Topic: Executing Mentally Retarded Unconstitutional?
started by: ic0n0
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 20 2002,17:26
I do think that it is somewhat Cruel to execute people who do not understand what they are doing (lack reason), but then again if they do not understand what they did, are they redeemable anyway? What would be the point in keeping them around if they are not redeemable?
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 20 2002,18:02
spare body parts? Im guessing this is after they commited a crime?
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 20 2002,18:33
I once visited this institution where they strapped retarded children onto beds and stored them end-to-end in a dark hall. They would feed them a few times a day and that was about the only attention they got. Their families paid the place money to keep the kids kept there so they wouldn't have to deal with them. What's the point? They're not a functioning part of society and they never will be. It's sad to say it is ok to kill a human being but if you don't have the mental capacity to be "human" then why should we pay to keep you alive ...crime or no crime. This is were man tried to screw with evolution.
Posted by wix on Jun. 20 2002,18:42
The way that I like to think about it is in understanding the clause of the constitution's 8th amendment. These mentally retarded killers often not only don't know what it is that they have done but have the mentality of a child. So if we can extend the 8th amendment to a) those who are psycologically unstable or b) children, then it makes sense that the 8th amendment doesn't make this issue unconsitutional. In < Penry v Johnson (2001) >, the US Supreme Court overturned the death penalty for a retarded killer because they said that "Texas jurors who sentenced a retarded killer to death did not get clear instructions about how to weigh the defendant's mental abilities against the severity of his crime." While I haven't had a lot more time to read the opion on this matter I think it makes a lot of sense.
One can't simply say that it is unconstitutional across the board to execute those with mental disabilities. Because it seems logical if the crime was still gross enough. Therefore I think the court took the most logical action: those charged with the burdon of prosecution and conviction have a duty to weigh it into the punishment.
So my grounds on the issue is nice and wishy washy: It's both constitutional and not at the same time. Take it on a case by case nature.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 20 2002,19:02
Generally I do not favor the death penalty, unless it is for serial killer types people who are ruled by many mental health professionals to be criminally insane, in that case I am very much in favor of executing the mentally disturbed. But I am still glad where I live (Wisconsin) is a state that outlawed execution a long time ago.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 20 2002,20:54
death...or life in a mental ward jacked up on drugs, tied to a bed, in a padded room, with noone to talk to.which is cruel and unusual punishment?
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 20 2002,21:53
| Quote (Wiley @ 20 June 2002,18:33) |
| I once visited this institution where they strapped retarded children onto beds and stored them end-to-end in a dark hall. They would feed them a few times a day and that was about the only attention they got. Their families paid the place money to keep the kids kept there so they wouldn't have to deal with them. What's the point? They're not a functioning part of society and they never will be. It's sad to say it is ok to kill a human being but if you don't have the mental capacity to be "human" then why should we pay to keep you alive ...crime or no crime. This is were man tried to screw with evolution. |
it's these institutions that usually push the patients to the point where they no longer show signs of humanity. The simple lack of any stimulation causes any hint of life to get destroyed. Most of the places won't change because they are making shit loads of money for doing nothing but feed the patients, and of course they've already assumed there's no hope for them all ready so have no moral problem with what they're doing. A lot of psychotic's are in fact perfectly noprmal people that have had a sudden breakdown in brain chemistry that can drive them to kill their own family. So what you might say. how can you blame something like that as an excuse for what they've done. well if someones brain chemistry was so screwed suddenly to the point where they had no awareness of where they were they would have no control over it. (how many times have you had nightmares where you've done things that you'd never consider doing in real life like kill someone you love mabye) killing them as retribution is a fucking medievil solution to all this. I think the main problems lie where these people are institutionaalised and how they are treated when they are there.mabye they can't be reintegrated back into society but they shouldnt be locked away from the world as if to brush them under the carpet because it's inconveinient for us to look upon them.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 20 2002,21:55
and a quick important note. if there are people who are willing to try to help these people we should have the sense to give them the best information and research methods so that they can do their job as best they can. we shouldn't just go "well its your problem you deal with it"
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 20 2002,22:23
that's what i want to do when i finish school....again.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 20 2002,23:14
lykosis, then you could free all the kids locked down at the Fairview Development Center in Huntington Beach, CA. It would be like that Dominos pizza commercial ...you're free cheesey bread ...your free ...go cheesey bread.I guess you had to be there.
Posted by rit on Jun. 20 2002,23:41
She wants to work with criminals, not kids. And, she hates California. I think it's because of the huge amount of assholes that live there.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 21 2002,00:07
Really? Judging from her current company I would have guessed that she liked assholes.
Posted by rit on Jun. 21 2002,01:20
I can see why you would think that, I am a pretty big asshole. But i swear to god, she actually told me once, "I hate California, too many pretentious assholes there". Maybe it's assholes in high consentration that she doesn't like.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 21 2002,02:05
| Quote (rit @ 20 June 2002,17:20) |
| But i swear to god, she actually told me once, "I hate California, too many pretentious assholes there". |
Oh, you didn't say "pretentious" assholes ...that's different. Yeah ...we got a lot of us ...er ...them ...here in CA.
Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 21 2002,02:25
One thing I think about the death penalty is that they should experiment a bit more with techniques..eg. It is still unknown exactly why we have to sleep, in a biological sense. It's estimated that when someone goes without sleep for 7 days they'll die, but they can't find out more, because they can't watch people die of sleep deprivation, because they're not allowed to kill people for research.
But with a criminal you're going to kill anyway, why not glean some valuable scientific data from that death?
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 21 2002,02:46
the longest official sleep deprivation experiment was 14 days by day 9 the person was halleucinating constantly day 11 he coudltn destinguish reality and non reality day 14 lost all bodily functions and had to be taken off the sleep deprivation drugs.sleep is nessescary for the brain chemistry its like a reset switch. its just a form of hibernation. resource mangement if you will. dreams are more pyschological which is what isnt fully understood but suffice to say its just basically you brain flushing its cache and you consciousness picks up the buffer over runs.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 21 2002,05:03
I've heard the canadians have drugs that can replace sleep indefinitely. (they don't know how long the safe limit is, they would only go so far) I don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, can they put it in Coke?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 21 2002,06:05
i frequently go for weeks at a time with only 3-4 hours of sleep a night. it sucks but it's doable.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 21 2002,06:11
I never get more then six hours a night. Mostly around five. I'm getting used to it, but when I lay down I'm out quick.
Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 21 2002,11:39
Your wife likes it in the morning?
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 21 2002,20:03
Nah, she doesn't like to get up at 4am with me. She comes to bed between 10 and 11 and gets things going. I've been trying to adjust her schedule to get her to come to be earlier ...but she won't miss Buffy.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 22 2002,09:26
Back on topic...I think it's worthless to execute someone who can't understand the concept or finality of their actions. If they don't know what they did, what's going to be accomplished by killing them? That seems a lot like revenge and a not very much like justice.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 23 2002,22:11
TaxMan hits it dead on. Whatever "logic" and "reason" is brought to bear in favor of executing retards, the fact of the matter is that the death penalty in general is not about preventing crime or rehabilitating criminals.It's about vengeance.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 24 2002,03:37
I would also that it is the only way we can completely assure that a very violent person does not hurt society ever again. If a person is mentally retarded or not doesn't play a part in that. If they are violent, they are violent. If they can't be taught not to be violent, then they will always be violent. If they are violent, they always pose a risk to others, themselves, and society as a whole. That is why it shouldn't really matter what the person's mental capacity is.(I just want to add that I have a mentally retarded little brother, so I speak from experience about dealing with them and teaching them. Sometimes, it's very hard to teach a simple moral concept.)
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 24 2002,08:35
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 23 June 2002,14:11) |
| It's about vengeance. |
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 24 2002,15:09
kust curious here...what's so wrong with vengeance?
Posted by incubus on Jun. 24 2002,16:56
Two wrongs don't make a right.Three lefts do, though.
Vengence might sound cool but it's just lowering yourself to their level.
*disclaimer* I am not getting into a boring political debate over this */disclaimer*
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 24 2002,19:51
| Quote (lykosis @ 24 June 2002,01:09) |
| kust curious here...what's so wrong with vengeance? |
Exactly, nothing. I don't really like the death penalty but not for because it's vengeful i know people will always want vengeince and that isn't Wrong it’s a natural emotion when the life of the innocent is taken. But the main reason i do not favor the Death penalty is that I feel it’s inherently racist but that’s another debate.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 24 2002,21:39
All I have to say is if even one fourth the population of the earth had some sense of unconditional positive regard the world would be a better place.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 24 2002,21:45
when my aunt was murdered...i dont remember ever feeling like they guy shoud die...that was a long tima ago...i was just a kid, 9 or 10 maybe...i didn't really understand. i know the family sure wanted him torched though...i can remember some of their conversations...maybe he should have been...i don't know....maybe he's done a lot of good things since he got out...maybe he killed again...you just dont know what's gonna happen.he was released after 10 years...temp insanity.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 24 2002,22:55
whats the point in getting vengance on someone that cant even understand what they did? you trying to get an empty justice. i don't agree with the death penalty in general but to use it on mentally ill patients is just a primitive and quite frankly pathetic practice.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 25 2002,14:00
i would guess that they are looking for closure...an elusive beast to some.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 25 2002,15:04
There's no such thing as "closure." Killing someone won't bring back whoever they killed. Vengeance makes you feel satisfied for a little while, but then it goes away, and your'e sad again.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 25 2002,16:08
i agree, but sometimes it's hard to communicate that point to people that aren't thinking rationaly RED FLAG.all they are thinking is "this person hurt me, and i want to hurt them back."
logic takes a back seat.
Posted by jim on Jun. 25 2002,19:23
Death Penalty rocks. It's one of the perks of living in Texas. And I don't care who they are, or what state of mind they were are in, or how retarded, etc... if they murder someone, I can't think of any good reason why they shouldn't die too.Just like if a dog mauls someone and the dog has to be put to sleep. Put all those rapists and murderers to sleep as well..
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 25 2002,20:56
Eye for an Eye was a stupid thing when Babylon was around and it's even more retarded now.
Posted by jim on Jun. 25 2002,21:02
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 25 June 2002,06:56) |
| Eye for an Eye was a stupid thing when Babylon was around and it's even more retarded now. |
Yeah, raping and murdering people was pretty lame back then too...
Maybe if people knew they would DIE if they commited these crimes, they'd stop...
And not just die after 450 years of appeals... Die the day they were sentenced.
At least this way fucking OJ wouldn't be walking the streets.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 25 2002,22:12
2-->| Quote (jim @ 25 June 2002,132) |
| Maybe if people knew they would DIE if they commited these crimes, they'd stop... |
it never stopped things before, and it doesn't now. the Taliban was big on executions, but crime continued under them... the penalty for dealing or using drugs was death, but there are still plenty of heroin addicts in Afghanistan.
the only thing the death penalty does is make people distrust the justice system, and ensure that a lot of potential criminals become real ones. what's the point of joining the good guys when they're just as fucked up as everyone else?
ic0n0 is right, the death penalty is blatantly racist. even though they only make up about 10% of the population, we kill more black people than white people.
is that because them niggers are basically born criminals, but white people are born good? no? then what is it then?
there is NO fair way to apply the death penalty. there are plenty of cases where we discovered that someone was innocent after we killed them. had they been sentanced to life without possibility of parole, at least they might've had the chance to walk free again.
are you really going to sit there and tell me that innocent people should just "take one for the cause" so that you can feel better about yourself? especially when there is a more effective alternative called "life without possibility of parole?"
something to think about : if you were guilty as hell, and you had a choice between being killed now or being stuck in prison until the end of your natural life, what would you choose?
one way you get to escape this Earth; the other way we hold you here and give you a long, long time to think about what you did.
Posted by Chrissy on Jun. 26 2002,00:15
| Quote (wix @ 20 June 2002,10:42) |
| In < Penry v Johnson (2001) >, the US Supreme Court overturned the death penalty for a retarded killer because they said that "Texas jurors who sentenced a retarded killer to death did not get clear instructions about how to weigh the defendant's mental abilities against the severity of his crime." While I haven't had a lot more time to read the opion on this matter I think it makes a lot of sense. |
Basically they remanded this case back to the district court for sentencing only. In other words the supreme court wasnt going to take the chance on making a ruling that excuting a man who is mentally retarded is constitutional or unconstitutional- they are going to leave that to the district courts (or for lack of better judgment the State). Mind you the District court didnt really have a problem with his retardation they were willing to just go for it.
I think murder is horrible but killing someone who doesnt know any better does not make the heart any lighter. A person never heals unless they face what has happened- even if they execute the person who murdered their loved one. If you kill a person who cannot even see that they have committed a horrible crime then their death is pointless. You haven't punished the person- and the system has failed. They say that the death penalty is to deter crime but in states where the death penalty is used it doesnt deter any more or any less crime than say a severe jail sentence. So to say the use of the death penalty in that way is a failure...
As for it being racist- the entire criminal justice system is biased towards african americans. Many white people ignore this because they system tends to benefit them- its the same old story "It ain't me- let it be" The world won't change unless people start to see things from a completely different persepective.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 26 2002,03:30
the death penalty has never been shown as a good deterant.if you wer the dad of a boy who'd been murdered brutally but the guy got off you wouldnt care about the death penalty you'd go out and kill the sucker.
if i shoot your girlfreind (unless you want me to) in a state where theres no death penalty and then hop over the border into a state that does i doubt very much you'd give a crap about the legalitys and come after me to kill me.
Posted by jim on Jun. 26 2002,13:00
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 25 June 2002,08:12) |
| there is NO fair way to apply the death penalty. there are plenty of cases where we discovered that someone was innocent after we killed them. had they been sentanced to life without possibility of parole, at least they might've had the chance to walk free again. are you really going to sit there and tell me that innocent people should just "take one for the cause" so that you can feel better about yourself? especially when there is a more effective alternative called "life without possibility of parole?" |
You may need to define "innocent" because of the 83 people that have been freed from death row. I wouldn't call be set free on a technicality innocent.
Also note that think about how many murders have been convicted multiple times for murder. Think of how many TRUELY innocent lives could have been saved by executing this trash!
Here's a couple of your "innocent" death row inmates
Curtis Kyles-Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). After one vacated conviction and four mistrials in which a jury was unable to reach a verdict over a 14 year period, the prosecutor chose not to retry Kyles although the final jury hung 8-4 for conviction (an earlier jury hung 10-2 for acquittal). The man who Kyles alleged did the killing was himself killed by a member of Kyles' family in 1986. New Orleans Times-Picayune, (6/27/98); Baton Rouge Advocate, (2/19/98); New Orleans Times-Picayune, at pp. A1, A13 (2/19/98).
Troy Lee Jones--In re Jones, 13 Cal.4th 552 (1996); People v. Jones, 13 Cal.4th 535 (1996). The conviction was vacated because of ineffective assistance of counsel. The California Supreme Court noted that the evidence of Jones' guilt was not overwhelming but did "suggest" Jones's guilt. The prosecution chose not to retry Jones because of the passage of time since the 1981 murder and unavailability of witnesses in the meantime.
Anthony Ray Peek--Peek v. State, 488 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1986) Peek was acquitted after his two prior convictions for a 1977 murder were reversed. The evidence indicated that two of Peek's fingerprints were found on the inside of the victim's car window several hours after her body was found. Blood and seminal stains on the victim's bedclothes were consistent with Peek's identity as type-O secretor. A hair with features similar to Peek's was recovered in a cut stocking in the victim's garage area. The conviction was reversed because the prosecution introduced evidence of Peek's subsequent, dissimilar rape of a young woman--a crime for which he is apparently now serving a life sentence. Peek claimed that his fingerprints got on the victim's car when he was out of his halfway house and tried to burglarize an abandoned car. There was evidence that periodic night checks at the halfway house did not indicate any unauthorized absences the night of the murder. However, even without the evidence of Peek's subsequent rape, the evidence was still sufficient for a conviction. The acquittal represents a finding of reasonable doubt, not actual innocence
And here's just a few of many examples of murders killing more than once.
Thomas Eugene Creech, who had been convicted of three murders and had claimed a role in more than 40 killings in 13 states as a paid killer for a motorcycle gang, killed a fellow prison inmate in 1981 and was sentenced to death. In 1986 his execution was stayed by a federal judge and has yet to be carried out.
Benny Lee Chaffin kidnapped, raped, and murdered a 9-year-old Springfield, Oregon girl. He had been convicted of murder once before in Texas, but not executed. Incredibly, the same jury that convicted him for killing the young girl refused to sentence him to death because two of the 12 jurors said they could not determine whether or not he would be a future threat to society!
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 27 2002,04:37
Some thoughts on a couple of points brought up...on "innocents die". You know, this is really a problem with determining guilt, not sentencing. The sentencing should be based entirely on the assumption that the determination of guilt was correct. If not the judicial system couldn't operate. If someone's incorrectly convicted whatever you do will be terrible. Simply giving someone a criminal record (even if only temporary) can have huge negative consequences. Point is, you should be more concerned about refining the process of determining guilt. Plus, this problem is at best short lived. As science progresses our ability to accurately determine what happened (and therefore guilt) becomes greater and greater. If this is your justification for being against the death penalty, then you should be becoming more and more willing to use the death penalty as our ability to determine guilt with a high degree of accuracy increases.
on "death penalty not a deterent" and "killing the criminal won't bring your poor cousin billy back". Nobody has ever (at least, to my knowledge) made the claim that killing the perpetrator of the crime causes an amazing chemical reaction that manages to reanimate the victim of the original crime. This has got to be the quintisential (sp?) straw man argument. As for the death penalty not being a deterent...it does prevent repeat offenders, and ensures the safety of society. If you don't think killing them is worth it, then why is it worth it to lock them up forever?
on "innocents and the death penalty". It's interesting, but if you were innocent and found guilty, in some ways you're better off being found guilty of the death penalty. It still takes forever to be executed and during this time you have more legal right to appeals & the possibility of overturning your sentence than if you'd simply be convicted of jailtime. I'm certainly not suggesting this is a good thing, but it's something to think about...