The Hitlerization of American justice.

[Kondor3]

...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...

Oh? Did anybody bring this to the attention of the Appellate Court(s)? Did anybody bring this to the attention of the Supreme Court? If so, what did those court(s) have to say on that very same possibility?

 

[Kondor3]

...The issue here is how we treat mentally ill members of society.

I'm not so sure. At issue here is the treatment of one convict, suspected of suffering from mental illness, in a capital punishment scenario; not society at large.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope.

Assuming that the trial process found him sufficiently competent at the time of the commission of the crime, so as to be held accountable in a capital case...

I don't think you're realizing that you're begging the question. The issue is that the methodology and approach in handling this mentally ill defendant demonstrates that the legal mechanisms fail to produce justice.

Which, of course, they must have, in order to have reached this point...

A jury found him "competent." A JURY.

Then... I think he's probably had very long periods of remission and long stretches where he was as competent as any other person walking the streets.

So, because the legal results have been one thing, you think that's good enough to draw outlandish conclusions about his mental state?

There's a term for that. It's called delusions of grandeur. You should seek a professional. Or a jury.

 

[deltex1]

I actually know of one such person. She is supposed to take medication. When she does, you would never know she suffers from schizophrenia.

She has recently decided to stop taking her meds and is slowly sliding back into Crazy Town. We will soon be forced to get some kind of authorities involved before she becomes a danger to herself or others. She will be taken off the streets for her protection and the protection of society.

Does that make me Hitler?

No......that makes you a friend of Rdean.

 

[SwimExpert]

...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...

Oh? Did anybody bring this to the attention of the Appellate Court(s)? Did anybody bring this to the attention of the Supreme Court? If so, what did those court(s) have to say on that very same possibility?

No, because he's largely been representing himself on appeal, where he's been describing the whole thing as a Satanic conspiracy. If you read the link you'll get more information about the appellate results.

 

[Kondor3]

Nope.

Assuming that the trial process found him sufficiently competent at the time of the commission of the crime, so as to be held accountable in a capital case...

I don't think you're realizing that you're begging the question. The issue is that the methodology and approach in handling this mentally ill defendant demonstrates that the legal mechanisms fail to produce justice.

Which, of course, they must have, in order to have reached this point...

A jury found him "competent." A JURY. ..

Did the trial and related testimony include a Mental Health component?

Did the doctor(s) who testified as to his competency at the trial convince the jury that the accused was, indeed, competent at the time?

If yes, then, justice has been served, in that narrow context.

...So, because the legal results have been one thing, you think that's good enough to draw outlandish conclusions about his mental state?...

Nope.

Did I not 'fess-up to having a 'Spidey-Sense' moment, about his state, and did I not publicly reinforce the idea that I have no professional credentials in the field of Mental Health, and did I not encourage a postponing of the execution until such time as his competency (or lack thereof) can be re-certified after a seven-year gap in such assessments?

Is that not the very epitome and height of Convict-centric compromise, erring on the side of Caution, and on behalf of the Convict?

...There's a term for that. It's called delusions of grandeur. You should seek a professional. Or a jury.

You're a right-nasty little git, aren't you?

I meet you more than halfway towards your goal - agreeing that at least a postponement and reassessment should be undertaken - and you insist upon hurling insults and denigrating a colleague, because he-or-she did not get 100% behind your vision of how this should unfold, even though I saw and articulated the need for great caution in this?

Really?

You're either 15 years old, or you're a very special kind of stupid.

Sheeeesh !!!

 

[SwimExpert]

Did the doctor(s) who testified as to his competency at the trial convince the jury that the accused was, indeed, competent at the time?

The judge rejected it because the Defendant had drawn pictures and scribbles all over it.

 

[Katzndogz]

It might be barbaric to put this mentally ill man to death but it should be done. He will never get any better. He can only get worse. He will be a danger to anyone unlucky enough to get near to him. Death might be the ultimate mercy killing.

 

[Kondor3]

It might be barbaric to put this mentally ill man to death but it should be done. He will never get any better. He can only get worse. He will be a danger to anyone unlucky enough to get near to him. Death might be the ultimate mercy killing.

Nahhhhhh... genuine sickos get a pass... or, if they were judged competent at the time they committed the crime...they get a postponement until they're competent again.

It's not much comfort or justice for (the shades of) the victims, or their families, but, it seems necessary, to avoid the stigma of euthanasia.

Small price to pay, to avoid such unpleasantness.

 

[Kondor3]

Did the doctor(s) who testified as to his competency at the trial convince the jury that the accused was, indeed, competent at the time?

The judge rejected it because the Defendant had drawn pictures and scribbles all over it.

"Is it real, or is it Memorex?"

Was the scribbling the act of an incompetent man, or was it the act of an entirely competent and conniving man, designed to make him look incompetent?

Surely, the various courts up-and-down the Food Chain must have examined such matters.

And, if not, and this is a known state of affairs, then, perhaps the Public Defender's Office needs to step in, seize the case despite protestations by the alleged cuckoo, and serve-up a series of appeals focusing upon just such concerns.

No argument out of me on that one - not that it matters a damn what I think.

If you (and those who feel the same way about it) can intervene along those lines prior to the execution, then somebody further up the Food Chain will have conceded that your ideas merit a further hearing.

 

[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.

Whether or not it's an atrocity depends on whether or not he knows 1) what he did, and 2) that he wasn't supposed to do it. 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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a better argument for forced institutionalizing someone than it is abolishing the death penalty. Maybe he could serve as a poster boy for bringing back the loony bins.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is a better argument for forced institutionalizing someone than it is abolishing the death penalty. Maybe he could serve as a poster boy for bringing back the loony bins.

Long overdue actually.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

The individual is being executed pursuant to his conviction in a court of law, not because he's insane.

The appropriateness of executing someone who is mentally ill is a moral and ethical issue, the purview of the political realm, not the courts, where the people through the democratic process determine whether or not executing those mentally ill accurately reflects society's values, it is indeed part of the larger debate as to the efficacy of the death penalty and if the death penalty still has a place in the American justice system.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Nonsense.

The individual is being executed pursuant to his conviction in a court of law, not because he's insane.

The appropriateness of executing someone who is mentally ill is a moral and ethical issue, the purview of the political realm, not the courts, where the people through the democratic process determine whether or not executing those mentally ill accurately reflects society's values, it is indeed part of the larger debate as to the efficacy of the death penalty and if the death penalty still has a place in the American justice system.

Americans have a thirst for vengeance, the DP isn't going anywhere, not even for the mentally ill.

 

[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.

Nonsense.

The individual is being executed pursuant to his conviction in a court of law, not because he's insane.

Read.

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

That is what I said, as you well know.

Then the sheer lunacy of that believe casts irreparable harm on anything else you might have to say on the matter.

Only according to you, and you are an authority on nothing.

This is the full statement and you have been report for violation of board rules on quoting.

That is not what I said, as you well know. There is no compelling interest keep a homicidal maniac alive. On the other hand, I wish we would execute humans as humanely as we do animals when we are paying attention. I would put the CEOs at the Missouri criminals correction authority in jail for the lame ass executions recently.

It would appear that you made a typo, and I read your comment before you had the chance to edit it. So I'm going to backtrack to get back on track.

That is not what I said, as you well know.

In that case, your analogy fails. Euthanizing an animal does not compare to executing a human, because humans have rights which animals do not possess. Consequently, the execution of a human comes with requirements that are absent for animal euthanasia.

There is no compelling interest keep a homicidal maniac alive.

I don't want to get into a debate about the general merits of capital punishment. This is a very particular issue. We're not talking about whether capital punishment is valid, the problem is executing a mentally ill person, whose crime is attributable to his mental illness, whose "self representation" was carried out within the framework of his mental illness, and who subsequently faces is impending execution only within the lens of the same ongoing illness.

The issue here is how we treat mentally ill members of society.

I am talking about a compelling interest in protecting the community from rabid humans. Capital punishment is not something I particularly am enthusiastic about as were my bubba bodacious Baptist buddies in East Texas: the old "try em and fry em" ethic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...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.