18 year old strangles 10 yr old brother. Gets Life.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gen...Strangled/

Thoughts:

 Spoiler

Three experts who examined Conley said he was severely mentally ill, while a fourth who didn't interview him said he believed Conley showed signs of being a psychopath. None of them believed he hadn't known what he was doing was wrong.

Four experts said he had mental issues. Putting an 18 year old boy with mental issues in jail does not solve anything. He should be in a mental hospital, not prison.

Conley told others he had fantasized about killing people since he was in eighth grade and he wanted to be like the fictional TV serial killer Dexter.

Great, now someone is going to try and get this series pulled because of one psychopath, who somehow got a life sentence instead of admission into a mental facility.

In regards to the second comment, that's what video games deal with all the time. And more often than not, it's false accusation on the game's part.

I don't care where they put the kid, so long as he's out of the public. If someone's crazy enough to go and kill his own younger brother, and then emotionless enough to go visit his girlfriend before dumping the body, then he needs to be put somewhere where he can't hurt anyone else. Whether it be prison or a mental institute, it doesn't make a difference to me.

Four experts said he had mental issues. Putting an 18 year old boy with mental issues in jail does not solve anything. He should be in a mental hospital, not prison.

This assertion relies on your definition of the purpose of his imprisonment.
Is prison meant to be a punishment to him, a means of rehabilitation, or a means of protecting the rest of society from him?

If it's a punishment, yes, it's pointless since he clearly has no basis for right/wrong and won't learn anything from it.
If it's rehabilitative it may be equally pointless, but he's likely to get the same degree of counseling in a prison as he would in a psych ward, with better security and less risk of escape.
If it's to protect society from him where he's kept is mostly irrelevant and leaving him alive at all is a waste of time and resources.

If it's to protect society from him where he's kept is mostly irrelevant and leaving him alive at all is a waste of time and resources.

Actually, with all the legal caution tape one has to go through in order to pull off the death penalty it can cost more money to kill someone that it would to simply stick them in a cell with the bare minimum of food and water. I'm not kidding, it can take like 10 years to kill someone who's on death row, and in that time they might have been killed in a prison brawl.

Actually, with all the legal caution tape one has to go through in order to pull off the death penalty it can cost more money to kill someone that it would to simply stick them in a cell with the bare minimum of food and water.

Irrelevant to the point. The bureaucracy involved doesn't change the fact keeping him alive is a waste of time and resources.
That's comparable to pointing out doing the right thing takes effort - It has no bearing on the course of action being right or wrong or needful.

Irrelevant to the point. The bureaucracy involved doesn't change the fact keeping him alive is a waste of time and resources.
That's comparable to pointing out doing the right thing takes effort - It has no bearing on the course of action being right or wrong or needful.

Ah, I see your point there. I was under the impression that you meant killing him would be cheaper. I agree with you though, having him gone would probably be better for society as a whole.

I agree with you though, having him gone would probably be better for society as a whole.

That's not necessarily my view point you're agreeing with. All I said is that if the end goal was removing him from society or otherwise protecting society from him killing him was the more efficient & expedient means of doing so rather than supporting him indefinitely at communal expense.

Just because I find it the most pragmatic solution for the stated goal doesn't mean I believe that the goal is correct one to strive for.

That's not necessarily my view point you're agreeing with. All I said is that if the end goal was removing him from society or otherwise protecting society from him killing him was the more efficient & expedient means of doing so rather than supporting him indefinitely at communal expense.

Just because I find it the most pragmatic solution for the stated goal doesn't mean I believe that the goal is correct one to strive for.

Oh, well in that case, I feel it'd be better for society to keep him off the streets through any method, and I think that it'd be best if he was gone all together; however, that's not to say I think it's ok to kill every single criminal out there, since there are some who truly regret their actions.

Sorry for misunderstanding your initial statement. Reading it again it looks more like you were just laying down the major goals that the court could have been going for and which one was most likely. Why I tried to assume which one was your belief is beyond me. :f6:

I completely misread the title and was confused why this wasn't in the funhouse. I read it as "get a life," like the common internet jokes/insults. At first I lol'd, then I serious'd the pineapple up. Pretty demented thing to do, and kindof confused why he was put in prison (unless in a psych ward within a prison).

how sad...

I'd hate to be this kids parents right now... Must be Hell served on a silver platter.

Sorry Eos, just NO! keeping a person alive unless they are comatose is never pointless, I don't care if its hitler or some random kid everyone has a right to life that cannot be forfeit unless they're in a situation where by killing them will save a life that otherwise wouldn't be saved.

Fucking great, blame Dexter.

Sorry Eos, just NO! keeping a person alive unless they are comatose is never pointless, I don't care if its hitler or some random kid everyone has a right to life that cannot be forfeit unless they're in a situation where by killing them will save a life that otherwise wouldn't be saved.

Why are you apologizing to me for stating an opinion that has no relation to any opinion I've claimed as my own?


One could easily argue however that being unrepentantly homicidal due to psychological issues is forfeiting the right to live since the only purpose they can serve is to endanger others and draw resources.
Keeping a comatose person who has not expressed the desire to live or die in their circumstances alive is far less pointless and from a moral standpoint protecting the right to life of an innocent and potentially contributing member of society outweighs the pragmatism of supporting and nurturing an effectively rabid animal.