OK please provide an example of such a virus.
Trump reinstates death penalty for federal crimes
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
OK please provide an example of such a virus.
A virus is just one factor that could cause someone to change their behaviour and only a fool would deny any form of stimulus from potential changing someone's cognitive function - be it physicality, mental health or decision making ability.
Brain tumours have been evidenced to cause extreme aggression in some cases, likewise nerve degenerative diseases have reduced, or magnified pain thresholds in individuals. Fungal spores, pheromones and chemicals have noted the ability to change how people operate - look at 'recreational drugs'. Is it not outside of the realms of possibility that a pathogen, which could very easily mutate or release inhibitors into a person's body, could alter their mood, compassion, decision-making, tolerance, thresholds of pain etc. ?
Is the discussion really turning binary?
No. I am not suggesting our entire Justice System should revolve around the possibility that a pathogen could affect a person's ability to behave a moral and ethical manner. But what I am intimating is that every aspect should be considered before just handing out unrecoverable sentences.
No, that's not what was said.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,953
I don't deny people's mental state can certainly make them do out of character things.... But personally I would still be comfortable with the state taking Ian Huntley , Myra Hindley and Rose/Fred West out of the gene pool. Some crimes are so hideous imo that it is for the greater good of society imo.
A guy coming home from work and finding his neighbour in bed with his wife and accidentally killing the bloke with an unlucky punch in a moment of rage or a mother finding out someone was abusing their child and running him through with a knife again in a fit of rage I personally would not condone the death penalty for. It's clearly a sliding scale and YMMV.
End if they day it's just folk gassing on a forum so it's all good in my book.
A guy coming home from work and finding his neighbour in bed with his wife and accidentally killing the bloke with an unlucky punch in a moment of rage or a mother finding out someone was abusing their child and running him through with a knife again in a fit of rage I personally would not condone the death penalty for. It's clearly a sliding scale and YMMV.
End if they day it's just folk gassing on a forum so it's all good in my book.
Last edited:
Yes he did, he said we cant have a death penalty because in the future we could discover they had been infected with something that caused them to act that way.
Only a fool would base an argument on something they basically just pulled out of their arse...
Ignoring the fantasy bit lets suppose there was some magical virus that has evaded detection and alters someone's behaviour a bit - I'm not sure that in itself should be sufficient to let someone off, likewise with (some) mental health issues (who doesn't have some mental health issues these days?). The killers were still motivated by ideology, they still chose to carry out those actions, the target was chosen because of who he was... even if such a virus existed it wasn't the virus that was responsible for those choices.
Strangely enough this fictitious virus hasn't lead to them killing anyone inside prison.
Like I touched upon in my further post, it should not be dealt with entirely as a binary situation of YES/NO to death. But should be an expert-considered factor that would go some way to determine a sentence based on various factors:
- transmission vector
- virulence
- likelihood of recovery
- likelihood of recidivism
- benefits to society (organ harvests, virus testing, labour, skills/merits etc)
Or simply if they are just so far gone, that they can serve no benefit to society except as a risk to life.
Why would their genes make the conviction unsafe?
A person is the combination of their genetics and their experiences (which includes their environment history and current environment). This has always has been the case.
The fact that someone killed someone else isn't excused because of their genes, surely.
"I killed that guy but I can't help it, I have the murder gene."
"OK, sounds legit, move along then. Nothing to see here."
Now you might use genetics + life experiences to explain why someone did something, but that has never excused someone doing something.
I.e. if you murder someone because you were bullied by them your whole life, you might get some sympathy, but you still murdered them. Surely, your conviction isn't "unsafe" even tho your sentence can be reduced due to these factors.
So how would a genetic predisposition to violence make a conviction unsafe? If the evidence is clear and guilt is well established.
Seems we're really looking for ways to turn criminals into victims these days. "Poor so-and-so, he couldn't help murdering all those kids. It's his genes, you see."
A person is the combination of their genetics and their experiences (which includes their environment history and current environment). This has always has been the case.
The fact that someone killed someone else isn't excused because of their genes, surely.
"I killed that guy but I can't help it, I have the murder gene."
"OK, sounds legit, move along then. Nothing to see here."
Now you might use genetics + life experiences to explain why someone did something, but that has never excused someone doing something.
I.e. if you murder someone because you were bullied by them your whole life, you might get some sympathy, but you still murdered them. Surely, your conviction isn't "unsafe" even tho your sentence can be reduced due to these factors.
So how would a genetic predisposition to violence make a conviction unsafe? If the evidence is clear and guilt is well established.
Seems we're really looking for ways to turn criminals into victims these days. "Poor so-and-so, he couldn't help murdering all those kids. It's his genes, you see."
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I'm saying that our understand of mental health is immature enough that future understanding could make current murder convictions unsafe.
It was one thing he suggested amongst a host of reasons that we can never be confident of being 100% that someone is a murderer.
But, as is typical, people have jumped on one small detail in amongst a general point and are using it to attack the very obvious major point to the post.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Defendant: "I killed a guy because I was having an episode whereby my mental health was affected so much I was not in full control of my actions"
Doctor: "My assessment results show this is correct"
Judge: "I'll have to direct the jury to acquit on the charge of murder and consider manslaughter based on diminished responsibility"
This is not unusual.
It shouldn't IMHO, the genetic one is a silly argument and the virus one is pure fantasy seemingly based on nothing at all.
The mental health argument has some merit but it ins't like clinicians today are completely unaware of mental health and aside from more extreme cases it is rather dubious for it to be a get out clause.
@Burnsy2023 Great so in future it'll be a quick 3 year stint in jail for mass murder, so long as you can prove your genes are faulty.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
No, I'm not saying someone shouldn't be imprisoned for their crimes. There is usually a difference from capital crimes and other crimes that have mitigations which lead to a life imprisonment sentence rather than death.
The difference here may literally be whether the death sentence is legal or whether a lesser conviction may have the maximum of life imprisonment.
You said he didn’t say it, I just pointed out he did. The rest of his post was off topic and about executing people convicted of lesser crimes.
If you murder someone you should spend the rest of your life in prison as a minimum punishment in my view, and I also think if you have mental issues that cause you to murder / kill people you are not safe to be loose in society.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
The question is whether you should imprison, or kill that person. They are two very different things.
The difference is between murder and manslaughter. Should Sally Challen have been executed? She was convicted and subsequently acquitted of murder but the fact she killed her husband was never in question.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47407204
No, you boiled it down to his argument being only a potential virus, that was either a deliberate or mistaken interpretation where one example given was the sole argument. It wasn't.