• 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!

Atlanta mom charged with murder after allegedly putting 2 young sons in oven

I agree. But, does that hold up in court? I doubt it would in say, Texas or Florida.

Depends what you mean by "hold up in court".

If you mean: will the judge let the defense argue for acquittal by reason of insanity, then yes, here. The definition varies by state so I cannot speak to TX or FL.

If you mean in reality, in terms of what juries find, then: no. No generally it doesn't. It is extremely rare that juries actually do a NGRI verdict. Jurors are under no obligation to speak about their verdicts and we cannot hassle them about it. They sometimes volunteer to talk to the prosecution and defense after a trial to give their thoughts. We're generally left with guesswork. But as I said to nota, above, I think the main problem in MA is that, because jurors are divorced from sentencing considerations, they don't get to hear about what actually happens to people acquitted due to insanity. Usually, keeping jurors away from sentencing (other than death penalty) is good. But here I think it hurts. They seem to assume that if they acquit the guy by reason of insanity, that he'll just get out and kill someone.

Not.

True.

They almost never leave when the crime was murder. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they actually get out on parole in second degree murder cases more frequently than they are released from a psych place (whether 1st or 2nd degree) if put their via NGRI in a murder case. As for other crimes, they virtually uniformly (or actually straight-up uniformly - I don't have the stats in front of me this very second) spend significantly longer in a secure mental institution than they would have spent in a prison if convicted.

Jurors just don't know that and it colors their judgment. And it's so sad, so infuriating. Prison guards don't want these people in there. Inmates don't want them in there. They are quite insane and cause any number of problems, because on top of all the **** I just said, prisons go for the cheapest, easiest, most simple treatments. They shouldn't be called "treatments."





It's just another example of the pointless and cruel stupidity of an aspect of our legal system.
 
Last edited:
So you will not debate the ethical stance and return to ad hom's... cool.

You never compared me to ISIS you just said that I might feel comfortable with them because they share my values? :lol:

That is not comparing?... :lol:

Sorry buddy.

No... the moral stance is not only shared by ISIS... I am not in ISIS nor are others that think the way I do that are not in ISIS. So... NO. That moral stance is not only shared by ISIS...

Your posts display a complete lack of logic, as exampled in the two above points.

I'll take your criticism of being uncivilized in the face of the contrary evidence to your posts that are evidenced to be lacking in logic.

It's not an ad hom because it's based on what you said.

You're taking a moral stance on the execution of children who kill which is only shared by ISIS. Name me one country outside of ISIS controlled territory that executes 10 year old killers and I will apologise.
What you want is so uncivilised in the eyes of the whole world, that even Saudi Arabia doesn't entertain the thought. Does that not make you pause just for a moment?

Dude, if you don't want to be placed morally alongside ISIS, don't advocate for things only ISIS find acceptable.

Btw, if 10 years old is old enough in your eyes to be executed, is there an age where it is unacceptable? If a 2 year old toddler in a fit of toddler anger pushes their younger sibling down a flight of stairs for taking their toy, do we execute the 2 year old? Serious question.
 
Last edited:
It's not an ad hom because it's based on what you said.

You're taking a moral stance on the execution of children who kill which is only shared by ISIS. Name me one country outside of ISIS controlled territory that executes 10 year old killers and I will apologise.
What you want is so uncivilised in the eyes of the whole world, that even Saudi Arabia doesn't entertain the thought. Does that not make you pause just for a moment?

Dude, if you don't want to be placed morally alongside ISIS, don't advocate for things only ISIS find acceptable.

Btw, if 10 years old is old enough in your eyes to be executed, is there an age where it is unacceptable? If a 2 year old toddler in a fit of toddler anger pushes their younger sibling down a flight of stairs for taking their toy, do we execute the 2 year old? Serious question.

Last chance... What I said is not only shared by ISIS. ISIS is not a country nor do they run one nor are the many other people/non-governments that share my view.

What countries do and what is morally right are different things. Saudi Arabia allows women to drive. Does that make them right? No. Comparing me to what you find wrong is sophomoric.

Ahh... I can't read anymore. Serious question? WTF? Can you not differentiate between intent to murder like the ten year olds i described IN DETAIL and a two year old ? Two year olds don't AND CANT premeditate. A better analogy would be a retarded person who kills. Like Lenny... that said being retarded is not the same as being insane.

Just start thinking this out... please.
 
Last chance... What I said is not only shared by ISIS. ISIS is not a country nor do they run one nor are the many other people/non-governments that share my view.

What countries do and what is morally right are different things. Saudi Arabia allows women to drive. Does that make them right? No. Comparing me to what you find wrong is sophomoric.

Ahh... I can't read anymore. Serious question? WTF? Can you not differentiate between intent to murder like the ten year olds i described IN DETAIL and a two year old ? Two year olds don't AND CANT premeditate. A better analogy would be a retarded person who kills. Like Lenny... that said being retarded is not the same as being insane.

Just start thinking this out... please.

OK. your view is shared by ISIS and a few sociopaths not in government. There, is that better?
You have a nerve to talk about what is morally right when you want to strap 10 year old children into the electric chair... or do you prefer lethal injection? You think a 10 year old's brain is anywhere near fully developed?

So how young is too young? You're prepared to allow 2 year olds to avoid the death penalty, but 10 year olds are fair game. 8? 5?
 
You have a nerve to talk about what is morally right when you want to strap 10 year old children into the electric chair...

Context please... apply it. The case of the ten year old's that I described was cold blooded murder. Do you understand and admit that it was?

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] – 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). Bulger was led away from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle whilst his mother was distracted. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half miles (4 km) away in Walton, Liverpool, two days after his murder. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger's abduction and murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

OK. your view is shared by ISIS and a few sociopaths not in government. There, is that better?

OK then... your view is shared by Hitler. You want to allow people to murder others and be allowed to continue harming by keeping them alive.

I find this process immature and pointless but I guess that is what we are doing here.... how does it feel to share the same view as Hitler?

So how young is too young? You're prepared to allow 2 year olds to avoid the death penalty, but 10 year olds are fair game. 8? 5?

I would not have thought ten year old's capable of such cold blooded murder... so until I find a case of younger murderers I will say that 10 is the youngest that we should kill murderers. Even then, context should be factored in.

or do you prefer lethal injection?

I prefer just putting a bullet into the head of convicted murderers...

You think a 10 year old's brain is anywhere near fully developed?

Although brain development is subject to significant individual variation, most experts suggest that the brain is fully developed by age 25

At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/eyes-the-brain/201108/when-is-the-brain-fully-mature

So we find murderers guilty if they have fully developed brains OR, do you think that maybe... just maybe, that ten year old's already know right from wrong and that killing a person... is wrong. I can tell you that my kids would talk about killing being wrong when we watched certain movies at that age... no, no, no, no... I am not actually the worlds greatest dad! LOL. Go figure... they somehow knew that murdering people was wrong regardless.
 
Back
Top Bottom