crozby

its a tricky one that, but i think the two cases have to be treated differently because in one the person has fore-knowlege of their condition and so is able to take precautions. a similar issue: here in the uk we occasionally get really old people who are a bit senile getting in their car, driving the wrong way up dual carriageways, sometimes crashing into oncoming traffic, sometimes with terrible consequences. would you jail a senile wrinkley for that, or would you take away their driving license and make sure they get the care they obviously require?

i guess i find it hard to believe they are all side effects because there are so many of them. for example if punishment is not the objective and only protection is, how do you explain locking up a minor offender for 3 months - is it to protect the rest of us for 3 months only, or is it a punishment to deter the offender from doing it again? if it is the latter, then by locking up mentally ill people the system is suggesting that they can be made safer, or less mentally ill, by locking them up. which is simply not true.

If someone has a stroke driving their car, blacks out and crashes killing 5 people would you think them a criminal? I'm guessing not. Why does it suddenly become a crime when the brain malfunction is caused by something less well understood by the general public, like a particular kind of mental illness for example? People don't understand mental illness and that makes them scared of it and because of that mentally ill people suffer prejudice and injustice. Here in the UK mentally ill people who are considered a danger to themselves or others are held in secure facilities. They are not dumped in with the general prison population.

Fucked up indeed. i've read loads of your posts in SC and i really can't understand what would drive someone to do this to you. the people running this site need to think long and hard about how to deal with this and in particular how to re-establish the confidence of the members - everyone wiping their profiles is *not* the right way to go in the long term. good luck and hope you keep posting here - SC would miss you if you didn't come back.

So shouldn't she be managed in an environment where it can be checked that she sticks to her medication, rather than put in jail with a bunch of criminals?

Is it? Then why do relatives of the dead get to sit in on executions? Why do 80% of US prisoners get abused? Why do mentally ill people end up getting put in prisons when it should be apparant to everyone who understands that mental illness is an illness that prison isn't likely to help.

I think that is probably a bit extreme given the nature of the illness she was suffering. As long as she is prevented from having children she should not be a danger to anyone. (http://www.4woman.gov/faq/postpartum.htm)

If she is insane, why should she be punished for it? Insanity isn't a choice, it is an illness isn't it?

The mistake you are making is to assume that just because a reporter found a couple of hundred people dancing with joy over 9/11 that somehow the whole of indonesia felt the same way.

Hardly. His main two points are: 1. You are not clever enough or informed enough to question decisions made by your elected policians so don't bother. 2. You are very lucky that 'heros' enlisted and fought in Iraq so that you can be free to criticize them. Both points are, IMO, a bunch of arse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4146127.stm Some people should be terminated...

The 'What are you doing for your country' thing is very American. Maybe we would behave the same in the UK if we had been indoctrinated with stuff like the Pledge of Allegiance from an early age like you guys are. Instead, many people here figure its a case of how much they can take from the State rather than give to it.

Is it usual in the US to lock yourself into your bedroom at night?

I'm not sure even the UN really knows what the UN is about anymore. Its lack of useful response to the situation in Darfur reinforces what a waste of money it has become. But then the whole world is sitting on it's collective arse on that issue. LOL. Can't argue with that. BTW, I don't think for a moment that US help wasn't critical, but it's the Russians everyone should be thanking the most IMHO.

Its interesting that what you guys see as apathy, we tend to see as simply not wanting to interfere in the business of other nations. Maybe the experience of clearing up the mess left by years of colonial empire building has taught us something you guys are only just starting to learn. The first problem with the 'You would all be speaking German now if it wasn't for the USA' line is that it simply isn't true. The USA helped prevent Hitler from taking over Europe. Eventually. After the really hard work had been done by others. The second problem with it is that most Europeans around today weren't even born at the time of the second world war. So it's a bit like me saying that you Americans would all be speaking French if we Brits hadn't won the battle of Waterloo. i.e. It's bollocks. The third problem with it is that almost without exception the Americans spouting it weren't even born at the time of the second world war either, they are merely stealing credit for something they think their ancestors did. Which in fact they didn't. When were you born Lawrocket?

We have so few gun related deaths in the UK. I think if we introduced US gun laws here, the number of gun-related *accidental* deaths would probably exceed the current number of gun-related deaths.

A short-sighted parent has a short-sighted child and the parent refuses to get the child glasses, despite it being obvious that not having glasses will be a disability to them. Is that ok?

So what is the determining factor?

Man 1: "My dog has no nose." Man 2: "How does he smell?" Man 3: "Awfull!" i challenge you to find the person who is offended by that joke.

Are you suggesting SH had something to do with 9/11?

Changing the subject a bit, does anyone know how many iraqi insurgents were taken prisoner during this action in Faluja? I was wondering if it was (unofficial) policy to kill all insurgents that were encountered.

i don't agree with the not eating fish part, but if scientific evidence shows that fish suffer unnecessarily being caught in the manner they are, why is it idiotic to make people aware of that? I think they have a fair point: people are bound by law to treat animals, even ones bred for food, with a certain level of humanity. So far fish are excluded. If it's ok to put a fish through considerable suffering, why are there laws protecting the furry creatures from the same fate? (caveat: PETA might be idiots like you say - i have no idea as i don't know them)

Your question implies you believe the number of people on this planet who would gladly blow themselves to bits if they could just take a load of Americans with them has not increased since the US invaded Iraq. Is that correct?

It's kind of funny that in a thread about freedom you are all hassling this guy to fill in optional profile information.

I'd like to see any evidence you have. So would the US government.