US Soldier Kills 16 - Where Should He Face Trial?

Sometimes permanently, and heavily, medicated for the rest of your life.

Yeah not seeing the point of all that. Now we have dropped the pretense that he is being rehabilitated. Lets just keep him doped up for the rest of his life...what kind of sense does that make?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting is a better alternative anymore.

IMO..

America has always been the first, loudest, and most demanding voice for justice. Especially here at home.

If this exact scenario were to happen on our own soil I'm certain the U.S. Govt. would take custody of the individual. We would hold him in our own jail (probably Guantanamo) and eventually try him in our own courts. If the involved militia refused to turn him over, believe we'd seize their base. If theirs and/or other countries didn't like our course of action, we'd tell them to flap off; just diplomatically. Our own citizens would demand justice. Justice is not justified by the people if it does not dampen or satisfy the pain felt within the victims families' hearts. The people of this country would not be willing to give up a foreign soldier who had knowingly just murdered American citizens. So why do we demand such special treatment abroad?

I'm not going to say what I think should happen. I'll save myself the blow back from pissing in the wind. Besides, it's not for me to decide. But I can understand both sides of the argument. Just seems funny how hypocritical our country can be. We're not very good at practicing what we preach.

Personally when there is a clear cut admission of guilt like we have in this threads example I am in favor of execution. Doping someone up so they can sit in a facility like a vegetable for the next 60-70 years makes no sense. Also this man has shown he has the capacity to kill at the drop of a hat. If he ever gets off his meds or has another episode while in the looney bin, and kills another innocent that makes even less sense.

@Mavix: Justice is not contingent on family demands or feelings.

not really, it doesn't make sense to pointlessly kill somebody to satisfy your sick sense of justice, but yet you keep clinging to it.

Justice should satisfy the voice of the people.

Within reason, of course.

Yet pointlessly detaining them medicated to vegetable status for the next 60-70 years is enlightened?

If we're just gonna dope him up to the point he can't even take care of himself in a "psychiatric hospital" (I love that word.. <_< makes it sound almost like a nice place to be) why bother? Just sever his spinal cord. No need to worry about 'going off his meds' and escaping and killing again.

who said that they would be a vegetable?

no it shouldn't

Your faith in others is disturbing, given the stark nature of reality. Burn a book and hundreds of Muslims will want you dead.

Oh yeah I forgot he is gonna meet with a shrink talk about his homicidal rage killing spree then be all better, and rejoin society.

Chances are he'd end up pumped full of some sort of near coma inducing substance(s) for the rest of his stay in the looney bin.

So if your born with the genes coding for manic depression and u perform a murder during a manic episode you should be held responsible?

I find that almost as bad as the crime itself. Theres a number of individuals born with manic depression(formerly bipolar disorder) and they are fully able to function in society with a tranquilizer/antipsychotic and some anti-depressant.

when you can grow up and drop the sarcasm people would take you more seriously.

Yet when they do go off their meds, and kill someone they should get a free pass, and a pat on the head?

If they can function in society with meds fantastic. If they go off them, and do some crazy ***then that is sad. However they still did the crazy ***..

Burning a book is not a crime. It's an exercised freedom. Unfortunate, but true.

And they'd have you killed for it.

The will of the people is not always right; in fact, it's wrong a majority of the time.

why is that unfortunate?

see 2004 presidential election

That's why I said "within reason".

Killing someone is a) more expensive b) ends whatever experiences he may have having to live with what he did.

If you would like to suggest he's going to suffer for what he did by going to Hell, what's 40 years when compared to eternity.

Again, there is no practical benefit to execution in this case that I can see rather than simple revenge.

EDIT And in all likelihood he's not going to be institutionalized, again, its not a very common defense, nor is it a very successful one when it is.

Removing a dysfunctional unit that can, and most probably will kill again if given the opportunity is all the practical benefit needed imo.

Well.... if you want move to California. We still can involuntarily commit crazy people lol :) U wouldnt need to worry about them getting off their meds ever! lolz

then why don't we kill all people who kill including cops who shoot people?

That's not what he said, and it's eye-for-an-eye to an extreme extent. Big slippery slope Jetackuu.

Mavix, I'm just gonna end with: Your expectations of how justice is served are unreasonable and place too much faith in people. Within reason is basically the current system we have now, and even it is pretty trashed.

Writing him off as a "dysfunctional unit" simply on allegations already brought on that slippery slope. He is dehumanized and written off for dead before even talks of a trial.

yes but an eye for an eye is just as ridiculous as what I said, hence why I said what I said.