Brain Scans Used In Murder Sentencing 328
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.
OK slashdot. (Score:2)
Re:OK slashdot. (Score:5, Funny)
Err, what if he's thinking about Chewbacca? Might even get him acquitted.
Re: (Score:2)
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 :)
Great defence! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great defence! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Great defence! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Troll)
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 socie
Re:Great defence! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capital Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Capital Punishment (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Capital Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
-1 Troll != -1 Disagree
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. He makes a reasonable statement that is not trollish in anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Capital Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell yeah [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 crimina
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 [deathpenaltyinfo.org] a prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:Capital Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Troll)
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, "
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
So that's what people mean when they say the weather is murderous.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Population density may make a difference, in which case artificially introduced boundaries won't change a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 failur
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Capital Punishment (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
"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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Capital Punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
People will NEVER pay for the long term lockup of violent offenders
Stop spending ~$43,000 [yahoo.com] 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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Too bad one of those women didn't have a firearm. Might have ended differently.
Re: (Score:2)
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. Regula
Re: (Score:2)
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
Nature versus Nurture (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Nature versus Nurture (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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, b
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Psychic Justice (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 upbr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Illinois- Death Penalty Without the Death (Score:4, Interesting)
Before we go insane thinking he'll be set free... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may now return to your previously-scheduled flame war.
Re: (Score:2)
1990? (Score:2)
Did this happen in 1990, by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but what about Bob Saget?
That'll show 'em! (Score:2)
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.
Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 di
I am shocked, shocked I say! (Score:2)
Okay, now just re-focus. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
So, you still have the death penalty... (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Turn About, Fairly (Score:2)
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
Brian Dugan is scum and deserves to die (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)