There's a special place in hell...Follow

Cold facts and reason holds no compassion though, and if it were easy to systematize punishment, it would have been done.

Valuing the worth of the criminal can only be done when you invest emotion into the process. Otherwise, the worth of all parties in the crime becomes equal. One life is no more valuable than another. So ending the life of a doctor would be the same as ending the life of a homeless man. Ending the life of a rapist would be the same as ending the life of the victim.

Unless, of course, you want to evaluate the worth of a person by the sum of their experiences. So, would that mean a doctor can kill more people than a burger flipper, since the doctor is technically more valuable saving lives than the burger flipper?

To remove the humanity of the justice system is to remove the justice from it. You yourself see the need to show love and respect for the life and worth of the accused. You cannot do that and set aside the contempt you may have if the accused has shown contempt for life.

You want to have your cake and eat it too, to use a simpler metaphor.

In order to have that compassion, you must have its other side.

You've often said that you hate certain people or things, so I find it odd that you express this sentiment.

What the **** is it with crazy mothers this month?

This is about 15 miles away from me. I've driven over that particular bridge many times. I just can't believe any mother would do that to her own children. No way in hell that was post partum depression. I say fry her.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_re_us/us_oregon_dead_child;_ylt=Ak6mKvQjnqaPW7IkKXLl.b3tiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTM0M2Y1MnIxBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDA5MDUyNC9hcF9vbl9yZV91cy91c19vcmVnb25fZGVhZF9jaGlsZARjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNvcmVnb25tb21hY2M-

Oregon mom accused in river drowning of 4-year-old

By MARY HUDETZ, Associated Press Writer Mary Hudetz, Associated Press Writer – 2 mins ago
PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon mother was arrested Saturday in the drowning of her 4-year-old son after the boy and his 7-year-old sister ended up in the chilly Williamette River.

Residents heard screams on the Sellwood Bridge near Portland and called authorities. Some jumped into boats to help search in the early morning darkness. After about an hour, a couple found the children downstream.

The boy, Eldon Jay Rebhan Smith, could not be revived; the girl was in a hospital and expected to survive.

"She's doing well," said Detective Sgt. Rich Austria of the Portland Police Bureau. "She has the will to live."

Austria said it was not immediately clear whether the children were pushed or fell into the river. They have not yet questioned the girl.

Police said the mother, Amanda Jo Stott-Smith, was taken into the custody at a downtown parking garage several hours after her children were found. Stott-Smith, 31, threatened to jump off the garage's ninth floor in before she was arrested, Austria said.

Stott-Smith faces aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder charges, Austria said.

A police spokesman said he did not know if Stott-Smith had an attorney.

Police were asking the public to call investigators if they saw Stott-Smith's car, a blue Audi sedan, on the bridge when residents of the area heard the children's screams.

"Had they not been awake at one in the morning," Austria said, "we would investigating a case here with no children."

When police arrived, officers also heard screams on the river but could find the children because it was dark, said Officer Greg Pashley, a Portland Police Bureau spokesman.

"As you look down into the darkness it's hard to see anything," Pashley said. "I can't imagine what it must be like to be a child in this cold river."

You two, prepare to be berated by Smash for thinking that the murder occuring 5 miles away has anything to do with anything.

It's not like you were in danger from a loose serial PPD child drowner.

By the time the kid is four years old, I don't think it qualifies as post-partum anything.

inconclusive as to what murder charge. Also the question remains as to her mental state. (or past mental health history).

Kao, what verdict choices are there? Do they have the Guilty but "Mentally Ill" charge? or is your state an either or - Guilty or Mentally Ill?

Thats so sad. I wonder if things like this have always been going on but now with the availabel technology, we are more aware of them?

Never thought we were. But Portland's a slow news town, and something like this happening so close to home gets your attention.

I don't know actually. And it's the next state over, oregon that would be the issue.

I'm pretty sure if you let my roomba decide the fate of humanity, it would kill us all.

Right, and you're still the one making it. You don't have to choose between no emotion vs loads of emotion - in fact you can't. What you can do is minimise the impact it has, which is what Pensive was advocating.



That'd be true if there was no logical way to analyse mitigating circumstances and the like. So, basically, it isn't true.

It's possible I'm just misinterpreting, but I thought what he was saying was that imperfection was inevitable but we should strive for the ideal of justice.

To TL;DR the discussion for those who joined late, here it is:




Sounds to me like Pensive is, in fact, arguing in favor of removing all emotion from the justice process except for sympathy for the defendant.

I'd quote you niobia, but the whole point of why my examples are truncated was to avoid a gbaji post.

I know they were overly simplified examples, but I was trying to find a situation where there is a high likelyhood of the first defendant was a risk to re-offend, the second not so much, but the crimes being mathematically and rationally different.

I was trying to find a better example, but that was the best I could come up with that showed enough polarization to make any impact.

In the end, it seems it was unneeded as Kavekk and I actually are on the same page

Also:

Fixing someone's mental state is a complex process. Locking them away is a simple one. It's not shocking that the laws are positioned to support that. What struck me was an interview John Stewart did with Newt Ginrich. In it, through all the smarmy dialogue and cheap shots, Stewart said something to the effect that if the government can organize military operations and wage war overseas, why could they not run an efficient medical system or do something as routine as schedule annual check-ups for the population. Ginrich had no answer.

While it was laced with sarcasm, it's a valid complaint. The answer is in those studies you quoted. They want to avoid entrenching themselves in a worthwhile, yet costly, process to correct a criminal's issues, and would rather risk either re-offence or lock them away indefinitely to avoid the expense of doing the job right.