How do you think the AZ shooter's courtcase should end?

rathi said:

The primary point of the case is likely the insanity defense. I don't think the man is insane, but there should be a full trial to remove any reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

Why don't you think he was insane? Have you read his ramblings, or the stories his classmates told? I just don't think it's possible to look at all of those things and NOT conclude that he was severely mentally disturbed.

Kandahar said:

Why don't you think he was insane? Have you read his ramblings, or the stories his classmates told? I just don't think it's possible to look at all of those things and NOT conclude that he was severely mentally disturbed.

Click to expand...

Insanity has a very precise medical definition. I'll leave it up to a professional in that field, if I knew him personally I wouldn't be able to say yes or no, let alone with the small amount of filtered news media evidence we have.

He should get the death penalty.

I think the guy is crazy, but not the kind of crazy that doesn't know right from wrong. I could be wrong though I suppose. If he is proven to mentally incapable of telling right from wrong, I would support psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation.

rathi said:

The primary point of the case is likely the insanity defense. I don't think the man is insane, but there should be a full trial to remove any reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

here is where we may differ. I don't believe insanity is an excuse. There should be no innocent by reason of insanity. Guilty but insane is more appropriate. Even if insane and found guilty, I would support the death penality.

The insanity defense, though, isn't really applicable in order to determine 'guilt' - when there are witnesses and undeniable proof.

It is just a fact of this case that "he opened fire into a crowd, killed 6, wounded others . . ." No one debates this - it is fact.

Thus - the 'degree of insanity' will determine how he is treated during incarceration - there is no way around that, he will be spending time behind bars. Now - bars of a traditional prison, death row bars, bars of a mental facility - all these things are what's on the line and up to the court to decide.

I think they can prove he is aware of 'right and wrong' from the various letters and so on that they've found at his home - he had forethought, planning which plainly proves intent, and overall proved capable of making decisions and adhering to various rule (he did actually go through the process to apply for college and attend classes - he's aware of time, etc - true, he didn't stay in - but he showed up). So I think the only applicable defense is whether he was in control of his actions or whether he was acting on impulse.

But still- even if they determine that he wasn't in control - it's plain to see that he's a risk. They will most certainly not deem him 'innocent'

If he is declared insane he will be institutionalized - properly medicated (possibly never cured) but an institution or quadrant concerning this nature would have the means to handle him daily - unlike a traditional prison. . . I firmly believe that's where he should go - he will have less freedom, less rights, less of a chance of denying medication and so on.

Jared Loughner's body is sitting lifeless, in the gas chamber and his soul is on the way to hell, where it belongs.

I think it depends on whether he is designated insane.

If insane, he should spend his life in a high security mental institution

If sane, he should either spend his life in jail or have the death penalty.

apdst said:

Jared Loughner's body is sitting lifeless, in the gas chamber and his soul is on the way to hell, where it belongs.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in hell . .. which is part of hte reason why I don't support the death sentence in that regard. I don't believe there is anything beyond this - so punishment when you're alive is what the doctor ordered.

And perhaps if there is an afterlife - it might not be one of fire and brimstone. . . perhaps god might forgive everyone - usher him off to the unknown assuming it'll be punishment won't help me feel satisfied.

Aunt Spiker said:

I don't believe in hell . .. which is part of hte reason why I don't support the death sentence in that regard. I don't believe there is anything beyond this - so punishment when you're alive is what the doctor ordered.

And perhaps if there is an afterlife - it might not be one of fire and brimstone. . . perhaps god might forgive everyone - usher him off to the unknown assuming it'll be punishment won't help me feel satisfied.

Click to expand...

Loughner will be pissing his pants, on his way to die. He's going to know that he's just a few short minutes away from whatever awaits him. That's punishment. I don't care what anyone says.

The mass murderer's actions are a reflection on his parents.
They do have a responsibility to raise a child with qualities(respect, morals, ethics)
This is what 99.99% of us do.
If it benefits society that he stay alive for 50 plus years in an institution, then so be it.
By now, I'm sure that these men have been studied to death.
I am against the death penalty, another change in my philosophy.
Real gun control is one attempt as an answer to this problem.
It can be said that society brings these problems upon themselves.

mike2810 said:

With the evidence that has been in the news against Loughner if ever there was a case for capital punishment this is one. Enough people saw him do the shooting. Two people at the event captured him and kept him from leaving the scene. They have found a note written by him suggesting he was planning to kill the Congresswoman. There is no doubt in my mind this Loughner did the crime.

IMO, the trail should be limited to no more than a week. When found guilty the sentance should be death. The second week would be the apeal to the death sentance. This would should be limited to more than 1 day of court time. The sentance should be carried out immediatly after the appeal is turned down.

Click to expand...

That's how it should end. But it will go on for a long time. He'll most certainly go to prison, but he will be in there for years before he is eventually executed, if he is executed. There will be books about it. Maybe even a made for tv movie. and tv specials... "the Loughner interviews". and cable shows.

It will *never* end.

Aunt Spiker said:

I don't believe in hell . .. which is part of the reason why I don't support the death sentence in that regard. I don't believe there is anything beyond this - so punishment when you're alive is what the doctor ordered.

And perhaps if there is an afterlife - it might not be one of fire and brimstone. . . perhaps god might forgive everyone - usher him off to the unknown assuming it'll be punishment won't help me feel satisfied.

Click to expand...

All the punishment in the world will not bring back his victims.
As difficult as it is, we must have compassion for him and his parents.
We must learn , maybe for the first time, from this tragedy.
We must listen and care about others, we must be more social.
It was said that his parents "kept to themselves".
Why?
If our gun rules and regulations were up to date, this never would have happened.
Its the 21st century, not the 16th, for God's sake!

apdst said:

Loughner will be pissing his pants, on his way to die. He's going to know that he's just a few short minutes away from whatever awaits him. That's punishment. I don't care what anyone says.

Click to expand...

And, what does this "punishment" accomplish ?
Apdst, try caring. If I were 20 years younger, I'd say the SOB should be swinging by now.

If he is found guilty (and I think the evidence is overwhelming), he should get life in prison without the opportunity for parole.

I chose other since I don't know if the guy is really insane to the point of not being able to control or understand his actions. It's kind of hard to tell just from some brief tv reports Anyway, if he actually is shown to meet the critea for the insanity defense to be legit, then he should be institutionalized, otherwise he should be subject to the maximum penalty for murder in Arizona whether it's the death penalty or life imprisonment.

apdst said:

Loughner will be pissing his pants, on his way to die. He's going to know that he's just a few short minutes away from whatever awaits him. That's punishment. I don't care what anyone says.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone can condone the death penalty under a moral guise. It's impossible to claim the moral highground against a killer by reciprocating the action unto him -- it negates any moral authority the legal system has. Life imprisonment is the fair and correct choice for the most heinous of crimes.

Le Marteau said:

I don't understand how anyone can condone the death penalty under a moral guise. It's impossible to claim the moral highground against a killer by reciprocating the action unto him -- it negates any moral authority the legal system has. Life imprisonment is the fair and correct choice for the most heinous of crimes.

Click to expand...

The DP is highly "moral". Utilizing it shows that we value life by exacting the ultimate price for taking it.

I think this case should end at the gallows without appeal the morning after this piece of excrement is found guilty and sentenced to death.

X Factor said:

The DP is highly "moral". Utilizing it shows that we value life by exacting the ultimate price for taking it.

Click to expand...

No. That's not how a civilised legal system works. An eye for an eye was a great principle three thousand years ago, but it is outdated and draconic now -- we have advanced beyond that.

When you punish someone for doing something, you can't utilise the same action as the one they were taking, to punish them. You have no moral authority that way.

When someone punches you, the moral act is not to punch them back, but rather to detain them and let them serve time. If you punch them back, you're only escalating the situation.

If someone kills people, the government can not kill them back -- else we're no better than the original criminal.

Le Marteau said:

If someone kills people, the government can not kill them back -- else we're no better than the original criminal.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between the type of people being killed, and that difference makes all of the moral difference in the world.

X Factor said:

The DP is highly "moral". Utilizing it shows that we value life by exacting the ultimate price for taking it.

Click to expand...

People claim that, but I don't see how it's true. All you've done is made life itself a commodity under the control of the government. To me the DP lowers the value of life by making it nothing more than an arguing point in court. If we were to really uphold the high value of human life we would say that even though someone did something so horrible that we may want revenge, we will still not allow the state to take that person's life. Logically, that seems to uphold the value of human life well more than assigning it a value and then weighing it against other evidence.