If it was accidental, it wouldn't be murder since there was no intent to kill the victim. I do, at least, make that distinction.



In the case of a guy who murders his daughter's rapist, the victim wasn't innocent. That's why whenever I referred to victims previously, I was careful to say "innocent victims". I would agree that killing is justified. A kid who shoots is his playmate accidentally, also not murder, but manslaughter since it was unintentional. Schizo lady who kills innocent people thinking they're brain harvesters... that one I would put away forever.



Having an unsupportive bitch for a wife is no excuse for taking her life. Sounds like at any time, he could have ended his marriage. No sympathy from me on that one.

But where would you draw the line between innocent and non-innocent? You think it's justified to kill your daughter's rapist. I don't. That's not to say I wouldn't, in the heat of the moment, if I had a daughter and she was raped, but I would expect to be punished for it. What about if a gang member kills someone from another gang? In that case the victim isn't innocent as such, but is it OK to kill them? Does it make a difference that the murderer is a non-innocent gang member and not a general member of the public? I think it would be too hard to draw the lines required here and as such couldn't be implemented in real life, even if I thought it should be.



Agreed. Definitely not murder. If it was a child, and an accident, I wouldn't even call it manslaughter. An innocent life was lost, but I can certainly imagine plenty of hypothetical circumstances when I wouldn't agree with punishing the child who shot the other child at all. If a 10 year old had access to a gun to shoot someone with accidentally, I'd say that their parents/guardians/the owners of the gun were at fault, not the child. But what if it wasn't accidental? If the 10 year old knew that shooting their playmate would kill them and did it anyway, should they be sentenced to life in prison?



Why? And where? What if the circumstances were a bit different: the lady didn't have schizophrenia, but had a brain tumor that caused hallucinations and all sorts of things and she killed someone. If the tumor could be operated on and removed, getting rid of the hallucinations and making her "normal" again, would you think that this lady should be locked up for life too?

I'm not keen at all on the idea of punishment. I do believe in restitution and rehabilitation. I really don't like the idea of throwing people away like so much trash even if they've been bad. If they've made poor choices, made huge errors, and have done bad things, if they are broken, ill, and twisted, the conditions, situations, and elements in their lives that have lead to that behavior should be addressed and fixed if possible. That DOES NOT mean they get a free ticket. If the harm they've done is huge and cannot be remedied, jail may be the best place for them for the rest of their lives. For however long they remain in custody, they should be helped to become healthy individuals who can participate and contribute to society, even if that's prison society.

If we treat them with anything less than human dignity, we've lost our own dignity as humans. Compassion is what should define us, not hate, intolerance, or violence.

Not going to get into the debate, but as this person identifies as a woman shouldn't we all be using the appropriate pronouns? It's kinda iffy to be using male pronouns when the whole point is that she's a she.

You believe he was awarded sex rearrangement as a public statement, as if to say "we love transgendered peeps?" This interpretation on your part seems judgement impaired by emotion. Federal judges are not in the business of endorsing or promoting lifestyles, and they swear an oath that agrees with the equal protection clause. Their curriculum of justice is outlined in stacks of legal updates, they must seek to find solutions that are constitutional. As seen in the article in VerDeTerre's post, the judge issued the sex change order to comply with the eighth amendment. So there is little stake in this claim of being a feelgood political message that Boston accepts transvestites and transgendered.

I understand that this is human rage on your part, and your reasoning is the victim of this emotion. It's practically drowning. No, this one action by a federal judge doing his job is not overnight going to turn back the hands of time and transform us into a nation of intolerant trans haters. If this case was so important a turning point in our development of tolerance then all the stations and CNN would be all over it 24/7 and it would be international news. Moreover, the morals of transvestites and transgendered are not being examined and prodded, nor is this person serving as a representative for all. Everyone is probably more interested to see Obama's 9/11 speech.

It's good to see some raw outrage on these boards to mix things up a little, but these boards are not really the outrage type. They're more interested in constructive debate and tend to ignore a lot of my omgwtfbbq posts.



