All three scenarios are accidents where it wasn't intended. You could also add falling asleep at the wheel, often driving tired can be more dangerous than drunk driving. Usually seizure accidents are by people with a previous history of them or have a condition that increases there likelihood.

Some mother drowns five of her kids, what do I care what her state of mind was? Either she's sane or completely defective. I see much more justice in putting away crazy mass murders than putting away people for 'crimes' where they've not injured anyone or their property.

Neal Anderth wrote:Some mother drowns five of her kids, what do I care what her state of mind was? Either she's sane or completely defective. I see much more justice in putting away crazy mass murders than putting away people for 'crimes' where they've not injured anyone or their property.

So basically you chain her to a stone and throw her in a lake, regardless wether she 1) wanted to run away with her new boyfriend unencumbered 2) she had a braintumor that caused her to be delusional ?

bbauska

Acting to prevent crimes? This is not the government's responsibility to prevent crime.

really?
One of the rationales for punishing criminals is to demonstrate that crimes have consequences for the one committing the crime. Thus causing people who might consider a criminal act, to be persuaded from the action.
Without the rationale of deterrence, your view seems to be that the criminal courts are about nothing but retribution and vengance.
The whole purpose of making laws, making some things illegal to do, is to prevent their commission. Are you saying that govenrments have no role in making laws?

Faxmonkey wrote:The commandment thou shalt not kill is really simple and straightforward and still there are numerous accepted exceptions and always have been. It was even considered a good thing to kill the right people (whoever that happened to be at any given time).

Indeed, not long after apparently issuing the 10 commandments, God told the Israelites to kill loads of people - wiping out whole tribes, and punishing Israel for not going far or fast enough at one point.

When you say the crazy person should be dealt in the same way as someone who killed for greed or out of hate i'm really at loss what to say. That would make about as much sense as treating a drunk driver who killed someone the same way as someone who had a seizure or heart attack while driving and killed someone in an accident. The vicitim is dead either way, but the situation is completely different and can't be resolved by a simple principle in a way I would consider fair or just.

Indeed. The whole thing about being judged insane in this way is that it means (and must be demonstrated) that the person concerned is not in control of their own mind or actions. To hold them responsible for their actions and intent as if they were is manifestly unjust. But hey, I guess 'justice' isn't always the same thing to all people.

I get the appeal of simple and straightforward in an ever more complex world, but i really don't see how that's going to work.

It's a common human trait, a desire for simplicity. When we were kids, for most of us life was simple. Other people made the rules, paid for our home, made our food. We had school to go to (which was fairly simply structures) and lots of free time. As adults, we gain a load of responsibilities, fears, problems, baggage. Who wouldn't want to go back? Who wouldn't want life to be easier to understand? Unfortunately, such nostalgic impulses are pointless - the world is complex, but children are to a large extent shielded from it.

I said nothing about brutality or the OT.

You destroy someone's life because they have drugs or a gun and haven't hurt nor intended to hurt anyone. Yet you give ground to mass murders. There's plenty of sweet crazy people, I've got no use for the mass murdering type.

Reverse the situation and think about intent. If a crazy person stabbed a watermelon because they thought it was a neighbor they didn't like, would you charge them with a homicide and put them in prison for life?

The other point lest it be lost sight of, is that it's part of the purpose of a jury to take in to account extraordinary circumstances. Put Loughner in front of a jury and let them make the call.

Early translations use the version "You shall not MURDER", not kill. That came from the Catholic church. To me, murder is different than killing, and I thought we were talking about murder.

Neal Anderth wrote:I said nothing about brutality or the OT.

You destroy someone's life because they have drugs or a gun and haven't hurt nor intended to hurt anyone. Yet you give ground to mass murders. There's plenty of sweet crazy people, I've got no use for the mass murdering type.

This has nothing to do with the current laws on drugs or weapons at all. Though when you mention them: the people that do drugs or own weapons without licencese KNOW that what they do is illegal, so you could very well argue that they have only themselves to blame. After all they choose to disobey the law.
The truly crazy have usually scientifically measurable chemical imbalances or malformations in the brain, thus they do not get to chose to be not crazy.

Neal Anderth wrote:Reverse the situation and think about intent. If a crazy person stabbed a watermelon because they thought it was a neighbor they didn't like, would you charge them with a homicide and put them in prison for life?

Of course not, but then there probably should be a process by which you can force such people into treatment, because that seems to be a ticking timebomb.

Neal Anderth wrote:The other point lest it be lost sight of, is that it's part of the purpose of a jury to take in to account extraordinary circumstances. Put Loughner in front of a jury and let them make the call.

Oh well your jury system. Lets say i'm less than certain that that is acutally a good system, but that's another topic entirely.

I'm not saying Loughner is insane, or that he deserves a free pass if he is indeed insane. I'm saying that if he is truly insane prison is not the appropriate institution for him and neither would be the death penalty. And that has nothing to do with my general uneasiness about the death penalty.

Faxmonkey wrote:This has nothing to do with the current laws on drugs or weapons at all. Though when you mention them: the people that do drugs or own weapons without licencese KNOW that what they do is illegal, so you could very well argue that they have only themselves to blame. After all they choose to disobey the law.

They could make it a felony to have more than one serving size of sugar a day too. Think of all the good that would come from nipping that social problem in the butt.

It's a perfect example of having a justice system that isn't based on real harms and is instead based on thought crimes and social engineering.

What natural right do you have to make laws and punish people that have not nor intend to harm you with their personal actions?

Neal Anderth wrote:They could make it a felony to have more than one serving size of sugar a day too. Think of all the good that would come from nipping that social problem in the butt.

Yes they could and it would be nearly as stupid as the drug laws. However for my point it's entirely irrelevant. You argue that if you harm only yourself then it shouldn't be anybody elses business and i agree.
I'm however also saying that if you are incapable of making a sound judgement or any at all for that matter we should deal differently with you than if you willingly and knowingly acted against the law. Think minors or insane people were you can proof developmental stages/problems, antatomical malformations or chemical imbalances of the brain.
In my opinion these aren't cheap cop outs, but rather scientific reasons why our justice systems have to be overhauled. They and public opinion have been outpaced by science.

Neal Anderth wrote:It's a perfect example of having a justice system that isn't based on real harms and is instead based on thought crimes and social engineering.

I've found in a multitude of discussions that a term like "real harm" is open to wide interpretation and entirely a matter of opinion. Thus you can only ever discuss one specific "crime" if you ever want to get somewhere with your argument.

Neal Anderth wrote:What natural right do you have to make laws and punish people that have not nor intend to harm you with their personal actions?

Frankly i don't care to start a debate about libertarianism, or whatever your favorite flavor of ism is. It's complicated enough already without considering the option of burning the system to the ground in hopes that some libertarian utopia will arise, instead of some strongmen which i think much more likely.

My only point is that i don't believe it's fair or rational to ignore scientific facts like real illness or developmental issues when considering the appropriate punishment (or treatment for that matter) for a crime. And i don't think it's appropriate for laymen in either law or science to have to decide such issues .
The average person is sadly highly uneducated in such matters, but at the same time usually believe to have some sound idea or common sense (enemy of rational thought that one) about topics like mental illness (everything is one, like sex addiction :/ or they are all just excuses for weak minded people) or science in general (think ID).

Neal Anderth wrote:IReverse the situation and think about intent. If a crazy person stabbed a watermelon because they thought it was a neighbor they didn't like, would you charge them with a homicide and put them in prison for life?

Possibly. This is a hypo given in a typical criminal law class.

I decide I am pissed off at my boss. I buy a gun, I bring the gun to campus, I walk to the Boss's office and open the door. The lights are off but I see what looks to be the Boss sitting in a chair. I point the gun, say something like "I'm gonna kill you", then pull the trigger and run away. It turns out what I thought was the boss's head in the dark was actually a pumpkin which I hit dead center.

At what point, if any, can I be charged with a crime such a murder or attempted murder.

Attempted murder at the point of shooting. Gun possession charges if applicable.

There are also intent to kill laws, this would certainly meet that.

Here are some of the factors that played a role in Loughner's medical evaluation:

During sessions, did not once break eye contact with the interviewer's crotch.
All of the swastikas scrawled in his notebooks had five spokes.
Said the Rorschach card that's clearly a crab was a scorpion.
Still using iPhone from, like, four models ago.
Purchased the Glock 9mm used in the shooting from Sportsman's Warehouse rather than from the far more reasonably priced Cabela's.
Quoted Ron Paul's economic platform verbatim.
Neighbors described him as a quiet man who kept to himself.
Kept referring to his rights under the Constitution as if that meant anything in Arizona.