[Chumley]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

Would i want him to sit next to me on the bus in the state that he was in: obviously not, but once treated it's not the same situation. I've been around people with mental illnesses and when treated they aren't as extreme although it's still intimidating I'll admit for different reasons.

$1:

And if its ok for someone who has a physical illness to be euthanized then why not someone who is suffering from a mental one?

Come on, don't even call it euthanasia, pity for someone who is clinically dead is one thing, but it's clear that this wouldn't be because he is "suffering", it's that your looking for any argument that would provide enough justification to kill him, don't label that euthanasia.
Plus it's not like this disease can be managed...if he has one...again I'm going off of what i read in the article

Not as extreme when medicated huh? Well thats good. Maybe he won't eat any of his victims body parts next time. Thats awesome.
If he asks to be killed because his ability to control himself from killing randomly is non existant then I would call it euthansia. He is morally dead.
Maybe he has just enough sanity left in him to ask for what he needs.
If he hadn't asked for it, It would be execution.

[cheryl08]

by extreme i mean they aren't violent.

And you can't just assume that "killing people randomly" is his problem which i would pretty much label a psychopath than anything else
But I think that's kind of interesting...."euthanasia for the mentally ill" although i would say it has a barbaric feel to it...I can see where your going with it, but in this case i don't think it applies or at least not until medical treatment is actually made available and progress is monitored.

[Brenda]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

Brenda Brenda:

Who's talking 2 years??? Even 20 is too short.

I don't think you have to explain mental health issues here though...

But, as long as a team of psychiatrist has not diagnosed what or if he is suffering from, you are assuming.

Actually even the crown suggested he should be analyzed to see if he is in fact mentally ill so i would say I'm just suggesting a different perspective. If he isn't then obviously my opinion will change

As for the "Next time it might be you(r loved one)..." comment, I'd appreciate it if you left out the crude remarks, its just an opinion and I find it offensive that you would write something like that.

The crown suggests that with every murder case.

Crude remarks???
This was not crude. If you can't live with remarks like that, maybe you are too soft and sweet for this forums I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I am not taking back my words.

Of course it is just an opinion. Just as your assumptions are your opinions. So?

[cheryl08]

$1:

The crown suggests that with every murder case.

Crude remarks???
This was not crude. If you can't live with remarks like that, maybe you are too soft and sweet for his forums I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I am not taking back my words.

Of course it is just an opinion. Just as your assumptions are your opinions. So?

Actually they don't, not for every murder case, just one's where the offender has a record of unstable behavior or there was something "psychotic" in the way the murder took place.
And it's not that I'm "too soft or sweet", its that I prefer to use reasonable arguments and facts to support my opinion not stupid remarks.
And just so you know this isn't about your emotional opinion, just because you want him to get life doesn't make it so....this is about the law and how the law deals with issues like this.

[martin14]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

$1:

....this is about the law and how the law deals with issues like this.

and truly, what a shame it is ..

is there a victim in here somewhere ? victims family ?

hmm no justice coming, so we should prepare some meds for the victims

family too... yep, drugs fixes it all.

[Brenda]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

$1:

The crown suggests that with every murder case.

Crude remarks???
This was not crude. If you can't live with remarks like that, maybe you are too soft and sweet for his forums I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I am not taking back my words.

Of course it is just an opinion. Just as your assumptions are your opinions. So?

Actually they don't, not for every murder case, just one's where the offender has a record of unstable behavior or there was something "psychotic" in the way the murder took place.
And it's not that I'm "too soft or sweet", its that I prefer to use reasonable arguments and facts to support my opinion not stupid remarks.
And just so you know this isn't about your emotional opinion, just because you want him to get life doesn't make it so....this is about the law and how the law deals with issues like this.

Well, I am sorry to have bothered you... All I have seen you state are emotional opinions. No facts.. Just assumptions...

What was your point again?

[Yogi]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

by extreme i mean they aren't violent.

And you can't just assume that "killing people randomly" is his problem which i would pretty much label a psychopath than anything else
But I think that's kind of interesting...."euthanasia for the mentally ill" although i would say it has a barbaric feel to it...I can see where your going with it, but in this case i don't think it applies or at least not until medical treatment is actually made available and progress is monitored.

Please explain to us then, the point of spending the time and resources trying to 'make this guy all better' and then keeping him locked up until he dies, which in a hospital setting could be many, many years. To what end? What is the point of keeping this person, or others like him, alive? They, by your own admission shall NEVER be released to become contributing members of society. What is the point of feeding, housing, attending to his every medical requirement for the rest of his life? These same funds and resources could be better used helping out someone who has never committed any crimes!

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Apparently, it's not only the evil Muslims who are into stoning...