That's a very passionate idea, but there is tons of injustice to follow in this line of sentiment if it were actually legal. The problem is that this ideal is too simplistic for real life application, as Mistermook has covered a lot the problems in this arrangement. But also consider how it drags out to deal suffering to people who shouldn't deserve it, the families and friends of the victim and convicted party. If this person were to serve the hell you would put them through and they had, say, a living mother. Well, most mother's love their child and it would be an unfair punishment to have her live with the knowledge that her child is doomed and that she can do nothing about it all the way to the ( violent? ) end of her child's life and to the end of her life.

Morbid depression could result. And what if, in a similar case, the family of the victim was Amish and wouldn't want to see the convicted go through needless anguish? Your way is way too destructive and offends the goal of justice, and it could potentially turn minor crimes such as burglary into murder to get rid of all witnesses to avoid going to your purgatory. You're speaking from a dangerous notion, one that contradicts your intention as you stated that you wouldn't want harm done to an innocent person.

The gender is confusing. He/she may feel like a she or be a she inside, but is still a he on the outside and has lived a life as a he. I've often wished for a neutral singular gender. Let's invent one.


I agreed with your entire post word for word and it brought up points I hadn't considered, so thank you. This last part is especially a winning point for me and one of the stronger reasons that I am against the death penalty. I've lived through this without being directly involved as part of a larger community that suffered through both the hurt for the victim and the hurt of one of their own having caused so much pain. It shatters the heart.

I think part of the issue is that gender reassignment surgery is seen as an elective procedure - not only by the public but also by insurance companies. The average transgender person, not in prison, would have to pay for their own procedure, which can be extremely expensive. But for those who feel they are truly in the wrong body, gender reassignment surgery is not an elective procedure, but a necessity. While it does make me sick that prisoners can receive better treatment for both physical and mental health than non-prisoners, I don't think that's a sufficient reason to deny prisoners important and essential physical and mental treatments. If anything, I believe this case is a positive thing for trans people - it is treating the condition and the treatment/surgery as not an elective but an absolute necessity (especially in the case of this individual, who was evaluated by physicians who know much more about the individual case than you or I, and decided this was the best course of action).

If they had decided against it - said, "No, you don't deserve that treatment, suck it up," then I think that would be worse... Portraying the condition and its treatment as optional, something you don't need but have to earn (either by paying for it yourself or paying for insurance that will cover it, which I don't know if any even do). I think it also speaks to the disconnect in many peoples' minds of the necessity of treatment for mental illness (I don't believe being trans is a mental illness exactly, but I'm not sure exactly what to call it otherwise). If your body is sick, people understand that you need help fixing it - be that surgery, a prosthetic, medicine, whatever. But if you have an issue of the mind, even if ultimately it can be explained in medical terms as clearly as a physical malady, it is still seen as shameful, a weakness of the individual. Why is taking insulin for diabetes seen as normal and the obvious choice, while taking medication to treat depression - or gender reassignment to treat transpeople - seen as optional, and even a reward?

I think the way a society treats its prisoners says a lot about that society, and I don't believe there is any benefit in dehumanising prisoners or denying them physical/mental treatment. It also shows a lot about what we think the prison system should be. I still think it's in our best interests as a society to make sure that prisoners have a good quality of life... Even murderers, even people with life sentences. I don't think it's right that many prisoners have a better quality of life than non-prisoners, but I don't think the reaction to that should be to lower the quality of life for prisoners - all that does is pull everyone down into the same terrible shitty level, and improves nothing for anyone. Instead, I think it should be a moment to change society as a whole, to raise up everyone at least to the level of what we consider humane treatment for the incarcerated.

As far as it being poorly representative of the trans community, well... Only to those who are looking for something to point to as to why they already dislike trans people. If it was a man who'd committed the crime, folks could say, "Men are violent and deviant!" just as easily.

VerDeTerre - It's really not confusing. Refer to people as they want to be referred to, regardless of their appearance. She identifies as a woman, so use "she." See? Easy. (Okay, maybe not so easy for those who identify as genderless, but I like "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun.)

We need a new word. "They" is used frequently for its neutrality, but it's just kludgy. About half of all style guides approve of it, and the other half are silent or disapprove. I usually try to rewrite the sentence. =P

"They" is also plural, although lacking a neutral, I use it anyway. Grammatically, until recently the male singular was used for anyone that was not known to be specifically feminine. For example, it is or was correct to say, "everyone should try his best". But that's changing. I would like a neutral gender. I could see it being useful in so many cases.

Point taken HP.

Actually, the use of "he" as the gender neutral started in the late 1800s, when there was a movement to make English more like Latin. "They" as both a gender-neutral and a number-neutral term has been around since at least the 1400s, and Shakespeare used it in that way.

Sorry. Pet peeve. Leaving now...

Anyone who is causing harm to another would not be innocent, and although I don't think someone killing his daughter's rapist is a good idea, I can certainly understand it. There was a case recently, where a father caught a man in the act of raping his very young daughter and beat him so badly, the man died. I certainly couldn't fault him for that. Gang members killing gang members, not okay, but no, not as bad to me as killing a general member of the public. Gang members made the choice to live a dangerous life with the potential for violence around every corner, members of the general public do not.



Not life in prison, but I wouldn't go easy on a 10-year old, who should know right from wrong, if with no provocation he decides to kill a playmate "just to see what it's like to watch someone die". I wouldn't think keeping him locked up till age 30 with vigorous therapy would be unreasonable. Maybe longer, if he had a history of torturing and killing animals, a sign that he may be a danger to society far beyond age 30.



Punished, yes, for life, not necessarily. She would have to prove to me that the tumor is entirely responsible, that it somehow managed to override every smidgen of good judgement. Even then, I'd have my doubts that she's not just trying to shift blame.

It's not uncommon for criminals to blame the victim, to blame their parents, to blame a bad childhood, blame mental illness, blame physical illness, or pretty much blame anything or everything else for their crimes, except for themselves. With everyone's views so sympathetic to the murderer, I have to wonder what happened to personal responsibility? What happened to living with the consequences of your actions? I understand that people are human, and therefore prone to mistakes. However, I think there are some mistakes you just shouldn't be able to come back from unscathed, and some mistakes so bad, you shouldn't be able to come back from, at all. Are we so spoiled and entitled as a society now, that we think we can go so far as to coldly kill someone, show regret, then beg for forgiveness and expect society to give us a 2nd chance? When a man rapes, beats, tortures, and murders a woman he didn't know, kills his wife for insurance money, kidnaps a child to rape and bury in his backyard, or guns down a theater full of people - those victims didn't get a 2nd chance, and IMO, neither should the killer. His victims will never experience happiness again, and neither should he.

Sure, I'd be sympathetic to the parents, friends, and family of a killer. If they're depressed that their loved one is miserable in prison, that's just something they'd have to deal with. He was the one that got himself put in that position, and he'd be the one to blame for depressed family members, too.

I do agree that few murder cases are cut & dry, which is why I see value in jury trials. Speaking of which, if I'm ever on trial for murder, I want you guys on my jury!

Jesus, gnat.

"Sorry, you're just unlucky and developed a brain tumor. Pff. Yeah right, like a tumor in the brain could effect your brain, haha, nice try. Off to prison forever with you!"

Jesus, pak.

"Sorry, you're just unlucky, that lady claims, 'the tumor made her do it', so that's why your daughter is rotting in the ground right now while her killer gets to enjoy life."

It's good that the entirety of Common Law disagrees with you entirely then, so we can fairly discount your opinion as just another example of how not to do things.

The problem with your point of view is that it's as bad or worse than actual criminal behavior - it supports oppressive, unwavering power handed to the State:

Someone dies. OFF TO THE GULAG! Mitigating circumstances! OFF TO THE GULAG!

Presumably if you were against abortion you're the guy who'd send mothers to life in prison for having miscarriages.

But sometimes someone who has killed someone isn't responsible for their victims' death, or 100% responsible for their victim's death.

