When the Punishment for a Crime should be Death 08 30 2015
Even when I was a boy I did not understand the insanity defense. Whereby one has to declare that they were insane when the committed a crime; usually of murder.
Right away the light bulb flashed in my mind. That person was not insane at all! They did what any human being would and should do to preserve the sanctity of humanity. Why should they have to claim insanity?
Why should anyone who seeks revenge have to claim insanity. Even the Police get to use the defense that the person was likely to commit more crimes in the act of fleeing; when they shoot someone.
The reason they have to claim insanity is because the punishment for that crime should have been death but it wasn't going to be! Because of a liberalized court system.
Some of what I wanted to articulate about this is slipping away.
But the courtroom standard should not be whether they actually committed the crime or not but the reason why. It should not be left up to a jury as to how they decide; if they want to go against what they know is true he committed a crime for the fact that they know the victim deserved it.
1. You killed someone that raped your daughter sterile. Where you insane? No. Do you admit you did it? Yes. Should you have to pretend you didn't? No. Should it be clear cut you go to jail because of that, all that was needed to be proven was the death caused by you? No. Somehow through the trial this is all wishy washy isn't it. Will the juror who knows you did it not find you guilty even when they are supposed to? They are instructed very sternly that all that they are only judging whether you did it or not.
So every law should have a double edge. Codified. Such as where it turns on the plaintiff as the guilty one!
2. "They gave heroin to my child. I killed them." Is that person insane? No.
3. "They forced my daughter into prostitution."
Our Constitution does indeed directly imply that people can and should be executed by due process. Why? So that there are never those who resort to acts defined as insanity which are really not insane.
4. That person committed financial fraud and sent the Sheriff to my house to take my home and evict me.
What am I getting at? A lot of our laws are 'flat out' Unconstitutional.
Now how is insane defined? It is defined very differently that what its meaning is believed to be? Which means the meaning changed because the word was negligently misused?
http://start.iminent.com/en-US/search/#q=insane&ref=toolbox&s=web&p=1
: not normal or of healthy mind, mentally deranged.
It really indicates that our justice system needs to be at a higher level.
Our Constitution also prevents cruel and unusual punishment. I think it is cruel and unusual punishment to put you in the same prison with someone that did one of at least 1 thru 3 above. Which indicates those are crimes deserving of execution.
This is my belief system. No amount of psychiatric drugging is going to change it.
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
What this implies is that in order to qualify to be a Judge in the United States you cannot have a bias against the death penalty AND that you do fairly consider motive in terms of whether someone is actually guilty. So it breaks it down into to steps.
1. Did this person commit this act?
2. What this persons motive justified?
23,000 emergency room visits in Chicago related to heroin tells me that our justice system has excluded and weeded the wrong people from careers in it.
Nationwide banking fraud by a rigged mortgage rate tells me the exact same thing about the Financial Industry.
But what are the motives for those crimes? Inability to fairly compete with human beings? Hatred of human beings? Isn't it about time a genetically regressed form of the human race comes forward and shares their identity? After all this time they do not have the courage to do that?
It isn't a dog eat dog world. It is a nattering nabob becomes bad shepherd world.
Even when I was a boy I did not understand the insanity defense. Whereby one has to declare that they were insane when the committed a crime; usually of murder.
Right away the light bulb flashed in my mind. That person was not insane at all! They did what any human being would and should do to preserve the sanctity of humanity. Why should they have to claim insanity?
Why should anyone who seeks revenge have to claim insanity. Even the Police get to use the defense that the person was likely to commit more crimes in the act of fleeing; when they shoot someone.
The reason they have to claim insanity is because the punishment for that crime should have been death but it wasn't going to be! Because of a liberalized court system.
Some of what I wanted to articulate about this is slipping away.
But the courtroom standard should not be whether they actually committed the crime or not but the reason why. It should not be left up to a jury as to how they decide; if they want to go against what they know is true he committed a crime for the fact that they know the victim deserved it.
1. You killed someone that raped your daughter sterile. Where you insane? No. Do you admit you did it? Yes. Should you have to pretend you didn't? No. Should it be clear cut you go to jail because of that, all that was needed to be proven was the death caused by you? No. Somehow through the trial this is all wishy washy isn't it. Will the juror who knows you did it not find you guilty even when they are supposed to? They are instructed very sternly that all that they are only judging whether you did it or not.
So every law should have a double edge. Codified. Such as where it turns on the plaintiff as the guilty one!
2. "They gave heroin to my child. I killed them." Is that person insane? No.
3. "They forced my daughter into prostitution."
Our Constitution does indeed directly imply that people can and should be executed by due process. Why? So that there are never those who resort to acts defined as insanity which are really not insane.
4. That person committed financial fraud and sent the Sheriff to my house to take my home and evict me.
What am I getting at? A lot of our laws are 'flat out' Unconstitutional.
Now how is insane defined? It is defined very differently that what its meaning is believed to be? Which means the meaning changed because the word was negligently misused?
http://start.iminent.com/en-US/search/#q=insane&ref=toolbox&s=web&p=1
: not normal or of healthy mind, mentally deranged.
It really indicates that our justice system needs to be at a higher level.
Our Constitution also prevents cruel and unusual punishment. I think it is cruel and unusual punishment to put you in the same prison with someone that did one of at least 1 thru 3 above. Which indicates those are crimes deserving of execution.
This is my belief system. No amount of psychiatric drugging is going to change it.
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
What this implies is that in order to qualify to be a Judge in the United States you cannot have a bias against the death penalty AND that you do fairly consider motive in terms of whether someone is actually guilty. So it breaks it down into to steps.
1. Did this person commit this act?
2. What this persons motive justified?
23,000 emergency room visits in Chicago related to heroin tells me that our justice system has excluded and weeded the wrong people from careers in it.
Nationwide banking fraud by a rigged mortgage rate tells me the exact same thing about the Financial Industry.
But what are the motives for those crimes? Inability to fairly compete with human beings? Hatred of human beings? Isn't it about time a genetically regressed form of the human race comes forward and shares their identity? After all this time they do not have the courage to do that?
It isn't a dog eat dog world. It is a nattering nabob becomes bad shepherd world.
No comments:
Post a Comment