The Hitlerization of American justice.

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If a Grand Jury is something that will indict a ham sandwich, Texas is the state that will execute one. Case in point.

 

[g5000]

You Godwinned your own topic!

 

[g5000]

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

From that link:

October 2003: The state trial court sets an execution date for Feb. 5, 2004. Panetti files a motion with the trial court for a stay of execution,

Think about that for a while. This guy killed two people and then personally demands not to be killed himself.

Guess he understands what death means, eh?

 

[Kondor3]

Perhaps they should undertake another competency review, first, if the last one was seven years ago?

My Spidey-Sense tells me that the guy has been bullsh---ing all along but there is documentation to the contrary, so, it might make sense to take the time to be sure, one way or another, before pulling the trigger on that miscreant.

 

[SwimExpert]

You Godwinned your own topic!

Godwin's law does not apply, as this not an inappropriate or grossly exaggerated comparison. The government under Nazi Germany conducted legalized executions of the mentally ill, driven by an attempt at social engineering. In this case, we have a mentally ill man set to be executed for seemingly similar reasons. This potential should be discussed.

 

[g5000]

You Godwinned your own topic!

Godwin's law does not apply, as this not an inappropriate or grossly exaggerated comparison. The government under Nazi Germany conducted legalized executions of the mentally ill, driven by an attempt at social engineering. In this case, we have a mentally ill man set to be executed for seemingly similar reasons. This potential should be discussed.

I am so sorry you are this factually retarded in your understanding of Hitler's Germany. Holy smokes, one hardly knows where to begin.

An insane person did not have to kill anyone for Hitler's Germany to systematically kill them or perform horrid medical experiments on them.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

From that link:

October 2003: The state trial court sets an execution date for Feb. 5, 2004. Panetti files a motion with the trial court for a stay of execution,

Think about that for a while. This guy killed two people and then personally demands not to be killed himself.

Guess he understands what death means, eh?

Understanding what death means does not change the fact that he's mentally ill. The reason he killed his parents-in-law is due to his delusions. As you'll also read from the link, the reason he filed his own motion for a stay of execution is because he believes the execution is a conspiracy between the court and the Devil to prevent him from doing God's work. That just shows that there's no way this man should have ever been deemed competent to defend himself.

 

[Roadrunner]

You Godwinned your own topic!

Godwin's law does not apply, as this not an inappropriate or grossly exaggerated comparison. The government under Nazi Germany conducted legalized executions of the mentally ill, driven by an attempt at social engineering. In this case, we have a mentally ill man set to be executed for seemingly similar reasons. This potential should be discussed.

He is set to be killed for killing other people, not to free up hospital beds and food supplies for the wounded from Hitler's planned wars.

 

[Kondor3]

You Godwinned your own topic!

Godwin's law does not apply, as this not an inappropriate or grossly exaggerated comparison. The government under Nazi Germany conducted legalized executions of the mentally ill, driven by an attempt at social engineering. In this case, we have a mentally ill man set to be executed for seemingly similar reasons. This potential should be discussed.

Nazi Germany euthanized the mentally ill, nationwide, en masse, as a matter of national policy.

You are talking about a potential mis-step at present, in one State out of 50, not driven by policy, but by circumstance.

Apples and oranges.

Allegations of serving-up Godwin-isms are probably defensible.

There appears to be more Hyperbole than Legitimacy in your so-called Hitlerism accusations.

 

[Roadrunner]

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

From that link:

October 2003: The state trial court sets an execution date for Feb. 5, 2004. Panetti files a motion with the trial court for a stay of execution,

Think about that for a while. This guy killed two people and then personally demands not to be killed himself.

Guess he understands what death means, eh?

Understanding what death means does not change the fact that he's mentally ill. The reason he killed his parents-in-law is due to his delusions. As you'll also read from the link, the reason he filed his own motion for a stay of execution is because he believes the execution is a conspiracy between the court and the Devil to prevent him from doing God's work. That just shows that there's no way this man should have ever been deemed competent to defend himself.

He believes acting crazy will save his sorry ass; THAT is his only delusion.

 

[g5000]

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

From that link:

October 2003: The state trial court sets an execution date for Feb. 5, 2004. Panetti files a motion with the trial court for a stay of execution,

Think about that for a while. This guy killed two people and then personally demands not to be killed himself.

Guess he understands what death means, eh?

Understanding what death means does not change the fact that he's mentally ill. The reason he killed his parents-in-law is due to his delusions. As you'll also read from the link, the reason he filed his own motion for a stay of execution is because he believes the execution is a conspiracy between the court and the Devil to prevent him from doing God's work. That just shows that there's no way this man should have ever been deemed competent to defend himself.

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.

 

[g5000]

It would not bother me if they commuted the whackjob's sentence to life without parole. He certainly should never walk free on the streets again.

 

[SwimExpert]

You Godwinned your own topic!

Godwin's law does not apply, as this not an inappropriate or grossly exaggerated comparison. The government under Nazi Germany conducted legalized executions of the mentally ill, driven by an attempt at social engineering. In this case, we have a mentally ill man set to be executed for seemingly similar reasons. This potential should be discussed.

I am so sorry you are this factually ignorant of Hitler's Germany. Holy smokes, one hardly knows where to begin.

An insane person did not have to kill anyone for Hitler's Germany to kill them or perform horrid medical experiments on them.

As you'll note, I specifically pointed out the social engineering aspect of eliminating the mentally ill. I have not drawn any comparison to this case and medical experimentation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Perhaps they should undertake another competency review, first, if the last one was seven years ago?

My Spidey-Sense tells me that the guy has been bullsh---ing all along but there is documentation to the contrary, so, it might make sense to take the time to be sure, one way or another, before pulling the trigger on that miscreant.

You think he's been bullshitting since 1978, all so he could get away with murder more than 20 years later?

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

From that link:

October 2003: The state trial court sets an execution date for Feb. 5, 2004. Panetti files a motion with the trial court for a stay of execution,

Think about that for a while. This guy killed two people and then personally demands not to be killed himself.

Guess he understands what death means, eh?

Understanding what death means does not change the fact that he's mentally ill. The reason he killed his parents-in-law is due to his delusions. As you'll also read from the link, the reason he filed his own motion for a stay of execution is because he believes the execution is a conspiracy between the court and the Devil to prevent him from doing God's work. That just shows that there's no way this man should have ever been deemed competent to defend himself.

He believes acting crazy will save his sorry ass; THAT is his only delusion.

So....you believe that he spend over 20 years BEFORE the murders pretending to be crazy.....just in case he ever felt like killing someone?

 

[SwimExpert]

You Godwinned your own topic!

Godwin's law does not apply, as this not an inappropriate or grossly exaggerated comparison. The government under Nazi Germany conducted legalized executions of the mentally ill, driven by an attempt at social engineering. In this case, we have a mentally ill man set to be executed for seemingly similar reasons. This potential should be discussed.

Nazi Germany euthanized the mentally ill, nationwide, en masse, as a matter of national policy.

You are talking about a potential mis-step at present, in one State out of 50, not driven by policy, but by circumstance.

Apples and oranges.

Allegations of serving-up Godwin-isms are probably defensible.

There appears to be more Hyperbole than Legitimacy in your so-called Hitlerism accusations.

If you take a closer look, you'll see that there are indications that Panetti's conviction and sentence were fueled by fear of him "walking the streets" given his illness. That is the where the comparison becomes valid. The mentally ill of society is a very serious issue for society to deal with, and dealing with the mentally ill who are potentially dangerous is important and vital. However, execution because we fear their potential for being dangerous not acceptable.

 

[g5000]

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.

Do you know what a lie of omission is?

 

[g5000]

When properly medicated, some schizophrenics can think and function normally.

If such a person then willfully chooses to stop taking their medication, understanding full well such action will take them back to madness and make them a danger to society, should they not be held accountable for that choice?

What if that was the case here, and Slate is choosing to leave that part out?