***POLL request**** Should Tucson shooter Loughner get the death penalty?

Batshit Insane.
Throw him in for life.

Give him a year of having to watch the View 24 hours a day. He'll hang himself.

i voted no because JLL is either a nutjob or he was MK Ultra'd

Give him a year of having to watch the View 24 hours a day. He'll hang himself.

So, the taxpayers should pay for him to live in prison for the rest of his life?

Most likely he will not be tried in Arizona and most likely not incarcerated in Arizona either. All the Arizona judges of recused themselves because of Judge Roll being one of the victims.

All criminaly insane should be euthanized.
Why should we torture ourselves warehousing them?

So, the taxpayers should pay for him to live in prison for the rest of his life?

Most likely he will not be tried in Arizona and most likely not incarcerated in Arizona either. All the Arizona judges of recused themselves because of Judge Roll being one of the victims.




So we should kill all of the Mentiley insane?

I think someone else had that policy.
He sported a stylish mustache.

Before anyone even thinks of executing him, I'd like to see some genuine evidence that he's actually guilty. Oh, and a pardon for Lee Oswald wouldn't go amiss either.

If a person has killed another in cold blood and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it in cold blood what does keeping such a low life alive at the taxpayer's expense accomplish?
What sort of message does it send to others who may be contemplating doing the same acts? Oh, it will be ok, now I'll get free room and board for the rest of my life or I'll plead insanity and stay in a mental ward instead of prison for the rest of my life.

i voted no because JLL is either a nutjob or he was MK Ultra'd

Give him a year of having to watch the View 24 hours a day. He'll hang himself.

No one in that world have the right to kill someone. Those who wish the dead of that guy are like him. They are killer. Just let him remember what he did. When he realise it, he will kill himself. In is time.

I said no, because I think that he gave signs to various people that he was not right, LONG before the shooting.

Someone should have had him committed voluntarily or involuntarily and put him on some medication.

Two kinds of people lose it. Those who are aware they have lost it, and seek help, counseling and medication.

And those who are unaware that their thought process has deviated from normal, and from watching some videos on MSNBC it sounds like he was unaware that his thought process had deviated from normal.

If that weren't so, I would say death penalty without a doubt. It sounds a lot like he had a schizophrenic break from reality. ie. I don't think he was in control of his own thoughts or actions as a result of his screwed up mental process. Makes me wonder if he was trying acid or other drugs which so many youth think are harmless but can seriously alter brain chemistry.

So you either pay money to the corrupt government, who squanders it, and keeps this guy out of the society forever.

Or you put him down like a sick dog.

What a choice we get huh?

What choices do we have to deter others who are mentally ill from committing violence against others?

What choices do we have to deter others who are mentally ill from committing violence against others?




Deterrent? You can't deter the mentally ill. You simply have to identify them and treat them.

It sounds like someone had already talked to his parents about his mental state. It sounds like they didn't realize the gravity of the situation and give him an option to be committed voluntarily or they would commit him involuntarily.

I think medication could have prevented this tragic loss of life. I think this was a failure to treat, and normally I am very condemning of murderers.

Most of the time I say "death penalty".

So, for me to suggest otherwise is unusual. I mean the kid went from being a great person to a psychopath in less than a year. Something changed. Drug use can do that.

I was watching a guy on MSNBC and he was suggesting the criteria for involuntary commitment should change. He said that the person had to represent an imminent threat to himself or others, and that was shady.

I think his idea that if they didn't understand why they needed treatment that should be grounds for an involuntary commitment.

It was interesting that some people gave him letters of reprimand for his behavior. Because the same thing happened to a guy I worked with in the Coast Guard a few months before he had to be admitted to the mental hospital. This is a good sign that something is not right with that person. If it is unusual for them to be disruptive or fail to meet their obligations. Like for instance one of the things I remember about my Coast Guard buddy was that he had failed to return a movie to the rental place for over a week. Totally not like him.

We need to be able to better identify those in need of help and get the rules for involuntary commitment changed.