Would Killer Be Better Off Dead?

[paraffin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-119959 7/Stockwell-Strangler-Kenneth-Erskine-wins-app eal-convictions-reduced-manslaughter.html

This serial killer of geriatrics was jailed in 1988.
It has already cost the taxpayer a fortune, now a further �100,000 to have his convictions "downgraded".
He will remain in Broadmoor for the rest of his life.

Now deemed to have been suffering from "an abnormality of the mind", wouldn't he and the country be far better off were he to be "put down"?

[pinktwink]

yes but we would loose the opportunity to learn about how people like him function Ice.

At the end of the day a lot of the offenders today are children that gre up abused, neglected , dropped out of schools, etc etc and we as a society have failed a number of these as we lack the structures to deal adequatly with child poverty, child abuse and juvenile crime. If children dont learn positive coping skilss or go undetected for mental illness ow are they equipped to deal with adulthood. As they say you reap what you sow and that is a lesson for society

[ELVIS68]

Lots of murderers are diagnosed with schizophrenia after they are caught, people like Peter Suttcliffe for example, he knew what he was doing and planned every attack and covered his tracks to avoid being caught, he was just a cold blooded murderer nothing more nothing less

[Ice.Maiden]

Hi pink.
Well, the medical profession've been trying to find a solution to these mental ilnesses for years, and they're scarcely any nearer to finding out what makes some folk turn into mass murderers whilst others are not.
It could be for many varied reasons, but the fact remains that when this man killed the 7 pensioners, he not only subjected them to abject terror and pain, but hurt their remaining relatives and friends, who have to live with the knowledge of that these poor women went through.
Removing the one person who did it, is some compensation for them - and Elvis - a perfect example in what you just said.

[Quinlad]

The law - thankfully - treats mental and physical illness the same.

Example: if I develop a condition in my arm called 'jerky arm syndrome' which causes me to randomly and suddenly flail my arm around, and because of this I accidentally punch someone in the throat which kills them - just about everyone would accept that I didn't have any intention to kill him and that I shouldn't be held fully accountable. The condition has robbed me of my ability to control my arm.

If it happened 7 times, people would want me to be kept somewhere secure where I'm no longer a threat. Fine. But executing me for my physical defect would be unnecessary and too far. Surely?

If it's not a physical compulsion but a mental one that means I'm unable to control my actions and am not responsible for my behaviour - in exactly the same way - the principle is the same.

The problem is that people are still slow on the uptake when it comes to understanding and accepting mental illness. They think it's an excuse or an outright lie or not the kind of thing that would make you act violently. Even though perpatrators are assessed by qualified psychologists and the evidence scrutinised in a court of law, they still can't get their heads round it. How depressing.

"That man did a bad thing. Nasty man." That's the level of analysis. Incredible.