Shake me up Judy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 With rehabilitation being widely discussed on another thread and in the local media, I wondered what others thought about this case. He reportedly shows no remorse for the brutal killing of teacher Anne Maguire; and I doubt that her family will ever recover or be 'rehabilitated' after her shocking and senseless murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Lethal injection. ✓ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 That kid's brain's not wired up right. He's clearly got a psychopathic personality disorder, so it's doubtful he can be rehabilitated - be a brave psychiatrist that says he's cured, only for him to be released and do something similar. He'll probably have to be locked up, one way or another, for the rest of his life. I'm not sure a civilised society should be carrying out the death penalty for cases such as this, but I'd have no problem with him being offered a lethal injection, should he wish to choose a quick death rather than spending the next 70 years in Broadmoor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That kid's brain's not wired up right. He's clearly got a psychopathic personality disorder, so it's doubtful he can be rehabilitated - be a brave psychiatrist that says he's cured, only for him to be released and do something similar. He'll probably have to be locked up, one way or another, for the rest of his life. I'm not sure a civilised society should be carrying out the death penalty for cases such as this, but I'd have no problem with him being offered a lethal injection, should he wish to choose a quick death rather than spending the next 70 years in Broadmoor. Wrighty...the logic in that post is bewildering...if not a little worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 There is a very great deal that should be learned from this killing but I doubt if it will be for the simple reason that there are a number of questions that will not be asked about why the youths behaviour prior to this did not trigger intervention and for that matter was there an 'issue' in the way that the victim may have related to some people. What should happen to the youth? I have my opinions based on my beliefs but I accept that sadly people who share my beliefs are greatly in the minority and so the majority should make the call. What I DO feel is that the youth is of unsound mind and personally, putting my religious perspective to one side, I do not believe that such people should be punished for what they do unless such punishment acts in some Pavlovian way to control future behaviour, but such is patently obviously not the case here. I can see some humanity in offering elective euthanasia after a period of assessment to establish a) if he was capable of making a rational decision and b) if it was established that there was no possibility of his mental incapacity being modified that would result in him no longer being a threat to society but what I can not sign up to would be to impose a death sentence and that has nothing to do with my being a Christian, simply on my being human. But --- there are a raft of questions that should be asked and that I doubt will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I think sometimes people confuse psychosis and psychopathy. The first is often a transient, treatable disorder of thinking that may lead an individual to commit crimes, the second is a state of being - it's just the way they're made. Hannibal Lecter is a good example from fiction. As a caring society we should certainly aim to look after, treat, and rehabilitate the former category, but the latter are not treatable and cannot remain part of normal society and must be removed from it, for the good of the many. Secure psychiatric institutions are the normal way, but as I said above, which Mr Tatlock doesn't seem to agree with, I have no problem with offering them euthanasia. Ian Brady for example has been wanting to die for years, and society won't let him - I don't see why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've never heard such bizarre arguments. Is Spook seriously suggesting this lad should be offered elective euthanasia ? At what age should this option become available to him ? On Wrighty's point: when should Ian Brady be offered the same option ? At what point in their sentence should lifers be given this choice ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 My point was that if you can't 'treat' a disturbed mind and get it to think 'normally', how is right to offer such a mind our rational choice of execution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 A psychopath is not necessarily unable to make rational informed decisions and choices even though their psychosis might make them unsafe to release into the genral population. I don't believe that at his age and at this point he would be capable of making a rational choice but there may come a point in the future and then -------. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 My point was that if you can't 'treat' a disturbed mind and get it to think 'normally', how is right to offer such a mind our rational choice of execution? I agree with this but I would also add that the victims of their crimes were not offered a choice so why should we offer a convicted criminal a "way out"? I personally do not believe in the death sentence and frankly if Ian Brady want to die because he knows he will never leave prison then that is good. That does not mean we should let him have that choice though. There is no evidence that the death sentence is a deterrent and people can still be wrongly convicted. To balance this you end up with the situation in the USA with people sat on death row for years and years going through appeals and all the while the victims family have no closure. The sentence that was passed at the trial has still not been carried out. At least once someone is in prison with a life sentence (and a life sentence should mean life) then they can return to as normal a life as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Not letting someone have the choice to die is the same thing as deciding that that person must stay alive. How is that more moral than deliberately not preventing their suicide? I don't think that is obvious at all. Anyway in this case, the boy is a boy - a child. So even if he is in all other respects psychologically normal, he's still only a child - however awful the crime, he does not and should not have the same criminal liability as an adult. As both a matter of law and modern developmental psychology and neuroscience, 15 year old children do not have adult decision making capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 You're still misunderstanding. A psychopath can be very rational, but just has no empathy for other people's situations. A psychopath kills someone because he wants to, without any thought for the consequences to anyone but himself. Certainly no consideration that what he may have done is wrong, or how the loved ones of his victims may feel about it all. This is not a temporary biochemical brain disturbance, it's a personality disorder. Someone suffering psychosis may kill someone because he believes god has told him to do it to save the world, having received messages via the TV or whatever. This is irrational, disordered thought, may be transient, and may be treatable. 15 is old enough to understand that stabbing someone repeatedly in the neck is not right, and will lead to consequences - psychopath or not. If he was only 8, or had the mental capacity of an 8 year old then you may have a point, but at 15, with a decision to kill or not to kill, I think he had capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Not legally he doesn't, and your perception that a 15 year old is capable is just your opinion - modern psychology, neuroscience, and most importantly the law don't agree. So what do you want me to say?! As for psychopathy of course that is different to just being a child in most senses, obviously. But they both have in common the fact that they are both reasons why full adult compos mentis legal culpability might not be appropriate. Anyway in this case, I didn't think the boy has been diagnosed with anything yet - psychopathy is just an armchair diagnosis right now isn't it? I thought one of the most shocking things about the case was that he had NOT been diagnosed, literally nobody had a clue and nobody apparently had a chance to see it coming. If he has psychopathy he hid it apparently perfectly right up until the day he did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The victim's husband said this: "We shall be left with anniversaries of sadness. There will be no closure. Balance will not return. No level scales. No end.” I think this is very sad. I hope he can give himself the gift of closure. No-one else will be able to. Not that it is easy, I know all too well. But it is the truth - closure comes from inside not outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 Ceaseless Change: You say that this boy is only a child. So were the other kids in the class, and so are Ann Maguire's kids (now without their mother); yet these children didn't commit a brutal relentless murder of a defenceless woman. So you're the judge. What would be your informed decision and how would you convince the public and the family of this woman that it was the right one ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.