Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

I was assuming that we were speaking of people who have already commited a crime. I am obviously not endorsing arresting anyone who isn't normal (although it would make my getting higher up on the forum stats easier).

[Kogan Loloklam]

I was assuming that we were speaking of people who have already commited a crime. I am obviously not endorsing arresting anyone who isn't normal (although it would make my getting higher up on the forum stats easier).

There appears to be some misunderstanding. Civil commitment is not the same as jailing them.
This incarceration in the second scenario occurs after the individual has already served their sentence. I apologize for not being more clear on this.

[Sowelu]

Oh! I see what you're doing with this thread, and I very much like where it is going.

This is tricky territory, however--because "committed" in the mental health sense could mean any of a thousand things.  It could mean "compound similar to low-security prison, with substantial methods of self-improvement and friendly staff and a clear path to release", or it could mean "locked screaming in a 4x6 room, tased and forcibly injected with drugs every few hours, and with no human contact and never spoken to by staff".  Historically, mental hospitals used to be HORRIBLE places, far worse than prisons.  Today they're usually around the middle of that scale, which is terrifying when you consider what the endpoints of that scale are.

I support humane rehabilitation of mental health patients, giving them as much freedom as is possible, and not treating them like criminals unless they act like them.  On the other hand, mental health patients who are likely to become violent -need- a closer eye on them, and that's different from punishing them.  For violent mental health patients who cannot be rehabilitated, I support restricting their freedoms as much as necessary.


Sounds like what I'm saying is "You can't indefinitely confine terrorists, but you can indefinitely confine sex offenders".  Let me clarify an important difference here.  I see four main classes in play here:

• Sex offenders who show clear remorse and an ability to not re-offend.  Let them go, maybe keep an eye on them for a while, keep their name on file in case something suspicious happens.
• Sex offenders who show limited or no control over their ability to re-offend due to mental health problems, and are still interested in or talk about committing crimes.  Restrict their freedoms.
• Former "terrorists" who would have been considered POWs if they were wearing an army's colors, and probably chucked a grenade at US troops at the age of 14, and don't seem interested in fighting now.  Let them go, maybe keep an eye on them for a while, keep their name on file in case something suspicious happens.
• Terrorists who openly talk about wanting to keep fighting, or who show enough mental instability that they are likely to cause physical harm to people.  Restrict their freedoms.

The pattern here is "people who are criminally and dangerously unstable should be restricted in all cases, but a criminal instability should never be assumed of anyone, regardless of crime".  If you charge someone with something that locks them up for life, okay, that's fine.  But you have to charge them with something, and if that charge carries less than a life sentence, then you need to evaluate them at the end of it.  ANYONE who's in prison, even if it's for driving off without paying for gas, who starts talking about terrorism or sex offenses is going to be looked at...if someone seems too bonkers to let go, then I trust medical judgments to lock them up if it's mental health reasons, AND I trust 'conspiracy' charges to lock them up if it's criminal reasons.

[Leafsnail]

It kinda depends.  Indefinate incarceration for someone who is clearly such a danger to society that they can never be released (mass murderer, mass rapist, mass sex offender, hitman for hire etc.) is a good alternative to capital punishment (due to the potential for miscarriages of justice) and I feel that, with a fair trial, it should be an option open to the judge.

However, it seems rather different to indefinately jail a terrorist without trial.  Even if some do go on to become terrorists, what was there crime?  Being about to become a terrorist?  This seems to be approaching the concept of a thoughtcrime, and it could also be that the act of indefinate incarceration without trial creates terrorist recruits anyway.

[Sowelu]

Indefinite incarceration is not the same as 'will never be released'.  A mass murderer's incarceration is not indefinite.  In fact, it's very well defined, either as "life without parole" or "death penalty".

I'd be kind of upset if a mass murderer's sentence wasn't defined.  I'd want to know for sure that he's behind bars until he dies!

Just keeping the terminology straight.

[bjlong]

First, remember that due to legal loopholes, a life sentence is only 40 years, and without parole (for some strange reason) usually means that they can't even be considered for parole for about 10 years... IIRC.

I'd like to point out that the mental health system in the US is worse than the prison system. And that's saying a lot. What's worse is that it seems to be heading towards privatization, at least near me, which is leading to a huge loss in what little specialized care we do have. (As a note, they're closing down the massive mental hospital and moving to "community-based care," which does help--when patients are treated more like people, they act more like people--but only in certain cases, and alongside the usual treatment. Can you tell that I'm irked?)

As for these questions, my stance is that if you're mentally unstable, you must be proven to have no knowledge of the implications of what you were doing at the time of the crime to be acquitted. Otherwise, it's an aggravating factor, but can't be held as the sole source of the problem. Terrorists should be tried as if it were a civil case, as they are at best quasi-military groups with military means. I would prefer the sentences to be weighted on the harsh side.

[Cthulhu]

I'm not going to pretend I care about people I will never meet, who may or may not have a strong hatred of me based on my nationality and/or religion.  Lock them up, let them go, I don't live near any targets of worth to them.

[Leafsnail]

I believe there was a hitman in Britain a while back, who had done around 30 contracts.  He was imprisoned for life, and the judge made it absolutely clear that he would never be released, and never considered for parole, after any number of years.

[Frogeyes]

 Paul Bernardo, a Canadian serial killer convicted of a couple of horrible murders, recieved an "indefinite sentence." He will be in prison for the rest of his life.

[Sowelu]

Huh.  Interesting.  Okay, I hadn't heard that term used in that way legally before.