Virginia Tech Debacle/ Work of a Deranged Man............Or

I agree with dlowan. It is possible to feel compassion for someone who was clearly as sick and disturbed as Cho was. What a misery his life must have been.

I despise what he did.

I don't see any contradiction.

0 Replies

I agree. The murderer obviously was an extremely tormented person. His life must have been a hell on earth. On the one hand, I have compassion for the state of mind that he was in, but have no compassion for what he did.

0 Replies

It's good to keep all this compassion in perspective, though. Had he lived, would your compassion for his "torment" lead you to agree with finding him not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would you then be nodding your head in solemn agreement that the only possible punishment would have to be death?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's good to keep all this compassion in perspective, though. Had he lived, would your compassion for his "torment" lead you to agree with finding him not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would you then be nodding your head in solemn agreement that the only possible punishment would have to be death?

I agree there's no contradiction... but if I'm wrong about the afterlife; eternal damnation sounds about right.

0 Replies

It's good to be pleased with oneself.

0 Replies

Huh?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's good to keep all this compassion in perspective, though. Had he lived, would your compassion for his "torment" lead you to agree with finding him not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would you then be nodding your head in solemn agreement that the only possible punishment would have to be death?

If I had seen the tapes and been on the jury, I would have found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

I would never nod in any kind of agreement for capital punishment.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's good to keep all this compassion in perspective, though. Had he lived, would your compassion for his "torment" lead you to agree with finding him not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would you then be nodding your head in solemn agreement that the only possible punishment would have to be death?

The problem with "insanity" as understood by the law, is that it has nothing to do with a medical mental illness.

Quote:

criminal insanity

A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. See also irresistible impulse; McNaghten Rule.

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/D0330F5D-8018-4E8D-8C487C2F09A501E6

According to the legal definition, Cho was NOT insane. He damn well knew that what he was doing was wrong. As a medical issue, I would suspect, from what I have read, that the murderer WAS extremely mentally ill.

If I were a judge, I would (assuming that what I have heard and read is correct) rule that the murderer DID know what he was doing, so he could not be considered criminally insane.

Personally, I think that in the case of "insanity" the law needs to catch up with the 21st century. If it were up to me, I would have him locked up for the rest of his life in a psychiatric hospital.

0 Replies

Roberta wrote:

If I had seen the tapes and been on the jury, I would have found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

I would never nod in any kind of agreement for capital punishment.

See, I'd rather they found him guilty by reason of insanity and executed him at their earliest convenience.

0 Replies

Yes, that's what differes the USA from other countries (especially those with a working system for psychiatric ills).

(Our related law [§20 of our criminal code] says: "Whoever upon commission of the act is incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of the act or acting in accordance with such appreciation due to a pathological emotional disorder, profound consciousness disorder, mental defect or any other serious emotional abnormality, acts without guilt." And §21 says: " If the capacity of the perpetrator to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to act in accordance with such appreciation is substantially diminished upon commission of the act due to one of the reasons indicated in Section 20, then the punishment may be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection (1).")

0 Replies

America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time. -Ted Nugent

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

snood wrote:
It's good to keep all this compassion in perspective, though. Had he lived, would your compassion for his "torment" lead you to agree with finding him not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would you then be nodding your head in solemn agreement that the only possible punishment would have to be death?

The problem with "insanity" as understood by the law, is that it has nothing to do with a medical mental illness.

Quote:
criminal insanity

A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. See also irresistible impulse; McNaghten Rule.

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/D0330F5D-8018-4E8D-8C487C2F09A501E6

According to the legal definition, Cho was NOT insane. He damn well knew that what he was doing was wrong. As a medical issue, I would suspect, from what I have read, that the murderer WAS extremely mentally ill.

If I were a judge, I would (assuming that what I have heard and read is correct) rule that the murderer DID know what he was doing, so he could not be considered criminally insane.

Personally, I think that in the case of "insanity" the law needs to catch up with the 21st century. If it were up to me, I would have him locked up for the rest of his life in a psychiatric hospital.

Phoenix, On the one hand, I agree with you. It's unlikely that it would have been found acceptable for him to plead insanity. On the other hand, I don't know that he thought that what he was doing was wrong. I think he felt entirely justified. Probably wouldn't meet the legal critieria, though.

The legal system concerning mental illness in this country needs some serious examination and revision. This person shouldn't have been walking around in the first place.

0 Replies

I would like to know how he was able to legally purchase a gun. Obviously he wasn't put in the database as a person with a known mental illness. That is what the myriad of background checks we have in place are for. How did this happen?

Still, I think this person would have obtained them from illegal sources if he had not been able to do so legally. As others have said, he should not have been walking around in society to begin with.

0 Replies

cj -- welcome back and congrats on your new move.

I have a personal favor to ask of you.

Most of us who are talking about this situation here are on this thread because we can't begin to express ourselves on The Other One because of the overwhelming talk on gun issues.

Please allow the folks who would like to discuss other aspects of this situation do so without turning this thread into a mirror discussion of the gun control discussions being held elsewhere.

0 Replies

OK. Gotta get my footing, that's all.

0 Replies

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's good to keep all this compassion in perspective, though. Had he lived, would your compassion for his "torment" lead you to agree with finding him not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would you then be nodding your head in solemn agreement that the only possible punishment would have to be death?

I would only consider finding him guilty of insanity if there was reasonable evidence that he was psychotic at the time of the killings.

Martin Bryant, for instance, was a tormented and inadequate young man. He was quite reasonably found guilty, and needs to be incarcerated to protect us from his deciding to kill 35 people again.

As for killing someone to demonstrate that killing is wrong?

Same craziness as beating a child who has hurt another.

Killing to say don't kill is insane, imo.

0 Replies

Btw, re: being able to affford it, evidently several of those last purchases were on a credit card. The implication (from a NYT article) was that he knew he'd never have to pay it...

0 Replies

Quote:

According to the legal definition, Cho was NOT insane. He damn well knew that what he was doing was wrong. As a medical issue, I would suspect, from what I have read, that the murderer WAS extremely mentally ill.

Depressed does not equal mentally ill! As you pointed out he was quite capable of thinking about what he was doing and therefore not at all insane. Just angry and depressed. The only reason that the insanity law exists is to avoid executing up retarded people that accidentally do something that they don't know is wrong. This man was not retarded.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Depressed does not equal mentally ill!

That certainly depends in what society you live.
Depressed are here (and in many other countries) treated/cured in psychiatric hospitals (or psychiatric departments in hopsitals), by psychiatrist.

Depression certainly falls under our § 20 of our criminal code (see above), depending how severe it is considered by court-appointed appriasers perhaps even § 21.

But that certainly can be different in other societies/countries.

0 Replies

Virginia Tech Debacle/ Work of a Deranged Man............Or

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know