Quote:
Originally posted by Kewpie Dan
whether he was concious of his decision or not, the fact is that he is still dangerous. how much blame can we assign him? that question is debatable, but what we do know for a fact is that he killed two people, period.
it is not moral or ethical to let him go free as long as he is still capable of killing again.
|
You are capable of killing. Should we lock you up, just in case?
Your first paragraph is specious. When you say "what we do know for a fact is that he killed two people, period," you're implying that there is no more information relevent to the case, which is patently false. Again, if I had killed someone, am I guilty of murder even though I only killed them because someone had slipped me a halucinatory drug without my knowledge? If you had said "what we do know for a fact is that he killed two people, period," would that have been just in my (hypothetical) case? How is it different?
He was in a mental hospital
because he is dangerous. I can only assume that they only let him out because they felt that he was no longer a danger. Apparently, they were wrong but, again, it's not the insane's fault, necessarily. It might be, if he was on some medication and he deliberately didn't take said medication but these are details we don't know about. It's too easy to judge a situation without all the relevent facts and all these facts are rarely reported by the press.
There is usually mitigating circumstances...