{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
publicado originalmente en:Psykana Librarius
7/8/2014 4:38:17 PM
15
Uh, he assaulted his captors. Generally when you assault someone, you're subdued. Gotta love Brits trying to turn everything into anti-American propaganda. Jealously, perhaps?
Also, having a mental disorder doesn't make breaking the law okay.
English
-
[quote]Also, having a mental disorder doesn't make breaking the law okay.[/quote] Yes. Yes it does.
-
Not quite, it's a mitigating factor sure but it's not carte blanche to run rampant in society.
-
If you going to make a judgement about whether or not it is "okay" to break the law then you're making a moral evaluation. If something is "okay", presumably it is neither moral, nor immoral, but simply is. The law should have very little to do with morality and if a schizophrenic murders a man that is absolutely not immoral, but you treat them anyway because you can't have a functioning society otherwise. Whether it's "okay" or not is irrelevant, because morality is a tangled mess of preferences and pseudo-intellectualism. What should matter is creating the best society possible without infringing on the rights of the citizens too much. It's not a case of it being "not okay", in moral terms, to kill anybody, really. It's a case of cause-and-effect; "we, as a society, have basic and necessary rules on your freedom, if you don't abide we henceforth retain the right to limit said freedom". People who literally cannot comprehend such an idea have no place being labelled in moral terms.
-
Well said <.< I think that compus mentis is pretty much the deciding factor over this sort of thing, or it should be anyway. If someone isn't right in the head, then putting them on trial as if they were is simply wrong >.>
-
[quote][b]Le[/b] Cognition[/quote]Please die.
-
hue, i play rushen rewlet erry nite i havnt lost yet
-
If you're still posting, that means you haven't won.
-
The difference between subduing someone and using excessive force is pretty simple here, if you have someone in a restraining chair you don't then need to pepper spray them out of spite because they spat at you. This isn't about trying to turn it into Anti-Yank propaganda either, it's pointing out the -blam!-ed up way your country fails to manage the mentally ill appropriately. And no, of course it doesn't. The difference is whether you jail them or send them to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, one of which will potentially make them better and the other will make them worse. Then when they get released? Oh look, something -blam!-ed up happens to another innocent person.
-
Editado por SecondClass: 7/8/2014 4:56:17 PMWhen you're in the moment, as a guard, and some crazy guy spits in your face, you don't have time to think. You don't know if this lunatic is going to break out of the chair and start choking you, or if he'll be a bigger threat than the prisoners you're used to dealing with. When you face life and death consequences for hesitation every day, sometimes you have to be a bit excessive (which I admit, the pepper spray was). That being said, I have no sympathy for this guy whatsoever. He cried about being pepper sprayed, even though it was a direct consequence of [i]his[/i] action. More like he thought he could get away with a blatantly hostile and disrespectful act, but had to pay for his actions instead, like an actual responsible adult. And have you even read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest? Even if I had schizophrenia, I'd rather go to jail than one of those hellhole insane "asylums".
-
Yes, the action of the guy was wrong but the reaction from the guard is the typical one of someone who isn't trained for dealing with the mentally ill. If a child spits at you, you don't roundhouse kick them. It's about a proportioned response to someone not in complete control of their faculties. I've seen the film, the book is on my purchase list though. But do you really think that modern Psychiatric hospitals are like that? Or that ECT is as horrific as it's made out to be? Asylums used to be like that, which is why they all got shut down in some kneejerk reactionary stupidity. Rather than fixing the problems and learning from mistakes, ditching the entire system has only made the problem worse. There needs to be a proper system of sanatoriums, with psychiatrists and trained nurses/staffers to deal with the seriously ill. Or even better, work on prevention instead of damage control but that requires a large amount of investment in an area that is easier to keep on cutting because the general public tends not to give a shit.
-
Editado por SecondClass: 7/8/2014 5:17:15 PMA child can't kill you without a moral or physical qualm. Comparing a violent lunatic to a child is beyond idiotic. I've been inside a ward before, and while it's not as bad as Kesey portrays it, it's not too far off. We could sink billions of dollars into renovating, revamping, and supplying thousands of mental wards across our country, but there are so many more urgent matters we should focus on first. In general, the fact that violent, evil people get to skip punishment and go to a cushy ward, while we have hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders in actual prison is ridiculous. Someone who kills kids because "ooh, they have X disorder" getting a lesser sentence than someone growing a harmless fuçking plant is a failure of the penal system.
-
It's to do with the concept of being able to be responsible for your actions, children aren't tried for crimes as adults are. And the mentally ill shouldn't be either. A modern one or a US one? There is a bit of a difference there. There are always more pressing matters, but that's the reason why governments have many different divisions/departments - to deal with lots of complex issues. Ignoring it won't fix it though, and it will just keep on getting worse. It's not just asylums that need addressing, but the simpler stuff as well - Like treating depression which costs the economy more than it would cost to bring the services up to scratch (in the UK - £8.6 Billion a year and presumably a suitably larger number when you multiply the population by five for the USA) Trying to impose morality on those without control over their own actions is pointless, so calling the ill evil is something I'd expect from a biblethumper. And I agree that locking up non-violent drug offenders is -blam!-ing stupid, and can you honestly think of a case where a child murderer got off easily because of some petty disorder? A life sentence in a sanatorium isn't getting off easy, it's just a more appropriate action than locking them in a jail.
-
A modern US one. And I honestly agree with that to an extent. Something obviously needs to be done. But let me ask you a question: if you're going to have someone rot in a prison or asylum their whole lives, wouldn't it be more humane and cost-effective to just impose the death penalty?
-
Editado por Psy: 7/8/2014 6:00:55 PMI figured it probably was, I guess it was a bit of a cheap shot at the USA <.< There aren't enough of them though, and the UK is just as bad for that. In my book, yes it would. However, I don't view it quite as plainly as that. Just a couple of simple distinctions to clarify. A life sentence inmate who committed a serious crime (Obviously) but was in control of their faculties (No major underlying illness like Schizophrenia or Bipolar - I'd be happy to either execute them and save time/money or give them the option of euthanasia (I'd prefer the former, but the latter is more likely to hit the middle ground) When it comes to the long term and incurably ill, then euthanasia could be argued as a humane solution to it but the potential for abuse is vast and the ethical implications would cause some supernovas of butthurt on all sides of the spectrum. Whilst the chance/opportunity for treatment/mitigation or even a cure exists then it is perhaps wrong to euthanise them but I wouldn't say it's wrong to force them to live either. That's where it gets into some seriously murky waters because one of the basic principles of mental health is to prevent suicides, but then is there a point at which someone should be allowed to end their suffering? I think that's a whole other topic of discussion <.< But put briefly, yes I would say it's more humane/cost-effective.
-
[quote]Even if I had schizophrenia, I'd rather go to jail than one of those hellhole insane "asylums".[/quote] [quote][b]This isn't about trying to turn it into Anti-Yank propaganda either, it's pointing out the -blam!-ed up way your country fails to manage the mentally ill appropriately.[/b][/quote]
