• 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!

Tuscon gunmen Jared Loughner ruled unfit to stand trial

This guy really needs about 5 minutes of “come to Jesus” time with someone like me. He would be all about "spirituality" in no time at all.
 
Chappy said:
But, wait! You would have to be insane to acknowledge that you are ever sane enough to stand trial for your life. Seems like a Catch-22 to me.
Click to expand...

That's why you don't get to make that consideration yourself. Not to mention, until you're fit to stand trial, you get to be detained indefinitely in conditions that are only marginally better than prison.
 
He's going to be imprisoned in a Correctional Medical facility. Every inmate in the penal system knows that you don't ever want to have to go there. It's a house of horrors.
 
Wow. What is wrong with you people?

The guy is psychotic. Do you understand what psychotic means? Please read to the end before you call me an idiot. Thanks.

Psychotic means that he has no grasp on reality. He may have chosen to shoot Giffords because he believed she had secret CIA assassins planning to kill him. He may honestly believe something like that.

If you really believed that, if that were undeniably TRUE in your mind, would you not try to do something? You can't call the police - they're in on it. You can't tell your friends - you're surrounded by spies. All you can do is try to take out the controller of the operation. That would be Giffords.

Persecutory delusions are in common schizophrenia. Sometimes they can be very extreme. And while most schizophrenics are more of a danger to themselves than they are to others, some can become so delusional that they may be violent.

A person who is psychotic is genuinely not aware that they are psychotic. They often don't even remember anything that happened during the episode. Their brains are literally being eaten by the sheer power of the illness.

All of these hateful comments leads me to believe none of you really know anything about schizophrenia, or what you're talking about.

You're upset that since he has been deemed insane, you won't get to see him hang. You're sick.

I'm not saying he should just be given some anti-psychotics and set loose. He is obviously dangerous while psychotic, and he needs to be very closely monitored and kept out of society.

It's a shame, because there were indications he was mentally ill long ago. No one did anything about it. The longer you wait to deal with schizophrenia the worse it is - the more of your brain it's destroyed. Your chances of regaining functionality are much lower. Had this been addressed earlier, not only may he not have killed people and wounded Giffords, but he may have been able to live a somewhat normal life.

We have no idea whether he is a bad person. We have no idea if he's even aware he killed people and wounded Giffords, if he intended to, if he even understands what death is at the moment.

I'm sorry that ruins your desire to see some bloodshed, literal or metaphorical. Killing sick people who don't understand what they're doing is what we did in the Dark Ages.

That is an immature, sociopathic way to see reality.
 
Last edited:
Most people assume that if someone is deemed unable to stand trial by reason of insanity that they'll be set loose on the world to freely roam and wreak havoc - which is far from reality.

He'll never be out of sight, out of mind of the justice system and mental health facilities - he will be treated and considered far more strictly than the majority of criminals. . . the only reason why epople don't know about the care and condition of these type of prisoners is that no one gives a **** enough to research and investigate.

And if he's not actually insane - he will be - a few years locked up and he'll be much worse for the wear.

I've heard absolute horror stories from such people through caes studies and so on - they'll drive theirselves completely insane during incarceration.
 
Chappy said:
But, wait! You would have to be insane to acknowledge that you are ever sane enough to stand trial for your life. Seems like a Catch-22 to me.
Click to expand...
This happened near here. A fellow was found not guilty be reason of mental defect of some sort--a disorderly conduct.terroristic threatening thing. He tried to appeal, but was not allowed to. Apparently, AR law doesn't have a provision for that.
IIrc, his penalty would have been pretty stiff otherwise. But, now, he's going to be held indefinitely instead of for a set time.

Arkansas :: Justices toss out appeal in insanity case Accused sought jury trial

I haven't re-read it, so my reporting of details may be off.
 
I'm sorry, but thinking there are little green men running around doesn't get you out of a murder rap.

This cat needs to be tried and if convicted, sentenced to death. You don't plan a murder months in advance and then be found unable to stand trial. WTF?

Talk about make a mockery out of our so called "justice" system.

What happened to pleading insanity when a mentally retarded older brother molests his little sister? He is slammed in court and put in the clink to be raped on a daily basis. At best, he is convicted, put on the registry, and sentenced to life on probation with daily monitoring, etc. This guy will NOT be charged or put on any public hate lists.

Wow, I wish I'd be able to plea insanity, I have a list of people I would like to knock off. :roll:
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Wow, I wish I'd be able to plea insanity, I have a list of people I would like to knock off. :roll:
Click to expand...
Cause then you could just go back to your normal everyday life after you were done with your spree, right?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
I'm sorry, but thinking there are little green men running around doesn't get you out of a murder rap.

This cat needs to be tried and if convicted, sentenced to death. You don't plan a murder months in advance and then be found unable to stand trial. WTF?

