# Is a killer responsible 100% for their actions?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by darksidZz, Jan 28, 2015.

?

## What you believe?

Poll closed Feb 17, 2015.

50.0%

28.6%

21.4%

0 vote(s)
0.0%
1. ### SylvesterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
465
BUT...IDK, the cruelty. The cruelty knows no bounds. And YOU....YOU WILL be accountable.

3. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,225
That's likely true in some countries. Fortunately I don't live in one of them.

5. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I voted "no" as think social structure, especially the educational opportunities offered for free, has strong influence on behavior; however, unfair as it may be, I think society needs to hold the criminal fully responsible for his action, but oppose the death penalty, especially as it is used in the US. Applied mainly to the poor who are not "wasps" (White Anglo-Saxon Protestons)

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2015
darksidZz likes this.

7. ### darksidZzValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,921
All very interesting viewpoints.

Thanks for sharing

8. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
Insanity.
And who amongst us can cast the first stone on that issue.

When I watched Netenyahu giving his speech in Washington the other day, to continuous standing ovations, smiling and cheering.
I thought: "You are all insane".

9. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
Bad people do just enough evil to satisfy their desires.
It's the insane people you have to worry about.

10. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
For some years now, with the help mostly of talk radio personalities like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, liberals have been demonized and do not deserve it.

Liberalism does NOT favor the criminal over the victim, or evil over good, or any such nonsense. If there is a reason trial lawyers favor contributions to democrat (liberals) over republican (conservative) politicians, it isn't because democratic lawmakers are more likely to pass laws requiring more litigation. It's because conservatives routinely BREAK THE LAW THEY SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD, and seem to get away with it. If you believe otherwise, you have just been listening to Rush Limbaugh for way too long. A lie does not become truth by virtue of repetition.

Forget about having someone else policing the trial lawyers; they have their own grievance committees to do that. Someone needs to 'police' and clean the House of all of the conservative politicians who think it's funny to spend most of their time passing bills to repeal Obamacare, who actually think it's their job to do that, or take it upon themselves to do other things reserved to the judiciary and/or executive branches of government. They took an oath of office to do something productive, a role that is defined by the constitution they swore an oath to uphold. If they don't do that, impeach and remove them from office for not doing their jobs. Hold special elections or else appoint someone to replace them who will. This could be done by executive order if that part of government is too dysfunctional to bring it to a vote.

Do you think such shenanigans are funny? That's our tax money they are wasting.

It is likewise against the Constitution for any single member or group of members of Congress to officially or otherwise affect or disaffect the foreign policy of the United States without putting the matter up for a vote by ALL of the elected representatives of states affected by such actions. The Constitution provides that Congress perform its duties acting as a single body, not individually, as one might expect of a Confederacy.

Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
11. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
The above response to a previous post by Wellwisher seems to have been moderated out, possibly for being off topic.

"There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy." --Ambrose Bierce

12. ### Light TravellingIt's a girl O lord in a flatbed FordRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,154
It's the insane people who do cast the first stones.... on account of their insanity

13. ### Light TravellingIt's a girl O lord in a flatbed FordRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,154
There are always multiple contributing factors for any given situation, including murder.
So whilst a killer is responsible for their actions, they are never 100% responsible

14. ### kx000Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,347
It takes two to tango. Peace is up to everyone. However, peace comes from within. Don't seek it without.

15. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
If you were walking down the road, and saw a woman being beat to near death, and an officer of the law gets on scene and shoots and kills him, before he finishes the murder, this would be a righteous kill. It is a form of death penalty, done in real time, that does not even need a dead victim. The officer gets to play judge, jury and executioner in a split second based on training and experience.

In the second scenario, you are also walking and see the woman being beaten, but the officer did not appear in time. The assailant kills the woman, escapes, gets tracked down, and is then finally captured. Now the death penalty is off the table even if you saw it. It was on the table until lawyers get involved. The bottom line is; life in prison makes more money for defense lawyers than does the death penalty. It is not about justice or mercy.

The truth of the murder and the murderer, will be distorted by the defense lawyers, since their job is to get the murderer off, by whatever means possible. It is not about guilty or justice, but winning.

One problem I have with the justice system is this is the only occupation allowed to police itself, with lawyers not rating too high in terms of trust worthiness. Teachers are rated higher, yet they can't police themselves. Why not have doctors police themselves and get rid of all lawyers involvement in the medical field, since doctors rate higher in trustworthiness? No matter how trust worthy there is still fear of conflict of interest, yet lawyers get to self police; conflict of interest.

As an example of conflict of interest; witnesses have to take an oath, to tell the truth. Defense lawyers don't have to tell the truth, or the judge could ask, is he guilty; case is closed? One conflict of interesting of having lawyers police themselves is that don't have to take an oath of truth. This allows them to lie/distort the truth without penalty.

The goal of the defense is to make the victim look bad, and make the murderer look innocent, and/or not in his right mind. This line of bull needs to be good enough to get liberal activists on board, to help the case for free.

An interesting part of the equation is, defense lawyers spend most of the campaign contribution money supporting democratic party candidates. This is the party that supports criminal rights. Criminal rights creates more jobs for lawyers; repeat business sometimes dozens of times. The liberals have their heart in the right place, but their mind is being scammed by those who benefit by this; lawyers and democratic candidates.

16. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
Say a murderer is not 100% responsible for what he or she did; get life in prison instead of death penalty. Since murder is the worse crime, should lessor crime get the same or better deal?

For example, if I don't pay $1000 in taxes, maybe the better deal is, I should only be responsible for$900 dollars in taxes to be at par with the better deal given to the murderer. Why is there a reward system for murder, and shouldn't all crime be rewarded, if we give < 100% deal to the worse crime? I was temporarily insane when I failed to pay the taxes therefore I only owe \$900.

17. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty", or "better to let 10 guilty men go free than to condemn one innocent man to death?"

I could care less what lawyers or the society that produces them have to do to carry through on the idea that a society must hold true a higher moral standard than a criminal. It means a society that murders is no better than the murderer himself / herself. After all, society will be powerless to restore life to a victim of a violent crime, but it does have the means, if not the will, to try and redeem those who have perpetrated such crimes. If they cannot, at least they can prevent them from taking more victims. The rare sentence of execution should be reserved for serial killers or terrorists only.

Wellwisher, you've got a nerve promoting such ideas about capitol punishment with the current plague of police shootings of unarmed black people. That happens because of the promotion of Guns, by the party that hates Gays, and promotes religious freedom to worship their G-d and seem to value that particular civil right higher than any other civil liberty guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution. That is a real problem, particularly after packing the Supreme Court with like minded yo-yos. And yet you complain about trial lawyers supporting democratic politicians? Sorry, but I really don't see that particular problem as a high political priority.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2015

Messages:
40
I'm maybe too late for the discussion but hey...

In my opinion, the only killer who is not responsible for his/her wrong doings is a Psycopath. A diagnosed psycopath. I know it is hard to hit a jackpot on a psycopathy diagnosis but there is a list most psychiatrists follow to identify one. They can't feel jack, they don't care and it's their brain's fault. Anyone care to join in?

darksidZz and danshawen like this.
19. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
Many so-called psychopaths are able to function as moral people and can actually be assets to society.

The puny influence of nerochemical rewards in "normal" folks is hardly a guarantee of moral behavior either, by the way. Any sufficiently desensitized person may behave the way a maladjusted psychopath does or even worse. That's a fact proven by surgeons every day.

darksidZz likes this.

Messages:
40
Actually, I've read somewhere (or in some documentary) Psycopaths can't function in society and the ones who do (there's quite a lot of them) are doing it for their own selfish, narcisistic and macabre reasons. They went more further than that, they actually blame Psycopaths (the mailman; the executive, the president; the grocery cashier) for most of the wrongdoings in society. They destroy the very foundations of society and I'm probably citing it word by word. They say we live among them and there should be a way of detecting a Psycopath before he/she commits anything out of the ordinary for lack of a better word. What they mean is, it is impossible to cure a Psycopath, and that portion of their brain which fails to feel emotions about anything is the culprit. It's not something abstract, it is indeed a physical defect in their brains.

I do not agree with your statement when you say anyone with some kind of mental desensitification may behave as a Psycopath does. Maybe the culmination of all they do may be compared to that of a Psycopath, but the inner workings of a psyco's brain are completely and utterly different from those of a supposedly normal person's brain. Psycopaths can't help it...if they make people think otherwise, it is part of their game and charming methods. Although, I think I understood what you wanted to say by that. Yes, there are really sick people who do somethign only a Psycopath could do for instance...take serial-killers. Most of them are NOT psycopaths, just deeply disturbed people who let their frustrations and sexual deviations take over.

Edit: Going back to the thread's title. I don't thin we can put 100% blame on a killer, any killer for that matter. Our brain is far from perfect and we do know we need just that special trigger to fry us up and flare our "innate madness". Not saying they are innocent, FAR from it. But scientifically we can all assert our brain randomness when responding to exterior stimuli.

Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
21. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
Obviously, you haven't read "Snakes in Suits", nor understood that addictive behavior can easily short circuit the delicate balance of neurotransmitters to effect psychopathic-like behavior in otherwise normal individuals. Psychopaths are also good lawyers and it's very hard to beat them in court, particularly the part about proving their emotional disability is anything like a motive for wrongdoing. They know right from wrong; they just don't feel it the way most people do. They must learn it.

In a war zone, a psychopath actually has an advantage, and also they never suffer PTSS.

Messages:
4,921