If Jared Loughner is schizophrenic, should he get the death penalty?

Yes.

I’m opposed to the death penalty, but a schizophrenic person knows the difference between right and wrong. That being said, he would be eligble for the death penalty.

Nobody should face the death penalty, regardless of their mental state or their crimes.

Did you see the guys youtube stuff? He’s clearly suffering all sorts of delusions, give him plenty of time to straighten out and have a good think about what he’s done. (life)

@rooeytoo yes he should get the death penalty? or yes he should get off on insanity?

If you look at relatively recent cases that have involved a schizophrenic person as the perpetrator, chances are that he’ll get life rather than the death penalty, though I really don’t care either way.

Living the rest of your life enclosed in a cell seems a far worse punishment than putting you out of your misery…... but maybe thats just me.

@BoBo1946 “a schizophrenic person knows the difference between right and wrong” Really? In the midst of all the crazy things going on in their heads, they’re supposed to still be able to discern right and wrong when everything they “know” is different from everything we know and everything… Sorry, no. Absolutely not. A schizophrenic on medications knows the difference between right and wrong. A schizophrenic who’s disorder doesn’t involve paranoia or voices or any number of other things (one who just sees pink unicorns everywhere, for instance) might possibly be considered to know the difference between right and wrong. But someone this deep into mental illness likely does not. Not seeing “the difference between right and wrong” is a part of the disorder. As much as I hate it, and hate that he wasn’t put on meds a long time ago, we can’t punish him with the death penalty for being sick any more than we can beat a cancer patient for throwing up on the carpet after chemo. It just doesn’t work that way and the laws are designed to not punish someone that severely on the basis of something that they cannot control. They’re not going to let him off the hook, but nor are they going to string him up.

Life in prison, yes. Death penalty, no.

I don’t believe in it.

I think giving him less of a punishment for being “schizophrenic” is trying to rationalize irrational behavior and a bit of BS. He brutally shot 19 innocent people, murdering 6 of them – one of them being a 9-year old girl… Whether it’s life in prison or the death penalty, I dont think he deserves any special treatment.

Cheaper to let him rot-let him rot. Don’t waste the electricity or chemicals on him.

I can’t agree he’s mentally ill because I’m not a doctor and can’t begin to diagnose him. What I can agree to is that he committed attempted multiple murders plus attempted assassination and will be tried, probably convicted, and sentenced. If he gets death, I will, as I always do, feel conflicted about the morality of that. Nonetheless, since I have come to believe death is an appropriate punishment for especially heinous pre-meditated crimes and consider this such a crime, I will agree with the sentence.

No, nobody should get the death penalty.

Unless they would rather die than live the rest of their life in prison. That option should be available, but not imposed by the state. Personally, I’d rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

You ‘death penalty is evil’ people are in the wrong thread. :D

IF he is mentally ill to the point that he can’t be said to bear responsibility for his actions, then no. Otherwise, warm up that chair!

@klutzaroo

Well, my father was a paranoid schizophrenic and he knew right from wrong. He was a victim of World War II.

This is the conversation between Wolf Blitzer yesterday with a leading psychologist on this issue regarding Jared.

‘And look at his last note he left on myspace.
He told his friends, I’m sorry, please don’t be mad at me.
And that, you can be sure the prosecution will use, as state of mind evidence that he knew what he was doing was wrong.’

I’m sure there are cases that this would not be true.

This is one of the few cases I do think the death penalty is appropriate in. A lot of the times I think it’s wrong because there is always that chance that they have the wrong guy and that an innocent person will be put in jail for 50 years or given the chair for a crime they didn’t commit. It’s happened. 30 years later forensic evidence comes out and proves that the guy they had in custody all this time is innocent.

Point: This guy did it. Intentionally. No doubt. He killed or harmed a lot of people. He’s not doing anyone any good. Why should he get the chance to live the rest of his life?

Even if he is mentally ill (which he probably is, to do something like this), if he’s let loose he’ll kill again. I would say the death penalty is appropriate here.

And yet I see no one complaining about the Unabomber not receiving the death penalty

I think when someone said, they don’t believe in the death penalty under any circumstances, they meant that too, @Winters

And no, he shouldn’t be killed by the State. That makes the State just as bad as him.

To everyone who supports the death penalty- Have a look at how many people you’ve sanctioned the killing of. Plenty more than 6.

I don’t actually have a problem with killing murderous criminals per se. My problem with the death penalty is that it’s irreversible, and we too often incriminate innocent people in our justice system.

