Of course it is cheaper to execute them. Just take away the appeals process and the length of time on death row. If this guy had been executed in his first year, the state would have saved 19 years of support.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Texas executes man w. 61 IQ
- Thread starter Jason1977
- Start date
Of course it is cheaper to execute them. Just take away the appeals process and the length of time on death row. If this guy had been executed in his first year, the state would have saved 19 years of support.
Jason1977
Member
- Thread starter
- #42
Being mentally "challenged" is not a license to murder others.
But it seems it's not a factor in deciding if a person should be executed. They can't join the military, fight & die for their country, but they can be executed, lol. I get that there's a family out there that's suffering. If a mental retard killed a family member of mine, I know I'd be upset, but how angry can I get at a person not playing with a full deck? Can I hold him accountable for not playing with a full deck? The answer to both is no, I can't.
It's actually more expensive to feed, clothe & provide preventative medical care to inmates than it is to execute them. Gas tablets, Electricity, lethal injection... cheaper than a years worth of food alone.
Actuallly, it's not for most states.
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center
Of course it is cheaper to execute them. Just take away the appeals process and the length of time on death row. If this guy had been executed in his first year, the state would have saved 19 years of support.
Yes, if you eliminate due process it's cheaper. You also run a higher risk of killing someone who is innocent of the crime they are convicted of.
Si modo
Diamond Member
Texas Executes Man with IQ of 61; State Cites Steinbeck
The link to the video of a news clip is above.
The man was executed via lethal injection and clinically mentally disabled. He sucked his thumb into adulthood. The state of Texas used "Of Mice & Men" by John Steinbeck as a reference. Sadly, Texas has a history of doing this. I mean executing mentally handicapped people. It was my understanding that there's a federal law in place that is intended to prevent such executions.
I suppose my question is what needs to happen for Texas to comply with a federal law that prohibits the execution of legitimately handicapped people? What are the consequences for undermining the law? Why is the law in place if Texas is above it? I was born there, so it kinda sucks, but I mean what the hell?!?
Texas IS following federal law, but don't let facts interfere with your Texas-hating rant.Federal law doesn't recognise State law, so why should State law recognise federal law?
That's what Robert Lee was asking until he was on the doorstep of Appomattox
Federal law is for the land. What's not covered in federal law is left to the states to do with as they please so long as it doesn't undermine federal law. Citizens of each state can enjoy the rights & privileges within their state. When Uncle Sam makes a rule, Johnny Texas has to comply. If he doesn't like the rule, there's a process. Undermining doesn't work. Just ask the Mayor of Atlanta in the 1860's, lol.
If Texas enjoys being a part of the union, they need to enjoy some federal law.
....
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Wilson's attorneys had pointed to a psychological test conducted in 2004 that pegged his IQ at 61, below the generally accepted minimum competency standard of 70. But lower courts agreed with state attorneys, who argued that Wilson's claim was based on a single possibly faulty test and that his mental impairment claim wasn't supported by other tests and assessments over the years.
....
The Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2002 outlawing the execution of the mentally impaired, but left it to states to determine what constitutes mental impairment. Kovarsky argued that Texas was trying to skirt the ban by altering the generally accepted definitions of mental impairment to the point where gaining relief for an inmate is "virtually unobtainable."
....
State attorneys say the court left it to states to develop appropriate standards for enforcing the ban and that Texas chose to incorporate a number of factors besides an inmate's IQ, including the inmate's adaptive behavior and functioning.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Wilson's attorneys had pointed to a psychological test conducted in 2004 that pegged his IQ at 61, below the generally accepted minimum competency standard of 70. But lower courts agreed with state attorneys, who argued that Wilson's claim was based on a single possibly faulty test and that his mental impairment claim wasn't supported by other tests and assessments over the years.
....
The Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2002 outlawing the execution of the mentally impaired, but left it to states to determine what constitutes mental impairment. Kovarsky argued that Texas was trying to skirt the ban by altering the generally accepted definitions of mental impairment to the point where gaining relief for an inmate is "virtually unobtainable."
....
State attorneys say the court left it to states to develop appropriate standards for enforcing the ban and that Texas chose to incorporate a number of factors besides an inmate's IQ, including the inmate's adaptive behavior and functioning.
The Associated Press: Texas executes man despite his claims of low IQ
Here's a running list of people who were on death row who were later found innocent.
Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center
Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center
Jason1977
Member
- Thread starter
- #46
I'm agaisnt the death penalty, mostly due to cost. However I don't really care what crime they are guilty of , the retarded and children should never be put to death. Period.
It's actually more expensive to feed, clothe & provide preventative medical care to inmates than it is to execute them. Gas tablets, Electricity, lethal injection... cheaper than a years worth of food alone.
Actuallly, it's not for most states.
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center
This is a direct quote from that link:
"(This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) "
The cost is cumulative. It doesn't cost that much for a gas tablets or a shot of something or electricity enough to fry someone.
It's actually more expensive to feed, clothe & provide preventative medical care to inmates than it is to execute them. Gas tablets, Electricity, lethal injection... cheaper than a years worth of food alone.
Actuallly, it's not for most states.
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center
This is a direct quote from that link:
"(This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) "
The cost is cumulative. It doesn't cost that much for a gas tablets or a shot of something or electricity enough to fry someone.
point?
Si modo
Diamond Member
Bullshit.I'm agaisnt the death penalty, mostly due to cost. However I don't really care what crime they are guilty of , the retarded and children should never be put to death. Period.
It's actually more expensive to feed, clothe & provide preventative medical care to inmates than it is to execute them. Gas tablets, Electricity, lethal injection... cheaper than a years worth of food alone.
Charles M. Harris, JD, Senior Judge of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Florida, published the following in an opinion piece for The Gainesville Sun, on Apr. 18, 2012, available at gainesville.com:
"...[D]eath by execution is excessively expensive. Most people who support the death penalty believe it is more cost effective than life in prison. Perhaps at one time, when executions were swift and sure, this may have been the case. It is not now. Most people knowledgeable about the subject will agree that the delay now built into the system, more trial preparation, much longer time to get to trial, much longer jury selections and trials, much more complicated and far more frequent appeals, and continuous motions, have increased the cost of capital punishment so that it is now many times the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison for life."
Arthur L. Alarcon, LLB, Senior Judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Paula M. Mitchell, JD, Adjunct Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, wrote the following in the June 2011 article Executing the Will of the Voters?: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislatures Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle, published in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review:
"Our research has revealed that $4 billion of state and federal taxpayer money has been expended administering the death penalty in California since 1978, with a cost in 2009 of approximately $184 million above what taxpayers would have spent without the death penalty These totals do not include the additional funds the state is poised to spend to maintain the current broken system...
In cases in which a defendant faces a maximum penalty of life without the possibility of parole, rather than the death penalty, there is no penalty phase trial at all. Thus, the government would not incur these costly expenditures if the death penalty were abolished
The costs associated with death penalty trials that took place between 1983 and 2006 averaged about $1 million more per trial than the costs of average nondeath penalty homicide trials. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that there are several significant, easily identifiable costs incurred in every death penalty trial that are not incurred in nondeath penalty homicide."
"...[D]eath by execution is excessively expensive. Most people who support the death penalty believe it is more cost effective than life in prison. Perhaps at one time, when executions were swift and sure, this may have been the case. It is not now. Most people knowledgeable about the subject will agree that the delay now built into the system, more trial preparation, much longer time to get to trial, much longer jury selections and trials, much more complicated and far more frequent appeals, and continuous motions, have increased the cost of capital punishment so that it is now many times the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison for life."
Arthur L. Alarcon, LLB, Senior Judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Paula M. Mitchell, JD, Adjunct Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, wrote the following in the June 2011 article Executing the Will of the Voters?: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislatures Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle, published in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review:
"Our research has revealed that $4 billion of state and federal taxpayer money has been expended administering the death penalty in California since 1978, with a cost in 2009 of approximately $184 million above what taxpayers would have spent without the death penalty These totals do not include the additional funds the state is poised to spend to maintain the current broken system...
In cases in which a defendant faces a maximum penalty of life without the possibility of parole, rather than the death penalty, there is no penalty phase trial at all. Thus, the government would not incur these costly expenditures if the death penalty were abolished
The costs associated with death penalty trials that took place between 1983 and 2006 averaged about $1 million more per trial than the costs of average nondeath penalty homicide trials. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that there are several significant, easily identifiable costs incurred in every death penalty trial that are not incurred in nondeath penalty homicide."
Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole? - Death Penalty - ProCon.org
Of course it is cheaper to execute them. Just take away the appeals process and the length of time on death row. If this guy had been executed in his first year, the state would have saved 19 years of support.
Yes, if you eliminate due process it's cheaper. You also run a higher risk of killing someone who is innocent of the crime they are convicted of.
In this case, innocence wasn't the issue.
Texas executes man w. 61 IQ
Has anybody seen LoneStarCowGirl post since two days ago?
Has anybody seen LoneStarCowGirl post since two days ago?
Texas Executes Man with IQ of 61; State Cites Steinbeck
The link to the video of a news clip is above.
The man was executed via lethal injection and clinically mentally disabled. He sucked his thumb into adulthood. The state of Texas used "Of Mice & Men" by John Steinbeck as a reference. Sadly, Texas has a history of doing this. I mean executing mentally handicapped people. It was my understanding that there's a federal law in place that is intended to prevent such executions.
I suppose my question is what needs to happen for Texas to comply with a federal law that prohibits the execution of legitimately handicapped people? What are the consequences for undermining the law? Why is the law in place if Texas is above it? I was born there, so it kinda sucks, but I mean what the hell?!?
If he's smart enough to not wack a hornet's nest with a baseball bat or stick his hand in a fire, he's smart enough to know that murder is wrong.
Being mentally "challenged" is not a license to murder others.
But it seems it's not a factor in deciding if a person should be executed. They can't join the military, fight & die for their country, but they can be executed, lol. I get that there's a family out there that's suffering. If a mental retard killed a family member of mine, I know I'd be upset, but how angry can I get at a person not playing with a full deck? Can I hold him accountable for not playing with a full deck? The answer to both is no, I can't.
It depends on the degree and nature of the incompetence. If they cut someone's throat but believed they were buttering bread they would not be put to death. If they cut someone's throat but believed they were cutting the throat of Jack Sparrow who was trying to take them away on a pirate ship they won't be put to death. But, if they have the mental capacity to plan and execute a premeditated murder, they will be put to death no matter how otherwise they are in lacking a full deck.
Jason1977
Member
- Thread starter
- #53
[/QUOTE]Texas IS following federal law, but don't let facts interfere with your Texas-hating rant.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Not sure I'm ranting, & not sure I'm hating Texas either. As I said, I was born there & I love it dearly. Take a valium pill, relax, and pretend you're talking to a somewhat reasonable & intelligent person that's asking questions rather than ranting. You can do that can't you? Atta-boy!
If Texas was following federal law, and all its duckies were in a row as you stated, then why in the heck would they cite "Of Mice and Men"?!? It's a work of fiction!!! It was never intended to diagnose anyone nor to be used as a reference in legal matters or for scientific purposes. They cited a fiction book. They were showing precedent. Carlos Mencia would say that the Texas court was "deet-dee-deeeee!!!"
Based on that, we could justify invading Iran based on the movie Star Wars or even Dune.
Seriously, consider this: "Your honor, the defendant is guilty. Why it's just the same situation as the 9 of hearts in Alice in Wonderland, he screwed up and the Queen of Hearts was right in shouting Off with his Head!"
I mean, this is really the over all thing that disturbs me. If their duckies were in a row & they have a mental retard on the chopping block, why cite a fiction book?!? It's ludicrous! (that was a rant.) (still love Texas though.)
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Not sure I'm ranting, & not sure I'm hating Texas either. As I said, I was born there & I love it dearly. Take a valium pill, relax, and pretend you're talking to a somewhat reasonable & intelligent person that's asking questions rather than ranting. You can do that can't you? Atta-boy!
If Texas was following federal law, and all its duckies were in a row as you stated, then why in the heck would they cite "Of Mice and Men"?!? It's a work of fiction!!! It was never intended to diagnose anyone nor to be used as a reference in legal matters or for scientific purposes. They cited a fiction book. They were showing precedent. Carlos Mencia would say that the Texas court was "deet-dee-deeeee!!!"
Based on that, we could justify invading Iran based on the movie Star Wars or even Dune.
Seriously, consider this: "Your honor, the defendant is guilty. Why it's just the same situation as the 9 of hearts in Alice in Wonderland, he screwed up and the Queen of Hearts was right in shouting Off with his Head!"
I mean, this is really the over all thing that disturbs me. If their duckies were in a row & they have a mental retard on the chopping block, why cite a fiction book?!? It's ludicrous! (that was a rant.) (still love Texas though.)
Last edited:
Jason1977
Member
- Thread starter
- #54
Being mentally "challenged" is not a license to murder others.
But it seems it's not a factor in deciding if a person should be executed. They can't join the military, fight & die for their country, but they can be executed, lol. I get that there's a family out there that's suffering. If a mental retard killed a family member of mine, I know I'd be upset, but how angry can I get at a person not playing with a full deck? Can I hold him accountable for not playing with a full deck? The answer to both is no, I can't.
It depends on the degree and nature of the incompetence. If they cut someone's throat but believed they were buttering bread they would not be put to death. If they cut someone's throat but believed they were cutting the throat of Jack Sparrow who was trying to take them away on a pirate ship they won't be put to death. But, if they have the mental capacity to plan and execute a premeditated murder, they will be put to death no matter how otherwise they are in lacking a full deck.
Now that I buy. Well played!
Si modo
Diamond Member
Did you not read the article I linked to?Si modo said:Texas IS following federal law, but don't let facts interfere with your Texas-hating rant.
]
Hmm. Not sure I'm ranting, & not sure I'm hating Texas either. As I said, I was born there & I love it dearly. Take a valium pill, relax, and pretend you're talking to a somewhat reasonable & intelligent person that's asking questions rather than ranting. You can do that can't you? Atta-boy!
If Texas was following federal law, and all its duckies were in a row as you stated, then why in the heck would they cite "Of Mice and Men"?!? It's a work of fiction!!! It was never intended to diagnose anyone nor to be used as a reference in legal matters or for scientific purposes. They cited a fiction book. They were showing precedent. Carlos Mencia would say that the Texas court was "deet-dee-deeeee!!!"
Based on that, we could justify invading Iran based on the movie Star Wars or even Dune.
Seriously, consider this: "Your honor, the defendant is guilty. Why it's just the same situation as the 9 of hearts in Alice in Wonderland, he screwed up and the Queen of Hearts was right in shouting Off with his Head!"
I mean, this is really the over all thing that disturbs me. If their duckies were in a row & they have a mental retard on the chopping block, why cite a fiction book?!? It's ludicrous! (that was a rant.) (still love Texas though.)
They took it to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS said, yeah the law (precedent SCOTUS law) says you can't execute the mentally incompetent, but the law (precedent SCOTUS law) also says that the federal courts leave it up to the states to determine what constitutes competency.
So, it looks like the information in that article answers your question about Texas following federal law. They did follow it.
Last edited:
Texas IS following federal law, but don't let facts interfere with your Texas-hating rant.
][/QUOTE]
Hmm. Not sure I'm ranting, & not sure I'm hating Texas either. As I said, I was born there & I love it dearly. Take a valium pill, relax, and pretend you're talking to a somewhat reasonable & intelligent person that's asking questions rather than ranting. You can do that can't you? Atta-boy!
If Texas was following federal law, and all its duckies were in a row as you stated, then why in the heck would they cite "Of Mice and Men"?!? It's a work of fiction!!! It was never intended to diagnose anyone nor to be used as a reference in legal matters or for scientific purposes. They cited a fiction book. They were showing precedent. Carlos Mencia would say that the Texas court was "deet-dee-deeeee!!!"
Based on that, we could justify invading Iran based on the movie Star Wars or even Dune.
Seriously, consider this: "Your honor, the defendant is guilty. Why it's just the same situation as the 9 of hearts in Alice in Wonderland, he screwed up and the Queen of Hearts was right in shouting Off with his Head!"
I mean, this is really the over all thing that disturbs me. If their duckies were in a row & they have a mental retard on the chopping block, why cite a fiction book?!? It's ludicrous! (that was a rant.) (still love Texas though.)[/QUOTE]
What you have pointed out is merely that Of Mice and Men was cited AND the conviction and sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court. IF there was a citation of Of Mice and Men without a concommitant Supreme Court decision you would be right. But there was an affirmation by the SC so the citation of the book is merely a trivial detail.
][/QUOTE]
Hmm. Not sure I'm ranting, & not sure I'm hating Texas either. As I said, I was born there & I love it dearly. Take a valium pill, relax, and pretend you're talking to a somewhat reasonable & intelligent person that's asking questions rather than ranting. You can do that can't you? Atta-boy!
If Texas was following federal law, and all its duckies were in a row as you stated, then why in the heck would they cite "Of Mice and Men"?!? It's a work of fiction!!! It was never intended to diagnose anyone nor to be used as a reference in legal matters or for scientific purposes. They cited a fiction book. They were showing precedent. Carlos Mencia would say that the Texas court was "deet-dee-deeeee!!!"
Based on that, we could justify invading Iran based on the movie Star Wars or even Dune.
Seriously, consider this: "Your honor, the defendant is guilty. Why it's just the same situation as the 9 of hearts in Alice in Wonderland, he screwed up and the Queen of Hearts was right in shouting Off with his Head!"
I mean, this is really the over all thing that disturbs me. If their duckies were in a row & they have a mental retard on the chopping block, why cite a fiction book?!? It's ludicrous! (that was a rant.) (still love Texas though.)[/QUOTE]
What you have pointed out is merely that Of Mice and Men was cited AND the conviction and sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court. IF there was a citation of Of Mice and Men without a concommitant Supreme Court decision you would be right. But there was an affirmation by the SC so the citation of the book is merely a trivial detail.
Of course it is cheaper to execute them. Just take away the appeals process and the length of time on death row. If this guy had been executed in his first year, the state would have saved 19 years of support.
Yes, if you eliminate due process it's cheaper. You also run a higher risk of killing someone who is innocent of the crime they are convicted of.
In this case, innocence wasn't the issue.
That's true.
That guy has a higher IQ than half the posters here.
Jason1977
Member
- Thread starter
- #59
[/QUOTE]But there was an affirmation by the SC so the citation of the book is merely a trivial detail.[/QUOTE]
You're right. So why do it? It is trivial. It's also moronic
I mean I'm learning more about this case as messages are posted, I don't presume to know everything about it. That's why we have these conversations I wanted to know more.
I just hope future cases don't do the same thing. It makes them look
stoopid
You're right. So why do it? It is trivial. It's also moronic
I mean I'm learning more about this case as messages are posted, I don't presume to know everything about it. That's why we have these conversations
I wanted to know more.I just hope future cases don't do the same thing. It makes them look
stoopid 
Similar threads
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 282
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 108K
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 325
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 18K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8081
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-