The Hitlerization of American justice.

[SwimExpert]

The "loony bins" as you call them were a very poor way to handle a complex, and at the time poorly understood, problem. The modern institutions are better, though there is still alot of work to do. You are correct that nothing about this case speaks to the death penalty, generally speaking. This man should be placed in a psychiatric facility where he will not be a danger to society.

Yes, we have learned a lot since the electro shock and lobotomy days. It was the horror stories that helped shut them down but we have the know how to do a much better job these days. But we've been conditioned to think it's cruel to lock up the insane. I think it's cruel not to.

The "cruel" aspect that remains relevant today is that the old institutions were sometimes simple dumping grounds. People at times were institutionalized as "ill" when they did not conform to what their families or society wanted them to be. Those who were ill were left to rot and whither, and be forgotten by a society that didn't want to recognize them. In alot of ways, the old institutions were a byproduct of society at the time, and then scapegoats when society didn't like the consequences of its own inner darkness.

I agree that people who are severely mentally handicap, such that they cannot adequately function in society, are better off in a facility where they can receive the treatment they need. We've progressed a long way in having effective and appropriate ways to institutionalize people.

 

[Kondor3]

Great, now tell me the reaction of a man who went to his death to save your soul but your excuse is, hey but everyone else does it?

What has this to do with the existence of Cafeteria Religion on a colossal scale?

Now that we've sorted that, is not Jesus reputed to be God incarnate?

And, is that God not reputed to be all-knowing and all-forgiving and all-merciful?

If true, then it seems likely that He-She-It will forgive the various shortcomings and straying from teachings that Mankind is prone to.

But that's where my Spiritual Crystal Ball gets cloudy... I would not dare presume to speak-for nor presume to know the Mind of the Deity.

 

[Roadrunner]

...Americans have a thirst for vengeance...

As do most peoples.

When life is taken-away unjustly, and often savagely, the urge to take life, in return, is a natural state, as old as mankind, and deeply embedded in the collective and individual psyche.

...Americans have a thirst for vengeance...

As do most peoples.

When life is taken-away unjustly, and often savagely, the urge to take life, in return, is a natural state, as old as mankind, and deeply embedded in the collective and individual psyche.

That's why Jesus taught you to rise above such things but you ignore that of course.

What Prophet or Religious Founder A or B or C had to say on the subject can certainly impact society at large.

But we live in a world of Separation of Church and State, don't we?

We do and many here don't approve of such a thing. Neither does ISIS....

The main point being 'we do'.

...And I'm not suggesting that Jesus set the policy, I'm suggesting that if you're a Christian then this is not a policy you can defend since it goes against the faith.

Then, if I was a Christian, I would be an imperfect Christian, for supporting capital punishment... like billions of other imperfect Christians of the past 2000 years.

MEH.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's.

He forfeited his life to Caesar, God will take care of his soul as appropriate.

 

[SwimExpert]

...Anyone seeking to form a logical position on this matter.

Past history is not indicative of state of mind at the time of the commission of the crime...

Past history is not indicative of state of mind at the time of the trial...

Past history is not indicative of state of mind throughout the appellate process...

Past history is not indicative of state of mind at present in the run-up to actual execution...

A persistent condition of continuing severe psychosis, including evidence from the wife from the day prior to the events that Panetti was in the grips of continuing and severe psychosis, is extremely powerful. Your hypothesis, built out of bullshit you've harvested from your own asshole, posits that this man had a magical, momentary episode where all his mental illness magically disappeared just long enough to go and commit murder (with no apparent motive), and then started pretending to be crazy every day while going through a trial, just to magically get slammed with psychosis again as soon as it was all over.

Do you not realize that your hypothesis is actually less likely to be true than Panetti's delusion of a conspiracy between the police and the Devil?

 

[Kondor3]

...You haven't even bothered to read. That's why you keep asking so many idiotic questions...

Correct.

Many people here do not have the time to sink into lengthy research on a pissant capital case in a State that has so many, as part of a driveby contribution to a chat on a message board.

Yet their life-experience and reflections upon such matters over time - spanning a great many such cases - buys them a seat at the discussion table, regardless of your opinion on whether they should be up-to-speed on each and every aspect of Case A or B before making broad comments on matters of policy.

One need not delve into detailed research on a particular case, in order to serve-up a meritorious observation on capital punishment in general, or on capital punishment in a case where the condemned has a history of mental illness.

Anyone who has participated in such discussions on a serious basis over time has formed and tested opinions and positions that are probably quite serviceable and possibly accurate.

Anyone who asks a few quick questions about benchmarks and milestones, from amongst those who have delved more deeply into the specifics of a given case, are merely engaging in Quality Control - ensuring that they understand the basic parameters of the sequence, before committing to Opinion A or Position B in that particular setting.

You, on the other hand, are, apparently, heavily vested in saving this miscreant, and have sunk much time into researching the particulars of the case, and have seen fit to engage in anti-American hyperbole - accusing your entire country and your countrymen of Nazi-like behaviors - in a strident, juvenile approach to trying to shove your opinion down everyone else's throat.

I asked a couple of basic questions - which I have yet to see an answer to, unless I missed something (entirely possible) - in order to understand the basics of the trial-sentencing-appeals process, without sinking the National Debt in clock-time, into the thing.

A simple 'yes' or 'no' at one or two key points would have cost you little and done far more to engage someone who had conceded 70-80% of what you wanted, rather than playing the part of the spoiled child, and throwing the shit from your diaper, because you didn't get the other 20-30% right way.

Get off my back.

 

[Kondor3]

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's.

He forfeited his life to Caesar, God will take care of his soul as appropriate.

Yes... in reconciling temporal-secular justice with spiritual justice... in a Judeo-Christian framework... this will probably do the trick.

 

[Kondor3]

...Anyone seeking to form a logical position on this matter.

Past history is not indicative of state of mind at the time of the commission of the crime...

Past history is not indicative of state of mind at the time of the trial...

Past history is not indicative of state of mind throughout the appellate process...

Past history is not indicative of state of mind at present in the run-up to actual execution...

A persistent condition of continuing severe psychosis, including evidence from the wife from the day prior to the events that Panetti was in the grips of continuing and severe psychosis, is extremely powerful. Your hypothesis, built out of bullshit you've harvested from your own asshole, posits that this man had a magical, momentary episode where all his mental illness magically disappeared just long enough to go and commit murder (with no apparent motive), and then started pretending to be crazy every day while going through a trial, just to magically get slammed with psychosis again as soon as it was all over.

Do you not realize that your hypothesis is actually less likely to be true than Panetti's delusion of a conspiracy between the police and the Devil?

Calm yourself, Junior.

If sufficient evidence exists, that he was mentally ill at the time he committed the crime, then he has a case for an appeal, doesn't he?

If he conducted his own appeals, and was competent to make that decision, then he must live (or die) with the consequences.

If he conducted his own appeals, and was incompetent in such matters, then others may appeal on his behalf, yes?

Have they?

 

[SwimExpert]

...You haven't even bothered to read. That's why you keep asking so many idiotic questions...

Correct.

Then nothing you say has any merit or relevance whatsoever.

 

[Kondor3]

...You haven't even bothered to read. That's why you keep asking so many idiotic questions...

Correct.

Then nothing you say has any merit or relevance whatsoever.

Then ignore me.

Please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Slate magazine is not an unbiased source. You are being led to this conclusion by their reportage. I am sure they are leaving out other facts of the case which would be relevant. If there is anything everyone should have learned by now about partisan media outlets is that they commit gross lies of omission, as well as manufacture mountains of bullshit.

I understand what Slate is. But you're making assumptions about what I'm being "led" to believe. The article clearly and unambiguously states the Panetti's self declared beliefs regarding his execution. Unless you believe (and have evidence to corroborate such a belief) that they are outright lying, there is no logical way to justify your claim.

What he believes about the motivations behind his execution is irrelevant. None of the articles about this man have really addressed what matters in the legal system: does he understand the nature and quality of his act, and did he understand it when he did it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If we never punished people with hitches in their giddyup for committing crimes, we'd never punish anyone. Mental illness is only supposed to be a protection from the legal system if it prevents the sufferer from understanding the nature and quality of his action.

I think you, and your "giddyup," need some education on mental illness. Not to mention legal insanity defenses.

I think you and your "moral outrage" need to back the fuck up and lose the arrogance that assumes "disagreement with me = ignorance of mental illness". Amazingly enough, it's entirely possible for someone to know as much about crazy and the law as you do - or even more - and still think you're wrong. If you don't believe me, consider all the people involved in this man's trial who have law degrees, have passed the bar, and have practiced law for many years and think this man's conviction and execution are entirely in keeping with our laws as written.

Why don't you go tell the judge in this trial how he "needs some education on legal insanity defenses", you obnoxious prick?

Oh, and not that it's any of your fucking business, but my mother is schizophrenic. Has been my entire life. What's YOUR experience and education in mental illness, fuckstain? Piss off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course he's mentally ill. What people don't understand is that our law doesn't protect people from repercussions simply for the fact of mental illness. It's not intended to. If a crazy person still knows that he killed another human being, that he's not allowed to kill other human beings under the law, and he knew those things while he was committing the act, then he gets to be punished for doing it. Simple as that.

It's as simple as you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Seems as simple as you're an ill-mannered jizzwad who's too immature to accept the idea that people can disagree with you without taking it personally.

I hope you weren't expecting anyone to be impressed with your brilliant, incisive argument based on "You're a stupidhead for arguing".

 

[SwimExpert]

you're an ill-mannered jizzwad

Please, keep impressing us with your fine manners.

 

[SwimExpert]

Amazingly enough, it's entirely possible for someone to know as much about crazy and the law as you do

That you call it "crazy" proves that you are not such a person.

What's YOUR experience and education in mental illness, fuckstain? Piss off.

There's those lovely manners of yours again.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I have had to kill rabid animals, who through no fault of their own, are a threat to society. I have no compunction against putting a mentally rabid person to death who is a threat to society.

Is it your position that people have no rights under the law greater than those possessed by dogs and horses?

Yeah, pretty much. Fakey is a pure statist who dreams of being the next Stalin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Amazingly enough, it's entirely possible for someone to know as much about crazy and the law as you do

That you call it "crazy" proves that you are not such a person.

What's YOUR experience and education in mental illness, fuckstain? Piss off.

There's those lovely manners of yours again.

There's your amusing assumption that you matter enough for someone to care about impressing you, doofus. What part of being treated with disdain and contempt did you have trouble interpreting as an indication of how much your opinions are valued?

Or, to dumb it down to your level, you get the level of respect you deserve.

 

[SwimExpert]

There's your amusing assumption that you matter enough for someone to care about impressing you, doofus. What part of being treated with disdain and contempt did you have trouble interpreting as an indication of how much your opinions are valued?

What part of my defiance did you have trouble interpreting as an indication of how much your opinion is valued?

Or, to dumb it down to your level, you get the level of respect you deserve.

What a pathetic liberal you are. Take responsibility for your own actions. You act like trash because you are trash. It's your choice. Nobody is to blame but yourself.

 

[MaryL]

Panetti conducts his defense dressed as a cowboy in a purple suit and a hat. He attempts to call more than 200 witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the pope, Anne Bancroft, and Jesus Christ. (The last he later recanted: “Jesus Christ, he doesn’t need a subpoena. He’s right here with me, and we’ll get into that,” Panetti said in court.)

Executing a delusional schizophrenic is an atrocity. But it's apparently about to happen.


Texas execution of Scott Panetti Why a schizophrenic man will be put to death.

This thread fits in with all the drama queens having meltdowns and histrionics leading to riots and protests. A murdering madman being euthanized to protect public safety isn't going to make me all weepy and emotionally wrecked. "Hiterization"? Really? Give me a break from this inanity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's your amusing assumption that you matter enough for someone to care about impressing you, doofus. What part of being treated with disdain and contempt did you have trouble interpreting as an indication of how much your opinions are valued?

What part of my defiance did you have trouble interpreting as an indication of how much your opinion is valued?

Or, to dumb it down to your level, you get the level of respect you deserve.

What a pathetic liberal you are. Take responsibility for your own actions. You act like trash because you are trash. It's your choice. Nobody is to blame but yourself.

Riiiight. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a liberal, dumbass. In this case, it just makes her intelligent and resistant to melodrama.

No one's handing out Oscars here, Joan Crawford. Dial it back.

Back on topic: the law doesn't recognize general mental illness as a free pass to commit crimes, no matter how many psychos pitch tantrums. Never has, and never should. The law only recognizes cognizance of the nature and quality of the act, which mental illness does not automatically preclude. The general lunatic population's ignorance of this fact is also not considered relevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Panetti conducts his defense dressed as a cowboy in a purple suit and a hat. He attempts to call more than 200 witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the pope, Anne Bancroft, and Jesus Christ. (The last he later recanted: “Jesus Christ, he doesn’t need a subpoena. He’s right here with me, and we’ll get into that,” Panetti said in court.)

Executing a delusional schizophrenic is an atrocity. But it's apparently about to happen.


Texas execution of Scott Panetti Why a schizophrenic man will be put to death.

This thread fits in with all the drama queens having meltdowns and histrionics leading to riots and protests. A murdering madman being euthanized to protect public safety isn't going to make me all weepy and emotionally wrecked. "Hiterization"? Really? Give me a break from this inanity.

I would have a huge problem with executing the mentally ill in general. Executing mentally ill murderers doesn't exactly get me organizing civil rights marches.