cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Your assuming the jury wanted him out in 3 years????????? No, a doctor wanted him out in 3 years. I may add that turcotte was seen to show no "short term threat" under house monitor.... Long term? Yes... Let's experiment.... Let's say his next wife fools around on him with kids.... Long term.... I'm not assuming anything about the jury. The only thing I know about the jury is that they a) heard all the facts about the case, and decided Turcotte was "not criminally responsible" by virtue of those facts. You and others are arguing that he should be criminally responsible. I'm wondering how you reached that conclusion, since the 12 people at the trial that were evaluating the facts and evidence did not believe he should be held criminally responsible. Feel free to contribute to the discussion any time. Quote
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 You and others are arguing that he should be criminally responsible. I'm not. I'm arguing that people who are not criminally responsible for their actions should not be let anywhere near normal people. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) I'm not. I'm arguing that people who are not criminally responsible for their actions should not be let anywhere near normal people. He was not criminally responsible in this circumstance. It does not mean that he is forever and always not criminally responsible in all situations. Edited December 13, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Yes I am cyber. "not guily" was not an option given to the jury. He was guilty. He could have been guilty with an excuse of "cough due to cold" for all the judge thought... But guilty of slaying his 2 children. He is a sick puppy, but free now Quote
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 He was not criminally responsible in this circumstance. It does not that he is forever and always not criminally responsible in all situations. It doesn't matter. You want to give him a babysitting job? Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 The kids? The wife? Maybe society Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Yes I am cyber. "not guily" was not an option given to the jury. He was guilty. He could have been guilty with an excuse of "cough due to cold" for all the judge thought... But guilty of slaying his 2 children. He is a sick puppy, but free now You don't seem to understand our justice system. He was not found guilty of the charges. It's not either guilty or not guilty. The verdict was "not criminally responsible." That is neither guilty nor not guilty. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 "not guilty" was not an option! What do u not understand!? Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 It doesn't matter. You want to give him a babysitting job? Of course it matters. You said "people who are not criminally responsible for their actions." That's inaccurate. Those are your words. The jury didn't deem that he's forever not criminally responsible for his actions. Your rhetorical question is irrelevant. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) "not guilty" was not an option! What do u not understand!? I don't understand why you refuse to explain yourself and keep bringing up this ridiculous red-herring about "not guilty." Not once did I say he was not guilty. Edited December 13, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 So not "forever" not nutz cyber? Maybe just "part time"? When should he babysit,? Every other day? Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 So not "forever" not nutz cyber? Maybe just "part time"? When should he babysit,? Every other day? How about you answer my question that I asked on page one. Quote
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Of course it matters. You said "people who are not criminally responsible for their actions." That's inaccurate. Those are your words. The jury didn't deem that he's forever not criminally responsible for his actions. Your rhetorical question is irrelevant. I don't care what the jury said. Not a whit. I never argued for or against what the jury said. What exactly is inaccurate about what I said? I said this: I'm not. I'm arguing that people who are not criminally responsible for their actions should not be let anywhere near normal people. And that is very accurate. They shouldn't. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 He has spent enough time in a soft-cell.. Poor guy... It was only 2 children... But NEXT time! It may be not his kids, maybe not ur, but NEXT TIME! Oh yeah, we forgot about his own..... Oh well.. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Why don't you ask it again... Quote
Keepitsimple Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 The jury found him to be crazy - and given what he did - he probably was/is crazy. Unfortunately for the jury - they never really know what the sentence will be.....most probably assumed he would be in an institution for a long, long time. Ask the jurors if they think this guy should be on the street and I doubt even ONE would agree......and they likely feel remorse for not convicting him of straight up murder. Think about it....after seeing pictures of children who were stabbed to death - and hearing that they died a slow death.....and now their murderer will be walking the streets..... Quote Back to Basics
Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 He was not criminally responsible in this circumstance. It does not mean that he is forever and always not criminally responsible in all situations. Maybe if he kills again he will be found criminally responsible next go-around. I feel much better. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Lots of emotional reactions without any sort of reflection on the situation. Yes. Murder is bad. Killing children is even worse. Everybody getting together and discussing what a horrible, terrible thing Turcotte did is not even remotely interesting. It's a given. What's interesting is the fact that he was found "not criminally responsible" by the jury and was released by the mental health board. Examining how this happened and why this happened is more interesting. Hearing intelligent and articulate responses as to why this should not happen, would be even better. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anyone, in nearly 50 posts, has been able to even remotely approach that level discussion. Quote
Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 How is someone that kills due to a mental health issue more frightening than someone that plans and carries out murder with a completely healthy mind? It is more frightneing because at least we can hold someone to account for their actions if they have a healthy mind. Their actions can be quantified, and society has the ability to segregate them for the safety of the greater public. This does not seem to be the case if they have a mental issue. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Okay, should the mental health board released a double baby killer? Allow me to kick it off Cyber... Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 It is more frightneing because at least we can hold someone to account for their actions if they have a healthy mind. Their actions can be quantified, and society has the ability to segregate them for the safety of the greater public. This does not seem to be the case if they have a mental issue. So how do we ensure safety with someone that has a mental health issue? Quote
Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 So how do we ensure safety with someone that has a mental health issue? If they are killers, segregation from the public at large is likely not a unrealistic option, both for the safety of the public, and for the safety of the individual. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 If they are killers, segregation from the public at large is likely not a unrealistic option, both for the safety of the public, and for the safety of the individual. How do we know if they are killers or not? Do we wait for people with mental disorders to commit a crime first? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.