Uhhh.... when was the last time you heard of Jews and Christians, or any other group, stoning people for the crimes you listed??? These laws were written over 3 000 yrs ago for people who lived 3 000 yrs ago. Islam adopted Levitican laws from Judaism when Mohammad John Smith (E)L. Hubbard created Islam. Certain Muslim societies use this form of punishment, to this very day.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-upda ... n-20080115

$1:

Iran's Penal Code prescribes execution by stoning as the penalty for adultery by married persons. It even dictates that the stones are large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the victim immediately.

$1:

Despite official claims that stonings have been halted - including a moratorium issued by the Head of the Judiciary in 2002 - several have taken place, with the latest only last year. Ja'far Kiani, a man, was stoned to death for adultery on 5 July 2007 in the village of Aghche-kand, near Takestan in Qazvin province. There are fears that Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, with whom he had two children, may suffer the same fate. She is in Choubin prison, Qazvin province, apparently with one of their children. A woman and a man are also known to have been stoned to death in Mashhad in May 2006.

The majority of those sentenced to death by stoning are women. Women are not treated equally with men under the law and by courts, and they are also particularly vulnerable to unfair trials because their higher illiteracy rate makes them more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit.

I was pointing out that if Tritium wants to live by Old Testament rules, such as an eye for an eye, then he should live by ALL of them, not just those he chooses. Otherwise he's a hypocrite.

It's one of my biggest beefs with Christianity. Many Christians I know still advocate 'an eye for an eye', even though Jesus specifically taught otherwise. As a Christian, they should be following the teachings of JESUS CHRIST, not the Old Testmaent. Otherwise, technically, they are not really Christians (maybe they are Old Testamentians ).

Too many Christians I know seem to think they can pick and choose what parts of the Bible are relevant. Either it all is or it isn't. Either you believe in Jesus or you don't. Either you follow his teachings or you don't. It's that simple. Twisting his teachings into what works for you is not religion.

Religion isn't a buffet for you to pick and choose, it's all or nothing.

[cheryl08]

Yogi Yogi:

cheryl08 cheryl08:

by extreme i mean they aren't violent.

And you can't just assume that "killing people randomly" is his problem which i would pretty much label a psychopath than anything else
But I think that's kind of interesting...."euthanasia for the mentally ill" although i would say it has a barbaric feel to it...I can see where your going with it, but in this case i don't think it applies or at least not until medical treatment is actually made available and progress is monitored.

Please explain to us then, the point of spending the time and resources trying to 'make this guy all better' and then keeping him locked up until he dies, which in a hospital setting could be many, many years. To what end? What is the point of keeping this person, or others like him, alive? They, by your own admission shall NEVER be released to become contributing members of society. What is the point of feeding, housing, attending to his every medical requirement for the rest of his life? These same funds and resources could be better used helping out someone who has never committed any crimes!

Thats the thing though, can you really make that call? And the point of giving them medical treatment is because it is not their fault! thats why they are called mental disorders.
Thats like saying why bother helping someone with downsyndrome when they will never be able to fully contribute to society anyways. When you deal with matters such as these in an aggressive manner because you want retribution from the crime committed, you set a dangerous precedent, and its that precedent that needs to be avoided.

[Brenda]

What should be avoided, is that people like this ever walk on the streets again. I don't care how it is going to be avoided.

If they are so sick to not be able to function in today's society, they should be in a safe place. For my safety.

[TattoodGirl]

When the psych Eval comes in and If he is found unfit to stand trial, He will end up spending the rest of his days in a Forensic Psych facility. Due to the level of violence, even with meds stabilization, they would not release someone back into society. There is never a guarantee someone will stay on meds.

[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

It should not matter if "he meant to do what he did". He did, he murdered someone SO brutally...

Which is pure emotional nonsense. Is it less brutal to stab someone only twenty times and not cut off their head? The person is still dead in the end. If he had done this several times to several people, then we could argue that he meant to do it and was fully conscious of what he was doing.

[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

The only way to prevent this from happening, as you might know very well, is not to stuff him with medication and eventually kick him back on the streets so he can forget about taking them and do it again, but is to lock him up for life. I couldn't care less if that was in a mental institution or not. I just don't want this murderer back on my streets. Simple as that. Next time it might be you(r loved one)...

FUD is not a legal policy.

[Brenda]

romanP romanP:

Brenda Brenda:

It should not matter if "he meant to do what he did". He did, he murdered someone SO brutally...

Which is pure emotional nonsense. Is it less brutal to stab someone only twenty times and not cut off their head? The person is still dead in the end. If he had done this several times to several people, then we could argue that he meant to do it and was fully conscious of what he was doing.

No, there is no difference. You might keep your assumptions to yourself.

We can never argue if he was fully concious. There is only one who knows that, and that is himself. Any more assumptions?

[Brenda]

romanP romanP:

FUD is not a legal policy.

FUD?