Suddenly, prisons full of 'retarded'

Philly.com ^

[Age of Reason]

its because one of the traditional principles of our sources of common law punishment -- the english common law -- holds that along with a wrongful act one should also have a wrongful purpose, or 'blameworthy mind'. one who is retarted and is not capable of having that state of mind is, via this traditional interpretation, not as guilty or deserving of punishment as others. Its not a new or liberal idea, rather its an enduring principle of our legal tradition stretching back before this country was founded.,

Pretty words. But mere rationalizations.

The state must give the mob vicarious examples to prevent them from turning on each other in individual acts of vengence.

[Age of Reason]

a person's capibility to have a guilty mind.

Don't over-intellectualize it.

If someone if found guilty, punish them.

Is there an IQ test for evil?

The only person whose mental functioning, of itself, would excuse him from blame, as I said elsewhere on this thread, is one who is having a seizure and whose blindly flailing arms strike and injure another.

And as I said, if you were to excuse people of below average intelligence for being incapable of knowing right from wrong, then the same applies to people of above average intelligence, who philosophize about right and wrong, until they cannot distinguish between them.

[Age of Reason]

i doubt anyone would accept your reasoning for why the smart people of this world don't know the difference between right and wrong. they're certainly capable of telling the difference, at least insofar as serious and evil crimes are concerned.

I can find no difference between right and wrong that is not relative.

I guess I must be retarded.

[Age of Reason]

There is only the law.

[TopQuark]

It's not just the 'ambulance-chasers' that are at fault here.

I agree. However, how is it related to my post?

[TopQuark]

I guess those lawyers being so noble and all is the reason behind their 98 some odd percent donation rate to Clintoon and the 'Rats in the past?...

And the connection of this with my post is... what exactly?

[packrat35]

Lawyers are pond scum and our "legal" system is a joke. Anyone who says otherwise is the one who is "misguided".

[TopQuark]

TQ: This is different from enticing someone to start litigation.

SAJ I ''missed'' nothing here; I'm simply not psychic. You are not required to be.

It is very simple really: 1. Someone made a point along the lines, "Layers are ... " (insert your favorite cursing hear), which was entirely inapplicable in context being discussed.

2. I pointed out the inconsistency.

That's all.

[TopQuark]

Post #51 is just a fine example of I referred to earlier. All CEOs are scum, all lawyers are scum, all managers are uncaring fat cats...

Nice, deep, and very ethical.

[dennisw]

Hebraic law looks less at the motives and defects of the criminal. More at the criminal act whose perpetrator needs to be punished. I could care less if the killer is retarded or mentally ill. He should be punished the same as a killer of sound mind.

For petty crime such as shoplifting I would take idiocy or menatal illness into account. But not when the crime is murder.

[dennisw]

Back when that priciple of English law was born many more people where executed. And I assure you the retarded and deranged murderers got their just due, same as others

[Age of Reason]

I doubt that would fly. you have a job? you have the capability to decide to feed your family? to plan ahead? to realize that you don't want to act anti- or a-social around your loved ones? you've got enough mental capability. you might try to argue your way to a lower punishment, but most of your lifetime accomplishments can be entered as evidence against you on this case.

What's all that got to do with right and wrong?

[Myrddin]

i'm not over intellectualizing it. its just an essential concept of 'guilt' in our judicial system. and its not something new to it. the requirement of a guilty mind has been a part of it ever since the development of english common law. needless to say, it does take an incredible amount of retardation to reach the point of not being able to form a guilty mind and not go to jail. its also not all or nothing -- one can have the capability of having a less culpable state of mind that one is currently charged with, for example. still criminal, but with a conditionally smaller punishment. in any case, our judicial system still has the objective notion of criminal negligence.

A human who commits violent criminal acts needs to be permanently incarcerated or executed. It is an immoral to allow such an individual the freedom to interact with civilized society. If said individual lacks the mental capacity to discern right from wrong, that individual must be prevented from additional opportunities to commit criminal acts. A hungry grizzly bear would probably meet the test of "retarded". You would not release such an animal on a playground full of school children. The consequences would be evident in advance. The bear may not be capable of a "guilty mind", but you would not continue to permit it access to kill again.