" law in a country without a death penalty would basically mean that you should always kill the witnesses when you've been in jail two times and commit another crime, because you will be sentenced for life if you get caught because it's your third time anyway and murder (sans death penalty) means life anyway.

So why not kill the people you rob? It's only logical to do it, simply to reduce the probability that the police gets a lead.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Opportunist]

Would work in a perfect system. In a system where judges depend on public opinion and public opinion likes revenge, it's in a judge's best interest to axe as many people as he possibly can.

Re:Capital Punishment

[dbcad7]

Your whole post as a totality shows the problem.. You have points 2 and 3 (rehabilitation and prevention) followed up by condoning the allowing criminals in prison to commit more crimes, as acceptable justice. If a person ends up in prison because of violence or criminal behavior, how is it rehabilitation or prevention if you allow them to continue bad behaviors in prison ? .. There is also the assumption that letting criminals be bad, makes prison more terrible and is therefore ok, because prison is punishment.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Truth_Quark]

There's all shades of grey.

An armed robber armed with a screwdriver deserves a shot a rehabilitation, and the society should give itself a shot at recovering some of the cost of his incarceration in income tax.

But when faced with starving, or having a child die of some expensively treatable disease, most people would commit armed robbery. They're not beyond rehabilitation, they're just desperate. (And here the brain scan may come in useful ... because you can tell psycho from rehabilitatable, if it is from acquired brain damage.

But the argument for having the state be able to take away a citizen's freedoms, rather than their hands or life, is because police and prison guards already have too much power to maintain the personality you need to do that job well. Stanford_prison_experiment, perhaps.

Saudi Arabia and America because the state wields too much power over the individual, has a lot more police brutality, or police git problems than in the civilised west.

Re:Capital Punishment

[twostix]

"Incarceration is not for punishment or revenge; it serves 3 purposes to society:"

Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it so.

The vast vast majority of individuals in any society on the planet view prison as a punishment. End of story. Lilly white metro lefties delusions regarding prisons, "rehabilitation" (lol) and mainstream societies expectations of such is extremely limited in acceptance, and thankfully for the aformentioned people is not a view that is widely known by the vast majority. Which is unfortunate as it gives a beautiful insight into the bankrupt nature of much of the far lefts thought processes.

The thing that is always disturbingly missing from the general ideology that spawns such bankrupt posts like yours is any hint of justice for the victim of the criminals actions. As though it's only a matter between "society" and the criminal, the victim be damned. At best if the victim is mentioned the best they can hope for is to be told that what happens to the person who has harmed them or their family is of no consequence to them as "Justice is not punishment" and criminals are only put in prison to remove them from "society" which is nothing to do with them or their "barbaric" need for justice. The victim of the crime is quite irrelevant as it's offender who is the true victim in the matter so it would seem.

Time in prison is most definitely a punishment for individuals who wrong others. If it isn't and your disturbing ideal becomes mainstream be prepared for the victims own people to dish out their own punishment to achieve the sense of justice that is absolutely required by victim, family then general society (in that order) when someone harms one of their own.

And you give yourself away in the last sentence; you don't support state capital punishment within an accepted legal framework, but you do support state sanctioned murder...

You are a hypocrite.

Re:Capital Punishment

[westlake]

Stop spending ~$43,000 per prisoner to house them in Club Fed and revert prison to what it should be: Three square meals and the chance to break big rocks into little rocks.

Lesson Number 1:

In the American federal system almost all violent offenders are prosecuted at the state and local level.

Lesson Number 2:

The constitutional roots of federal criminal jurisdiction are in interstate and economic crimes. The Secret Service, for example, was originally organized to fight counterfeiting.

The white collar criminal can do enormous harm but it is often only the Feds who can put him behind bars - and keep him there.

That thought can be - disquieting - for the geek.

Because Club Fed was built for him. It's the prison farm for the financial and technocratic elite.

Lesson Number 3:

Prisoners do not remain prisoners forever. Breaking big ones into little ones does nothing to prepare them - or us - for their eventual release.
       

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you drive me absolutely spare. You read the word "rehabilitation" and instantly assume I'm some softy leftist (evidenced by your use of the word "idealist" as a pejorative, despite being just as opposed to the realities of the situation as I am) as if there's only two possible stances on the issue. You completely ignore the fact that I explicitly stated that rehabilitation is only one part of the equation, and could be disregarded in some cases. And then you continue to demonstrate your below-par comprehension skills by ignoring my careful use of the word "should" to indicate that I know the reality is different from the theory. You won't think and you won't listen, you're as useful as a fixed-size read-only mp3 player.

However, I maintain that rehabilitation SHOULD be the main goal of prisons - not to do them any favours, but to do ourselves a favour. We can

1. Lock every petty criminal up forever, and in doing so, pay buckets of tax and send our society rocketing back to the middle ages
2. Punish them like a disobedient child and then let them out (to, as you say, practice the things they've learnt in prison)
3. Try and recoup our losses by turning them into productive members of society (which HAS BEEN DONE in many cases, only it doesn't make the news so you don't hear about it)

Now I don't know about you, but I'm all for recouping tax dollars, so I pick #3.

The prison system is so lucrative, private corporations are getting into the act.

As previously stated, private corporations are making profit ONLY BECAUSE they get government contracts. It's not like they'd remain profitable if the government stopped paying them to take prisoners. The only reason it's a good deal for both the government and the corporations (and hence a reality) is that the corporations can cut costs that the government can't or won't, and the corporations can make money in an area where before they weren't. It's NOT because holding prisoners is inherently profitable beyond the slave labour they provide (which is barely enough to cover costs given the inherent difficulties and limitations of prison labour).

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

You are no better than a rapid dog and deserve to be treated accordingly.

Well, I am not sure. Most dogs I've met can run faster than most humans, so I am not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying we should shoot the fastest or slowest running criminals, or the most rapid dogs, or both? I am confused!

Re:Capital Punishment

[WillDraven]

Maybe we should make it optional, at the inmates discretion. That way if you know you're guilty you can volunteer and be euthanized peacefully. This would save some poor sap the trouble of cleaning up the mess, and your fellow inmates the psychological trauma of you rigging up some way to off yourself in your cell or common area.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

To follow up to the other anonymous post, if we get rid of the high cost of locking folks up for minor drug usage, we have a lot more to spend to keep violent folks locked up

Re:Capital Punishment

[evanbd]

(Yes, I know that the phrase comes from the U.S. Declaration of Independence rather than Constitution, and therefore has no legal force. Nonetheless, if one subscribes to the notion of inalienable rights in the first place, they are inherently above laws.)

Actually, I believe you're mistaken there. The Constitution grants the government powers, and explicitly forbids it certain actions. In the process it recognizes some rights that we possess with or without it; that list is not, and was not intended to be, all-inclusive. It has been used in court on that basis, and referenced in decisions. Some googling turns up this summary, for example.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making a paradox.

What if someone is falsely accused of rapes and kills off little girls?

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Try and recoup our losses by turning them into productive members of society (which HAS BEEN DONE in many cases, only it doesn't make the news so you don't hear about it)

Now I don't know about you, but I'm all for recouping tax dollars, so I pick #3.

"Recouping tax dollars" would mean that money goes back into my pocket. Is that really what happens when a criminal is let free?

Re:Capital Punishment

[PitaBred]

Sounds almost like the zero-tolerance policy in schools. You're gonna get kicked out and have the police called if you just shove someone, so why not smash their head into the wall and really get your point across?

Re:Capital Punishment

[PitaBred]

Except for with life in prison, you might be able to get out eventually. With a death sentence, you have no such chance.

Re:Capital Punishment

[physicsphairy]

Incarceration is not for punishment or revenge; it serves 3 purposes to society:

Incarceration does serve those three purposes, certainly, but I fail to see how you can exclude "punishment" as a fourth. What do you think "justice" means in the context of our "justice system"? Justice is not about deterrence, rehabilitation, or prevention, it is about giving people their "just deserts"--a punishment to fit the crime.

Most normal human beings have an innate desire to see good rewarded and evil punished. You know, cheer the hero, boo the villain. Beyond all other practical motivations we feel compelled to punish murderers and rapists for pretty much the same reason we pin medals on heroes, because it promotes our preconceptions of right and wrong.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Locke2005]

Apparently you're not very religious. Jesus, Buddha, and many other religious leaders taught that you should forgive others' transgressions against you. While the certainty of retaliation may be considered a deterrent, it is not particularly effective in discouraging criminal behavior, and no one has any intrinsic need for revenge. You are correct that our justice system already treats crimes as offenses against the state, and not offenses against an individual. You appear to be advocating both rule of law and vigilante justice; please pick either one side or the other.

Re:Capital Punishment

[ffflala]

Incarceration is not for punishment or revenge; it serves 3 purposes to society:
1) Deterrent
2) Rehabilitation
3) Preventing the criminal from re-offending, at least for the time period they are incarcerated.

I wish that you were correct, but you aren't. Punishment is the very root of prison; hell, it's called the penal system because it is punishment.

Moral culpability for punishment is at the root of sentencing. While we justify it with other reasons such as public safety and rehabilitation, prison serves as an institutionalized way to address the human desire for vengence.

Re:Capital Punishment

[SuperMog2002]

That's why the founding fathers set it up so that federal judges aren't dependent on public opinion. Once a judge is appointed, they stay in office for life. It literally takes an act of Congress to kick a federal judge out of office, and then it requires an impeachment trial. You can't impeach a someone simply for low public opinion: they have to have actually committed a crime.

As for state judges, each state is free to select their own terms for how judges are appointed, how long they are appointed for, and the terms under which they are kicked out of office.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

here in north dakota, we have winter. winter keeps the riff raff out! when there is a murder here, it's almost ALWAYS at the hands of non-north dakotans. as far as my beliefs on the capital punishment, i think it should be up to the states to decide if they participate in it or not, but i think it should come with limitations. incarcerating prisoners is radically expensive. there are so many areas to touch on and it's impossible to cover every scenario. imo, murders (1st degree aka premeditated) could face the Death Penalty if there is a confession. i think innocent until proven guilty has taken a back burner position in our courts. many people don't understand that simple mis-communication can lead to a guilty conviction. i don't want to write a novel explaining a situation that fits what i'm intending to describe here, but hopefully you get the point. mainly what caught my attention in this thread was the reference to my home state, in which i have spent time incarcerated with a convicted murderer. he was visiting from washington with his girlfriend and killed her. it was the 1st murder in our county in over 100 years. more recently a dentist was murdered in our largest city (fargo) and the man hired to kill him as well as the man who hired him were both from oklahoma. i just wanted to basically clear up any confusion that A) north dakota is safe because no one lives here and we have winter... it's the bastards from the other places who come here and EFF things up. and B) due to the dynamic nature of people, i think our justice system needs to maintain a certain amount if dynamism in order to properly reflect any particular nature of occurrence at that given time.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple issues with the death penalty is :
How can you caracterize a society, a gouvernment, ... using in cold blood the methods (ie murder) they condemn ?

A good novel about the subject :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Day_of_a_Condemned_Man

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

If you argue on that basis then incarceration, being deprivation of liberty, would also be excluded.

Re:Capital Punishment

[big_paul76]

Did you see the bit about how the (at the time) governor of Michigan decided to, after seeing some of the results of the innocence project, commute the sentences of EVERYONE sentenced to death to life instead?

I was watching a documentary about the innocence project, and I just remember thinking how satisfying it must be for that particular governor. It's like all the things everybody dreams of doing when they're working a job and gave their 2 weeks notice.

"Yeah, I'm not running again, so I'm gonna do what I want. What the fuck are you guys gonna do, _NOT_ vote for me?"

Don't get me wrong, I think, given the error rate for convictions, this was an entirely noble thing to do. But I just imagine a guy, who spent his whole career doing what he thinks will play well with the voters, saying "fuck y'all, I'm retiring, I'm gonna do what I want, and it's the right thing to do!"

So. Very. Satisfying.

Re:Capital Punishment

[shutdown -p now]

Perhaps; on the other hand, incarceration can be remedied to some extent - you let the person out and pay him for time spent in prison. But once you kill someone, his life is taken forever, and so is any opportunity to "repay".

Re:Capital Punishment

[big_paul76]

Here, here, to your point #3.

The vast majority of prisoners will eventually be released someday.

Not to mention that the "cage experience" is probably exactly what you don't want for people with uncorrected violent tendencies.

Here's a fun fact in this debate - murderers have amongst the lowest recidivism rates. Think about it - you murder your husband/wife 'cause you caught them in bed with your best friend, or you kill your business partner over a dispute. What are the odds you'll be in that situation again?

Re:Capital Punishment

[sFurbo]

Doesn't have to be perfect, just sane. A lot of countries have judges that aren't elected (apparantly, only three countries have elcted judges), exactly because the public sucks at determining what is a reasonable punishment.

Re:Capital Punishment

[wdef]

Gee - this is one of the dumbest and most redneck /. threads I've seen for a while: "string 'em up y'all it's cheaper and besides it gives me a hard on!" Execution in the US is *FAR* more expensive than life imprisonment. Google on it. An appeal is mandatory for a death sentence and appeals are expensive. By the time all appeals are exhausted, the convict has been on death row for many years and has been subjected to the psychological torture of knowing they will be executed for all those years. The US is the last Western country to not view the death sentence as hypocritical, cruel, and not infrequently unjust. In my view, it's more than that also - it's giving the State one power it should never have. Genetic evidence has shown that the wrong people have been executed in the US many times in the past. "Whoops, sorry 'bout that guy, looks like we goofed and you're dead." You're still executing the mentally handicapped. Didn't you off a few minors in the South not that long ago?

Re:Capital Punishment

[SEE]

If you start with the concept of inalienable rights, the famous "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then wouldn't any wrongful execution, being intentional deprivation of a person's life, violate his inalienable right?

Sure. But so would any wrongful imprisonment, being intentional deprivation of a person's liberty, violate his inalienable right. Wrongfully arresting the guy for the crime already is a violation of his inalienable rights by depriving him of his liberty. Demanding 100% perfection before any act that might deny an inalienable right means no law enforcement whatsoever.

(The same type of problem undercuts the often-made "if it's wrong for an individual to do it, it's wrong for the state to do it" argument against the death penalty. Because the logic of that applies just as fully to the fact that it's not allowed for an individual to take somebody prisoner with force or the threat thereof, lock them in restraints, and imprison them behind bars.)

Re:Capital Punishment

[wdef]

So you are in favor of state-allowed murder in prison then? Isn't that hypercritical? Why should we tolerate murder anywhere? Murder is murder, whether the victim is Jeffrey Dahmer or an innocent child. I'm not saying there can't be mitigating circumstances, but it still is a crime. Sentencing should be honest and transparent in a fair society. If someone is sentenced to X years in prison, then that is their punishment - not tacitly being sentenced to being raped/killed/tortured by inmates or guards because of the general public's lust for vengeance.

Re:Capital Punishment

[wdef]

typo: s/hypercritical/hypocritical/

Re:Capital Punishment

[wdef]

Of these, it can only be proven effective at accomplishing the 3rd purpose.

No rehabilitation? That is an absolute lie.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Tim C]

Alternatively - same situation, someone gets killed accidentally, now the robber(s) have gone from looking at a long stretch in jail if caught to the death penalty.

The sensible thing for them to do in that situation (from their point of view) is to kill all the other witnesses. No witnesses means less chance of getting caught, and it's not like there's a sentence even worse than death that'll kick in for multiple homicides.

Re:Capital Punishment

[bestalexguy]

I don't fully agree. You're right as brainless gang members on crack are concerned. But think of wealthy Mafia bosses who are able to retain full power when locked up. They do mind being executed, even ten years after the trial.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the parent explicitly meant tax dollars with losses but instead the damage done to society by the offender. If an offender is turned into a productive member of society he/she becomes a tax payer and thus begins to contribute something good to society instead.

And seriously, what else than rehabilitation should the goal with imprisonment be in addition to deterrent? Of course I admit that some people are so fundamentally flawed that they can never be rehabilitated or the uncertainty of whether any rehabilitation really was successful is too big a risk to take and that in such cases they should be locked up to life. And in my opinion they should also be forced to work to at least to some extent reduce the cost of keeping them imprisoned. Forcing prisoners to work isn't particularly hard either. If life consists of sitting in a cell doing nothing, getting to do some work in return for e.g. dessert with one meal a week, is enough incentive. Furthermore, I consider capital punishment barbaric when society is capable of removing such flawed individuals from their midst through other means as well. When there's no need to kill them, I think it's wrong to do so and even if life imprisonment costs more. I'm willing to pay slightly more in taxes simply a less barbaric society is most compatible with my values.

Finally, it is a fact that there's much less violent crime in Europe where capital punishment was abolished long ago. There are of course so many differences between US and European society that a plethora of other factors can explain it as well but it does constitute pretty good proof that capital punishment doesn't deter crime much, if at all. Some say that it might even have an increasing effect because it - as I already stated - makes society more barbaric. If criminals know that society can kill them, they hesitate less to kill more people. And even if you dispute the effects of it on crime, you can hardly disagree about it making society at least slightly more barbaric because there is an obvious and apparent revenge component in it when the same effect of removing flawed individuals from society, can be achieved through life imprisonment. There cannot be much difference in the deterrent effect of spending the rest of one's life in a cell compared to losing it.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way does that change with capital punishment?

By your logic, if I've committed a crime that gives capital punishment I might as well go out in a "blaze of glory"-killing-spree since I'm already dead anyways.

Re:Capital Punishment

[morgauxo]

If the criminal is still running free with opportunity to commit more crimes then the suspect has not yet been caught. Unless he/she is already expecting it to be just a matter of time before getting caught for the first crime why tempt fate by crossing that line again?

Re:Capital Punishment

[dkleinsc]

One of the basic facts about crime prevention that nearly all criminologists agree on is that the sentence isn't much of a deterrent. What is a massive deterrent is an increased likelihood of getting caught.

One of the possible reasons for the 1990's drop in crime rate was a shift towards community-oriented policing, which emphasized several points:
1. More police officers. Seems simple enough.
2. Hiring police officers from the communities they are policing. The main reason for doing this is that officers policing their own communities have better relations with that community, which makes it more likely for those officers to gather good information.
3. Walking the beat rather than driving the beat. A cop on foot can be talked to more easily.
4. An emphasis on getting to know the citizenry in contexts that aren't threatening. For instance, sending an officer into a school not to arrest anyone but to talk to students about, say, what drugs do to people based on the people he's picked up.

The whole point is to try to make it easier for citizens to contact police when they have good information, and for police to be pals enough with citizens that they can get good information when they need to ask for it. That information leads to solving cases, which increases the chance the bad guys will get caught, which increases the deterrent of the law.

In addition, having the maximum penalty be execution doesn't really solve the problem GP argued: if you committed a crime that will likely cause you to be executed, what do you have to lose? You're right back to where you were before when the maximum penalty was life without parole - there's a maximum penalty, and once you hit it you have nothing left to lose.

Re:Capital Punishment

[morgauxo]

With or without capital punishment the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not extended to murderers. Assuming they are not let out way early due to overcrowding someone with a life sentence does not get liberty. I suppose one can pursue happiness in any situation but they aren't really in much of a position to actually achieve it. Without the death sentence they still get the first part, life. Then again, for those who rape and kill little kids I'm not sure they even get that once they mix with the general population.

So... I ask this. Is it really more cruel to be executed, especially if it's a painless method than to spend the rest of your days in prison? Would it not be worse to wake up every day for decades in a horrible place with no hope of improvement? I never intend to get myself into that situation but I think I might prefer to just die. To continue to wake up day after day with no hope is the cruelest punishment I can imagine, not to say this guy doesn't deserve that.

Of course, this assumes the life sentenced don't just get let out way early. But to argue for letting this kind of murderer go free is an indirect way to just kill the next victim is it not?

Re:Capital Punishment

[Grygus]

This thread suggests that volunteering to be killed might have little to do with actual guilt; at least two posters said they'd rather die even if they were innocent. I am not sure that a mechanism that allows an innocent man to give in to despair is a very good one to have.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Grygus]

Not sure I'd put kidnapping and rape quite on the same level as murder, but I think most people against the death penalty do not disagree with you; at least, I am against the death penalty and I do not disagree with the core of your statement. The problem isn't that people think murder isn't worth execution - after all, what could be more fair? The problem is that you can't guarantee me that the people you are executing were actually guilty. Our system is (perhaps necessarily) flawed. If you are convicting innocent people then the death penalty becomes a lottery.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA can be faked and has, many detailed articles on this.

Watch the movie The Life of David Gale - it's about the death penalty and innocents being killed

Re:Capital Punishment

[Leafheart]

It's worse than that, too "hard" punishment for a "minor" crime can push people towards committing worse crimes when the difference in sentence isn't too big.

Prove it. I've seen this argument slinged around more times that I can count and I've never seen a proof about it. And let me give you a counter-example.

I live in Brazil, a country where we not just don't have death penalty, but we don't have life without parole either. In fact, you can't stay in prison more than 25 years. So 1 murder may get you 10 years in jail, 3 murders will get you 25 years, 20 murders will get you the same 25 years. The only difference is when you will have the chance to get parole or a semi-open regiment (daylight outside jail, must spend the night in jail).

A mass raper and a mass murderer will get exactly the same time in jail, 25 years. Using your argument it would mean that every rapist would just go and kill his victim afterward. After all, it wouldn't change his punishment AND he would kill his main witness, lessening the likelihood that he would go to jail. But that is not what happens. Rapists are rapists, murderers are murderers, and there are the evil ones that do it all. But that is THEIR prerogative and there is nothing to do with the punishment.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Grygus]

The same could be said about life without parole. What matters is that they reached the endpoint of what the law can do. Having an extra high-end punishment should actually help in that regard. Or at least it would if such extreme criminals were using logic at the time. Example: a level 5 crime gets you life without parole, a level 7 crime warrants capital punishment. If someone commits a level 6 crime then without the death penalty they'd might as well go to level 10, whereas with the death penalty it'd be in their best interest to leave it at 6.

But under your system, a 5 might as well go to 6 and a 7 might as well go to 10. I don't see how you're solving your problem at all, it has the exact same issue. I also don't see how it's even logical to have level 10 crimes when 7 is the death penalty. The death penalty should be the end of the scale, what's the point of having a hierarchy of crimes that all get the same punishment?

I also think that assuming that criminals use some sort of risk/reward calculation is naive. The punishment for most crimes is already harsher than it logically should be in a vacuum; you can get a year in jail for stealing $500! But people are in jail for doing just that... the only people deterred by prison are deterred by the existence of prison; details of the punishment are irrelevant to them.

If I were broke, I would steal $500 from you if there was no punishment and I believed that you would not be unduly harmed from the loss. However, as it turns out I would much rather go without $500 than go to jail. Once the sentence for jail passes an insignificant amount of time (I don't know what this is, but let's say two weeks, enough time for most people to have earned the $500 legitimately) then you've already deterred anyone bothering to make the calculation. After that, the people in jail were stupid/unthinking/desperate enough that the calculation simply wasn't performed, and your deterrence factor from that point is insignificant. By the time you reach crimes deserving the death penalty, I would imagine that these people or their situations are almost always broken beyond reason. I don't think very many criminals think to themselves, "twenty years is totally worth gutting this guy right now," but would back off if it would mean the death penalty. At some point, you're going to do what you're going to do, consequences be damned, and I imagine (and hope) that the most heinous crimes are almost all committed with that mindset.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Grygus]

I think zero tolerance is the worst possible message to send to kids. For any infraction only the most severe penalty is considered. No thought, just the simplest and easiest system possible. The subtext is that the use of power is its own justification, and that the kids aren't worth any effort whatsoever. Bringing a gun to school and shooting a classmate over a minor disagreement is now legitimized, because it's the exact same mindset the principal is using.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Rary]

Honest question: suppose you're convicted of a crime you didn't commit, with no chance of being exonerated. You get to choose between spending the rest of your life in prison or being executed. Which would you choose? I think that I personally would probably prefer dying over having to spend the rest of my life locked up with actual criminals for a crime I didn't commit.

I hope you realize that when a person is sentenced to die, they don't just take you from the courtroom straight to the execution chamber. You will spend many years locked up with actual criminals, and not just any old criminals, but the worst of the worst, meaning others who have been sentenced to die.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Grygus]

That means that failure to keep the guilty and dangerous locked up means you are complacent in the death/harm of an innocent just as if you locked up an innocent to begin with.

I think that's a slippery slope.

Define "dangerous." How can you hold this view and not favor eugenics and administering psychological tests to all citizens and pre-emptively imprisoning those who "fail"? After all, if the means were there to prevent a crime and you did nothing, are you not complicit?

I'd much rather live in a society where having free will also meant personal responsibility. A society that blames me because you made a bad decision, even in the case where I was pretty sure you were a bad decision maker, is a society that has actually lost the idea of personal freedom altogether in my opinion.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Grygus]

Yes and they are deterred; that's why they have other people do the crimes and we have to prosecute them on things like tax evasion.

Deterrence by definition can only work on reasonable people. Unfortunately, most people are not being reasonable when they're committing serious crimes. Your mafia examples are being reasonable, and deterrence works on them. Their underlings who actually commit the crimes are working out of fear or unquestioning loyalty, neither of which is very conducive to making informed decisions, and so deterrence is nearly useless against them.

Re:Capital Punishment

[izomiac]

It looks like a lot of others captured the gist of my message, although for some reason I didn't see their comments when I started typing my own. Basically, I'm assuming that crimes have an intrinsic scale of heinousness that is independent of the law. For example, killing a person in cold blood might be a 7, but burning down a preschool after sodomizing everyone inside would likely rank a bit higher.

I do agree that most serious criminals aren't calculating risk/reward though (aka "using logic"). Most, AFAIK, either think they can evade punishment, or aren't thinking of it at all. If they did, death is sufficiently serious to give most everyone pause since it's intrinsically different than "going to prison".

The death penalty does have some extra deterance though. An example might be an impoverished individual who blames his former boss for firing him and "causing" his poverty. Without the death penalty this individual might consider prision an upgrade in quality of life (3 meals a day, no worries about employment). Knowing that he might get the death penalty, though, will likely prevent him from killing his boss since he doesn't want to die himself.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Shakrai]

In the American federal system almost all violent offenders are prosecuted at the state and local level.

Thanks for stating the blatantly obvious. Had you bothered to click on the link I provided you might have noticed that I was linking to a state level cost figure. The "Club Fed" remark was intended more as a commentary on the conditions that we house prisoners in. "Club New York/California/Alaska/Mississippi/etc" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

Prisoners do not remain prisoners forever. Breaking big ones into little ones does nothing to prepare them - or us - for their eventual release.

Fuck that. We don't need to "prepare" them for release. We need to drill it into them that prison is a horrible horrible place, one that they'd rather not return to.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Kral_Blbec]

It doesn't take much to identify repeat offenders. If you have a whole team of cops and shrinks telling you that this man is going to reoffend and you release him anyway then it is at least partially your fault.

When you have people with rap sheets 2 or three pages long and they still get released on parole or "good behavior" then its pretty certain that this career criminal isnt going to suddently start being a saint. If they are, they need to prove that first.

Re:Capital Punishment

[bestalexguy]

Being an Italian I have the questionable privilege of having some knowledge about this issue. In my country mafia bosses get the highest possible punishments, often higher than those received by the actual murderers. Luckily, your objection is unfounded wherever those who commission a felony and those who commit it are given the same punishment.

Moreover, the murderers used by Cosa Nostra bosses are perfectly rational cruel professionals, the best of whom later become bosses themselves. Irrational mad dogs are way too unreliable to be of any use.

Re:Capital Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just that they replaced all prime time TV with detective shows, lawyer shows, forensics shows and reruns of COPS.

Re:Capital Punishment

[steelfood]

Death is final. You sort of can make up for your mistakes otherwise.

Re:Capital Punishment

[steelfood]

Make sure that bunny's running on energizer batteries.

Nature versus Nurture

[reporter]

In the United States, political correctness has concluded that all human behavior (in a "normal" person) is due to nurture and free will. To even hint that human behavior is due, in part, to genetics is taboo: it quickly leads to the conclusion that different races and ethnic groups can have different inclinations. This conclusion is forbidden.

So, brain scans of a criminal defendant will not carry any weight. If his environment (e. g., an abusive childhood) did not cause him to commit the crime, then he must have done it out of his own free will. Since he "freely and deliberately" committed the crime, then he shall be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

That is how American justice works. How does justice work in Europe?

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[CannonballHead]

Let's assume, for a moment, that we have a murderer or rapist that does it because he's genetically wired to do it.

What then? Put him in a "special" place and do genetic "testing" on him? That doesn't sound so nice.

Let him go, because "he couldn't help it" and thus he is not culpable? Hm. That, from a protect-society standpoint, sounds incredibly stupid.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[tristanreid]

Is that really the politically correct party line? I believe the socially liberal viewpoint is that
    a) capital punishment is wrong
    b) mental retardation is a defense
Both of which would say that a brain scan of a criminal defendant would indeed carry weight against the death penalty.

It sounds to me like you're using logic to extrapolate a political position. Your experience may vary, but I find that no existing political party is logically consistent, so you can't extrapolate.

Just my two cents,

-t.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[tristanreid]

Well if "special place" is another word for "prison", then why not? I don't know where you got the genetic testing part, though. If the defendant chose to use his genetics as a defense, then yes, s/he will have to submit to testing to make that case. If it is found that the genetics defense is reasonable, then yes, I think the defendant should be able to plead for a less-harsh environment, as long as it can be shown that a future incidence is being prevented.

That last part isn't as tricky as you might think. We already have separate jails for white collar criminals, and they're sociopaths. Why not do the same thing for someone who honestly doesn't want to be a monster?

-t.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[Tubal-Cain]

In the United States, political correctness has concluded that all human behavior (in a "normal" person) is due to nurture and free will.

Funny, from my point of view political correctness has concluded just the opposite: that free will to commit reprehensible acts is a myth.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[hamburger lady]

that's idiotic. a great number of mental disorders have a genetic basis or predilection. this is well-known.

however, as far as i know there are no disorders or behaviours that are based on race or ethnicity. some ethnic groups or races have higher rates of certain disorders, but this fact isn't taboo. it too is quite well-known.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[santiago]

That's what Fritz Lang's classic film M is about. If you are mentally ill and commit crimes as a result, do you deserve leniency because you cannot help yourself, or do your deserve death because you cannot reform? (The ending is, admittedly, a bit of a Lady-and-the-Tiger cop-out.)

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[mano.m]

That is how American justice works. How does justice work in Europe?

We deport them to America and Australia in unlabelled shipping containers. Always have, always will.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[Mashiki]

The current drive(pcness) says that society and social upbringing are the primary drivers behind a persons actions. Whether that be personal/parental/social/lack of fuzzy animals/etc. The general non-pcness is that you're responsible for your own actions unless you're criminally insane.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[rumblin'rabbit]

In Canada, we put them out on the ice flows and let the polar bears pass sentence. Two mammals enter, one (fat) mammal leaves.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[Burning1]

Let's assume, for a moment, that we have a murderer or rapist that does it because he's genetically wired to do it.

This seems to relate to the insanity clause, and the issue surrounding a retarded man put to death in Texas.

My understanding is that the insanity plea is usually used in places where it is believed that the perpetrator of a crime could either be cured meidcally, or would not repeat the crime, because the circumstances that caused them to become temporarily insane no longer exist.

For instance, before the murder of an abusive spouse could be considered an act of self defense, it could be argued that the abuse drove the murderer to a state of insanity, which resulted in the killing. Now that the abuse is removed, the person, with counseling, could lead a normal life, and would no longer pose a danger to society.

This case differs from the idea of someone being genetically pre-disposed to murder or rape in that the insanity is temporary, or can be cured.

In the case of a retarded person, the issue becomes one of intent. Was the mentally handicap person tricked or lead into performing a violent crime? Can it be shown that they didn't fully understand their actions? Perhaps some leniency is in order.

In the case of someone who lacks any sense of empathy and ethics, I believe that they genuinely need to be isolated from society. That is one of the main uses of the prison system.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[gyrogeerloose]

In Canada, we put them out on the ice flows

Funny, that's exactly how the health care system works here in the U.S.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[Kral_Blbec]

Unless it is about homosexuality. In that case nobody can help it because it is all genetics right?
I'd have to conclude that the current PC is the other way around, which is to say, that your behavior is geneticly based and you cant help yourself for any bad things you do.

Myself, I see it as that everyone is born with a tendency to be/do something. That may be alcoholism, drug dependent, psycopath, rapist, artist, politician, etc etc etc. How you decide to react to those tendancies is a result of your upbringing. There are plenty of people who admit same-sex attraction, but conciously decide not to act on them because they personally believe it to be wrong. There are plenty of violent tendancies that people conciously decide not to act on because they know them to be wrong. Your reaction is more important than anything else.

Born with a desire to kill and rape? So what. Don't do it, and if you do then prepare to face to penalty. Its no different than alcoholics who really really want that beer but know they shouldnt and so they quit.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[westlake]

In the United States, political correctness has concluded that all human behavior (in a "normal" person) is due to nurture and free will. To even hint that human behavior is due, in part, to genetics is taboo: it quickly leads to the conclusion that different races and ethnic groups can have different inclinations. This conclusion is forbidden.

Your "inclinations" have nothing to offer as a defense to a conviction on a capital charge.

You can be inclined to many things - which will make some choices easier than others.

But the decisions are still yours to make.

The most an American court has ever been willing to consider as an alternative to the traditional insanity defense is the notion of an "irresistible impulse:"

The McNaughton rule -- not knowing right from wrong

 

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[raddan]

Exactly right. With regard to conviction, why is unimportant. It is [supposed to be] a simple determination of fact. Sentencing, on the other hand, can introduce mitigating factors. "Your honor, I stole from the pharmacy because my daughter was dying and I could not afford the medication." The judge or jury can then choose an appropriate punishment.

It would be interesting to compare the proportion of "psychopathic" people who commit crimes to those who don't against the proportion of seemingly "normal" people who commit crimes to those who don't. I wouldn't be surprised if psychopaths committed crimes more often, but if that's the case, we may find that our tendency to view people with mental illness as 'not culpable' is irreconcilable with the practical requirement to administer justice.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that nature does not exist, god is all in the states, but that really isn't the point regardless of this particular case how exactly is it that we know what MRI's mean, weather he is guilty or not is irrelevant I find it troubling that courts allow this sort of " evidence" without any actual backing Tom cruise please step up are we now able to predict behavior? that's Not true but if we believe it it will be true and a lot of innocent people will be into the prison complex

   

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[VShael]

Suppose my dog has rabies. And right now, we can't cure rabies. But it makes him dangerous. What do we do?
Lock him up till we can find a cure? Or put him to sleep?

I know dogs aren't people, but some people are dogs.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[hamburger lady]

with regard to conviction "why" is very important. "why" is what separates murder from manslaughter. "why" is what separates murder from self-defense.

as to psychopathy, a great number of inmates are psychopaths. its well-assumed in psychology that APD correlates with higher rates of criminal behaviour. APD, however, does not rise to the level of removing culpability in criminal acts. having APD doesn't make you 'criminally insane' that you're able to get away with murder.

Re:Nature versus Nurture

[mano.m]

one (fat) mammal

Where'd you get the American from?

Illinois- Death Penalty Without the Death

[reverseengineer]

I'm curious to see how this will turn out in terms of practice of the death penalty in Illinois. There has been a moratorium on executions since 1999- Illinois still has a "death row," as well as the facilities for lethal injections, but hasn't actually executed prisoners in some time.

Re:Illinois- Death Penalty Without the Death

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I know I'm miserable when I'm waiting at the dentist's office and this can only be worse.

I'd imagine they get newer magazines though.

Re:Illinois- Death Penalty Without the Death

[Madsy]

I consider death penalty to be wrong in itself, as it works more as revenge rather than as a deterrent or rehabilitation. The government is no better than the criminal in that case.
But actually making someone *wait on death row* without knowing when he/she will die, is even more hideous. That's something I wouldn't wish my worst enemy. Or something I can imagine the worst serial killer do to a victim. It's pure evil. If capital punishment is deemed necessary, at least execute the punishment quickly without unnecessary waiting.

Re:Illinois- Death Penalty Without the Death

[xero314]

There has been a moratorium on executions since 1999

A moratorium in place, at least in part, due to the false convictions of three men. Convicted of the exact same murder that this trial and sentencing is for. So this guys crime may actually save him from the death penalty.

A better title for the summary...

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Pointless evidence completely ignored before convicted murderer sentenced to death...

If we want to talk about random stuff introduced into sentencing hearings, why don't we go for the truly interesting stuff. I am sure it wouldn't be to hard to find "evidence" of aliens or the Mob-Disney connection to the JFK assassination introduced in some trial.

Before we go insane thinking he'll be set free...

[Theaetetus]

... bear in mind that when you get to sentencing for a capital crime, the options are not "death penalty" or "10-20 years with probation and time off for good behavior". Rather, it's "death penalty" or "life without parole".

You may now return to your previously-scheduled flame war.

MS-NBC had this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

LAwyer tried to show defendant wasn't of sound mind because of brain scans that suggested to some crackpot lawyer that he was already insane.

Jury convicted him anyway.

1990?

[macraig]

Did this happen in 1990, by any chance?

Re:1990?

[macraig]

Yeah, but what about Bob Saget?

That'll show 'em!

[AP31R0N]

Cool. This way they won't feel so bad when he's dead and evidence exonerates him. They can point to a brain scan and say "the dark/bright spot said he was sane/crazy". The jury can sleep soundly knowing they were misled by science and not at all responsible for an innocent person's death.

Re:That'll show 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is innocent, only potentially convicted for the wrong crime.

Glenn Beck?

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I thought this could have something to do with those Glenn Beck rumors (not that I believe them, but it is strange that he hasn't denied them), but then I got to this part:

fMRI scans of brain activity

Never mind.

Re:Glenn Beck?

[global_diffusion]

Actually, the first thing that I thought about when I read this was the Glenn Beck rape/murder thing (which he still hasn't denied).

What exactly are you getting at with that crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you some kind of anti-dentite?

Psychic Justice

[rumblin'rabbit]

If we are to have justice, concepts such as "free will" should be put aside. Beyond being satisfied that there is criminal intent, I don't care why someone did what they did or if they feel remorse or if they are likely to re-offend. Justice should not be an exercise in mind reading.

What is this MRI supposed to prove? That someone who raped and killed a 10-year-old child is abnormal? I already knew that. It's the act we should pass sentence on, not the mind.

Re:Psychic Justice

[Kral_Blbec]

It seems that the blindfold has fallen off the Lady Justice as she holds her scales.

Personally...

[jd]

I regard the death penalty as somewhat childish and immature. "If X can't be alive, then... then... Neither Can Yoooooo! So nyah!" The idea that it gives closure to anything seemed to get a kick in the nuts with the Beltway Sniper's execution. If you don't get closure when the other person doesn't cry, then I'm not sure it's "closure" you're looking for. Try looking up "schoolyard bully".

I'm also not keen on the way a lot of these trials are handled, especially the insanity stuff. A person being insane doesn't alter whether or not they did something, it merely alters their culpability. That should be obvious.

Ergo, it follows that insanity should not be a plea in the trial phase but confined strictly to that phase which deals with culpability, the sentencing.

However, I also disagree with this idea that there are two options - total all-out criminal insanity and total all-out sanity. For a start, it doesn't leave you with anywhere to put lawyers or politicians.

I would far prefer to see a system in which sanity is regarded as a sliding scale and where sentencing allows the judge to split the time between punishment, treatment and rehabilitation (as and where appropriate) according to what produces the best outcome overall, rather than according to what gives the weenies in the press box a vicarious thrill.

Obviously, if a person is going to be incarcerated forever, then rehabilitation to the point where the person would be safe outside is not terribly useful. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to assume that having them stew, rebel and resent is both less cost-effective and less mature than encouraging them to make effective use of their abilities.

Just because someone is sealed off from society doesn't mean society can't benefit from their mind - there's probably plenty of intellectuals and artists behind bars.

Ian Brady is probably one of the craziest crazies to be in Broadmoor, but his book on the way serial killers think, feel and act should certainly be at least browsed by psychiatrists and detectives for insights no rational mind could ever have produced. No matter how little value it really is, the chances are really good that it'll do more good than the British Police's DNA database and CCTV camera system.

I'd rather let a hundred cold-blooded killers live in jail and receive at least some respect as a person if it meant that just one of those hundred produced a masterpiece of art or a book that had significance than have all hundred die purely for the viewing pleasure of Weekend Warriors.

In a hundred years time, which makes the difference? Something that might only rarely advance humanity - but when it does, advance it a lot - or something that provides a momentary mental orgasm for a bunch of f'ed-up "witnesses" and some losers outside and that's it?

I don't see why I should pay taxes for someone getting off on watching another die, when I could be paying taxes to give those in prison a chance to do something positive and worthwhile.

Re:Personally...

[dissy]

I regard the death penalty as somewhat childish and immature. "If X can't be alive, then... then... Neither Can Yoooooo! So nyah!" The idea that it gives closure to anything seemed to get a kick in the nuts with the Beltway Sniper's execution. If you don't get closure when the other person doesn't cry, then I'm not sure it's "closure" you're looking for. Try looking up "schoolyard bully".

Well at least you fully understand the American justice system.

It is one thing and one thing only: Revenge

If the powers that be, and those that put them in power, even cared in the slightest about justice, stopping crime, and helping people, then our legal system would be turned on its head and look totally different.

Unfortunately this is what most people in America want however. Not justice, just revenge. Not lack of crime, just to create more crime to dish out more suffering. It satisfies both the animal rage instincts as well as gives a false sense of superior morality.

Re:Personally...

[SpinyNorman]

I'll glad they're going to kill this worthless loser so my tax dollars arn't wasted feeding him in jail.

The death penalty serves two purposes:

1) Public safety - PERMANTENTLY makes sure sickos like this never do it again

2) Public vengeance - creates a lawful society by creating lawful just punishment for heinious crimes

Re:Personally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when I think USA'ians cant be any more banal
they manage to take it a step further.

Re:Personally...

[meowhous]

I'm not sure I care to listen to great symphonies created by child-raper-killers. I already stopped buying/reading a popular mystery series about a amnesiac detective when it was widely revealed that the author was a convicted (served, released) matricide who claimed amnesia--it's not that I don't respect people's ability to make a living, it just made me queasy to think about it.

Re:Personally...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll glad they're going to kill this worthless loser so my tax dollars arn't wasted feeding him in jail.

FYI...it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to incarcerate that prisoner for the rest if his or her life. Lawyers, Judges and courtroom facilities are expensive.

1) Public safety - PERMANTENTLY makes sure sickos like this never do it again

Prisons have sufficiently advanced to the point where high risk inmates don't escape. Someone who would otherwise have been considered for the death penalty is not going to leave prison no matter what.

2) Public vengeance - creates a lawful society by creating lawful just punishment for heinious crimes

I'm not even sure where to start with that. Yes, virtually the only rational argument for the death penalty is the vengeance aspect. However the part following that seems to be the deterrent aspect, which has never been shown to be true.

For my part, I oppose the death penalty because I want society to spend as little money as possible on the people who pose a danger to the rest of us. And it has the added advantage that you can always set the person free if they are shown to be innocent at some point in the future.

Re:Personally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is interesting, and it does a good job of being sympathetic to those who are regarded as hard to rehabilitate. However,...

Your view of people who find retribution through the death is very unsympathetic. Many of these people who are driven to retribution find rehabilitation through the corporeal punishment of the convicted (some do not). They're being emotional, but are they really being childish? And isn't their rehabilitation ultimately more important than that of the convicted (who give up some of their fundamental rights when they commit heinous crimes against other people)?

I value the lives of the convicted. But I value the lives of those who are a part of my society more, and as such I give them the benefit of the doubt. (I acknowledge that this is very Animal Farm-ish.)

Also, the death penalty is an effective way of dealing with those whom we (currently) cannot rehabilitate. The main problem with it is human error in judgement. You propose a method that is at best humane. It is very convoluted, devoted to the blind faith of finding diamonds in the rough, and it ultimately doesn't address the problem of human error in sentencing (in fact it probably amplifies it due to the complexity of a sliding scale of insanity).

Re:Personally...

[Duradin]

"2) Public vengeance - creates a lawful society by creating lawful just punishment for heinious crimes"

Vengeance, just, and lawful do not go together. A just and lawful society has impartial laws and vengeance is anything but impartial.

Public vengeance creates nothing more than a bloodthirsty mob which doesn't care who (as long it isn't them) gets punished as long as someone does.

Re:Personally...

[Anonymous Coward]

false sense of superior morality.

Like the one you assumed as you wrote your post?

Re:Personally...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also not keen on the way a lot of these trials are handled, especially the insanity stuff. A person being insane doesn't alter whether or not they did something, it merely alters their culpability. That should be obvious.

Uhh..that's how they do it.

Re:Personally...

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to explain why the revenge instinct, honed over millions of years of evolution and universal to our species, is a bad thing. Surely if it were so bad it would be a rare condition, not something inborn to each of us.

Your failure is not surprising, though. In fact, revenge is extremely good! Without it, society would be impossible. Without revenge, a single rogue agent could do all the rest of us in--steal everything we own, rape our sisters and wives, and beat us to death just for amusement. And why not? We might try to intervene while it's happening, but not afterward, because afterward we wouldn't care! There'd be essentially zero risk in being rogue: Just make sure you pick out lone targets and incapacitate them before having your "fun."

Re:Personally...

[big_paul76]

The best argument on this, especially when talking to the religious right, is biblical.

Matthew 25:34-40.

And Jesus said, For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"And Jesus said to the righteous, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Seriously, even for an atheist like me, that's a powerful argument.

Re:Personally...

[wunchaliketano]

Wow. I don't actually want to see them die. I can tell you that if the bastard had murdered my son or my niece, I don't really care if he can paint like Rembrandt or write like Shakespeare, they had better get to him before I do.

If you think that someone like that still has something to contribute to society, he better make it quick. I'm all for the death penalty, and if it's taking to long... I'm sure (even if the prick was in prison) I could find a way to speed it up.

Keep your hundred cold-blooded killers alive (and writing, and painting) until it hits you personally, then your tune will change.

Re:Personally...

[Scroatzilla]

I get what you're saying, but actually any formal punishment is just institutional "revenge".

The fact that people are blood-thirsty when it comes to capital crimes may be barbaric, but the fact is that one could make the argument that it's equally barbaric to subject someone to the horror of a life sentence.

In fact, it seems downright cruel to make someone live in a cage.

Re:Personally...

[SpinyNorman]

Inmates rarely escape but they frequently get paroled/released to reoffend. A repeat thief is one thing but a child rapist should be fried to prevent it happening again.

Re:Personally...

[SpinyNorman]

Vengeance doesn't have to be unjust or hasty. It's just a matter of getting a fit punishment if you get convicted, not a slap on the wrist. The public won't have any respect for the law if the law doesn't dole out fair punishment. Heinious crimes call for heinious punishment. What's fair about a convicted murderer staying alive when his victim did not?

I am shocked, shocked I say!

[Locke2005]

A man that raped and killed a 10-year old has a brain disorder?!? And here I thought that was perfectly normal behavior than anybody was capable of! If anything, this only helps prove that they got the right guy -- anybody that would do something like that must have some sort of mental disorder! Unfortunately, drawing attention to this brings up the possibility of testing people for brain disorders and removing them from society before they commit heinous acts... which sounds like a great idea, until you are the one that tests positive.

Re:Before we go insane thinking he'll be set free.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. The difference is, if he is executed and then they discover evidence he didn't commit the crimes then an innocent man was murdered. Now, he may very well have done these things, but there are plenty of cases of people on death row who at the last moment before they were put down DNA evidence has saved them. That is why life without parole seems the more civilized option to me.

Okay, now just re-focus.

[Fantastic Lad]

I don't care to waste time on the three endless debates being revisited here. (Well, sort of revisited. It's such an old and tired set of problems that nobody here is even giving a full effort). Capital punishment, nature v.s. nurture, and the morality of punishing a natural-born killer.

Don't care. None of that will be solved here or today.

What I AM interested in is the use of medical technology to detect psychopathy in people. We have the technology right now. I want to see a reliable and open system of testing introduced so that we can filter people who are climbing power ladders. -We could have avoided the whole last ten years of bloodshed and economic ruin if we had a simple testing system in place for recognizing psychopaths. What we do with them after this is fodder for those endless debates, and that's fine. History will sort it out. I just think it would be nice if we stopped giving leadership roles to reptiles. You know, so we can stop living in a world where corruption and mass-murder are considered normal? That'd sure be nice.

I want to see this happen. I want to see this happen. I want to see this happen. It's my intention to live in a world where everybody wakes up.

-FL

Re:Okay, now just re-focus.

[Anonymous Coward]

But if we could detect all the sociopaths and psychopaths then who would we get for positions of power and leadership.

Let's face it, people don't take these kinds of positions out of the goodness of their heart, or because they are especially
gifted.

People go after positions of power, be it in the private sector, political arena, or legal system because they are usually
manic sociopaths with delusions of grandeur. Let's make a list of possible miscretants:

Presidents
Senators
Governors
Congressmen
Doctors
Lawyers
Judges
City Council Members
County Commissioners
Cops!!!!
Professors!!!
University Administrators
Military Offices
Dictators
CEO's!!
CIO!!!
CFO!!
Equity Traders
Bond Traders
Commodity Traders
Financial Advisors
Secretary of Treasury
Fed Chairman
Priests
Rabbis
Dentist
Orthodontist
Clergymen
Head Football Coaches
KKK Leaders
Serial Killers
IRS Agents
FBI Agents
Prosecutors!!!
TSA Agents
Customs Agents
Security Guards
School Teachers
Bus Drivers- Fuck tard, I am a staff and student and I shouldn't have to pay a quarter to ride the city bus, I should be able to ride it for free like the rich college kids.
Deans
Strippers
Actors
Directors
Cheerleader Coaches (yeah I mean the ones at the Dallas Cowboys)
Reality TV Stars

Pretty much anyone who has to wear a robe, hat, mask, helmet, gun, uniform, suit, or other garb to do their job.
Please let me know if I forgot anybody.

Peace!

Re:Okay, now just re-focus.

[Fantastic Lad]

Just had a chat with my girlfriend about this. --She related to me, (before I mentioned this post, btw), a story about how she'd once been on a student council during university.

She said everybody on it was basically insane and broken. Her position was a very minor arts thing, but because of the position, she was included in a cross-country conference of student-council members from many universities. What she described were people who wanted to get into real politics after school; one guy who was being very careful about the kinds of pictures taken of himself in case stuff came back to bite him, but who did some lunatic things. (One of his things was getting drunk and pounding on her door for 45 minutes yelling at the top of his lungs for some girl who didn't live there. The next day, when she wrote a note on the door saying, "that girl doesn't live here", he scrawled obscenities all over her door.) --Anyway, the thing which struck her was that the lunatics were not isolated to her one school, but seemed to represent a universal condition with the same patterns from all over. --Essentially, charismatic but deeply broken people with no moral groundings and extremely poor self-control. She described some pretty disgusting things. Rape. Drinking until kids were vomiting blood. Crazy sex. (In one meeting with the previous student council, the old guard were saying, "Yeah, this conference is great! You're going to have a lot of fun!" It turned into a gleeful comparing of notes; "Who here has had sex with a married man?" People raised their hands and laughed. "Who here has had unprotected sex?" Raised hands, more gleeful laughter. Psychopaths get off on self-destructive behavior; it's built into their being. They need to wallow in the muck in order to feed some aspect of their mechanism.) --So the conference was an orgy of crudeness, sexual harassment, drug abuse and massive egos. The kind of thing which sounds like fiction but isn't. And this is the student council population; the ones who are supposedly more responsible than the rest of us, who seek command and control positions.

These are the people who will rule our cities and corporations and our military. There's a reason our world is so totally messed up right now.

Around 6% of the population have broken brains, according to some of the estimates I've looked at, and they seek out power, so they bottle-neck in those kinds of environments. But this is the sort of thing positive action can be taken against. It's not hugging trees and it's not saving whales or protesting nuclear arms. It's doable and it makes sense on many levels. If you're a psychopath, you fail the test, lose your right to participate in business or public office and everybody finds out that you present a danger to society. Honestly; this is easy to solve. The difficult part is that many of the decision-makers and members of the media who have the power to push screening are going to by psychopaths themselves.

But it could still be done. It needs to be done. Until it is done, the world will not get better.

-FL

Re:Okay, now just re-focus.

[NightlordTW]

we might indeed have the technology, but I wonder whether enough data has been analysed to provide full support of these hypotheses regarding brain activity related to mental disorders. Moreover, statistical relations never prove the correlation between measurements and observations, they just give an indication (which might occur due to non-measured reasons, or by chance). Hence, I think it is important judges are well informed about the value of these kind of scans, even when correlations are highly supported (many studies, high confidence).

Re:Okay, now just re-focus.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. We do not have the technology right now to reliably detect "psychopathy" in people.

Re:Okay, now just re-focus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with psychopathy. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Fantastic Lad? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a psychosis, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

So, you still have the death penalty...
fyi: the civilized world thinks you are bloodthirsty barbaric slaughterers... (which we also think for your gun-laws and your armed robbery of helpless countries)

the human life is the highest good there is so nobody - NOBODY (including the state) has the right to decide that someone deserves to die - even if that guy killed a lot of people.

I know this will cost me karma, but that can't stop me from telling the truth...

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

which we also think for your gun-laws

Sorry if our freedom is offensive to you.

The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes

That's a pretty funny signature line for someone that claims to hate American gun-laws. How effective do you suppose the revolution is going to be without weapons in the hands of those who are revolting?

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Anonymous Coward]

fyi: the civilized world thinks you are bloodthirsty barbaric slaughterers... (which we also think for your gun-laws and your armed robbery of helpless countries)

A mere sixty years ago your people were the bloodthirsty barbaric slaughterers. Come to think of it your people had a habit of committing armed robbery of helpless countries. Like a plague of locusts you descended on neighboring countries, raping and pillaging as you went, slaughtering those who were considered subhuman and impure before stealing the gold from their teeth.

Thank goodness my ancestors left your little shithole of a country a century before.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Rakshasa Taisab]

which we also think for your gun-laws

Sorry if our freedom is offensive to you.

You living in Somaliland or something?

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Anonymous Coward]

So a purpose of your deadly weapons is to revolt against your government, which (insanely) defends your right to possess said weaponry?

I like Slashdot, most of the comments are well thought out and intelligent, but when it comes to guns, the "FREEDOOOOM!" mania which engulfs the commentary makes me cry. You don't actually have the freedom to go around killing whomever you want, and there are police to prevent that. Defending yourself against psychotic killers with more guns is just a vicious circle, and additionally makes it a little bit harder to differentiate you from them when it comes to the crunch.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[tjstork]

So, you still have the death penalty.......the human life is the highest good there is so nobody - NOBODY (including the state) has the right to decide that someone deserves to die - even if that guy killed a lot of people.

We barbarians would note that we would extend the franchise of life to the unborn, whereas you blissfully ignore that. So you can take your "civilization" and shove it up your ass. I mean, you would keep a convicted murderer alive but rip a baby out of its mother and flush it. Wow, you guys have some priorities.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Elky Elk]

Where is this revolution then? All I hear is talk.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

Defending yourself against psychotic killers with more guns is just a vicious circle

No it's not. Human beings have the right to self-defense. When confronted with the threat of deadly force you are entitled to respond with deadly force. It's not a 'vicious circle'. The person defending themselves didn't make the decision that somebody was going to die -- that decision was made by the "psychotic killer" (to borrow your term). All the person defending themselves decided was that it wasn't going to be them who died that day.

Even in the EU you still have the right of self-defense. Of course they won't let you carry any tools to effectively exercise that right (in many EU countries you can't even carry pepper spray) but the right is still there. No country on this planet that I'm aware of expects you to lay down and surrender when some asshat is trying to end your life. You are entitled to fight back with any and all means at your disposal to ensure that you survive.

and additionally makes it a little bit harder to differentiate you from them when it comes to the crunch.

Give me a fucking break. It's very easy to differentiate us from them. We don't seek to use violence to control other people, obtain their property or end their lives. We only desire to go home to our families in one piece.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I highlighted the part that should explain to you why there isn't any ongoing revolution at the current time.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Elky Elk]

So you're saying the means of redress are effectual

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

I'm saying that the vast majority of American gun owners do not see our Government as being oppressive enough to warrant overthrowing and most of those that do would admit that we haven't yet tried 'all other means of redress'.

If you think the American Government is oppressive enough to warrant a revolution then I suggest you start exercising your 1st amendment (there's a reason why that amendment is #1) rights and try to convince your fellow citizens of this fact. Personally I don't think we are anywhere near that point yet.

I'm happy that I live in a country where I can casually engage in a conversation about overthrowing the government without worrying about jack-booted thugs kicking down my door. I'm happy that I live in a country where my freedoms are constantly being expanded, rather than contracted. I'm happy to live in a country that allows me the means to defend myself and my family rather than being hung out to dry while waiting for the police to arrive.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

That's a pretty funny signature line for someone that claims to hate American gun-laws. How effective do you suppose the revolution is going to be without weapons in the hands of those who are revolting?

maybe if you were a bit more well-read, you would understand that line... (just a hint: douglas adams)

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

which I strongly oppose...

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

oh, well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Abortion_law
looks like you have pretty much the same laws for abortion that we have...

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

It's very easy to differentiate us from them.

yeah, WE are the GOOD guys!... there's nothing better than having a simple world-outlook

We don't seek to use violence to control other people, obtain their property or end their lives.

Iraq might disagree...

We only desire to go home to our families in one piece.

like america was some sort of militarized zone... like there was a war or every other person out there was following you with a chainsaw - get f*cking real!

if it's so easy distinguishing the good guys from the bad guys, then why do so many bad guys have weapons? maybe because it's NOT so easy to recognize them BEFORE they go nuts? and your so called "freedom" puts all the weapons and ammo into their hands, that they want... way to go...

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[AlgorithMan]

I think he might be referring to this line

We only desire to go home to our families in one piece.

which would be an appropriate statement if there was a war going on outside your door and your region is considered one of the most dangerous places on earth, like it is the case in Somaliland

for someone from america such a line just exposes paranoia...

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

for someone from america such a line just exposes paranoia...

What you see as paranoia I see as being pro-active. Roughly half of all people will be a victim of a violent crime at some point in their lives. I'd prefer to never have to experience that -- but should it happen to me I'm going to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that I'm going home in one piece.

Re:So, you still have the death penalty...

[Shakrai]

yeah, WE are the GOOD guys!... there's nothing better than having a simple world-outlook

I am the good guy. The bad guy is someone attempting to use violence for his own material/sexual/emotional/etc gain. It's really not that complicated.

Iraq might disagree...

Nice redirection there.

like america was some sort of militarized zone

It's not. But to pretend that violent crime doesn't happen here (or anywhere else on Earth for that matter) is to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality.

and your so called "freedom" puts all the weapons and ammo into their hands, that they want... way to go...

So your solution is to take away the freedom of the majority because of the crimes of the minority? Yeah, that's a great idea.

You should change your signature line or at least acknowledge the irony in wanting to line people up against the wall while simultaneously seeking to disarm the citizenry.

Turn About, Fairly

[DynaSoar]

As much as I dislike fMRI research due to the technical problems compounding with far too little understanding of the technology and errors on the part of far too many researchers, this is one topic on which it has some merit. There's been enough MRI (including the f- variant) work done on limbic systems and disorders that the body of results approaches validation. In the absence of deep brain trauma (there being none on this case) one can assume the structural abnormalities to have pre-existed, making the 1983-2009 time span less problematic.

However, although psychopaths tend to show certain differences, showing those differences does not mean the person is a psychopath. As TFA states there are other tests that have been used for longer that are more reliable. In fact, skin conductance is very good. Psychopaths (and habitual criminals without that specific diagnosis) show a rapid rise in skin conductance to violent imagery, but return to baselines much more quickly than 'normal' persons. Easy, cheap, and replicated year after year.

Brian Dugan is scum and deserves to die

[SpuriousLogic]

The rape and murder he got the death penalty for is not his first - he was already in prison for two other murders. Also, he plead guilty to the rape and murder of this child, so he won't have the same appeals process. He is the poster boy for the death penalty.

Re:Brian Dugan is scum and deserves to die

[Anonymous Coward]

He gets the death penalty either way. Child rapists are universally hated, it'd only be a matter of time before he got offed while a guard looked the other way.

Re:Brian Dugan is scum and deserves to die

[Anonymous Coward]

You watch too much TV or read too many crime novels. Even child rapists deserve some modicum of protection against vigilantes (the real scum of the world--forget pedophiles). He would not likely be in a position where your prisoner-with-a-heart-of-gold could get to him; either he would be in a facility that is too secure to allow for thator he would be put in protective isolation, like many people sentenced for crimes against children.

Re:Brian Dugan is scum and deserves to die

[martinX]

I just read about the Jeanine Nicario case. Two men were convicted and sentenced to death for her murder. The murder that Dugan has now confessed to. Although Dugan is obviously the worst scum, the fact that 14 cops, prosecutors and deputies were indicted (They were found not guilty of anything naughty.) and nearly got two innocent men killed by the "Justice System" kind of puts me off the death penalty in general.

Re:Before we go insane thinking he'll be set free.

[SpuriousLogic]

Brian Dugan plead guilty to the rape and murder of the little girl, plus was already in prison for two other murders. The guilty plea pretty much means he did it - even with all the DNA evidence found on the girl's clothes that also pointed to him.

An intelligent person would End Death Penalties

[Tibia1]

Within 5-10 years our forensics will be so advanced that we will be able to know who committed an extremely high percentage of all crime. Therefore we shouldn't be killing anyone now seeing as they will be able to be proven guilty or innocent before they've spent too much possibly unwarranted time in prison.

Re:Great defence!Christmas gift is here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, speaking of things I'd like to see be put to death...

Re:Before we go insane thinking he'll be set free.

[swillden]

The guilty plea pretty much means he did it

Perhaps in this case, or perhaps not. There are plenty of people who have confessed and plead guilty and then later been proved innnocent. Confessions are overrated and there are all kinds of reasons why people plead guilty when they're not.

If it can be cured then great

[KalvinB]

Curing the disease is just another form of rehabilitation. However, it should never be looked at as way to excuse behavior. Humans have the unique ability to act contrary to their natural impulses. The person may have a disease but that does not excuse their inability to restrain themselves and they still must suffer the consequences for their actions. A person is responsible for determining their own triggers and learning to deal with them.

The advantage to a curable disease is that the person can more easily be "rehabilitated." Remove the tumor or whatever and the person can be confident they will not have to fight so hard to restrain themselves from doing the bad behavior in the future.

The only crime that should not bother with any form of rehabilitation is murder. Society should not care why you did it (as long as it was not accidental or self defense), only that you did and we can't risk more lives by hoping that you're "cured."

You are wrong, it is to deter SANE people

[SmallFurryCreature]

Your argument is actually PROVING that punishment of crimes deters crimes. "No sane person could look at the risk to reward ratio of armed robbery and conclude that it's a worthwhile endeavor".

That is the entire logic, and we then HOPE that the majority of society is indeed sane and we got the police for the rest.

To prove that punishment deters YOU, let me put this to you:

If for holding up a convenience store with a gun there was NO punishment whatsoever, would you do it? If you really needed the money?

It don't really matter because we know this is what happens, laws that are not enforced are broken all to often. I bet we wouldn't get as many drunk drivers if the penalty was the chair (well not as many repeat offenders in any case).

If ever you stopped doing something you wanted to do/thought about doing because it is against the law, then you are the living proof that punishment deters crime. Just not in the insane and those incapable of making logical choices. For them we have the actual jails.

As for your last point, you can pardon someone after 50 years in jail. You can't 1 second after the lethal injection.

Re:You are wrong, it is to deter SANE people

[Shakrai]

If for holding up a convenience store with a gun there was NO punishment whatsoever, would you do it? If you really needed the money?

No, I wouldn't. Couple reasons for that:

1. I don't believe in taking that which doesn't belong to me, no matter how much I think I "need" it.
2. I would not be capable of pointing a firearm at another human being who wasn't threatening me with bodily harm and/or death.
3. I believe in the right of self-defense and would fully expect to be shot by the person behind the counter if I was stupid enough to point a gun at him.

another aspect

[Anonymous Coward]

if we make it seem that justice is done it will decrease the chance of people taking revenge into their own hands. you could call this preventing revenge.

Autodiagnostic

[Phat_Tony]

You know what other evidence they could use to demonstrate that he "has a brain disorder?"

The fact that he raped an murdered a 10-year old girl.

It's not like any goody-two-shoes Ned Flanders type falls to temptation and suddenly rapes and murders little children. Whether the underlying reasons are cultural (abuse) or physical (brain damage), anyone who does this sort of thing is severely defective. For some reason, courts seem to take it that if the defense can show any reason why the crime was committed, then that's a reason why the person shouldn't be convicted.

Well, there's always a reason "why" when someone's totally screwed up. There will always be something that differentiates them from regular people who would sooner give their life to stop someone from perpetrating such acts than to commit them themselves. Finding the cause may be useful for treatment or deterrence or finding similar psychopaths and stopping them, but it's not a reason why the perpetrator shouldn't be convicted.

there should only be one sentence...

[inerlogic]

... for raping and murdering a 10 year old girl.

and it should involve the superbowl halftime show, (or world series 7th inning stretch) and 3 or 4 very hungry lions....

We kill rabid dogs...

[TheDarkMinstrel]

If the scarring was permanent and inoperable, what's the point? Are we going to lock him up and pay for his care until somebody can fix it? Why bother? The evidence supports that he is irrepairably broken.

We destroy mad dogs.

Corporate psychopathy

[mcgrew]

From the wikipedia article linked above:

Psychopaths are glib and superficially charming, and many psychopaths are excellent mimics of normal human emotion;[10] some psychopaths can blend in, undetected, in a variety of surroundings, including corporate environments.[11] There is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy; there are no medications or other techniques which can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy only become more adept at manipulating others.[12] The consensus among researchers is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth.[10] It is estimated that one percent of the general population are psychopaths.[13][14]

Breeding humans

[psithurism]

I always seem to be the only one who thinks breeding humans like dogs would be awesome. Sure we would cause defects in the purebreds, but think about the variation in dog breeds while we design all of our chairs to fit someone of 165cm. Why not have giants to do construction and security services? Dwarves, who are tiny by current dwarf standards as we have been selectively breeding them for awhile, who run wires and consume less resources on space missions. Humans breed to handle the pressure of deep sea exploration can probe deeper than ever before. Impossible beauty standards are a thing of the past, because nobody looks anything like each other anymore.

I don't think I want to see the political climate that causes this, but instead of making the PC required "breeding humans is wrong because of analogies to other things that are wrong" have some imagination.