In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
They don't understand finality or long term consequences in nearly the same way that adults do.
Yet still, most of them don't shoot their teachers.
If you're arguing that 6 y/os don't know the difference between right and wrong then I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
They do but but they might not understand it much better than sneaking an extra biscuit when mum's not looking.
I definitely did the later. I'm very pleased to say that no-one tried me with a gun.
Pretty sure this child wasn't on any psych meds. But I was talking about for life. I sure wouldn't want to live next to that kid at any time.
My point is that there are facilities for folks with mental disorders where they are neither a danger to themselves nor others.
I suspect I'm far more likely to be run over by a distracted driver while crossing the street than by some deranged person (child or adult). That doesn't deter me from walking in the city virtually every day.
True.
Does that prove that six year olds should be treated as adults for the purpose of assessing criminal culpability?
They do but but they might not understand it much better than sneaking an extra biscuit when mum's not looking.
I definitely did the later. I'm very pleased to say that no-one tried me with a gun.
And they only know that sneaking an extra biscuit is wrong because an adult gave them a rule and a consequence. Children that age don’t have internalized moral reasoning. They are limited to imitation and basic instructions.
The adults that were responsible for this child are at fault; the 6 year old is a victim of those adults.
My point is that there are facilities for folks with mental disorders where they are neither a danger to themselves nor others.
I understand. Like I said earlier, I think it would be cruel to keep a person who didn't understand what they did in a place like that for their entire life.
Same thing for adults too.
True.
Does that prove that six year olds should be treated as adults for the purpose of assessing criminal culpability?
Not at all. They should be assigned no criminal culpability. Just like an insane person or a rabid dog. I already explained that.
So who else, besides children and the disabled, would you “humanely” euthanize, killrob?
So who else, besides children and the disabled, would you “humanely” euthanize, killrob?
I'll answer that after you tell me when you stopped molesting your child.
She doesn’t have kids remember she hates men and has 3 cats
I don't know if she has kids or not, but that doesn't matter for the point of my question.
Did I miss something? Have you not literally advocated for euthanizing children and disabled people itt?
Did I miss something? Have you not literally advocated for euthanizing children and disabled people itt?
Child murderers <> Children
I haven't mentioned disabled people, unless that's your name for what I would call the criminally insane (eg the late, great, Hannibal Lecter).
All 6 year olds are children.
The “criminally insane” - this is a legal term- are medically considered disabled in that they lack capacity. They cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
Hannibal Lecter had a personality disorder; not a disability. He could distinguish right from wrong. He was not functionally impaired. There is a clinical difference.
But not all 6 year olds are child murderers. I'm sure you understand basic logic. I can't remember the name of the (deliberate) logical fallacy you made, but there definitely was one.
But not all 6 year olds are child murderers. I'm sure you understand basic logic. I can't remember the name of the (deliberate) logical fallacy you made, but there definitely was one.
6 year olds do not understand murder the way adults do. I’m not sure why this needs to be explained to you repeatedly.
And as a society, we emphasize rehabilitation when possible. A 6 year old’s brain is still very plastic. There are no better candidates for rehabilitation than small children who have been influenced by dangerous maladaptive adults.
Society does not need protection from 6 year olds. Children are the vulnerable party. 6 year olds need protection from society, not the other way around.
chillrob, what if the kid was white? or Jewish? or a 20 year old white/Jewish soldier? I am pretty sure in all of those cases that you would not advocate for euthanasia.
But most would be if they could randomly pick up a real gun and shoot it.
We are talking about a 6 year old, ffs. They barely know about cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians at that age being played in the backyard, and you want them to make the correct judgement call at that age or off with their heads. This is just more straight up hatred that you have for people than some rational approach on trying to help kids.
All 6 year olds are children.
The “criminally insane” - this is a legal term- are medically considered disabled in that they lack capacity. They cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
Hannibal Lecter had a personality disorder; not a disability. He could distinguish right from wrong. He was not functionally impaired. There is a clinical difference.
Not to mention Lecter is a ficticious person.
Less severe. I think most adult murderers shouldn't receive automatic capital punishment because that is way too easy on them. Instead, they should be held in prison forever with no chance for parole, and it should be the worst kind of prison imaginable.When a killing is done by a being who does not have access to human reason (most often a dog), we do not lock that animal up i
As I said, there’s not much good evidence that kids that commit “murder” are more likely to reoffend than adults. What little evidence I saw seems to indicate the opposite. As far as automatic death penalty for the insane and mentally impaired, I’m not sure what exactly that accomplishes either.
Maybe some people share your view that being locked up or otherwise kept from society is worse than death, but I don’t think I do. I have more of a goal oriented idea of criminal justice. Some of that will be punishment, but in cases where people can’t even understand the punishment there’s not much point in having it as a goal. People that understand the likely consequences of their actions are the ones we need to deter, not the people who don’t. In those latter cases it’s more about protection of society than it is about punishment. If there’s good evidence of reduced reoffending or the ability to keep them from society, I’m not sure what would keep us from pursuing those routes.
Personally, I’m not sure about those cases of putting down murdering dogs. I haven’t looked into the data on that. I’m sure that the biggest consideration behind putting these dogs down is more historical than anything. But I do think ideally we wouldn’t just put them down if resources were not an issue.
