A moral question

sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
If a person commits a crime, and then while incarcerated they develop Alzheimer's and can no longer even remember their own name, should they still be held in custody?

At what point is the punishment served for someone other than the one who committed the actual crime?
 
That would be like letting Manson out of prison.
He said "I wasnt crazy before I came here".

Secondly, if they were fucked in the head before, God only knows what they will do now.

Many gang leaders that are imprisoned still run their gangs from the joint.
 
Alzheimer's has nothing to do with being crazy or prone to committing crimes. It is a disease that effects one's memory. If you can't even remember why you are there, what good is it doing to punish you?
 
sheskunk said:
Alzheimer's has nothing to do with being crazy or prone to committing crimes. It is a disease that effects one's memory. If you can't even remember why you are there, what good is it doing to punish you?
Click to expand...

Old prisoners (or young) can develop life threatening illnesses in prison.
Sometimes only a few weeks to live.

They fucked up, broke the law and are in prison.
It's the price you pay.

We also have hotels for the criminally insane.
 
I am speaking specifically of Alzheimer's.

"If you can't even remember why you are there, what good is it doing to punish you?"
 
greenghost420 said:
gas em!!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe all they need is a well balanced breakfast?

original.jpg
 
^ OMG

It's like the child rapist Jerry Sandusky too.
He is 70 something and will be in prison until he dies.
Why should we let him out when he needs a diaper or goes even more crazy?
 
Incarceration isnt just about retaliating against the offender by locking them up, it's also to keep people who commit crimes away from people who don't. If someone is a violent person, I dont know that having Alzheimer's will make that go away. Obviously all convicts arent violent ( or rightfully incarcerated), but that's one scenario where it wouldnt make any sense to just let them go.
 
sheskunk said:
If a person commits a crime, and then while incarcerated they develop Alzheimer's and can no longer even remember their own name, should they still be held in custody?

At what point is the punishment served for someone other than the one who committed the actual crime?
Click to expand...




In order for a real "crime" to have occurred, the perpetrators actions must have created an actual victim.

Restitution of the victim is what should be done. Punishment without restitution does not address the circumstances.
 
sheskunk said:
Alzheimer's has nothing to do with being crazy or prone to committing crimes. It is a disease that effects one's memory. If you can't even remember why you are there, what good is it doing to punish you?
Click to expand...
Crime prevention. Both deterrence and keeping them out of society.
 
I have heard that the federal system has a "compassionate release" program. I would assume it is in place for cases such as this.
 
sheskunk said:
Alzheimer's has nothing to do with being crazy or prone to committing crimes. It is a disease that effects one's memory. If you can't even remember why you are there, what good is it doing to punish you?
Click to expand...

This guy ate some lady student he got away with it on a technicality

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top