Also, from a punitive perspective, I don’t really see how a lifetime in prison is somehow “less severe” than a quick death.

Just to keep it real. The death penalty is one of those discussions that is always mired in controversy. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been 1234 executions. Currently, there are 3,261 inmates on death row in the US.

Executions are rare in the US and executions are non-existent in much of the country. Twenty-six of the 53 jurisdictions in the US, which includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government and the Military, either don’t have the death penalty or haven’t carried out an execution in at least 10 years. Most haven’t carried out an execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Ony 12 states have carried out sentences of executions, and only 7 states have carried out more than 1.

@bkcunningham, in your attempt to keep it real, you forgot to include statistics about how many people sentenced to death have been exonerated. There have been 138 since 1973.

Are insanity defenses often successful?
No, despite public perceptions to the contrary. One eight-state study of criminal cases in the early 1990s concluded that less than one percent of defendants pleaded insanity and, of them, only a quarter won aquittals.

“In the real world, it just doesn’t happen,” said Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, who as lieutenant governor in 1983 chaired a task force that helped tighten that state’s insanity defense.

Then why are they controversial?
Critics argue that some defendants misuse it, effectively faking insanity to win acquittals or less severe convictions. And often the trials involving an insanity defense get the most attention because they involve “crimes that are bizarre within themselves,” said Baltimore defense attorney Cristina Gutierrez, who has defended a dozen such cases in as many years.

But studies by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law have concluded that “the overwhelming majority” of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness, said Howard Zonana, a Yale University psychiatry professor and the academy’s medical director.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm

@BoBo1946 The ‘accused who called wolf’.... ruining it for the actual ill. Sad. Another reason not to kill any of them. By my reckoning, you’ve got to be pretty mental in the head to carry a gun to an organised event and open fire. But, I guess there is brainwashing the susceptible weak mind, the ‘Lee Harvey Oswald defense’ if you will (anyone getting that they are now calling this guy by all three names???) and then there are those who are just simply deranged socio-paths who need little pushing. Is wondering if this guy is going to end up shot dead with more mystery left behind

@Qingu thanks for the additional info. It is very controversial. I’ve personally gotten to know people who are the victims of death row inmates, the families of death row inmates, death row inmates themselves and members of advocacy groups on both sides. One of my best friends witnessed the execution of an inmate in Virginia. It’s a tough discussion.

I keep thinking about the recent case in Connecticut where the woman was strangled and her two daughters tied to their beds and left to die in a gasoline-fueled fire.

@bkcunningham, I guess I don’t see what’s so tough about it.

The crime in Connecticut: are you saying the crime is so heinous that obviously the criminal deserves to die, as opposed to spending the rest of his life in prison?

@cazzie my answer was directed to the people whose answers show a preference towards the death penalty.

It was two guys actually. To me, the overall issue isn’t black and white. The thing that sticks in my head with the case in Connecticut is the husband/father who survived. He wants them to die instead of spend their lives in prison. It doesn’t involve a mental illness, low IQ or any motive except robbery and evil. One of the guys said he was a crack addict. The mother and the younger 11 year old daughter were raped before they were killed and set on fire.

The Connecticut jury did find one defendent guilty and he has been sentenced to death. I think the second defendent goes to trial in Feb.

I don’t think there is any question, when someone kills someone else and there is no doubt of guilt, then the death penalty is in order. And I think it is ridiculous to have 10 years on death row. I know there have been cases where innocent were killed but the technology of today can make guilt much more sure, so there is no reason to not to dispatch them as quickly as they dispatched their victims. Spend the tax money on helping those who want and need help, not on the criminals. Victims, if they survive get nothing, while the perpetrator gets food, housing, medical, dental, etc provided by the taxes of those who work for a living.
Not realistic or logical to me.

If Jared Loughner is schizophrenic I don’t think he should be executed. What purpose would it serve? Would it deter other schizophrenics? If he is so delusional that he does not properly comprehend the crime he has committed and why he is being put to death then it makes no sense to execute him.

If he is as delusional as he appears to be then we have to ask why he was not treated for his illness and why he was allowed to possess a gun. Execution doesn’t help us answer any of the questions this horrible crime has raised.

@flutherother just suppose, if proof shows he’s been using mind altering drugs, what then?

The definition of being legally insane is to have no reason or control over oneself. It’s how they manage to legally put you away without your consent. That being said, he was not interned in an asylum, then escape and commit the murders.

So, at the time of his act, he had not been deemed legally insane. The shrinks are going to have to work that one out. His defence will use any means necessary to show that he lacked the capacity to judge his actions or understand the consequences. I guess time will tell if they can do that.

@bkcunningham That is a quite different situation. You have a choice whether to take mind altering drugs and if you do you are responsible for the consequences.

Everyone who is opposed to the death penalty should adopt a mass murderer. Then I don’t have to work to pay for them to have their r and r in their climate controlled prison.

@rooeytoo Dibs on the Green River Killer, lol.

@rooeytoo THAT is a ridiculous argument. How about you adopt a rapist, seeing as how you don’t like paying for jails?

@cazzie – nope I don’t want to adopt anyone, rapists or murderers. If you want to keep them around you adopt them.

Do you like paying for jails?

Yes, I like paying for jails as they keep wicked people out of society’s way whilst maintaining our moral advantage over them. I don’t want to stoop to these people’s level of behaviour, I don’t see why their base behaviour should force me to become complicit in the killing of a human being.

@meiosis – then taxpayers should be given a choice. I want my money to go to educate kids and feed people who don’t have food and build roads.

You can donate your tax money to house criminals and to give them services that I have to pay for and that a lot of non criminals don’t have access to period.

If that makes you morally superior, then so be it. I can live with that.

@rooeytoo Are you against tax-payer funded prison as a general principle? What would you do with burglars, fraudsters etc.?

BTW, I don’t think I’m morally superior, rather we’re collectively superior.

@rooeytoo Yes! I’ll pay for jails. Because I don’t want to become a murderer myself and because the options are, kill them or having them out in society. We’ve always needed jails. Or in England’s case, a large island in the South Pacific to drop them off.

And, no, taxpayers don’t get a choice directly how their taxes are used. But in a democracy, you get to elect who you think will spend your money in the most wisest fashion.

The truth of the matter is that most people are blind to the amount of help government agencies are responsible for and deliver to them on a daily basis. Clean water, clean air, sanitation and waste management, transportation, consumer protection, building regulation, and yes, disaster relief and preparedness.

You’re in Australia, right? Do you think there should be a referendum on all taxpayer spending? (I don’t think referendums are even binding in Australia.)

@bkcunningham, it’s not up to the victim’s relatives to determine punishment. It shouldn’t be.

What if the father wanted the murderers to be tortured?

Justice should not be confused with vengeance.

@Qingu I realize it isn’t up to the victim’s relatives. I was just saying it while thinking about the overall issue of capital punishment. Whether it is right or wrong, are there certain situations where I’d say yes or no…that sort of thought. The case in Connecticut gave me pause.

In certain circumstances, I would imagine the victim impact statement may sway a judge in a case where there is a scale of punishment like a minimum and a maximum sentence.

I understand the rule of law. It was just my personal comments after pondering the judicial system and different punishments for different crimes regarding things I have personally witnessed in the court system.

Why do you think death is “worse” on a scale of punishment than life in prison? I don’t understand how that is determined.

@Qingu I didn’t say I thought death was worse on a scale of punishment than life in prison. You commented about it is not up to the victim’s relatives to determine the punishment. I was just saying that oftentimes, in certain situtations, a victim impact statement may sway a judge when the penalty phase is based on a maximum mandatory and minimum mandatory sentences. Usually, penalties aren’t just one set mandatory incarceration period. An example would be the state code in Virginia: All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than forty years.

Now that is a big swing. No less than five and no more than 40.

In asking if I think that death is worse than a life sentence, presuming you are talking about a true life sentence without the possibility of parole. There is a big difference because a life sentence doesn’t always means a life in prison. Anyway, I suppose it depends on the attitude of the perpetrator. I’ve seen even the most evil among us plead for their life when faced with death. I’ve seen every example you can turn that into. It would be the attitude of the person facing the reality.

5–40 is a red herring. It’s not an equitable alternative to a death sentence. Only life in prison is.

I don’t think anyone is proposing that people on death row should ever be released from prison. Unless they’re exonerated, of course.

@Qingu I think you are confused.,,or I am confused…or we are both confused…or you are talking to someone else. Apparently we are having two different discussions. The Virginia State Code example had nothing to do with the death penalty.

@bkcunningham , @Qingu was talking about life as life. I read it, and it seemed very straight forward to me. The State of Virginia may have some oddity in regards to it’s sentencing when an offence calls for a ‘life sentence’.... but I think qingu addressed that. Qingu also said that anyone sentenced to ‘death row’ would not be the type of person that should be released, unless exonerated.