Talk about make a mockery out of our so called "justice" system.

What happened to pleading insanity when a mentally retarded older brother molests his little sister? He is slammed in court and put in the clink to be raped on a daily basis. At best, he is convicted, put on the registry, and sentenced to life on probation with daily monitoring, etc. This guy will NOT be charged or put on any public hate lists.

Wow, I wish I'd be able to plea insanity, I have a list of people I would like to knock off. :roll:
Click to expand...

Thanks for stating your own total ignorance on the subject, in crystal clear detail.

My 5-year-old niece has a better conceptual understanding of the human mind and what it means to be aware than you do.

If you're psychotic, yes you can. You can plan some pretty crazy **** in psychosis. There are people who dedicate years to doing so - all based around a hallucinatory delusion that they believe is real.

You really think you can pretend to be psychotic? Good luck! Psychotic people sometimes cut their body parts off. Most sane people would have a hard time even poking themselves with a needle - it defies self preservation.

You are unable to imagine psychosis. It's really not that hard, you simply choose not to because it's easier to have an elementary understanding of reality that is totally black-and-white. You're choosing ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Most people assume that if someone is deemed unable to stand trial by reason of insanity that they'll be set loose on the world to freely roam and wreak havoc - which is far from reality.

He'll never be out of sight, out of mind of the justice system and mental health facilities - he will be treated and considered far more strictly than the majority of criminals. . . the only reason why epople don't know about the care and condition of these type of prisoners is that no one gives a **** enough to research and investigate.

And if he's not actually insane - he will be - a few years locked up and he'll be much worse for the wear.

I've heard absolute horror stories from such people through caes studies and so on - they'll drive theirselves completely insane during incarceration.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. Even the regular civilian psych hospitals are a breeding ground for PTSD and all sorts of horrible stuff. I've read about some truly awful cases. We really haven't changed all that much from the Dark Ages.

It's just the caveman-like thinking and the enjoyment of torment. What a disgusting side to humanity.
 
MistressNomad said:
Thanks for stating your own total ignorance on the subject, in crystal clear detail.

My 5-year-old niece has a better conceptual understanding of the human mind and what it means to be aware than you do.

If you're psychotic, yes you can. You can plan some pretty crazy **** in psychosis. There are people who dedicate years to doing so - all based around a hallucinatory delusion that they believe is real.

You really think you can pretend to be psychotic? Good luck! Psychotic people sometimes cut their body parts off. Most sane people would have a hard time even poking themselves with a needle - it defies self preservation.

You are unable to imagine psychosis. It's really not that hard, you simply choose not to because it's easier to have an elementary understanding of reality that is totally black-and-white. You're choosing ignorance.
Click to expand...

And the guy in question did none of the above.

He planned a murder spree ahead of time and then executed it. There are people who did the same thing pushing up daisies from the needle for the same thing.

Nice personal attack though.
 
MistressNomad said:
Wow. What is wrong with you people?

The guy is psychotic. Do you understand what psychotic means? Please read to the end before you call me an idiot. Thanks.

Psychotic means that he has no grasp on reality. He may have chosen to shoot Giffords because he believed she had secret CIA assassins planning to kill him. He may honestly believe something like that.

If you really believed that, if that were undeniably TRUE in your mind, would you not try to do something? You can't call the police - they're in on it. You can't tell your friends - you're surrounded by spies. All you can do is try to take out the controller of the operation. That would be Giffords.

Persecutory delusions are in common schizophrenia. Sometimes they can be very extreme. And while most schizophrenics are more of a danger to themselves than they are to others, some can become so delusional that they may be violent.

A person who is psychotic is genuinely not aware that they are psychotic. They often don't even remember anything that happened during the episode. Their brains are literally being eaten by the sheer power of the illness.

All of these hateful comments leads me to believe none of you really know anything about schizophrenia, or what you're talking about.

You're upset that since he has been deemed insane, you won't get to see him hang. You're sick.

I'm not saying he should just be given some anti-psychotics and set loose. He is obviously dangerous while psychotic, and he needs to be very closely monitored and kept out of society.

It's a shame, because there were indications he was mentally ill long ago. No one did anything about it. The longer you wait to deal with schizophrenia the worse it is - the more of your brain it's destroyed. Your chances of regaining functionality are much lower. Had this been addressed earlier, not only may he not have killed people and wounded Giffords, but he may have been able to live a somewhat normal life.

We have no idea whether he is a bad person. We have no idea if he's even aware he killed people and wounded Giffords, if he intended to, if he even understands what death is at the moment.

I'm sorry that ruins your desire to see some bloodshed, literal or metaphorical. Killing sick people who don't understand what they're doing is what we did in the Dark Ages.

