Originally Posted by Some random retard
8 years is still a long ass time... I hate how people forget even if they are in jail for 5 years. THAT'S FIVE YEARS THEY WILL NEVER GET BACK! Imagine doing something you hate for 5 years, you won't get that time back and that's what people in jail feel. (for the most part of convicts)
So to be all sad that this kid might get so many years, remember IT'S YEARS! Not like the kid would spend a month, still a long ass time. He will never get it back.
What about the MANY MANY years of life he took from his mother and sister? Plus the pain and suffering his family endured before they finally passed away. I cant believe how many people are talking this lunatic's side...
He deserves 20+ years jail time. No doubt about it.
People HATE when sentences don't end the way they
Originally Posted by Burnedbug
What about the MANY MANY years of life he took from his mother and sister? Plus the pain and suffering his family endured before they finally passed away. I cant believe how many people are talking this lunatic's side...
He deserves 20+ years jail time. No doubt about it.
Why is it people admit this guy was mentally unstable, yet still believe in punitive action for the crime? It's the same as saying a mentally incompetent person should still be held accountable to the same extent a mentally competent person should. Which is complete and utter bullshit. A disproportionate number of people who get sentenced to death row or life in prison are mentally retarded. Same thing with individual's with mental illness. Punishment is not an answer to the problem, it's the avoidance of it.
Plus, he shot them. He failed to kill them with the first bullets, so he shot them again to put them out of their pain, in his own words. This isn't like he skinned them alive or something for the sheer fun of it. If anything, he killed them in the most humane way he believed he could. So please, stop exaggerating the details with speculative reasoning. Everybody feels pain from death to a degree. Deliberate infliction of pain for the sake of pain would merit attention, not if it's just a side effect of the intent.
And again, an eye for an eye makes everybody blind. If his family is already devastated from the murders, sending the remaining family member to 20 years in prison is hardly the best way to alleviate any anguish relatives might feel. Rehabilitation, in hopes that he can become a safe, functioning member of society is a much more effective, and potentially rewarding, reaction than prison.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Prison is not intended to be a punitive reaction, but a dissuasive response to prevent crime. It's not a institution of punishing the individual, but seeking to convince an everyday individual from committing a crime.
I think that there is more to it.
People who live correctly and after law deserve to be somehow rewarded, in my opinion. The easiest way to do that is to punish those who don't.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with punishment for a crime.
That has nothing to do with "eye after eye" (I'm totally against death penalty, on a side note) and is not much of an emotional arguement either. It is just a basic idea of justice.
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because one man doesn't get sentenced does not mean it suddenly will spiral out of control. The man who tried to kill Ronald Reagan was placed in a mental institution, rather than prison, and assault and murder didn't spike after his conviction.
I know that. But a sentence should also serve as a determent. And if it became custom to not sentence a double homicide, because of some emotional issues, it would certainly affect the crime scene longterm.
People are still ignoring the fact that mental rehabilitation of individuals who commit crimes like murder are not brief 2, 5, or even 10 year stints in some posh facility. They are kept in confinement the majority of the time, and they basically have the same rights of any convicted criminal.
You are totally right. But there is a principle involved. A person who gets admitted to a psychiatry is basically excused for whatever he did to society from a moal point of view. He is "crazy" after all and has no or less responsibility for his actions.
If someone really is mentally ill that is justified without doubt , but I would not be too frivolously with such a diagnosis.
This may be an ethnical problem and not affect anyone in practice, I still think it is somewhat important.
Why is it people admit this guy was mentally unstable, yet still believe in punitive action for the crime?
Because being mentally unstable does not equal with being mentally ill. A person who is mentally unstable is still capable of making his own decisions, being totally aware of its consequences. Do you know how many mentally unstable people are out there? Still, homicide is a rare exeption. Why? Because most people are able to control themselfs and live with there emotional issues without killing or hurting anybody. There are people who deal worse with it than others, but it is no excuse for such a crime.
Jake deserves punishment for it, be it only to do justice to those who live after law, despite emotional issues.
Things change if he is mentally ill and is unfit to plead due to a sickness he suffers from.
The intention and awareness is the key arguement here. A mentally ill person would may commit the same crime without even intending to do something evil. In a psychosis one might be convinced to save the world due to his deed or believe that he is in mortal danger.
I do realize that this example is oversymplified, but I hope you get my point.
Jake however seemed to be totally aware of what he was doing and his reasoning is pretty concerning and irrational but not psychotic and blurred.
Then again, the call is certainly not enough to decide on this. There is certainly a lot of background information and history he did not mention, he may be even lying about the reasons.
To conclude: If he is not diagnosed a with mental illness he should not be treated any differently and be sentenced properly. I'm also positive that the prison could provide him with psychological help to some extent.
And in response to the comment of preventing him from committing suicide, studies report that criminals who are sentenced to life imprisonment experience greater suffering through out their life than criminals who are sentenced to death. Death is seen as an escape for a lot of people, especially from adverse conditions, like prison. So explain to me how dissuading him from committing suicide is ultimately beneficial for him if what awaits him is greater suffering through life imprisonment, rather than death?
Wow, radical conclusion. I guess I just value life higher than you do.
P.S. I agree with your criticism on the law system. It is really messed up, no doubt about that.
Last edited by bigGrin; Nov 27, 2012 at 07:48 AM.
“War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin, keep out of the way till you can.” - Winston Churchill
