"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[Spiffor]

What Civman said

[NeOmega]

If he is guilty, he needs to die. If not he needs to be left alone by the world.

[DinoDoc]

Why are we assuming the guy is insane?

[Zulu Elephant]

anyone who kills kids is insane

anyone who thinks they are god is insane

anyone who kills a load of people for no reason and is calm afterwards is insane

[DinoDoc]

I don't see how you arruve at that conclusion.

[Zulu Elephant]

simple

I just dont believe in good and evil

Structuralism

[The Mad Monk]

The legal definition of insanity is that the person in question does not realize that what he is doing is wrong.

[DinoDoc]

That doesn't answer the question.

[mrmitchell]

Well, the article was a little confusing, but if he had multiple kids with 5 wives, and more kids with some of his daughters, and had them all so he could kill them, and thought he was God...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
What, you from Florida or something?

I decided to see if this case could change people's minds -- at least as far as this case is concerned. It's horrific, and there's little if any doubt that he did it.

I'd be interested to learn what folks do think would be just.

I think that cases like these - that are just completely insane - aren't as good examples of why we need the death penalty as cases where the killer is quite plainly and consciously evil. For instance, I think the death penalty is not only an acceptable punishment for treason, but the one that should be applied.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Well, the article was a little confusing, but if he had multiple kids with 5 wives, and more kids with some of his daughters, and had them all so he could kill them, and thought he was God...

Well, he did act God-like, so maybe it was true.

[Whaleboy]

Zulu:

I don't see how you arruve at that conclusion.

I think what he's getting at is that within the context of a society (rather than making a canonical statement), in order to kill one has to be mentally insane, since the rest of us seem to have a mental barrier to doing so. Those people are insane and should be placed into mental homes.

Now as for the DP, you could argue that that saves resources. However, they have committed the crime, but you are making the proposition of a punishment, and taking that person into your care. Because of the question of risk, that is, at the moment of death is that person a threat to those who have taken him into care, allowing him to die in that case constitutes murder.

The only way a DP would be justifiable would be DIRECTLY saving the life of another victim, i.e., if someone has a gun to my head, and a police officer has a gun to the perps head, the officer has the right to pull the trigger. The legitimacy of state-sponsored death ends there.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The legal definition of insanity is that the person in question does not realize that what he is doing is wrong.

Well he's killed a load of people. After the first murder he must have either decided that what he was doing was not wrong (therefore insane) or felt some kind of uncontrollable urge to keep doing something which he though was wrong (I would say insane too)

There are four aspects to sentancing (whether it be jail, a fine or whatever)

Punishment - Eye for an eye(ish) etc.

Rehabilitation - Making people see the error of their ways and change

Detterant - Trying to make people think of what will happen to them if they commit a crime

Keeping Society safe - If a murderer is in prison, they cant keep killing people

The death penalty cant be squared with these because of what I said about punishing the insane

It doesnt have a rehab side, Its not a detterant to the insane and you can keep society safe by locking them up - you dont have to go as far as killing them

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I think what he's getting at is that within the context of a society (rather than making a canonical statement), in order to kill one has to be mentally insane, since the rest of us seem to have a mental barrier to doing so.

I don't see how one arrives at the conclusion that people who kill others must by definition be insane. So far neither one of you seem to be able to provide anything resembling substance to support that conclusion.

[Mercator]

When I saw this on the news yesterday, I actually saw one of his neighbors (?) saying that he was a very friendly guy, always saying "hi" etc... While this article seems to only show everyone thought he was a loony... Not that that makes much difference if he killed all those people...

And, no, this case doesn't qualify for the death penalty, nor is this the worst it can get... Would you really consider this guy worse than, say, Saddam? That police officer was just being a little emotional, which is obviously entirely understandable.