• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British man said to be mentally ill executed in China

Hatuey said:
We don't execute smugglers. We give them the universal human right to a fair trial. Then we send them to jail. And when they get out? Back to Me-Ji-Ko.
Click to expand...

No, we give them a US constitutional right to a fair trial. This "universal human right" has nothing to do with how we run our country or how we treat the accused. Everything we do is or supposed to do is based on the US constitution and American laws.
 
Australianlibertarian said:
It is not an idiotic notion....

The U.S jurisprudence has developed a great deal of jurisprudence relating to criminal culpability since the important British case of MacNaughten. To be guilty of a crime a person must have committed both the physical and mental element of the crime. Thus mental illeness, raises real issues as to whether the accused mentally comprehended their actions.
Click to expand...
I do not care if the criminal mentally compregended their actions it does not change the fact they commited the crime. Justice and the victims of crime should not be disregarded because some fucken degenerate piece of shit quack says the accused is insane. The accused mental condition should have nothing to do with whether or not the accused is found guilty and how the accused is punished.

Consequently, your notion that mental illness is irrelevant, demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the rich common law jurisprudence that has developed in your nation and fellow common law nations.
Click to expand...
A

I do not care about laws outside my nation. They should never have anything to do with laws in my country. We can say hey thats a good idea for a law in this country and petition our elected officials to make a law similar to that in some other country, but still no judge in this country should base his ruling or even read up on cases or laws from another country.

and let me tell you, even textualists see the importance of the MacNaughten rules..... But maybe I'm wrong, maybe the legal profession in all it wisdom has no f*cking clue, and maybe we should abrogate mens rae as soon as the crime involves drugs. Absolute liability and the death penalty for drug smuggling...
Click to expand...

The whole insanity defense was so scumbag lawyers can try to get their client off the hook when they know for a fact their client is guilty and some rat in a robe and dumbass jury bought it. It is also something used by scumbag sympathizers to get their panties in a bunch to try to help scumbags weasel out of their punishment. If that drug smuggler was only sentenced to prison in China I guarantee that nobody would give a **** about the accused allegedly having bipolar or some other mental illness.

I understand that scumbag's family trying to claim what ever they can to get him off the hook, nobody wants to see a loved one go to prison or be executed.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's not his thinking that is flawed. Portugal has markedly lower levels of gun crime than other developed nations, which rather blows your partisan assumption out of the water.
Click to expand...
You are of course incorrect and inaccurate. The Government is commiting the theft in the form of taxation, and of course like all governments, they enforce their will with military and police firearms.

You also offer the rather quaint misconception that violent crime is only violent if committed with a firearms. This would be great comfort to those accosted with knives.

Finally, I always find it charming that so many people simply assume that the statistics offered up by countries are completely genuine, honest, precise and unadulterated.
 
Oftencold said:
You are of course incorrect and inaccurate. The Government is commiting the theft in the form of taxation, and of course like all governments, they enforce their will with military and police firearms.
Click to expand...

Then vote out the people responsible. That's democracy.

Oftencold said:
Finally, I always find it charming that so many people simply assume that the statistics offered up by countries are completely genuine, honest, precise and unadulterated.
Click to expand...

Governments in the democratic world use statistics and studies whose sources are traceable and thus can be subjected to criticism. That's democracy.
 
I'm against capitol punishment and I'm for legalization of drugs, but to say that someone isn't responsible for their actions because they have bipolar disorder is downright hilarious. There's mental illness and then there's mental illness. Some people are really crazy, but bipolar disorder?!! C'mon. Can I kill anyone I want to if I have a fear of heights?
 
jamesrage said:
No, we give them a US constitutional right to a fair trial. This "universal human right" has nothing to do with how we run our country or how we treat the accused. Everything we do is or supposed to do is based on the US constitution and American laws.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Government Disagrees with You :

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights]Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Click to expand...

A person has a right to a fair trial here or in any country of the world. To believe that the founding fathers put such a right in the constitution like it was some revolutionary thought they had is rather silly.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not care if the criminal mentally compregended their actions it does not change the fact they commited the crime. Justice and the victims of crime should not be disregarded because some fucken degenerate piece of shit quack says the accused is insane. The accused mental condition should have nothing to do with whether or not the accused is found guilty and how the accused is punished.

A

I do not care about laws outside my nation. They should never have anything to do with laws in my country. We can say hey thats a good idea for a law in this country and petition our elected officials to make a law similar to that in some other country, but still no judge in this country should base his ruling or even read up on cases or laws from another country.



The whole insanity defense was so scumbag lawyers can try to get their client off the hook when they know for a fact their client is guilty and some rat in a robe and dumbass jury bought it. It is also something used by scumbag sympathizers to get their panties in a bunch to try to help scumbags weasel out of their punishment. If that drug smuggler was only sentenced to prison in China I guarantee that nobody would give a **** about the accused allegedly having bipolar or some other mental illness.

I understand that scumbag's family trying to claim what ever they can to get him off the hook, nobody wants to see a loved one go to prison or be executed.
Click to expand...

The accused mental capacity has always played an important role in whether or not they are guilty or have reduced culpability for the crime. This is why we have a large volume of jurisprudence relating to mens rae and/or mental illness.

Err, no the insanity defence was not invented so that scumbag lawyers could get their client off the hook. It may be that in today's world, some lawyers attempt to do this, but in contrast the MacNaughten rules, and other jurisprudence were developed to deal with the issue of mental illness. If you don't agree with the need to demonstrate mens rae, then obviously you have no interest in your own countries' jurisprudence and the common law's notion of justice.

Secondly, even if he had not been killed, the issue of mental illness is still important. However, when the accused may face the death penalty, then the issue of mental illness becomes paramount.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I could care less if someone claims to be mentally ill. It doesn't the fact they committed the crime.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

If a person commits a crime, and they are mentally ill, if the illness from which they suffer alters their mental state to the point where they are not in control of their actions, in the United States of America, they are not accountable for those actions.

Likewise, if a mentally ill person, who is vulnerable to suggestion, is taken advantage of by others, he or she is not responsible for the outcome of his or her actions.
 
Vader said:
You are incorrect.

If a person commits a crime, and they are mentally ill, if the illness from which they suffer alters their mental state to the point where they are not in control of their actions, in the United States of America, they are not accountable for those actions.

Likewise, if a mentally ill person, who is vulnerable to suggestion, is taken advantage of by others, he or she is not responsible for the outcome of his or her actions.
Click to expand...
That is precisely what I tried to convey sometime ago. This applies in the UK and all civilized countries. Well put Vlad
 
And yet ... China wonders why the rest of the world dislikes them.
 
Scorpion89 said:
well China excuted this person and what did England do to stop this nothing, yea they stomp there feet and cried like all politition do but in the end England nor any other County in the World wasn't going to do anything do to the fact of global trade.

way to cave in England what you should have done was march over tot eh Chinese Embasy place everyone under arrest and inform China that they have two choice.

Choice #1 Release this person to an UK official and we will release you Embasy

Choice #2 If you do excute this person then we will excute your Ambasador and declare a state of War.

But then again in this day and age none of this would happen.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a horrendous idea. Thank God we keep people like you from being in charge.
 
Insanity plea is nothing unusual in capital punishment cases and judges won't be fooled. Just like in the Fort Hood shooting case Nidal Malik Hassan's attorney will use the same strategy during the trial.
 
RDS said:
Insanity plea is nothing unusual in capital punishment cases and judges won't be fooled. Just like in the Fort Hood shooting case Nidal Malik Hassan's attorney will use the same strategy during the trial.
Click to expand...
I thought you had a jury system in the US?
 
What, you do not agree with 12 men/women good and true?.

Ps do you still flog miscreants in Singapaw?
 
Last edited:
RDS said:
Yes Bill Clinton appealed but we told him to eat more burgers.
Click to expand...
clinton was a cannibal:shock: I wandered why he spent time in Sri Lanka
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom