Members MsGuy Posted December 3, 2014 Members Share Posted December 3, 2014 So there's this case (from Texas, where else) wherein the defendant was judged sane enough to be convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death but too insane to be executed. Quite a conundrum for the courts. The problem has its origins in the use of two different standards for deeming someone 'insane'. One can be sane enough to 'understand the diff...' or 'control one's actions' or 'appreciate the consequences...' or whatever standard a given state uses to determine guilt and still be too whacked out to reasonably comprehend why the folks in those uniforms are about to stick a needle in one's arm (or even what will happen when they do so). Not to fear, the wisest of our legal minds have long since figured out the solution: Provide adequate psychiatric treatment (pump the condemned full enough of anti-psychotic drugs) and eventually he will be able to fully enjoy the prospect and then the actual experience of being killed. Of course if at any time the stress of this ordeal spins the individual into a relapse just back the process up and start over. ---- So what do you folks think? Should the condemned be coddled back to sanity before execution or should we just knock him in the head and get it over with? Extra credit question: Should the admittedly insane prisoner be given any choice in the matter? If so, how much? What if his objection to the meds is based on sincere religious beliefs? Graduate level section of exam: What if the insane version wants to be executed sane but the sane personality would druther be hallucinating he's in the Garden of Eden while you stick in the needle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Suckrates Posted December 4, 2014 Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 So there's this case (from Texas, where else) wherein the defendant was judged sane enough to be convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death but too insane to be executed. Quite a conundrum for the courts. The problem has its origins in the use of two different standards for deeming someone 'insane'. One can be sane enough to 'understand the diff...' or 'control one's actions' or 'appreciate the consequences...' or whatever standard a given state uses to determine guilt and still be too whacked out to reasonably comprehend why the folks in those uniforms are about to stick a needle in one's arm (or even what will happen when they do so). Not to fear, the wisest of our legal minds have long since figured out the solution: Provide adequate psychiatric treatment (pump the condemned full enough of anti-psychotic drugs) and eventually he will be able to fully enjoy the prospect and then the actual experience of being killed. Of course if at any time the stress of this ordeal spins the individual into a relapse just back the process up and start over. ---- So what do you folks think? Should the condemned be coddled back to sanity before execution or should we just knock him in the head and get it over with? Extra credit question: Should the admittedly insane prisoner be given any choice in the matter? If so, how much? What if his objection to the meds is based on sincere religious beliefs? Graduate level section of exam: What if the insane version wants to be executed sane but the sane personality would druther be hallucinating he's in the Garden of Eden while you stick in the needle? My opinion has always been a controversial one: If they commit and are convicted of violent crimes, they have forfeited ANY and all rights to be treated in a humane fashion. I suppose then I support the "eye for eye" theory...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted December 4, 2014 Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 No easy choices here. I think the only thing that I would observe is that this perp would not be allowed out among other citizens. But, then, that might apply to us all, at one time or another. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted December 4, 2014 Author Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 Not an uncommon position, Suckcretes, and well supported historically, but it skips over the question sub judice: what do we do with the guys who are too insane to understand that you're about to pluck out their eyes (but sane enough to be eligible for the plucking)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zipperzone Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 So... if they are too crazy to be put to death by whatever method the state chooses, the alternative would be to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their natural life. Kind of gets pricey doesn't it? Especially if they are quite young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lookin Posted December 4, 2014 Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 So there's this case (from Texas, where else) “The authority to take a man’s life is the most draconian penalty that we allow our government to exercise,” the group wrote. “As conservatives, we must be on guard that such an extraordinary government sanction not be used against a person who is mentally incapable of rational thought.” . . . as our ranks would be depleted pretty quickly. Personally, I'm against the death penalty altogether for sane folks, insane folks, and folks who are on the fence, so MsGuy's thoughtful distinctions don't trouble my pretty little head in the slightest. I've heard prisoners say that life in prison is worse than being executed and, after reading what this guy did, I hope they're right and that's where he ends up. My hunch is that our country is on an arc away from the death penalty, and stories like these and thought challenges like MsGuy's will help to move it along among those who are still undecided. AdamSmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wayout Posted December 4, 2014 Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 I've heard prisoners say that life in prison is worse than being executed .... To be fair, it would also be good to hear from the prisoners who have been executed to know if they agree or not TotallyOz, lookin, RA1 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted December 4, 2014 Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 Whether one is for or against the death penalty for moral reasons, the US economic reality is that it is cheaper to sentence one to life imprisonment than it is to pronounce the death penalty. Both can be expensive but the death penalty brings on many appeals as well as special cells, etc. Is it too far out to wish for folks to behave in such a manner as to preclude either the death penalty or a life sentence? Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lookin Posted December 4, 2014 Members Share Posted December 4, 2014 Is it too far out to wish for folks to behave in such a manner as to preclude either the death penalty or a life sentence? As long as there's a bell curve, you're going to have outliers. What you could do is go someplace where our egregious offenses are somebody else's virtues. Just be careful who you wink at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted December 5, 2014 Author Members Share Posted December 5, 2014 I think RA1 and lookin are both on to something. We could simultaneously save money and clean up the world's hot spots by trawling our death row inmates for volunteers. A great way for our baddies to pay their debt to society, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
