• 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!

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

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

  • Imprisonment, For Life

    Votes: 7 23.3%

  • Death Row

    Votes: 11 36.7%

  • Imprisoned, But Not For Life

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Mental Institution, For Life

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • Mental Institution, Until Rehabilitated

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • He should be found innocent / not guilty

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • Total voters
    30
Solace

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How do you think the AZ shooter's courtcase should end?
 
How did he manage to shave his head and eyebrows? I take it this happened after being in jail as in the initial reports they described a young man with short hair as the shooter.

I guess if they allow you to shave in jail you can simply shave all your hair. It looks to me like an intelligent person trying to appears nuts to save his arse.
 
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. Of course I know this won't happen and hundred of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) will be wasted in court time.
 
The man's clearly guilty, and the man should suffer the full consequences of the legal system for it.

However, I might note that the full consequences must be life imprisonment, and not the death sentence, because the death sentence is a barbaric and draconic practise that has rightfully been discontinued in all Western nations but one.
 
Crosscheck said:
How did he manage to shave his head and eyebrows? I take it this happened after being in jail as in the initial reports they described a young man with short hair as the shooter.

I guess if they allow you to shave in jail you can simply shave all your hair. It looks to me like an intelligent person trying to appears nuts to save his arse.
Click to expand...

Honestly - he comes across as the Mickey type (Natural Born Killers) - I think he's tryig to pull his "moment of realization" out of his ass.

I don't *prefer* the death penalty - but he obviously would pose a threat every moment he's allowed to live to the guards and other inmates at any facility. Statistics show that those on death row who truly have no hope for appeal or change go to great lengths to try to bring everyone else down with them. If he, in some insane ranting and malicious assault, manages to permanently injure a guard or even kill one I think that's one more tragic death that should be avoided at his hands.

But If they can bring him down a few notches I'd rather he live the rest of his days thinking things over - no sense in putting the fool down to sleep if that's what he wants.

I oppose the death penalty when it would satisfy the assailant - I think there's no worse punishment than having to tolerate yourself.
 
Last edited:
Le Marteau said:
The man's clearly guilty, and the man should suffer the full consequences of the legal system for it.

However, I might note that the full consequences must be life imprisonment, and not the death sentence, because the death sentence is a barbaric and draconic practise that has rightfully been discontinued in all Western nations but one.
Click to expand...

yeah, I prefer the mope be buggered to death for years rather than put to sleep painlessly
 
He should get the death penalty. The fact he may or may not be nuts is irrelevant to the fact he killed and shot a bunch of people.
 
In this case, I see little difference between life in prison or the death sentence given the overwhelming evidence. Whichever option wastes the least resources should be used.
 
jamesrage said:
He should get the death penalty. The fact he may or may not be nuts is irrelevant to the fact he killed and shot a bunch of people.
Click to expand...

What?

Being crazy means you aren't responsible for your actions, because you can't exercise deliberative control over your behavior.

The gravity of your deeds can't alter whether or not you are crazy.

I don't see the point of having complex legal, psychiatric, and moral categories if a person guilt's ultimately derives from how upset people are at him. It's like the categories only exist in case we feel like indulging them, not because it is a matter of ethics or principle.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
What?

Being crazy means you aren't responsible for your actions, because you can't exercise deliberative control of your behavior.

The gravity of your deeds can't alter whether or not you are crazy.
Click to expand...

Then, with someone as dangerous as that, they've no choice but to lock him up out of fear of him attempting another similar stunt. His actions dictate his life, not his intents. That's true for everyone.
 
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. Of course I know this won't happen and hundred of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) will be wasted in court time.
Click to expand...

He's innocent though, for now. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
 
Morality Games said:
What?

Being crazy means you aren't responsible for your actions, because you can't exercise deliberative control over your behavior.

The gravity of your deeds can't alter whether or not you are crazy.

I don't see the point of having complex legal, psychiatric, and moral categories if a person guilt's ultimately derives from how upset people are at him. It's like the categories only exist in case we feel like indulging them, not because it is a matter of ethics or principle.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. He is indeed mentally unstable, but he still knows right from wrong (or so it seems according to reports.) He knew what he was doing was wrong. That is the difference. Just being mentally deficient is not enough.
 
I don't think he should be killed, because he's just a young man, and he has his whole life ahead of him (albeit most of that life is now ruined, and he has no one to blame for that but himself).
 
Solace said:
I don't think he should be killed, because he's just a young man, and he has his whole life ahead of him (albeit most of that life is now ruined, and he has no one to blame for that but himself).
Click to expand...

Not to mention the ghastly moral negligence in utilising the death penalty.
 
Solace said:
He's innocent though, for now. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Hmm? As if a jury is going to find him not guilty and that he didn't pull the trigger.
That phrase only applies to cases in which there is the need to gather EVIDENCE to prove guilt/innocence - not when there is no reasonable doubt.
There is no 'going free' for him - the only thing they can argue is the severity of his punishment. . . there's no question in anyone's mind about his guilt.
 
Morality Games said:
What?

Being crazy means you aren't responsible for your actions, because you can't exercise deliberative control over your behavior.

The gravity of your deeds can't alter whether or not you are crazy.

I don't see the point of having complex legal, psychiatric, and moral categories if a person guilt's ultimately derives from how upset people are at him. It's like the categories only exist in case we feel like indulging them, not because it is a matter of ethics or principle.
Click to expand...

in the early 70's I had a physc prof tell me he did not believe in innocent by reason of insanity, he did believe in guilty but insane. The reason is even the most insane person makes decisions. They may look at the world differently and precieve actions differentyl, but that is not an excuse. Maybe it is time we reduce the complexity of psychiatric catagories.
 
mike2810 said:
in the early 70's I had a physc prof tell me he did not believe in innocent by reason of insanity, he did believe in guilty but insane. The reason is even the most insane person makes decisions. They may look at the world differently and precieve actions differentyl, but that is not an excuse. Maybe it is time we reduce the complexity of psychiatric catagories.
Click to expand...

But actually winning or having a sentence reduced by te insanity defense is extremely difficult and very rare.

But if we were to make things more depending on understanding HOW the person works and judge within their world we would be adding another spectrum to psychology altogether.
 
Then, with someone as dangerous as that, they've no choice but to lock him up out of fear of him attempting another similar stunt. His actions dictate his life, not his intents. That's true for everyone.
Click to expand...

In a general sense, I agree. Crazy or not, his actions will have consequence. But punishment and/or rehabilitation is not an algorithmic process. Multiple contingencies from different conditions and varying degrees. The "destiny" the legal system decides for him could be altered several times over the months, years, or decades before it reaches a definitive shape. On the other hand, it might be straightforward.

Yes and no. He is indeed mentally unstable, but he still knows right from wrong (or so it seems according to reports.) He knew what he was doing was wrong. That is the difference. Just being mentally deficient is not enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the specifics of his case. He may or may not be crazy, and that will be evaluated during the legal process. My point is that the category of insanity exists for defined legal and moral purposes, which as a matter of principle cannot be altered because of the gravity of an actor's deed.
 
Last edited:
Solace said:
He's innocent though, for now. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So give the DA one day to present the evidence, and one day for a defense. Based on what evidence the DA has, don't you agree that this is a pretty cut/dried case?
His gun, witness seeing him use the gun, caught and held at the scene, notes in his room about wanting to kill the person, etc.
 
I voted "other".

Oops no need for a trial someone shot the bastard. Damn.
 
Agreed. So give the DA one day to present the evidence, and one day for a defense. Based on what evidence the DA has, don't you agree that this is a pretty cut/dried case?
His gun, witness seeing him use the gun, caught and held at the scene, notes in his room about wanting to kill the person, etc.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oops no need for a trial someone shot the bastard. Damn.
Click to expand...

Yeah lets commit murder and piss on the constitution for absolutely no good reason. Great idea!
 
mike2810 said:
in the early 70's I had a physc prof tell me he did not believe in innocent by reason of insanity, he did believe in guilty but insane. The reason is even the most insane person makes decisions. They may look at the world differently and precieve actions differentyl, but that is not an excuse. Maybe it is time we reduce the complexity of psychiatric catagories.
Click to expand...

If society is unable to commit itself to them, then maybe, as trying to perform a movement that is above your abilities tends toward awkward results.

In the abstract, a person who is crazy has beliefs that are riddled with discontinuities. For example, a person who kills a bunch of people because they genuinely believe their neighbor's dog told it would stop aliens from invading the Earth isn't capable of deliberative control of their behavior, due to the fact they can't deliberate reality.

In contrast, a person who poisons their spouse because they want the thrill of a new romance, but without losing property during a divorce, is not crazy. Spiritually misguided, but they deliberated the realities.

But actually winning or having a sentence reduced by te insanity defense is extremely difficult and very rare.
Click to expand...

Probably because society does not want legal insanity to exist, as opposed to morally conscious, evil people, but it can't bring itself to believe that it does not.
 
Last edited:
Solace said:
How do you think the AZ shooter's courtcase should end?
Click to expand...

It's not my place to make some sort of ruling, since I'm... not on the jury, so by that line of thinking the trial should end however it does end.

What do I personally think, given the minute amount of evidence I have? If he's legitimately mentally troubled (medically), then he should spend life in a mental institution, if he's not deemed medically mentally ill, then in my personal opinion (given what I said above), he should get something like life with parole, not that he'd ever get it.

Also, this is America damnit, shouldn't there be an option to imprison him for the rest of his life and horribly torture him for that length of time? I'm sure that'd get some votes. And what about life in solitary? Wait, same thing.

I voted other, since I have several conditional views.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom