Judge bars lesser charges in abortion doc death

[B L Zeebub]

I would venture to guess that Roeder objected to opting for the insanity plea. He wants to be a matyr. He's not different from the fucking kooks that strap bombs onto themselves and detonate them in large crowds.

I concur, I dont agree with state sanctioned Murder(Capital Punishment) but it is the law of your land.

Why give him the pleasure of his own crucifiction.

I concur with your concurrences.

thank you, my raisin's are swollen with pride, a sin I know but what the hell

 

[B L Zeebub]

Not at all. He seemed to be satisfied that he had pleased his god and whoever else had encouraged him to think that is what his god wanted him to do.

is that not enough to prove insanity, on the premise that he believes in god.

His lack of remorse is a symptom of him being a sociopath, sure- but sociopaths are generally considered to be overall sane. Sanity is based on whether the person knows right from wrong. Sociopaths generally know right from wrong, they just don't care as much, because they dont feel emotions as strongly as a normal healthy person will. Some sociopaths are totally non emotional, and do not know right from wrong, and those ones are obviously insane.

He might even be an antisocial personality disordered person, because he seems to feel as though he is above the law- which is textbook behavior for an antisocial PD person.

This guy knew that what he was doing was wrong ,in any event, so no he is definitely not insane, by court standards, even if he has a mental illness.

you can make all these assumptions without meeting the man.The only task a shrink would have in the UK pre trail, would be to determine if he genuinely believed he was being instructed by god (voices) to commit the crime, if he did, he would be ruled unfit to plead and held at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper claimed god told him to murder prostitutes, the shrinks disagreed, he was found guilty and got life, he became so mad he is know in broadmoor I think.

 

[JD_2B]

is that not enough to prove insanity, on the premise that he believes in god.

His lack of remorse is a symptom of him being a sociopath, sure- but sociopaths are generally considered to be overall sane. Sanity is based on whether the person knows right from wrong. Sociopaths generally know right from wrong, they just don't care as much, because they dont feel emotions as strongly as a normal healthy person will. Some sociopaths are totally non emotional, and do not know right from wrong, and those ones are obviously insane.

He might even be an antisocial personality disordered person, because he seems to feel as though he is above the law- which is textbook behavior for an antisocial PD person.

This guy knew that what he was doing was wrong ,in any event, so no he is definitely not insane, by court standards, even if he has a mental illness.

you can make all these assumptions without meeting the man.The only task a shrink would have in the UK pre trail, would be to determine if he genuinely believed he was being instructed by god (voices) to commit the crime, if he did, he would be ruled unfit to plead and held at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper claimed god told him to murder prostitutes, the shrinks disagreed, he was found guilty and got life, he became so mad he is know in broadmoor I think.

I am sure things would be very different in Afghanistan also- the man who killed prostitutes would be elected prime minister, for sure.. but this is not Afghanistan or the UK. This discussion board subforum is not even about UK rules, so although I do respect your input on it, I do not understand why you are trying to make me WRONG on his having a conscious and understanding right from wrong, which he clearly has demonstrated, being sufficient enough in the US (this is the US message board, by the way), just because things are different in the UK. Go to the UK message board if you want to discuss someone being wrong on the court's premise that the person knew right from wrong causing them to be allowed an insanity defense. =) Not trying to be a bitch or anything here, but this is not even a UK case, so I fail to see why you are arguing UK rules on our forum. WE BEAT Y'ALL, remember??? We don't follow your fucked up rules anymore. =)

 

[B L Zeebub]

His lack of remorse is a symptom of him being a sociopath, sure- but sociopaths are generally considered to be overall sane. Sanity is based on whether the person knows right from wrong. Sociopaths generally know right from wrong, they just don't care as much, because they dont feel emotions as strongly as a normal healthy person will. Some sociopaths are totally non emotional, and do not know right from wrong, and those ones are obviously insane.

He might even be an antisocial personality disordered person, because he seems to feel as though he is above the law- which is textbook behavior for an antisocial PD person.

This guy knew that what he was doing was wrong ,in any event, so no he is definitely not insane, by court standards, even if he has a mental illness.

you can make all these assumptions without meeting the man.The only task a shrink would have in the UK pre trail, would be to determine if he genuinely believed he was being instructed by god (voices) to commit the crime, if he did, he would be ruled unfit to plead and held at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper claimed god told him to murder prostitutes, the shrinks disagreed, he was found guilty and got life, he became so mad he is know in broadmoor I think.

I am sure things would be very different in Afghanistan also- the man who killed prostitutes would be elected prime minister, for sure.. but this is not Afghanistan or the UK. This discussion board subforum is not even about UK rules, so although I do respect your input on it, I do not understand why you are trying to make me WRONG on his having a conscious and understanding right from wrong, which he clearly has demonstrated, being sufficient enough in the US (this is the US message board, by the way), just because things are different in the UK. Go to the UK message board if you want to discuss someone being wrong on the court's premise that the person knew right from wrong causing them to be allowed an insanity defense. =) Not trying to be a bitch or anything here, but this is not even a UK case, so I fail to see why you are arguing UK rules on our forum. WE BEAT Y'ALL, remember??? We don't follow your fucked up rules anymore. =)

You do waffle on a lot, is your banality naturaly inbred?

Ps you forgot to mention my teeth

 

[Father Time]

no need, he was found guilty of murder 1, they should now give him life in prison.

Nobody should be sentenced to life for premeditated murder.

Why should we pay for his room and board for the rest of his life?

Hang him if you belief his acts were so heinous.

Yes I believe killing another being when it's not necessary is heinous.

That is precisely why I don't think we should hang him.

 

[JD_2B]

you can make all these assumptions without meeting the man.The only task a shrink would have in the UK pre trail, would be to determine if he genuinely believed he was being instructed by god (voices) to commit the crime, if he did, he would be ruled unfit to plead and held at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper claimed god told him to murder prostitutes, the shrinks disagreed, he was found guilty and got life, he became so mad he is know in broadmoor I think.

I am sure things would be very different in Afghanistan also- the man who killed prostitutes would be elected prime minister, for sure.. but this is not Afghanistan or the UK. This discussion board subforum is not even about UK rules, so although I do respect your input on it, I do not understand why you are trying to make me WRONG on his having a conscious and understanding right from wrong, which he clearly has demonstrated, being sufficient enough in the US (this is the US message board, by the way), just because things are different in the UK. Go to the UK message board if you want to discuss someone being wrong on the court's premise that the person knew right from wrong causing them to be allowed an insanity defense. =) Not trying to be a bitch or anything here, but this is not even a UK case, so I fail to see why you are arguing UK rules on our forum. WE BEAT Y'ALL, remember??? We don't follow your fucked up rules anymore. =)

You do waffle on a lot, is your banality naturaly inbred?

Ps you forgot to mention my teeth

Wha??? What are you talking about? I'm waffling by telling you that the UK's rules do not apply in the US? LMAO!!! Thats a good one.

And since when do your teeth have anything to do with the discussion?


And what makes me an inbreeder, by telling you that the UK is a completely different jurisdiction than the US, you fucking idiot?