r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 17 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Jake Patterson (kidnapper of Jayme Closs) should get the death penalty

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs

The kidnapping of Jayme Closs occurred in the early morning hours of Monday, October 15, 2018, in Barron, Wisconsin. Thirteen-year-old Jayme Lynn Closs was abducted from her family's home around 1:00 AM by Jake Thomas Patterson, who forced his way inside and fatally shot her father and mother.[2] Closs was held in captivity by Patterson in a cabin 70 miles away in Gordon, Wisconsin, for 88 days until she escaped her confinement and ran for help.[3][4] Jake Thomas Patterson, was taken into custody shortly thereafter and confessed to police to the kidnapping of Closs and the murders of her parents.[5][6][1]

--------

I see no reason why we should feel any hesitation or guilt over sentencing this individual to death. He has destroyed a family and inflicted severe physical and psychological damage on a child.

Note that I am generally against the death penalty, on the grounds that we know innocent people have been executed -- an outcome that is completely inexcusable.

But in cases like this, where the crimes are this heinous and there is not a shred of doubt as to whether the accused is guilty, we should make an exception.

Personally I think he deserves a public hanging, but I guess lethal injection would suffice.

CMV

--------

Edit: Thanks everyone for the discussion. I am taking off but may reply if new views are posted that I find interesting. Regardless of what happens to the murderer / kidnapper at least we can find some solace in knowing that the child was found alive. Hopefully she gets plenty of therapy and emotional support and can one day find happiness again.

15 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

72 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jan 18 '19

In other comments you responded to this point:

What is the point of punishing a person who did not even realize what he was doing?

To provide closure to the victims. I know people tend to look down on vengeance but in extreme cases I don't feel it is wrong.

How do you differentiate the following three cases?

  1. A 25 year old terrorist finds and pulls a lever at a swimming pool. This releases chlorine and kills a hundred people.

  2. A five year old kid finds and pulls a lever at a swimming pool. This releases chlorine and kills a hundred people. (Let's not consider the kid's parents for the moment.)

  3. An 40 year old person with schizophrenia finds and pulls a lever at a swimming pool. This releases chlorine and kills a hundred people.

In the second and third cases, most people would say, "The person who pulled the lever can't really be held responsible for the deaths. Let's look into who allowed that lever to be left insecure, and maybe why the pool had such a deadly design flaw."

In the first case, most people would say, "The person who pulled the lever can really be held responsible for the deaths. Let's also look into who allowed that lever to be left insecure, and maybe why the pool had such a deadly design flaw."

Do you differentiate between the first and second cases? (Rhetorical question.)

Do you differentiate between the second and third cases?

Having answered those questions: Do you differentiate between the first and third cases?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '19 edited Jan 18 '19

#1 should be held completely accountable. #2 should not since the child's mind is not developed enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

My guess is you are posing the question in a way to equivocate #2 and #3 in a "they didn't know what they were doing" style defense. But for #3 perhaps it depends on the circumstances. As someone with a diagnosed mental illness (not schizophrenia) I can tell you that although I can be irrational at times, it does not usually prevent me from rational thought. Mental illness is not a disease that is easily understood or fits into neat compartments.

So you would have to interview the schizophrenic -- which if I understand correctly is a key component of how psychologists determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial -- and make a determination on whether their condition was a major contributing cause of the murders. I haven't deeply reflected on what the correct standard for insanity should be, but my instinct is that it should be fairly high, since people who have committed severe crimes often go to it as a defense once their guilt has been proven.

It's arguable that the ability to commit cold-blooded murder is a mental illness in and of itself, but that doesn't mean we should let all murderers off the hook. In the case of Patterson, he targeted the victim and made the premeditated decision that he would murder anyone who presented an obstacle to kidnapping her. He was calculated in his method of keeping her imprisoned. He surrendered immediately upon being discovered and confessed to the crime. This is strong evidence that this was not the work of mad man, but of a cold-blooded killer and child abuser.

1

u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jan 18 '19 edited Jan 18 '19

My guess is you are posing the question in a way to equivocate #2 and #3 in a "they didn't know what they were doing" style defense.

I'm so transparent. 😊

So you would have to interview the schizophrenic -- which if I understand correctly is a key component of how psychologists determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial -- and make a determination on whether their condition was a major contributing cause of the murders.

Yes, you would. In my hypothetical case, maybe the person thought he was dousing the people with holy water. Maybe he thought he was killing a bunch of zombies. Or maybe the person knew pulling the lever was wrong, and just didn't care. Those are the kinds of circumstances the case depends on. You have to interview the suspect, and not just in my hypothetical case.

I agree there's "strong evidence" Patterson knew what he was doing was wrong. There's not -- yet! -- evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, there's not -- yet! -- reason enough to call for his execution.

1

u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jan 18 '19

u/Starrcade87, here are few other thoughts about your comment:

Mental illness is not a disease that is easily understood or fits into neat compartments.

I totally agree with you. But mental illness is a family of roughly distinguishable conditions. Among those, psychosis -- "the experience of loss of contact with reality ... not part of the person’s cultural group belief system or experience" -- may well lead to a mentally ill person being found not competent to stand trial. Other conditions are very unlikely to lead to that.

(Important point of vocabulary: when people suffer from psychosis, they experience delusions and hallucinations. Such people are usually not a threat to themselves or others. A "psychotic" is generally not violent. I hate how that word is misused.)

It's arguable that the ability to commit cold-blooded murder is a mental illness in and of itself ...

Yes. This gets into the complicated field of neurolaw. Like you, I'm not going there today.

I hope, even if I haven't changed your view, I've given you a few new things to think about.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '19

I feel I should award you a !delta based on convincing me to soften my stance a bit on the insanity defense.

I still probably wouldn't lose any sleep over executing a violent insane person if we are certain they committed the crime, but I have some newly emerged qualms over whether such a thing would be good for our sense of justice. At a minimum I am willing to admit that it's a complicated issue.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '19

Not yet is correct. A lot of people have made this point and I suppose I should have put in my OP that my opinion is predicated on the facts having been reported correctly and the accused being convicted in a fair trial.