That is an immature, sociopathic way to see reality.
Click to expand...

So lets make him well/sane, go to trail, find him guilty, then deal out proper punishment. You have stated in other threads that even the insane make decisions (based on their reality). Yes, it is to bad he didn't get help before the shootings. He is still responsible for his actions.
 
mike2810 said:
So lets make him well/sane, go to trail, find him guilty, then deal out proper punishment. You have stated in other threads that even the insane make decisions (based on their reality). Yes, it is to bad he didn't get help before the shootings. He is still responsible for his actions.
Click to expand...

The insane can sometimes make decisions - depends on the illness. But even if he can make decisions, his decisions may be inherently irrational, or based on a false reality.

I can make a decision that I have to put staples in my cat because I believe she is infested with aliens that are drawn to metals, and this will allow me to draw them out. If I believe that completely and totally, as a delusional person could, then my decision is justified in a delusional reality, but does that mean that I ought to be punished for animal cruelty?

Not really. It does mean that I should receive immediate and aggressive psychiatric help, as I would be a danger to others. It may also mean that I should not be permitted to own animals.

But does it mean I should do time? No. The decision I made was consistent with my perception. My perception just happened to be incorrect in the extreme to the point that I would not be capable of making rational decisions.

Delusional perception doesn't understand things like animal cruelty laws and physical harm to self or others. None of those things exist in a delusional reality, except in a delusional way.

They literally can't reason like you and I are right now. Their reasoning ability is cut off.

I read a case about a girl with severe schizophrenia who wanted to cut off her hands to prevent her from hitting people. She was obviously psychotic. Her wanting to perform that action would result in her death without immediate medical intervention. But does that mean she is suicidal? No. Wanting to cut off her hands was her psychotically reasoned solution to the problem of hitting people.

Treating her as though she is suicidal is not going to help her. Her problem is not being suicidal. Her problem is psychosis. Treating her as though this is a behavioral problem will not help her. Her problem is not behavioral. Her problem is psychosis.

Likewise, punishing Loughner is not going to help him, or anyone else. His problem is not that he was a man on a vendetta. Even if it were, his inability to reason makes his actions irrelevant.

It is important that society be protected from violent people, mentally ill or not. But punishment is not a good reaction to mental illness. That assumes the psychotic actions are a behavioral problem. They are not, and treating them like one won't help the person. Helping the person reduces their violent potential, so it is in everyone's best interest to want to help him.

Psychiatric treatment could help him and make him less dangerous. Punishment will not.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
The insane can sometimes make decisions - depends on the illness. But even if he can make decisions, his decisions may be inherently irrational, or based on a false reality.
Click to expand...

I dont' really think his mental state should override the nature of his actions and give an allowance of mercy. If he had accidentally hit these people with a car that's one thing, but his mind was what brought this about, medically sane or insane. He cannot be trusted ever again based up the severity of what his mind brought about. As far as evidence that would bring about guilt, it appears there are so many credible witness' that it's obvious he has commited the acts.

As I said before, they need to enact a law that in such cases get any ongoing cases (such as this) as well as any in the future, to execute people like this within 24 hr of hearing that proves a person did such a horrible act. Obviously it should only be done in special cases where the act is horrible and the evidence is bullet proof like in this situation.

Running him through the process or institutionalizing him is punishing the tax payers in a time of economic crisis. He is not rehabilitateable and it's obvious from the bystanders testimony he was the one who did this. No wonder we are in so much financial trouble, we can't even handle a easy situation like this a rational and efficient manner.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Thanks for stating your own total ignorance on the subject, in crystal clear detail.

My 5-year-old niece has a better conceptual understanding of the human mind and what it means to be aware than you do.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks.
 
empireofreason said:
I dont' really think his mental state should override the nature of his actions and give an allowance of mercy. If he had accidentally hit these people with a car that's one thing, but his mind was what brought this about, medically sane or insane. He cannot be trusted ever again based up the severity of what his mind brought about. As far as evidence that would bring about guilt, it appears there are so many credible witness' that it's obvious he has commited the acts.

As I said before, they need to enact a law that in such cases get any ongoing cases (such as this) as well as any in the future, to execute people like this within 24 hr of hearing that proves a person did such a horrible act. Obviously it should only be done in special cases where the act is horrible and the evidence is bullet proof like in this situation.

Running him through the process or institutionalizing him is punishing the tax payers in a time of economic crisis. He is not rehabilitateable and it's obvious from the bystanders testimony he was the one who did this. No wonder we are in so much financial trouble, we can't even handle a easy situation like this a rational and efficient manner.
Click to expand...

Why not? His actions were not performed in a rational manner. He may not even be fully aware of what his actions are. Punishing someone for that, beyond being pointless and doing nothing to reduce his violence, is a bit like putting a child with mental retardation in a regular class and then failing him. You're missing the fundamental point - inability to understand ones own actions or reality.

