Criminally Responsible

I agree with the death penalty in some cases. But if it is truely what this guy wants, tough shit for him. I'd rather him suffer in a hole for 25-life than get put out of his misery right away, getting what he 'wants'. No, I don't want to have to help pay for his meds and psychiatric treatment, which is why I said 'hole'. Solitary confinement is what he deserves, obviously he can't play well with others.

See... i find this as almost cruel punishment as compared to just killing him which is quick cheap and imo compassionate. Once there is no chance to get out there is not reason to keep them in.
 
duly noted that the guy was Chinese, and is not quoted as having said "prease" or "please".

The difference is that some people twisted enough want to "go out with a bang". I suppose we should be grateful he didn't blow the bus up.




Also, if my own brother were demented enough to kill someone not in self-defense, I'd disown him on the spot, and let whatever punishment await him. I wouldn't stop loving him, as he is my brother, but there are *some* unforgiveable acts.

Disappointing to read that you would disown your own brother for something he isn't criminally responsible for due to his mental state, something he didn't chose any more than the colour of their skin. But because the act was horrific, it doesn't matter. I'd say some of the resolutions offered up are close to equally as horrific as the original crime.

I have little more to say on this topic. The fact that someone proven to be insane should, in some people's opinion, have their life taken because they said they wanted to be killed once is ludicrous. They're too crazy to live in the outside world and look after themselves, and nobody really listens to them when they talk, but if they ask to be killed? Fuck yeah.

No. To say he should be executed because he committed murder is reasonable. I disagree with it, but I can see why people would agree with it. To execute him because he requested it, after evidence was given proving he's insane, would be insanity in itself.
 
See... i find this as almost cruel punishment as compared to just killing him which is quick cheap and imo compassionate. Once there is no chance to get out there is not reason to keep them in.

Except you're talking about someone's biological life. They may be in prison for doing fuck-knows-what, but they're still alive. And nobody, yourself included, has the right to say "this person should die because they're in jail for the rest of their life anyway." It's still a life, as shit as you may think it is, and I don't recall a Universal law being passed stating that you had to contribute to this world in order to escape execution.
 
They're too crazy to live in the outside world and look after themselves, and nobody really listens to them when they talk, but if they ask to be killed? Fuck yeah.

Responding only to the bolded... So then, if they cannot be apart of society (and I use that term loosely, I'm thinking more of "herd") why should we weaken ourselves by paying for their continued existance when they cannot help support others?

You do not see Wildebeasts crowding around the sick/wounded/slow member of their herd just so the stalking lion cannot get him. It puts the lot of them in danger. Now we, as humans, do not necessarily have befanged, wild animals chasing us around the suburbs but it would be more of a "financial survival" situation. I think now is the best time to rethink our taxed support of correctional and mental institutions.
 
Now we, as humans, do not necessarily have befanged, wild animals chasing us around the suburbs

Sure we do; they're called personal injury lawyers, political activists, and homeowners' associations.
 
Responding only to the bolded... So then, if they cannot be apart of society (and I use that term loosely, I'm thinking more of "herd") why should we weaken ourselves by paying for their continued existance when they cannot help support others?

You do not see Wildebeasts crowding around the sick/wounded/slow member of their herd just so the stalking lion cannot get him. It puts the lot of them in danger. Now we, as humans, do not necessarily have befanged, wild animals chasing us around the suburbs but it would be more of a "financial survival" situation. I think now is the best time to rethink our taxed support of correctional and mental institutions.

Agreed Agreed Agreed.

If we cannot choose to have those that "harm" or hinder our lives, that being quality of life, capabilities to provide the best we can for our families etc.. then IDEALLY it would make sense to rethink our financial support of such imprisonments.

If they can't support themselves, or in the very least contribute enough in any way deemed necessary by the caregivers then they should not have the right to leech off society.

Responsible adults who have worked for several years of their lives contributing as much as the next person have a GREAT DEAL of difficulty getting social assistance or just "Employment Insurance" (WHICH is taken from each of our paychecks for such situations), that's with providing all the necessary proof.

We as Canadians can't ask for our EI (our money) if we quit or were fired from our jobs, no matter what the reason. Not to mention it's the general rule of thumb that you get denied your first couple applications in hopes that you get discouraged and give up your fight for your money.

Just thought I'd throw that in there, little extra food for thought.
 
Responding only to the bolded... So then, if they cannot be apart of society (and I use that term loosely, I'm thinking more of "herd") why should we weaken ourselves by paying for their continued existance when they cannot help support others?

You do not see Wildebeasts crowding around the sick/wounded/slow member of their herd just so the stalking lion cannot get him. It puts the lot of them in danger. Now we, as humans, do not necessarily have befanged, wild animals chasing us around the suburbs but it would be more of a "financial survival" situation. I think now is the best time to rethink our taxed support of correctional and mental institutions.

I'm beginning to understand a little better now. So what you're saying is that if someone cannot contribute to society, why should tax payer's money go to keeping them alive?

Probably for the same reason that, in my country at least, tax payer's money helps pay for treatment for patients on the NHS. They didn't chose their illnesses, and for the more seriously injured/ill, they contribute just as little as our "crazies."

It's different in countries where you pay for healthcare, but in my country, you don't. The whole "why should we have to pay" argument doesn't wash with me. For ever person who trully believes what they're saying when they say that, there are 10 others who are using it to hide the fact they show no compassion for other people's situations. If you're unable to contribute to society, you could be classed as a burden. This, however, does not entitle someone to say that their life should be ended. What do you propose, that we have Contribution Officers who assess people to see how much they're contributing to society, and if they don't reach a certain level, their existances are terminated? Or is this just reserved for the people who kill others (even though they have no control over their actions)?

Oh yeah, and if you no longer have to pay taxes for these criminals and their cushy living conditions because you've had them killed, the government will find something else to tax the shit out of, thus rendering the killing spree pointless.
 
Last edited:
I'm beginning to understand a little better now. So what you're saying is that if someone cannot contribute to society, why should tax payer's money go to keeping them alive?

Probably for the same reason that, in my country at least, tax payer's money helps pay for treatment for patients on the NHS. They didn't chose their illnesses, and for the more seriously injured/ill, they contribute just as little as our "crazies."

It's different in countries where you pay for healthcare, but in my country, you don't. The whole "why should we have to pay" argument doesn't wash with me. For ever person who trully believes what they're saying when they say that, there are 10 others who are using it to hide the fact they show no compassion for other people's situations. If you're unable to contribute to society, you could be classed as a burden. This, however, does not entitle someone to say that their life should be ended. What do you propose, that we have Contribution Officers who assess people to see how much they're contributing to society, and if they don't reach a certain level, their existances are terminated? Or is this just reserved for the people who kill others (even though they have no control over their actions)?

Oh yeah, and if you no longer have to pay taxes for these criminals and their cushy living conditions because you've had them killed, the government will find something else to tax the shit out of, thus rendering the killing spree pointless.

No but unable to contribute coupled with horrific murder and desecration is enough to render snuffing a person.
 
I'm beginning to understand a little better now. So what you're saying is that if someone cannot contribute to society, why should tax payer's money go to keeping them alive?

Probably for the same reason that, in my country at least, tax payer's money helps pay for treatment for patients on the NHS. They didn't chose their illnesses, and for the more seriously injured/ill, they contribute just as little as our "crazies."

It's different in countries where you pay for healthcare, but in my country, you don't. The whole "why should we have to pay" argument doesn't wash with me. For ever person who trully believes what they're saying when they say that, there are 10 others who are using it to hide the fact they show no compassion for other people's situations. If you're unable to contribute to society, you could be classed as a burden. This, however, does not entitle someone to say that their life should be ended. What do you propose, that we have Contribution Officers who assess people to see how much they're contributing to society, and if they don't reach a certain level, their existances are terminated? Or is this just reserved for the people who kill others (even though they have no control over their actions)?

Oh yeah, and if you no longer have to pay taxes for these criminals and their cushy living conditions because you've had them killed, the government will find something else to tax the shit out of, thus rendering the killing spree pointless.

If someone is sick enough to mercilessly hack someones head off with a hunting knife (typically 5-8" long or somewhere around 14-21cm), bowl it around the crime scene like he's trying to hit some pins, come out asking to be killed and have it come to light that he only feels this way in spats and refuses medical treatment; to have officials say he might be released because he's not that bad all the time? Do you want him running around the same neighborhood your children play in?

Going further, what about the sex offenders? The ones that prey on children of either sex or adult women. Do you want them running about simply because they acted like good little boys in prison? What about the folks that manufacture and distribute drugs to minors? They should be allowed to roam free? Would you call these people functioning members of society? Would you allow them to live next door to you and your family or anyone elses?

As far as taxes go, I would far rather spend money paying for healthcare for the elderly than be making sure Johnny StabbyHands has 3 meals a day and a nice plasma TV with cable to watch in the common room of his prison floor or pay for him to have internet access or pay for him to get his GED so he can think he's a lawyer and waste MORE of our money trying to appeal his case because he got "fucked by his lawyer".

Natural selection has been pushed out of the equation and I think that it needs to be back in. You fuck with the pack, you get killed. You can't hack it, you die. I care very much about what happens in the world that I live in and I think its about time we stopped giving so much of a flying arse about how we treat the people who hurt members of our society and focus on our starving, undereducated children that don't have any clean clothes on their backs and don't know any better than to yank out babies and leech off the government and the rest of normal, working society.
 
If you're a burden on society to the point you're taking resources while not contributing for any notable length of time, something has to be done. At the very least, put to work to sustain yourself. While being in prison does make you an over all drain on societies resources, you're still given opportunities to contribute in some way, like working the prison lunch lines, or cleaning the mess hall floors. Even non-profit work outside of the prison like the old picking up trash along highways staple. Many even have on-site gardens for tending crops.

Solitary Confinement does not offer these. For all society knows, you're already dead, but on tax funded time.
 
See... i find this as almost cruel punishment as compared to just killing him which is quick cheap and imo compassionate. Once there is no chance to get out there is not reason to keep them in.

That was my point. Good. What is also cruel and unusual is decapitating someone and eating parts of them just to have him returned to his loving family as dead and deformed. Why does he deserve the compassion he didn't give?

And as previously stated by a newspaper artical quoted, he can be released if he is deemed fit to re-enter society, there is not "no chance to get out" he has a chance.

Solitary Confinement does not offer these. For all society knows, you're already dead, but on tax funded time.

Fine, confinement away from other inmates then, he would still be able to contribute, just not in the presense of anyone but guards.
 
It's different in countries where you pay for healthcare, but in my country, you don't. The whole "why should we have to pay" argument doesn't wash with me.

There is a lot of other stuff that has been posted since i last posted that i want to comment on but i have to go somewhere now. This however is perhaps the most Naive/incompetent statement i have ever read... anywhere.

Who pays for your health care? I know its socialized that means that the heath care fairy pays for it... wait i don't believe in fairies. Whether they print it and devalue the money you have or tax it and literally take your money you still pay for it. In fact with socialized health care you probably pay more for it than we do and don't get the same quality of service cause there is no reason for competition.

This statement that you made will pretty much discount any any further statements you make on any subject because it shows a complete lack of effort to understand.
 
I think people have to look at the big picture here with regards to what we allow our own governments to do. You have to understand that individuals within every government always want to take a few extra inches and as such giving them any sort of power that may resemble a facist state can lead to a loss of balance and eventual loss of individual liberties. Always remember that all parts of society function like a bell curve.

Take for example intelligence - which is determined based on average IQ being 100 and a standard deviation being 15. If everyone's IQ suddenly doubled, or was halved, we'd still have the same measuring stick, simply "average" would mean something different. Crime, mental health, aptitude, physical ability, are all measured competitively. Even the concept of poverty isn't grounded in some moralistic anchor - people's standard of living today, which could be considered "poverty" might be far superior to the average standard of 100 years ago, or in a poorer country.

Therefore frusterations about people who of the herd who are "dragging ass" is pointless. If those people improved, the standards of "pulling your own weight" would go up and the same or others would then be considered the "ass draggers." For this reason, giving the government the power to try and cull the herd can be a scary proposition. Giving a legal distinction between contributing members of society is vastly troublesome as what we'd really be doing, when we talk about evolution enforced within a society, is eugenics.

What you're talking about, with execution as a "cost saving measure" is a streamlined process of this. Besides the obvious legal bias against minorities in criminal trials, as well as underprivileged, who may be for obvious reasons more likely to commit said crimes, are also far more likely to be wrongfully convicted, you have the potential jump in false positives, with innocent people wrongfully convicted as you weaken the appeals process to make executions more cost effective than imprisonment.

So now we're doing what? Executing the mentally imbalanced and the otherwise incapable of working? Not for that alone but that coupled with them committing crimes. You can't imprison them and keep them alive without paying the high cost, but at the same time you can't let them roam free as they pose a danger to society.

Let me offer a counter proposal, that I feel might be a more humane and practical solution:

First off while I'm not opposed to execution in theory, at the moment I think it's such an epic failure that it's rather pointless. Modern governments are too much of layered, inefficient beaurocracies to be given such awesome power as of now. Executions, as stated, in our current legal state(which is where we are, NOT fantasy land where murder trials are simple legal procedures), are too expensive and ultimately ineffective deterrents. Deterrents are based on a short time lapse between an action and a reaction. If people are executed for crimes they committed over a decade ago, it has served no practical purpose.

Next up, drug crimes. The prisons are full of dealers and users of illegal drugs. The reason for this? The drugs being illegal. If they were legal, and taxed, in the first place, it would speed up the clogged legal system, add tax revenue, and clear out prisons.

