meazza Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 That make me wonder why people defend the criminal justice system. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100223/...n_killed_review Even if this guy was in a psychotic state, he clearly is not human. To me someone who could do this other people even in a screwed up state of mind were not meant to live in a normal society.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Judge Robert Powers said in his ruling on Monday that although Schoenborn is guilty of murdering his daughter and two sons in April 2008 he can't be held responsible because he was in a psychotic state. The more dangerous individual IMO. In a position of authority, and will be for years.
Just Jack Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 [waits for Crayonz reply since the guy is Canadian]
The Poojer Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Ya know the old saying..."You can't judge a book by its cover"? Yeah, that doesn't apply here...he should be locked up because he is scary looking...and not scary as in 'ugly'...scary as in scary as schidt!!!!!! That make me wonder why people defend the criminal justice system. <a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100223/national/children_killed_review" target="_blank">http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100223/...n_killed_review </a> Even if this guy was in a psychotic state, he clearly is not human. To me someone who could do this other people even in a screwed up state of mind were not meant to live in a normal society.
Alaska Darin Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 I was crazy, but I'm OK now. No kidding. I'm sure the chances of that guy "snapping" again are so low that he shouldn't be locked up. I think Ron White said it best (paraphrased): If you're a "roll your poop into little balls and eat crayons type of crazy", we'll put you up and feed you for as long as you live but if you're a "kill your kids" type - you get the express lane death penalty". Chlorine for the gene pool, please.
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 The more dangerous individual IMO. In a position of authority, and will be for years. I've got no problem with "guilty but not responsible" as a sentence as long as the punishment is predicated on "guilty". Great, the guy really didn't know what he was doing when he killed whomever. Fine. I'm okay with that. He still did it. Absolving someone of "responsibility" is not the same as absolving someone of "guilt".
Fan in San Diego Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Why is this turd ball still breathing?
The Dean Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 I've got no problem with "guilty but not responsible" as a sentence as long as the punishment is predicated on "guilty". Great, the guy really didn't know what he was doing when he killed whomever. Fine. I'm okay with that. He still did it. Absolving someone of "responsibility" is not the same as absolving someone of "guilt". Agreed. If the person is truly whacked, they shouldn't go to prison. They should be treated until they are no longer completely mentally defective. Then they should serve out the rest of their term in prison (or whatever the punishment would have been). I might be able to accept a reduced sentence, under very specific conditions, but not total absolution.
Recommended Posts