Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smith
I couldn't and wouldn't disagree with any of this. But I have a question for you coming from a legal standpoint. What if a person IS mentally handicapped and commits terrible murders. In your opinion, should they be eligible for capital punishment? And if not, what punishment should be given them? If you're of the opinion they shouldn't qualify for the death penalty, should they qualify for any kind of punishment? If they can't be executed, what can happen to them that is fair?
I struggle with the death penalty in general. I know what the Old Testament says, but the OT says a lot of things! I oppose strongly oppose abortion and find it hard to cheer the death penalty. It's not about one being guilty and one being innocent, it's the struggle I have with the taking of a life.
|
The law has rules about the mental state of individuals committing a crime like murder, actually depending on which stay it is one of four rules, to determine if they should be punished or simply committed until either they are well enough not commit such a crime again.
1. M'Naghten Rule - If an individual has a mental disease or defect that caused them to either, not know his act would be wrong or understand the nature and quality of his actions.
2. Irresistible Impulse Test - because of mental illness they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law.
3. Durham Test - Crime was the product of their mental illness. This is a very broad test basically the crime would not have been committed had the individual not been mentally ill.
4. Model Penal Code - The individual lacked the substantial capacity to either: appreciate the criminality of their conduct; Conform their conduct to the requirements of the law;
In the opinion of the law if someone commits murder and is likely to do it again because of their mental state they are justified in locking them up to keep society safe but not execute them.
I don't have a problem with the death penalty any more than I have a problem with a soldier killing an enemy combatant. Both are sanctioned killings by the state and the proper roll of the state but not the proper roll of individuals acting alone. A soldier will be prosecuted for killing outside the bounds of what he is authorized to do. Individuals cannot kill someone because that person has killed someone else only the state can do that. The fact that the state may have wrongly executed someone (this happens less often then opponents would have you believe) doesn't negate their right and obligation to do so any more than a states misuse of taxes removes their right to tax its citizens.