With the court system being sped up, punishments would be more effective as deterrents. Prison systems can also be easily curved cost wise without the need to brutalize criminals. I'm not going to go into details but prisons have a pretty wild range of cost/prisoners based on the management.

The truth of the matter, the higher the cost/prisoner ratio, the greater the higher the crime rate in the area. It's not that the criminals go straight, but they tend to do crimes in areas with more expensive prisons, where there quality of life inside will be better. If EVERY prison worked the same way, it's not known if crime rates themselves would just uniformly drop, but at any rate, it would lower costs.

Another thing to concern over - ex cons have a terrible time finding work. When you can't find a legitamate job, it's likely to fall back to crime as a way to make a living. I'd say try to educate criminals while they're in the system as a method to keep them away from crime, but most of you would probably respond that it would be rewarding them for committing crime(which wouldn't be wrong but it might be irrelevant).
 
so wait, so many actually agree with me and my "Execute the fuckers" mentality? XD I mean, so many seem to be for it too. And, I repeat, I am only like that toward murderers and rapists... so sick :\ ah well..

I do see perhaps the one argument (if my half assed reading of the posts are correct XD) that I agree with and potentially dispute my mentality on execution and such and that is giving the government such power over its people to kill is a tricky thing.
 
Last edited:
I fucking hate that. Insanity isn't a fucking excuse for what this guy did. He should be executed, and not be supported by the fucking government to sit in a padded cell.
 
I fucking hate that. Insanity isn't a fucking excuse for what this guy did. He should be executed, and not be supported by the fucking government to sit in a padded cell.

I'm late getting in on this, but I see where the justice system has failed in the states. I see it everyday, like for instance the asst. chief of police in my town beat the hell outa his wife...The chief, for years covered up for him, a few months ago he did it again. The sheriffs dept said "Hey this guy keeps getting away with this shit, so they called the news the last time. Do you know what happened to him. He made a 500 dollar bail, was busted down to patrolman and had to go to anger management classes. (Town paid for that)

So now you think well him being a sane person unlike the person in the story here, that he would not do it again? HA No way like 2 weeks ago BAM same thing beat the hell outa his wife AGAIN ( he kept finding her out around town, the time prior to the most recent he dragged her out of the car at a gas station by her hair... through the window... what an asshole) Now he is in jail with no bond.

Now he can stay in jail and be miraculously changed (like jail does to people)
Because now they "found god" or whatever they think they should be let out.
But that wont change him.

Now for the crazy guy.

This dood was way gone, either way he was quite aware of what he was doing, my ex hubby was bi-polar with homicidal tendencies, which means he attempted harm on another person, ask him if he knew what he was doing was wrong. He says YES , but that he thought it would make him feel better if he just killed the guy. I'm not saying this is the same case here, but the guy should pay for his crimes.

I'm sick and tired of all these people that feel like everyone deserves a fair chance after committing an atrocity like this. Was it fair to the person that they killed, raped, etc? Fuck no! So why should we care whats fair to them?


And just for lolz send his ass to Texas they don't have a problem giving the death penalty to crazies!
 
There is a lot of other stuff that has been posted since i last posted that i want to comment on but i have to go somewhere now. This however is perhaps the most Naive/incompetent statement i have ever read... anywhere.

Who pays for your health care? I know its socialized that means that the heath care fairy pays for it... wait i don't believe in fairies. Whether they print it and devalue the money you have or tax it and literally take your money you still pay for it. In fact with socialized health care you probably pay more for it than we do and don't get the same quality of service cause there is no reason for competition.

This statement that you made will pretty much discount any any further statements you make on any subject because it shows a complete lack of effort to understand.

You know, it's funny; when some people talk utter shit, I think they convince themselves that the things they're saying are actually true, and this appears to be the case here. You're talking complete, and utter, horseshit. There is nothing naive or incompetent about what I said - if your issue is that I disagree with you, then go fucking cry more.

Back on point, I'll show you where you're going wrong. When I say I don't pay for healthcare, I mean when I break my leg and I go to the hospital, I don't have to pay for the operation to get my leg fixed :shok: Now, I (apparently wrongfully) assumed that in the "reality sinks in" section of these forums, some common sense would indicate that was what I meant. Clearly, you're either too fucking stupid to understand this, or you're playing ignorant. I don't know which it is. I'll go with the first, so I'll clarify again; Yes, my taxes pay for my healthcare, and I pay taxes, but that's where the difference is between paying for your healthcare and paying taxes which pay for your healthcare; the first you pay if something happens, the second you already pay and are covered no matter what happens. Ugetityet?

