• 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

tjinta ibis said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in either. I believe in expediency. I'm further down on the morality scale than any of you!

:kitty:

Seriously, I don't care about what anyone deserves. I don't care if they're really innocent. I don't care about giving the victim's family closure. I care about how easy they are to fix, how likely they are to do it again, and whether or not the former justifies risking the latter.

On a side note to your little spurt of moral superiority there, though, people who believe in punishment could well believe that justice for the victim is better than justice for the attacker even if the attacker can't really be said to have been responsible.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes. It presents a theory; it does not show causation.
Click to expand...

As I suspected - you are simply going to ignore whatever I present without giving a reason (most of science we accept as true is still called theory) because you'd rather believe execution is a net positive. I don't know why I bother posting sources when I already know they will be ignored...
 
If he's not insane, then what is he?

Sane?

If he was sane, he had a motive.

What was his motive?

Supporter of the gold standard, pro-life, clear grudge against the left, supporter of that crazy NWO **** those Ruby Ridge people supported...

I think if we're not going to declare him "insane" then it's clear where he stood on the political scale.

LOL!
 
MistressNomad said:
As I suspected - you are simply going to ignore whatever I present...
Click to expand...
No... I am going to wait for you to show the necessary relationship between the things you claim to follow from one another.
"Necessary relationship", not theory.
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
No... I am going to wait for you to show the necessary relationship between the things you claim to follow from one another.
"Necessary relationship", not theory.
Click to expand...

The entire definition of the brutalization theory is that is establishes the link between executing people that leads to an increase in homicide in society. The link I posted referred to studies conducted that show this relationship of causation.

Simply because this notion was thought of before the studies were conducted doesn't change that the studies show evidence for its truth. Does it only count if it happens by accident? That's a pretty squirrelly argument.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
The entire definition of the brutalization theory is that is establishes the link between executing people that leads to an increase in homicide in society. The link I posted referred to studies conducted that show this relationship of causation.
Click to expand...
You apparently do not understand the concept of "necessary relationship" and the difference betwen causation and correlation.
Either that, or you -do- understand them, know you cannot show either, and thusly try to shovel BS.
 
Hatuey said:
What was his motive?

Supporter of the gold standard, pro-life, clear grudge against the left, supporter of that crazy NWO **** those Ruby Ridge people supported...

I think if we're not going to declare him "insane" then it's clear where he stood on the political scale.
Click to expand...

I am willing to accept that as his theoretical motive. Just because I sympathized with Randy Weaver doesn't mean I didn't cheer when he stuck the needle in McVeigh.

I still don't hear properly out of that ear.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
You apparently do not understand the concept of "necessary relationship" and the difference betwen causation and correlation.
Either that, or you -do- understand them, know you cannot show either, and thusly try to shovel BS.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to argue that a given execution resulting in a spike in homocide is irrelevant and not suggestive of cause? As with all societal trends, direct testing is not possible, but this doesn't mean that causal relationships can't be suspected if the result is consistent. Which in this case, it is.

I suppose you'd also like to tell me that there is no causal relationship or implication between IQ and education because we cannot directly observe the contributing neurology that results in raising IQ, despite consistent test results?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
You apparently do not understand the concept of "necessary relationship" and the difference betwen causation and correlation.
Either that, or you -do- understand them, know you cannot show either, and thusly try to shovel BS.
Click to expand...

How do you define "necessary?" Correlation is a statistical relationship between two variables. Most empirical research allows rejection of the null hypothesis at a confidence level of 90% or above.

More importantly, it probably is not reasonable to hold policy makers and managers (government, business, etc.) to the rigorous standard of causation. Most problems would have to be abandoned against such a threshold. Policy makers and managers are frequently not in a position to wait until there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate causation simply because social and economic phenomena are highly complex. Policy makers and managers are charged with problem solving. To a large extent, policy making and management are far more art than science. Therefore, policy makers and managers typically do not have the luxury of sufficient time to determine whether there is causation. They often have to act quickly, even when information is incomplete and events are in flux. Sometimes, they have just one chance to get things right. If they fail to act, there are bad consequences e.g., opportunity costs. If they make the wrong decision there are also bad consequences. Hence, if there is a reasonably strong statistical relationship between variables--that relationship being correlation--policy makers and managers will often allow such a relationship to inform their judgment. Such a relationship is not a substitute for judgment, but it can guide judgment.

Finally, one other factor deserves mention. Many phenomena are not gaussian in nature. Hence, an orderly normal distribution is not relevant.
 
donsutherland1 said:
How do you define "necessary?"
Click to expand...
The effect must follow from the supposed cause; the supposed cause must bring the effect, there is no possible cause for the effect than the supposed cause.

More importantly, it probably is not reasonable to hold policy makers and managers (government, business, etc.) to the rigorous standard of causation.
Click to expand...
Not really the concern. She claimed cause anf effect; I want her to show the necessary relationship.
 
As I'm sure you are already quite aware, how causation is established, and whether it can be proved or merely substantiated, depends on what you're talking about. Social cause can be substantiated, but not proven, as it is impossible to stick society in a lab.

Does this negate all social cause relationships in your mind? Are you saying Event X immediately preceding Event Y repeatedly must be unrelated in every case? Are you saying that observing two neighboring states with extremely similar socio-economic make-up, one with the death penalty and one without, and the one with has substantially higher homicide rates is not an important observation? Because all social cause is based on observing trends.

You are asking for something that you know doesn't exist in the field of study we're talking about, and then saying no evidence has been given because no one can provide you with something you already know is impossible.

That does not mean there is no evidence. It just means that evidence on things like social trends is different than evidence of what temperature wood burns at.
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
Not really the concern. She claimed cause anf effect; I want her to show the necessary relationship.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is a highly relevant point. It is unreasonable to hold policy makers and managers to the standard of causation precisely because the social sciences in which they operate are inherently more qualitative/less quantitative than the hard sciences. Again, policy makers and managers don't have the luxury to throw their hands up in the air in despair on account of the nature of many of the problems they have to deal with. It is their responsibility to try to solve those problems despite incomplete information. Correlations can provide guidance.

Human behavior is one area in which causation is not readily identifiable in many areas. Nonetheless, relatively reliable insights have been gleaned. For example, deterrence is effective when three conditions are all present: a country has sufficient power (company has sufficient resources) to respond to an attack (competitive tactic), is willing to do so, and the opponent (rival) expects it to do so. If any one of those three factors is not present, deterrence fails. How does one know that such principles apply? There is a large body of cases from the historic experience (foreign policy and competitive behavior) that support substantiate such insights. Of course, there is also an important limitation, the assumption of rationality.

Econometric models have large numbers of assumptions gleaned from experience and observation, many of which are subjective in nature despite the models' use of large amounts of quantitative data. The use of multipliers in estimating the impact of fiscal stimulus is a classic case. The easiest example is direct government spending in purchasing goods and services. Given that government spending is an element of GDP, there is a floor of 1.0 for every dollar spent. Yet, not every recipient of the funds will have the same consumption patterns. Hence, buying goods/services from some sectors may result in a higher multiplier than others. There have been cases when the multiplier was as high as 2.5 (government spent a dollar, recipient spent a large chunk of that money, the recipient of that additional spending spent a large share, and so on). The multiplier can also vary based on context. For example, during a shallow recession, there might be a relatively high multiplier for transfer payments to individuals. Yet, during a financial crisis, that multiplier for transfer payments provided to the same individuals might be far lower as they desperately hoard the funds in the face of an unfolding panic. Despite those differences, economists don't abandon efforts to estimate the impact of given stimulus approaches. Moreover, policy makers don't retreat from the task.
 
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...

I completely understand your point but really don’t care if he was as insane as insane can get when he did what he did. I still want to see him dead.

I don’t want tax payer money spent trying to fix people like this. I understand that the law differs from my view but I think the law should be changed and the murderer should be executed asap, insane or not.

If you want to feel sorry for him, write him a letter or go visit him but don’t ask me to pity the POS.
 
MistressNomad said:
As I'm sure you are already quite aware, how causation is established, and whether it can be proved or merely substantiated, depends on what you're talking about. Social cause can be substantiated, but not proven, as it is impossible to stick society in a lab.
Click to expand...
Correct. Your assertion cannot be proven. Glad you understand that.
That won't get you to back away from it because it's something you want to believe, but that's on you.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Actually, it is a highly relevant point. It is unreasonable to hold policy makers and managers to the standard...
Click to expand...
Repeating what you said does not make what you said any more meaningful to my purpose that when you said it the first time.
:shrug:
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Correct. Your assertion cannot be proven. Glad you understand that.
That won't get you to back away from it because it's something you want to believe, but that's on you.
Click to expand...

It also can't be proven that you actually exist in what you understand to be reality. Point?

Proof is not necessary for something to be accepted as strongly likely, either due to strong evidence or lack of other possible causes. In this case, it's both.

You're being intentionally avoidant. I don't "want" to believe it - it's shown to be the only likely option. And that execution policy has no effect on homicide is resoundingly dismissed by the scientific community.

What you're saying is that you don't think social cause can exist. I really doubt that is the case. Are you that investing to see people killed by the state to hold a position that is obviously untrue?
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
I still want to see him dead.
Click to expand...

At least you're honest.

And to be honest in return, people like you scare me more than people like him. Someone like Loughner is capable of relatively small-scale destruction, but people like that are capable of destroying entire societies.

Sanity doesn't imply ethics.
 
MistressNomad said:
As I suspected - you are simply going to ignore whatever I present without giving a reason (most of science we accept as true is still called theory) because you'd rather believe execution is a net positive. I don't know why I bother posting sources when I already know they will be ignored...
Click to expand...

Posting links to biased statistics and acting like you have proven causation is different than actually proving causation Mistress.

I can do a study on an issue and come up with 10 different results if there are no rules for how the stats are calculated so posting links to a website that fails to explain, in detail, how their numbers were derived is worth about as much as another person’s opinion.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes.... because to be held accountable for a crime, regardless of what that crime is, you have to have the capacity to understand that what you did was a crime and that you are on trial for it.
Click to expand...

One thing I have trouble with the insanity plea is that if he was truly insane wouldn't he have just came marching up to the crime scene waving his gun high and yelling loudly?

By keeping his weapon hid and not saying anything until he started shooting tells me he knew very well what he was doing was wrong.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Posting links to biased statistics and acting like you have proven causation is different than actually proving causation Mistress.

I can do a study on an issue and come up with 10 different results if there are no rules for how the stats are calculated so posting links to a website that fails to explain, in detail, how their numbers were derived is worth about as much as another person’s opinion.
Click to expand...

Show me where these studies are claimed to be biased. You saying you don't understand, or can't be bothered to look up the methodology is not proof of bias. It's not proof of anything. Also, show me a set of statistics that doesn't clearly show higher homocide rates in execution states.

Like I already said, social cause is unprovable. But unless you want to claim that social cause is completely unknowable (which is foolish) then tell me what the problems are.
 
Last edited:
Crosscheck said:
One thing I have trouble with the insanity plea is that if he was truly insane wouldn't he have just came marching up to the crime scene waving his gun high and yelling loudly?

By keeping his weapon hid and not saying anything until he started shooting tells me he knew very well what he was doing was wrong.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that people with persecutory delusions are extremely paranoid?

What does someone do when they're paraniod?

They hide things.

His desire to not be caught may stem from believing he's being watched by whomever, or that the people he knows are spies, or from any number of illogical places.

Being paranoid is not proof of sanity. Especially if he can't even string a sentence together. Then it's practically expected.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
At least you're honest.

And to be honest in return, people like you scare me more than people like him. Someone like Loughner is capable of relatively small-scale destruction, but people like that are capable of destroying entire societies.

Sanity doesn't imply ethics.
Click to expand...

This is rich.

Why don’t you Google “societies without insane murderers” and throw up some more links to useless statistics to support your fear of people like me “destroying entire societies”?

Do you think Sharia Law is as evil as you think I am?
 
GPS_Flex said:
This is rich.

Why don’t you Google “societies without insane murderers” and throw up some more links to useless statistics to support your fear of people like me “destroying entire societies”?

Do you think Sharia Law is as evil as you think I am?
Click to expand...

I never said it was evil. Just scary. Evil is intentional. Scariness doesn't always realize what it's doing.

Why would I do that? I already know you're going to ignore them. I have already posted sources showing homocide rates are lower in places that don't have the death penalty. Why would I waste any more time with someone who doesn't care what the evidence is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom