View Full Version : Scenario: Mentally ill man kills your child
Eurodriver
10-14-14, 15:35
There's something I've always struggled with - lets hypothetically and God Forbiddingly assume that a man kills your child viciously.
Medical science has PROVEN that the murderers behavior was 100% due to a brain tumor that caused the murder. The killer has been operated on and is no longer a threat. This man has never had a criminal issue before the tumor and will not ever again after the tumor is removed
What punishment do you think is appropriate? Remember, we are not debating whether or not the tumor caused the behavior. That is a proven scientifically undisputed fact. The question is - a man killed your loved one because he was diseased. His disease is cured. Is he ultimately responsible?
Alcoholism is supposedly a disease. A man kills your child while driving drunk, go to rehab and is cured. Same question, is he guilty? It was the disease that killed your child.
That argument would go over like a fart in an elevator. But it is the same. Disease or not they did it and actions have consequences in the real world, unless you are apart of the FSA.
I think this was a Law and Order episode.
Tumor or not, my children are my world and all I live for. If you remove them from me in any way, well then I've got nothing to lose...
Should be promoted to local cub master.
Leaveammoforme
10-14-14, 17:25
Where you going with this Euro? Into a rehabilitation debate? As Docsherm stated many actions are diseases because some smart person said they were. I would assume that here (M4C) the general response would be as Lunchbox stated.
Someone kill my child(ren)? I would not be done until I even drowned their pet fish.
Someone kill my child(ren)? I would not be done until I even drowned their pet fish.
Perfection.
He committed an irrevocable crime; while his tumor may have been removed your child will never get out of the grave.
He should die.
If the doctors sign a piece of paper stating that in the event massive head wound Harry causes mischief again they will suck start a shotgun I'll believe them at their word. Till then the guys stands trial and takes what the jury hands out including the needle.
Hopefully.
Mentally ill person would be dead, tortured first if they were capable of understanding what they did. I would likely be in jail as a result. I would hope my wife understands.
Moose-Knuckle
10-14-14, 18:00
The murderer and the whole of his/her blood line would become intimately familiar with the method of Roman warfare known as scorched Earth.
The fact that this has to be even questioned speaks volumes . . .
Someone kill my child(ren)? I would not be done until I even drowned their pet fish.Now that's a sig line!!
What does the law say? Was he capable of understanding the wrongfulness (unlawfulness) of his actions and/or was his volitional capacity full impaired? It's generally a two prong test.
gunrunner505
10-14-14, 18:11
Keyser Soze method.
Hurt my kids and there is nothing you can do that will prevent me from getting to you and punching your time card. Slow.
Period.
Killing is killing, I don't care who you are. That is something that can never be forgiven.
SpeedRacer
10-14-14, 18:53
If someone has something so wrong with them, mentally or physically, that they can't control themselves from killing children...they need to no longer exist. Simple as that.
militarymoron
10-14-14, 20:08
The question is - a man killed your loved one because he was diseased. His disease is cured. Is he ultimately responsible?
I think a person should be held responsible for their actions, whether or not they're aware of right or wrong. doesn't matter whether he's a threat right after or not. he can serve his sentence (for involuntary manslaughter i'd guess, not murder), like any other person who committed the same crime.
'not knowing' - whether it's just lack of understanding on the person's part or a brain tumor doesn't mean you don't get dinged for committing the crime. you can get a speeding ticket even if you were unaware of that the speed limit was 25 instead of 50.
I think a person should be held responsible for their actions, whether or not they're aware of right or wrong. doesn't matter whether he's a threat right after or not. he can serve his sentence (for involuntary manslaughter i'd guess, not murder), like any other person who committed the same crime.
'not knowing' - whether it's just lack of understanding on the person's part or a brain tumor doesn't mean you don't get dinged for committing the crime. you can get a speeding ticket even if you were unaware of that the speed limit was 25 instead of 50.
If you are capable of committing purposeful murder, regardless of if you can appreciate the significance of it, I'm holding you accountable.
The only one I'd let go is if somebody had a heart attack or blacked out due to a unexpected health issue and lost control of their vehicle or something like that.
But if you can operate a knife, firearm or blunt object and through deliberate action cause the death of anyone in my family, even if you don't actually understand what you are doing, that is very different. Someone should have recognized the threat you posed to society and taken steps to keep a better eye on you.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-14-14, 22:03
Keyser Soze method.
Hurt my kids and there is nothing you can do that will prevent me from getting to you and punching your time card. Slow.
Period.
Revenge or a man doing something to protect his wife or kids is a common theme in movies. We were watching one of those movies once and my son asked if I would go all Liam Neeson on someone. I told him that the question isn't what I would be willing to do, the appropriate question is what wouldn't I be willing to do to keep him safe. I have yet to come up with an answer.
Sidebar- those scary movies (I just see the commercials) where the monster/devil/ghost are in the house and they are going after your kid- I don't see those as scary, I just think of the un-holy holy hell I would unleash.
Eurodriver
10-15-14, 06:08
Where you going with this Euro? Into a rehabilitation debate? As Docsherm stated many actions are diseases because some smart person said they were. I would assume that here (M4C) the general response would be as Lunchbox stated.
Someone kill my child(ren)? I would not be done until I even drowned their pet fish.
I'm not going anywhere.
I'm actually pretty surprised everyone has the same response. I'd pose the inverse and ask what does the forum think should happen if you had a brain tumor that caused you to kill your children - but I suppose the answers would be almost identical.
Personally, if a fine upstanding young man had a TBI and immediately began assaulting people I would find it hard to convict him if I were on that jury.
I'm not going anywhere.
I'm actually pretty surprised everyone has the same response. I'd pose the inverse and ask what does the forum think should happen if you had a brain tumor that caused you to kill your children - but I suppose the answers would be almost identical.
Personally, if a fine upstanding young man had a TBI and immediately began assaulting people I would find it hard to convict him if I were on that jury.
It's an interesting question (the one you originally posted).
From an objective fairness POV, I think he should be acquitted legally. Again, assuming as you say that the act was 100% due to a medical condition that is now permanently cured. The alcohol comparison isn't quite valid because drinking the alcohol was voluntary. I'm assuming getting a brain tumor is not voluntary.
People should be punished by the legal system for negligent or intentional harm. The situation you propose is neither. For all intents and purposes, it's a non-negligent, non-depraved-heart, non-felony-murder accident which cannot ever happen again.
That being said, not having children of my own, I don't know how far I would take revenge for revenge's sake outside the law. But that'd be what it is, revenge. It's not justice.
Eurodriver
10-15-14, 06:23
From an objective fairness POV, I think he should be acquitted legally. Again, assuming as you say that the act was 100% due to a medical condition that is now permanently cured. The alcohol comparison isn't quite valid because drinking the alcohol was voluntary. I'm assuming getting a brain tumor is not voluntary.
People should be punished by the legal system for negligent or intentional harm. The situation you propose is neither. For all intents and purposes, it's a non-negligent accident which cannot ever happen again.
That being said, not having children of my own, I don't know how far I would take revenge for revenge's sake outside the law. But that'd be what it is, revenge. It's not justice.
The bolded part is correct. The entire scenario depends on this being an accepted fact, otherwise there is no point in debating it. And obviously the tumor (or whatever) was not caused by years of meth addiction or something of that nature.
What's interesting is a science fiction interpretation of your scenario.
Someone commits a crime, then is brainwashed with a literal 0% chance of regaining past memories, but can become a productive member of society post-brain-washing. Should that be enough punishment for murder as the person who committed the crime is essentially already dead?
Eurodriver
10-15-14, 06:51
What's interesting is a science fiction interpretation of your scenario.
Someone commits a crime, then is brainwashed with a literal 0% chance of regaining past memories, but can become a productive member of society post-brain-washing. Should that be enough punishment for murder as the person who committed the crime is essentially already dead?
In my book, yes. That's a no-brainer (no pun intended) Not sure the troglodytes here would agree, however.
Averageman
10-15-14, 07:01
Your mental issues aren't my problem, Killing my kid, now that's a big problem, for both of us.
I haven't heard of anyone ever getting a tumor overnight that made them a killer. They would have some symptoms as the tumor gradually grew and the logical thing would be to see a Doctor.
This is a lot like Duncan and Ebola, did he know he had it, or did he have an idea he might, did he acknowledge he had been possibly exposed? Perhaps Dncan didn't give a damn and just moved through society making his chances better for survival and lying until he got here.
It doesn't matter, sometimes in order to do the right thing you go see a Doctor when you are having issues with your health, just so you dont expose others to a deadly disease.
Like I said, these things dont just happen overnight, when the voices in your head get loud enough, you owe it to others to go see someone about it.
Eurodriver
10-15-14, 07:19
The tumor is an example guys. What if someone maliciously injected your neighbor with heroin and he went into a frenzy and killed your wife. Is that punishable by death for him?
Additionally, thousands of kids are kidnapped, raped, or murdered every year in this country and less than a handful of fathers attack the attackers. The police would find him before you would and they're not going to let you go beating his ass while he's at the station. We all know you love your kids and will protect them, but this isn't about what we would do to the attacker. More about whether the person is legally responsible.
Voodoo_Man
10-15-14, 07:41
What parent in their right mind is going to accept "scientific" fact for an explanation of the murder of their child.
The same goes for if you had a brain tumor or medical condition that caused it. Forgiving yourself might be difficult.
I find this a very interesting question. And of course there is more than one answer.
From a purely logical and perhaps legal point of view, the person did not have control of their actions. Therefore if the tumor was removed I could see a situation where the person was not put on trial or was acquitted if a trial occurred. I would even argue that the comparison to an alcoholic was inaccurate since that still requires an action to lead to the situation where harm could occur.
Now from an emotional point of view. I agree with the majority of replies. If anyone harmed my family I would stop at nothing to see them punished. Slowly and painfully.
I enjoy thought exercises like this. They are a good reminder that life is not as black and white as we would like it too be.
Kind of like the Trolly Car exercise. You see an out of control Trolly heading towards a group of 4 people who are unable to get out of the way. You are standing next to the switch that would divert the car to another track. However on that track there is a workman who will be killed if you throw the switch. So what do you do?
Now reverse the situation. It is heading towards a single person, but that person is a family member. On the other track are 4 strangers. Do you throw the switch now?
militarymoron
10-15-14, 07:55
If you are capable of committing purposeful murder, regardless of if you can appreciate the significance of it, I'm holding you accountable.
if he did actually commit murder, i agree. for some reason, i read into the original post that it wasn't premeditated/purposeful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE
Not sure how I would react. I never want to know.
militarymoron
10-15-14, 08:04
Digging a bit deeper - i'm not sure that a tumor makes that much of a difference to me. a person who kills a child obviously thinks differently than the rest of society, whether it be how his brain is 'wired' or due to natural chemical imbalances that affect his thoughts/judgement. something in his brain is different. for the tumor guy, it's the tumor. you could use the argument that anyone who can kill a kid has something wrong with his brain.
for the heroin guy - both he and the guy who injected him (accessory) would both stand trial for manslaughter.
Medical science has PROVEN that the murderers behavior was 100% due to a brain tumor that caused the murder.
I realize this is a theoretical example and you are using an illustrative tool in order to eliminate a variable from the discussion.... but I think this is really the first Achilles heel in the discussion. I simply I don't have that much faith in "science", it just hasn't been earned. When science makes a complex claim and suggests it is 100% proven I BECOME skeptical.
This theoretical "tool" is a full-stop for me. I just can't digest it for purposes of discussion. The taste is too bad.
Eurodriver
10-15-14, 09:01
Ick, no one is forcing you to participate. I just find conversations like this interesting. I enjoy the points kwelz made as well.
Digging a bit deeper - i'm not sure that a tumor makes that much of a difference to me. a person who kills a child obviously thinks differently than the rest of society, whether it be how his brain is 'wired' or due to natural chemical imbalances that affect his thoughts/judgement. something in his brain is different. for the tumor guy, it's the tumor. you could use the argument that anyone who can kill a kid has something wrong with his brain.
for the heroin guy - both he and the guy who injected him (accessory) would both stand trial for manslaughter.
These are good points - a child molester is messed up in the head and I think life in prison is too easy for them. However, if you could, as was stated earlier, wipe their brain clean and start from zero is their body still responsible?
if someone injects me with a narcotic unknowingly and then I go into a rage and kill someone who forgets my fries at McDonalds (and it is proven that I was injected unknowingly) I can still be convicted of manslaughter?
The tumor was Bush's fault via climate change I assume...
Eurodriver
10-15-14, 09:30
Do you even work bro?
This thread is inviting people to post things they shouldn't. Most of us would do the moral and legally correct thing, which is to let the Justice System decide on the punishment.
Anything extracurricular would be deemed "illegal", so we won't/shouldn't really be discussing that in an open forum.
Sorry.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.