I agree he can never be trusted in society. Degrees of psychosis that violent are uncommon, and the person is usually beyond ever being able to fully recover. But punishment is the wrong answer. Psychiatric treatment will not only improve his state, but make him less dangerous.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that society must be protected from violent people, regardless of the cause of their violence. I am only disagreeing on what the appropriate course of action is.

Punishment in this case is a purely symbolic, and viscerally bloodthirsty reaction. It is pointless. It helps no one. Not him and not society.

Killing people is not a rational or efficient response in any civilized nation. Societies with the death penalty have higher rates of murder. All it does is make murder socially acceptable, and thus more common. The loss of life and tax payer money over the long run is actually less by banning it, in every case.
 
Last edited:
empireofreason said:
As far as evidence that would bring about guilt, it appears there are so many credible witness' that it's obvious he has commited the acts.
Click to expand...

"Guilt" in American jurisprudence includes mens rea. You cannot be guilty of a crime without criminal intent.

empireofreason said:
As I said before, they need to enact a law that in such cases get any ongoing cases (such as this) as well as any in the future, to execute people like this within 24 hr of hearing that proves a person did such a horrible act. Obviously it should only be done in special cases where the act is horrible and the evidence is bullet proof like in this situation.
Click to expand...

Why are you in such a hurry? He's in the hospital. He's not an immediate danger to anyone right now. There is plenty of time to evaluate him and give him all of the due process that he is entitled to by law.

If you want to change the law so that incurable and dangerous psychotics are euthanized rather than indefinitely detained, I have no objection to that. But there is absolutely no reason to rush the process; that will only lead to mistakes and miscarriages of justice.

MistressNomad said:
I agree he can never be trusted in society. Degrees of psychosis that violent are uncommon, and the person is usually beyond ever being able to fully recover. But punishment is the wrong answer. Psychiatric treatment will not only improve his state, but make him less dangerous.
Click to expand...

And what is the goal of that, then? What is the benefit? Improving his condition and making him less dangerous don't mean anything if he can't ever be released. I agree that punishing him for his crimes is misguided, and the zeal with which people wish to do so is a little sick, but attempting to treat him is a waste of everyone's time and a potential risk to future faculty and patients. It is just as pointless and wasteful as others' desire to "punish" him.

MistressNomad said:
Killing people is not a rational or efficient response in any civilized nation. Societies with the death penalty have higher rates of murder. All it does is make murder socially acceptable, and thus more common. The loss of life and tax payer money over the long run is actually less by banning it, in every case.
Click to expand...

If killing people weren't the most rational and efficient response to so many problems, we would never have developed so many ways of doing it. Sometimes, it's for the best.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
And what is the goal of that, then? What is the benefit? Improving his condition and making him less dangerous don't mean anything if he can't ever be released. I agree that punishing him for his crimes is misguided, and the zeal with which people wish to do so is a little sick, but attempting to treat him is a waste of everyone's time and a potential risk to future faculty and patients. It is just as pointless and wasteful as others' desire to "punish" him.

If killing people weren't the most rational and efficient response to so many problems, we would never have developed so many ways of doing it. Sometimes, it's for the best.
Click to expand...

You have no idea whether that's true or not. Full functionality is unlikely, and regardless he must be monitered. But partial recovery is certainly possible, and a return to some sort of productive status in or out of institutionalization is possible. In would be preferrable, but I doubt he'll ever be released anyway. I also doubt he will ever receive enough care to make him productive, if he is able to be.

It isn't rational or efficient. It results in more killing. Execution cultures have higher rates of murder. Their rates of murder drop when they abolish execution. So unless you consider a self-perpetuated murder culture rational and efficient, that simply isn't true.
 
MistressNomad said:
I also doubt he will ever receive enough care to make him productive, if he is able to be.
Click to expand...

Okay, that point I have to concede.

MistressNomad said:
It isn't rational or efficient. It results in more killing. Execution cultures have higher rates of murder. Their rates of murder drop when they abolish execution. So unless you consider a self-perpetuated murder culture rational and efficient, that simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

Murder rate's lower now than it was during the entire time that we had a moratorium.
 
MistressNomad said:
It isn't rational or efficient. It results in more killing. Execution cultures have higher rates of murder. Their rates of murder drop when they abolish execution
Click to expand...
Assuming this is true - show causation.
 
If you believe in justice then you understand the "insanity" defense, and the "too young" defense, and the "developmentally disabled defense. If you believe in punishment then you don't. To the former a person's mental state is taken into account, to the latter it's: "Do the crime do the time/die." It's really a question how high up the morality scale you are. Justice folks are higher up the scale than punishment folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom