Ok, moving on: I think " some kind of mental issue" is too broad by far. If you are so absolutely insanely mental you really cannot tell right and wrong then you should not be out in public and anything less you should be standing trial because you would have to absolutely insane to not realize throwing acid at people is wrong.
A long jail sentence in a prison where they'll be beaten by other inmates and left horribly disfigured themselves and made to pay compensation to the victim.
Ok, moving on: I think " some kind of mental issue" is too broad by far. If you are so absolutely insanely mental you really cannot tell right and wrong then you should not be out in public and anything less you should be standing trial because you would have to absolutely insane to not realize throwing acid at people is wrong.
not everyone with mental issues is insane. we`re talking about mitigation not the entire defence.
I never said they were did I? I clearly stated that anyone who is not insane should stand trial.
Lets try again:
People who fall under the category of being "so absolutely insanely mental you really cannot tell right and wrong" should be exempt from trial.
Are you saying people who "have a mental problem" but do not fall under the category of being totally unable to tell right from wrong should have their mental state taken into consideration at a trial for acid throwing?
I'd suggest a stretch in prison (~10 years) coupled with a severe beating which results in permanent disfigurement.
The prison sentence would be punishment for the crime.
The disfigurement would be a constant reminder for the rest of their lives of the damage inflicted on the victim.
I never said they were did I? I clearly stated that anyone who is not insane should stand trial.
Lets try again:
People who fall under the category of being "so absolutely insanely mental you really cannot tell right and wrong" should be exempt from trial.
Are you saying people who "have a mental problem" but do not fall under the category of being totally unable to tell right from wrong should have their mental state taken into consideration at a trial for acid throwing?
i`m saying that in common with every other defendant in a trial for anything at all any mitigating factors should be considered in the course of the sentencing.
i don`t think i`m making it particularly difficult to comprehend.
If the person has been disfigured as a result of the attack then the attacker should go to prison for 10 years at least. At the end of the day throwing acid in someones face is no different than raping someone, both have negative effects on your lifestyle.
But does someone who does something uncomprehendingly evil (like imo throwing acid on someone) have 'mental issues' just by being able to do so.
Or could they just be a truly evil individual
either, both, neither.
either way i`m struggling to see why therapy would be bad thing and why any mitigating factors shouldn`t be considered at sentencing it`s normal procedure.
i`m saying that in common with every other defendant in a trial for anything at all any mitigating factors should be considered in the course of the sentencing.
i don`t think i`m making it particularly difficult to comprehend.
Yes and I asked what would you define at mitigating circumstances remember? Its a discussion or would be but wee just going to go round in circles.
You said we need to see what mitigating circumstances there are and I asked to drill down on what you thought would be possible. Asking to go into more detail does not represent a comprehension problem.
Of course mitigating factors should be taken into consideration by definition.
I am, or was, cus this is just pointless now, what constitutes a mitigating circumstance in cases such as this.
Yes and I asked what would you define at mitigating circumstances remember? Its a discussion or would be but wee just going to go round in circles.
You said we need to see what mitigating circumstances there are and I asked to drill down on what you thought would be possible. Asking to go into more detail does not represent a comprehension problem.
Of course mitigating factors should be taken into consideration by definition.
I am, or was, cus this is just pointless now, what constitutes a mitigating circumstance in cases such as this.
i`m just going to be repeating myself. over and over and over again. some. kind. of. mental. issue.
it`s going round in circles because you keep asking the same question to which you will continue to get the same answer. i could spend all day typing a huge list of possibilities but that would be completely pointless and a rather ridiculous as there are as many of those as there are people with issues.
i`m just going to be repeating myself. over and over and over again. some. kind. of. mental. issue.
it`s going round in circles because you keep asking the same question to which you will continue to get the same answer. i could spend all day typing a huge list of possibilities but that would be completely pointless and a rather ridiculous as there are as many of those as there are people with issues.
Its pointless because you don't want to answer and instead deflect, that all. But that's OK, That's DS these days. Post 35 asked a very simple question that did not require a list of possible conditions because all conditions must fall into those that effect ability to tell right from wrong and those that don't.
And if the latter class should be a mitigating circumstance.
But don't sweat it, it was my mistake because I should have stopped wasting time on you when you came out with the ridiculously lame "i`ll write in my style, you write in yours."
But then its time I stopped wasting time on a forum that is now so inhabited by trolls, morons and perverts (none of which are you Net) that DS don't even bother to ban them anymore (except for Pinkteddy of course) as there traffic would plummet.
