Insanity pleas need to GO AWAY........

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/07/colorado-theater-shooting-suspect-to-enter-insanity-plea/?test=latestnews]Colorado theater shooting suspect to enter insanity plea | Fox News[/url]

I hate them. Insane people who murder folks are still murders, and should be treated as such. I don't BELIEVE in insanity pleas.

Maybe we don't cook his sorry ASS, but he should never see the light of day.......NEVER.

If there is a chance he will.....then we should COOK HIS ASS.

AND if we cook him......I don't mean the standard electric chair. I want wrap wires around him and plug him into 110, and give him a SLOW BURN......it should be as painful as possible.

Feel free to waterboard him for a few hours JUST for shits and giggles.

Later,

Geo

Another opinion I share with Mr Fisher, except for the torture part, regardless of his mental state people like this have no business being turned loose on the rest of us ever again and I am personally an advocate of the death penalty, my only gripe about capital punishment is we don't do is use it enough.

[QUOTE=Hlleonard;513956]Another opinion I share with Mr Fisher, except for the torture part, regardless of his mental state people like this have no business being turned loose on the rest of us ever again and I am personally an advocate of the death penalty, my only gripe about capital punishment is we don't do is use it enough.[/QUOTE]

Or soon enough. Twenty years for appeals? Forget it.

You are innocent till proven guilty!! I some countries you will not even be arrested, till there is some proof.Here its arrest them, then find the evidence. I'm not against the death penalty,in cases where there is absolute proof, do it. But what happens when someone who is later proven innocent? Isn't that also a crime? So who is the criminal? I have a personal reason for studying this, and there are a lot of cases where innocence is later proven.There are even some questionable executions not many, but one is too many.Then who is the criminal? The guy in colorado is guilty of killing a lot of people, there isn't much doubt he did it, so execute him, lame crippled or crazy,he's guilty, who cares why he did it, that can be resolved whether he's alive or dead.The boston bombing, he admitted it, but in this case, killing him would make him a maryter, life no parole would be a fitting resolution.

[QUOTE=kygorski;513974]You are innocent till proven guilty!! I some countries you will not even be arrested, till there is some proof.Here its arrest them, then find the evidence. I'm not against the death penalty,in cases where there is absolute proof, do it. But what happens when someone who is later proven innocent? Isn't that also a crime? So who is the criminal? I have a personal reason for studying this, and there are a lot of cases where innocence is later proven.There are even some questionable executions not many, but one is too many.Then who is the criminal? The guy in colorado is guilty of killing a lot of people, there isn't much doubt he did it, so execute him, lame crippled or crazy,he's guilty, who cares why he did it, that can be resolved whether he's alive or dead.The boston bombing, he admitted it, but in this case, killing him would make him a maryter, life no parole would be a fitting resolution.[/QUOTE]

DUDE.......that has nothing to DO what what I posted.

He is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity............SCREW THAT.

Not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity are the same thing to me.......NOT GUILTY.

By adding the by reason of insanity, it changes the metrics by which the players play the game, and I hate that. We don't say not guilty because I had a bad day, or not guilty because the dude I killed was an *******. Why not guilty by reason of insanity.

I hate that political correct ********.

Later,

Geo

The problem as I see it is not the existence of a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" plea, but the way they are handled. Or maybe it should be changed to read, "Guilty, but insane." Because the problem is, if you're found "Not guilty by reason of insanity," then you're just that.. not guilty. You're committed to a mental institution until such time as you are deemed "rehabilitated," and then you are cut loose, with no criminal record, no nothing. If you truly are so insane that you don't know right from wrong, and end up killing someone as a result, I don't think you should be executed, but I don't think you should be just turned loose back into society to go kill again, either. There need to be some kind of lifelong consequences, something in place to protect the rest of us.

There are some jurisdictions that do have a "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) option for juries. It's used when the jury feels that the person is definitely mentally ill, but that illness is not severe enough to be absolved from all criminal responsibility.

Bob's Law (if they did it this way)

1. Did the suspect commit the crime based on the evidence? If yes continue, if no...release and stop.
2. If suspect is found to have done the crime, is he sane? If yes continue, if no continue.
3. Is the insane suspect clincally capable of rehabilitation/treatment with a good chance of success? If yes, put in jail and treat until sane and until end of prison term and release. If no, the right click and delete him.
4. If suspect is sane, and has no other criminal record, jail and rehabilitate. If he has 3 strikes or more, right click and delete as a repeat offender and rehad failure.

Now understand I got a social psych degree. If a convicted criminal has the potential to be treated and rehabilitated we ought do that as a civilized society. If a person is insane but commits no crime, or is no danger to anyone in society, then we should do all we can to provide the best possible quality of life. Insane with no chance to rehabilitate or treat, means a continued potential treat to society documented by prior behavior and should be eliminated to provide security to society and to save resources for those who can beneft from the application there of. Repeat felony offenders are rehad failures, who have had a chnace to confrom , have elected not to, and deserve no more resources that should be applied to those who deserve a chance at a better life. Right click....delete.

Our system is messed up. When O.J. Simpson can get off with the mountain of evidence against him and still get off, you know there is a problem.

My brother witnessed a murder in Florida and had to testify against the scum bags. After the trial was over the Prosecutors came over to him and said that the guilty guys would get out of prison in 7 yrs for good behavior. These guys stabbed a guy to death with a screw driver, stole a motor home that belonged to the dead guy and dumped his body in Georgia. 7 yrs? And many in this country want terrorist around the world to be tried in our courts. I don't get it.

I still wish that someone in that theater was allowed to exersize their constitutional right to protect themselves with a gun and finished that guy off right there. We wouldn't have to worry about whether he is crazy, or innocent, or guilty.

Could we fix all this with some timely mis-spelling?

When such episodes occur, we ought follow tha law and provide " a court appointed assassin ".

Ooops.....to bad ;) we meant "attorney". My bad.

By definition: a member of a Shia Muslim sect who at the time of the Crusades was sent out on a suicidal mission to murder prominent enemies.

OMG Bob, do you mean we can solve the problem by turning off spell check?!?!?!?!?!?!