Hey Guys,
An 18 year old New York man has been sentenced to spend three to nine years in prison for planning a “Columbine” type shooting at his high school. This is the second time the teen has been caught preparing to carry out such a plan. The first time he was a minor and deemed a “youthful offender.” A diagram of his high school, along with searches for how to make a pipe bomb and where to find gun powder were some of the evidence used against him.
This issue leads me back to a question I asked last semester’s Psych students. Should officials incarcerate potentially violent and disturbed people before they commit crimes? The issue was raised in relation to the shooting of Gabriel Giffords by Jared Loughner in Arizona. Loughner had a history of mental illness and officials say all the warning signs were there.
So if all the warning signs are there, should officials act BEFORE a violent crime is committed? Or must we wait for something to happen? This is a slippery slope to be on once we we begin locking people up for crimes they may commit…
What do you think?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_high_school_plot
Anyone ever seen Minority Report. It's all I could think of in that last paragraph, look it up. Tom Cruise. Worht a viewing at least.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I tihnk there was plenty of reason to arrest him beforehand, since it's very likely it saved a large number of lives and property damage. Yet, at the same, time, our countries "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy kind of goes against this. Until he actually did it, he wasn't proven guilty.
This could go either way. Kids are different today, many will fantasize of beating someone up that they're being bullied by, or even plotting something like this. It should really be a matter of concern if the kid went out and bought a gun. Our gun laws need to be controlled better, especially if were giving them to the mentally ill. So, if the kid had the oppurtunity, and the material (Weapons), then yes, take action. But, they need to be taken care of. Where were his parents? Did they know he was ill? Things like that need to be taken care of.
ReplyDeleteThis is hard to say. It really is not fair to do anything to someone if they are not proven guilty and they have not commited a crime, however if there are obvious signs then you dont want to sit and wait for them to do something. I think that if a person is showing signs of commiting a crime, especially if they in school, then she should be watched.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Abels
I agree with Melissa. The boy should be locked up for this but it is a very hard dessicion to make. However it would be horrible to be put in jail for something you never intended to do. If it is legal for someone to get thrown in jail for planning an attack out like this it would be really easy to frame someone. To send someone to jail you could make it look like they were planning an attack. this is a very difficult situation and it could have bad results either way.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is planning on harming another person, he should deffinately be stopped and arrested before hand, even if he has not yet done anything. Just threatening to do something or purchasing items to harm people is enough proof that they may do it. If those warning signs are there but the police hesitate to arrest him, he could very well go through with his plans and kill many innocent people. I was at the Virgiina Tech shootings so I have witnessed first hand how terrible it can be. Even though the signs were there and it was clear he had a mental illness, no one stopped him before he murdered 33 people. This and the Colombine shootings should be examples that preventative measures are neccessary.
ReplyDeleteIf someone has a history of violence and seems crazy enough to do it, they should be incarcerated. People can use common sense in cases like theses. Is someone is disturbed and gets arrested but didn't have plans to carry out a crime, they can just be let go. Better safe than sorry.
ReplyDelete-Brandon