I'd like to counter what you said by stating that your post, in fact, is the most incompetent drivel I've read in a good few weeks - and I've been reading the flameboard.
 
If someone is sick enough to mercilessly hack someones head off with a hunting knife (typically 5-8" long or somewhere around 14-21cm), bowl it around the crime scene like he's trying to hit some pins, come out asking to be killed and have it come to light that he only feels this way in spats and refuses medical treatment; to have officials say he might be released because he's not that bad all the time? Do you want him running around the same neighborhood your children play in?

Going further, what about the sex offenders? The ones that prey on children of either sex or adult women. Do you want them running about simply because they acted like good little boys in prison? What about the folks that manufacture and distribute drugs to minors? They should be allowed to roam free? Would you call these people functioning members of society? Would you allow them to live next door to you and your family or anyone elses?

As far as taxes go, I would far rather spend money paying for healthcare for the elderly than be making sure Johnny StabbyHands has 3 meals a day and a nice plasma TV with cable to watch in the common room of his prison floor or pay for him to have internet access or pay for him to get his GED so he can think he's a lawyer and waste MORE of our money trying to appeal his case because he got "fucked by his lawyer".

Natural selection has been pushed out of the equation and I think that it needs to be back in. You fuck with the pack, you get killed. You can't hack it, you die. I care very much about what happens in the world that I live in and I think its about time we stopped giving so much of a flying arse about how we treat the people who hurt members of our society and focus on our starving, undereducated children that don't have any clean clothes on their backs and don't know any better than to yank out babies and leech off the government and the rest of normal, working society.

Missed your post lol'ing at Dejavu's :wacko: My answers are pretty much no, no, no, no and no. I don't want this guy walking the streets etc etc. I just don't want him executed outside some bus because he uttered the words "please kill me =(". I think, as I've already said, that the whole yearly evaluation and chance to get out is bullshit, and he should be in either a mental asylum or prison for the rest of his life. I can't really clarify where I stand on it more than that.
 
You know, it's funny; when some people talk utter shit, I think they convince themselves that the things they're saying are actually true, and this appears to be the case here. You're talking complete, and utter, horseshit. There is nothing naive or incompetent about what I said - if your issue is that I disagree with you, then go fucking cry more.

Back on point, I'll show you where you're going wrong. When I say I don't pay for healthcare, I mean when I break my leg and I go to the hospital, I don't have to pay for the operation to get my leg fixed :shok: Now, I (apparently wrongfully) assumed that in the "reality sinks in" section of these forums, some common sense would indicate that was what I meant. Clearly, you're either too fucking stupid to understand this, or you're playing ignorant. I don't know which it is. I'll go with the first, so I'll clarify again; Yes, my taxes pay for my healthcare, and I pay taxes, but that's where the difference is between paying for your healthcare and paying taxes which pay for your healthcare; the first you pay if something happens, the second you already pay and are covered no matter what happens. Ugetityet?

I'd like to counter what you said by stating that your post, in fact, is the most incompetent drivel I've read in a good few weeks - and I've been reading the flameboard.

Well... we will call this one woosh.

First off lets make a distinction between insurance and Socialized healthcare.

Insurance everyone puts money into the company according to their medical history and risk assessment. Then everyone who paid into it gets what they need. In this way assuming that nothing unexpected happened higher risk people pay more and get more and are protected and the lower risk people pay less and get less yet are still protected.

Socialized healthcare everyone puts their money into the government based on how much money they make. Then everyone no matter how much they put into the pot get what they need no matter their risk or if they put any money in at all.

Now what you are describing takes place in both situations... you break your leg and the money that you have already paid to the government with socialized health care or the insurance provider for insurance and either way your leg gets fixed because you have paid for it basically in advance. Also because you are younger and most likely have less risk you probably have paid for your broken leg several times assuming you have a decent job because you have to cover other people who suck at making money or bodies are fucked.

Now in the case of the retard who has officially become a ward of the state he will no longer pay taxes. This means that he will be getting everything he needs FROM THE STATE. When it comes from the state the tax payers pay for it whether or not he is a tax payer or not.

If you are not paying taxes and you are getting benefits other people are covering you costs and your argument makes no sense at all. When you say lock him up and never let him out you are asking to pay for his incarceration and treatment for the rest of his life and no matter how you wish to sugarcoat it you are the one paying for it.
 
Let me throw out that medical and mental care doesn't exist in a vacuum. These places that treat criminals are often training grounds for PHD students getting their license, which means lots of cheap unqualified labor.
 
Back
Top