It is well established by now that some illnesses, including brain tumors, mental illnesses, illnesses such as Alzheimer's and others, can and do cause changes in behaviour, which can be very severe. I know that I would never murder anyone - if I had a brain tumor and I murdered someone, yes, I would claim that "the tumor made me do it". It would require a fundamental change in my personality to turn me into a murderer, but many studies have shown that some illnesses can bring about such changes.

And what about people with severe developmental/learning disorders, who don't know right from wrong and are unable to make informed decisions about things? If someone who is not considered able to be legally responsible for their own health, wellbeing and life killed someone, would you expect them to be sentenced to a miserable life in prison?

Sometimes people die and there is nobody to blame, no matter how much the deceased's loved ones may want to be able to blame someone and see someone punished for their loved one's death. Yes, it is unlucky, and it would be awful for the people involved, but isn't punishing someone who isn't at fault/to blame worse?

Don't be sorry, this is interesting. I didn't know. But that's historically. Currently, subject and verb agreement uses "they" as plural. If it once was numerically neutral, maybe we can make it that way again.

Yes, I know all that about He and They. But most people don't, including my current "professors," who get all in a tiffy about the H word. Trying to explain that it isn't really broke so we don't need to fix it just gets me another -2 points on my graduate papers. So I've given up and jumped on the bandwagon, at least until graduation, after which I will say he he he he he whenever I please.

In the meantime, I'm rewriting my sentences 'cause I hate using "they" in the singular sense, even though there is some historical basis for doing so. MY pet peeve.

Which is why I originally suggested a new word. In 800 years we haven't come to a consensus, lol. English is good at generating new words. Ergo.

Finally, Shakespeare did a lot of bad things in his writing. Mixing metaphors, anachronisms, and using THEY when he should have used HE. 's and leaves quickly by the back door....

Gnat, check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...n-trial/308520/


Additionally, separate from the above, I'd like to point out how the relentless onslaught of verbal and/or physical abuse can wear a person down over time. Perhaps he snapped. Sometimes this can be hard to appreciate if you haven't had your sense of self eradicated nor been so disrespected by another with whom you are in daily contact as to feel helpless and out of control. In a situation like that, you might strike out.

Not "someone dies", but "someone is MURDERED". There is a difference. I guess I'll just never understand why anyone thinks a cold blooded, heartless killer deserves any kind of life when they've taken someone else's. Forever. And as I've already pointed out, I have no objection to taking mitigating circumstances into consideration.



Even if I were against abortion (which I most definitely am not), that doesn't even make sense as an analogy because no actual voluntary action had taken place to cause that.



I would expect them to be kept away from the general population, yes. Whether they be institutionalized or kept out of society by their guardians, either way they should not be "free" to potentially kill others.



Well, of course people die, but I'm primarily concerned about those who have voluntarily, without provocation, taken the life of an innocent person through a physical act of violence. I can think of no more foul of a deed, and such an individual should not have the right to either happiness nor contentment.

Perhaps my views have been colored by watching too many true crime shows on TV, but as was mentioned earlier that people are complex, people can also be incredibly cold, cruel, and heartless. There are people who would shoot you in the head for your cell phone! I truly believe there are many individuals out there and in our prison systems that truly do not deserve to live, much less enjoy life.



Yeah, I've read a shortened version of that article in the news, and my opinion now is still the same as it was then; all violent criminals have something not-quite-right in their brains, or else they wouldn't have made such poor decisions to begin with. Why someone deliberately makes poor decisions that hurt others is something worthy of study for use in crime prevention, but I don't believe it should be a factor in sentencing and punishment.

And no, I don't think "snapping" is a valid excuse for murder either. I have experienced a relentless onslaught of verbal AND physical abuse by multiple bullies for many years. One even literally stabbed me with a pencil, of which I wear the scar to this day. I wanted, and fantasized, about doing horrible, horrible things to them. However, I didn't, because I'm not a sick murderer. I don't think people who can't suppress violent urges have any place in this society.

After reading that article, I'll risk stirring up even more controversy by saying I think people who have brain defects that cause violent behavior shouldn't even be allowed to reproduce and pass down their genetic defects.

That was a very interesting article, thank you for sharing :-)



What do you consider to be "brain defects that cause violent behaviour"?

I wouldn't exactly call a life of delirium caused by a severe mental/physical illness enjoyable.

So I guess the issue is that you believe that everyone, no matter what the circumstances, is fully aware of their surroundings, what they're doing and the effects it will have on other people.

Man, who knew having a mental handicap was such a literal get out of jail free card! Hot damn, where do I get one of those? I can do all sorts of illegal things! What if a person with a brain tumor never does anything wrong? Would you say they're just faking things for attention?

Not all brain damage has a genetic base, and, in fact, a lot of it is caused by tumors, head injury, and birth trauma. And not all brain damage will lead to violent behavior. That piece is not predictable at this point.

What I got out of that article was hope for helping to change behaviors. It doesn't look likely right now, but maybe someday it will. You said you read the short version? It must not explain enough. Go back and look at the full-length version. See why the man that they give the example for did not "choose" his behaviors.

Facing bullies outside of your own family could be different than when the bully is your spouse or parent. I agree with you (and it's proven and observable), not everyone will snap, but these are mitigating circumstances. It sounds like this woman was tortured. Frankly, we don't know. Very little gets into the news.

As an aside, I'm sorry you were bullied. I wish it never happened to anyone.

Whether they actually enjoy their life is up to them, but I don't see any reason why taxpayers should make any effort to make hardened criminal's lives any more comfortable.



No, I never said that, but I do believe that anyone who is a danger to others should be isolated from others.



It shouldn't be, IMO, but I get the impression that a lot of people are trying to persuade me that it should be.



Well, if that person killed an innocent person on purpose without provocation, then I'd say they did something very, very wrong. And as the article that VerDeTerre linked to mentioned, one guy who got the brain tumor removed actually had a regrowth and resurgence of his symptoms (though thankfully never MURDERED anyone). So yeah, I think someone who kills under the influence of a tumor could relapse and should be isolated from others. And yes, had Charles Whitman survived and claimed to be "cured" by having his tumor removed, I still could not in good conscience ever let him step outside a prison due to his having taken 13-lives.

Besides, 100% of our actions are controlled by our brains, so I believe ALL violent criminals have a mental defect of some kind whether medically detectable or not. Where are you going to draw the line? You going to let them all walk if they convince you they're full of heartfelt regret no matter how atrocious the crime?



True, but genetics has more of role in violent behavior than a lot of people would like to admit.



I did read the long version, but if anything its detail creeped me out more, thinking that there could be people like that out there and reinforcing my belief that these people should be isolated and that we should eliminate the "insanity" plea. As I said before - studied for crime prevention, but not used for sentence reduction. If anything, they are more dangerous than the average criminal.



I agree, those are mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account, but most of the time if I see any opportunity for the murderer to have found a way out of the situation, I'll side with the victim.

Could you provide some evidence, please?


What should really creep you out is that it could happen to you. You could be one of those people. It can happen to anyone. With that in mind, how would you like to be treated?

I don't know if you're conscious of how awfully disrespectful towards people who suffer mental illnesses you sound. Seriously, calling people names like "insane" and saying that we should isolate them just in case they do something dangerous is plain bigotry.
Anyone can suffer a mental illness, even if they were fine a month ago, due to traumas, brain problems, hormonal disorders, etc. Lots of people have psychological or mental problems and they don't go on a killing spree, most of them are peaceful individuals who don't harm anyone and deserve to have proper health care (not being isolated from the society), but apparently some people consider mental illnesses as "less important" than "the real ones".


Sometimes is not the murderer trying to find a way out of the problems, sometime people doesn't know what they're doing, simple as that.
Some years ago I had a severe anxiety disorder that caused me dissociative episodes, that means that my conscience got "disconnected" and I kept doing things without even knowing it. In my particular case, those dissociative episodes caused a self-harming behavior or mild antisocial conducts like being rude to others or things like that, but I guess I could have killed someone else without even knowing about it. This things happen, sadly, and there's nothing we can do to avoid it.