The sad thing in this latest case, is that the girl who allegedly threw acid in the other girl's face was her friend, and they had a silly argument where she called her ugly, so obviously tried to even the score and then some.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
I agree, I also re-read the article about her, it was very sad. People do stuff like throwing acid should get acid thrown at them back rather than just a jail sentence.
Its pointless because you don't want to answer and instead deflect, that all. But that's OK, That's DS these days. Post 35 asked a very simple question that did not require a list of possible conditions because all conditions must fall into those that effect ability to tell right from wrong and those that don't.
And if the latter class should be a mitigating circumstance.
But don't sweat it, it was my mistake because I should have stopped wasting time on you when you came out with the ridiculously lame "i`ll write in my style, you write in yours."
But then its time I stopped wasting time on a forum that is now so inhabited by trolls, morons and perverts (none of which are you Net) that DS don't even bother to ban them anymore (except for Pinkteddy of course) as there traffic would plummet.
I agree, I also re-read the article about her, it was very sad. People do stuff like throwing acid should get acid thrown at them back rather than just a jail sentence.
Comments
Read the title of the thread please.
i`ll write in my style, you write in yours.
Ok, moving on: I think " some kind of mental issue" is too broad by far. If you are so absolutely insanely mental you really cannot tell right and wrong then you should not be out in public and anything less you should be standing trial because you would have to absolutely insane to not realize throwing acid at people is wrong.
where`s the bit about religion?
not everyone with mental issues is insane
Cheap and effective.
I never said they were did I? I clearly stated that anyone who is not insane should stand trial.
Lets try again:
People who fall under the category of being "so absolutely insanely mental you really cannot tell right and wrong" should be exempt from trial.
Are you saying people who "have a mental problem" but do not fall under the category of being totally unable to tell right from wrong should have their mental state taken into consideration at a trial for acid throwing?
The prison sentence would be punishment for the crime.
The disfigurement would be a constant reminder for the rest of their lives of the damage inflicted on the victim.
But are people who comitt such evil acts mentally ill or simply evil?
It has been suggested to me that those who do evil things that we cannot comprehend are mentally ill to be able to do them in the first place.
But I'm not sure, I think a person can be truly evil and without remorse and that being so does not render them mentally ill.
i`m saying that in common with every other defendant in a trial for anything at all any mitigating factors should be considered in the course of the sentencing.
i don`t think i`m making it particularly difficult to comprehend.
you can have mental issues without being mentally ill.
But does someone who does something uncomprehendingly evil (like imo throwing acid on someone) have 'mental issues' just by being able to do so.
Or could they just be a truly evil individual
either, both, neither.
either way i`m struggling to see why therapy would be bad thing and why any mitigating factors shouldn`t be considered at sentencing it`s normal procedure.
which is pretty much all i`ve said.
Yes and I asked what would you define at mitigating circumstances remember? Its a discussion or would be but wee just going to go round in circles.
You said we need to see what mitigating circumstances there are and I asked to drill down on what you thought would be possible. Asking to go into more detail does not represent a comprehension problem.
Of course mitigating factors should be taken into consideration by definition.
I am, or was, cus this is just pointless now, what constitutes a mitigating circumstance in cases such as this.
i`m just going to be repeating myself. over and over and over again. some. kind. of. mental. issue.
it`s going round in circles because you keep asking the same question to which you will continue to get the same answer. i could spend all day typing a huge list of possibilities but that would be completely pointless and a rather ridiculous as there are as many of those as there are people with issues.
Its pointless because you don't want to answer and instead deflect, that all. But that's OK, That's DS these days. Post 35 asked a very simple question that did not require a list of possible conditions because all conditions must fall into those that effect ability to tell right from wrong and those that don't.
And if the latter class should be a mitigating circumstance.
But don't sweat it, it was my mistake because I should have stopped wasting time on you when you came out with the ridiculously lame "i`ll write in my style, you write in yours."
But then its time I stopped wasting time on a forum that is now so inhabited by trolls, morons and perverts (none of which are you Net) that DS don't even bother to ban them anymore (except for Pinkteddy of course) as there traffic would plummet.
I agree, I also re-read the article about her, it was very sad. People do stuff like throwing acid should get acid thrown at them back rather than just a jail sentence.
i answered your question in post 38.
not interested in the rest of your post.
I think that's fair.
I take it you are not a hand wringing Guardian reader then?
I don't read ANY newspaper - I prefer my works of fiction to be labelled as such
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!!.