The Hitlerization of American justice.

[g5000]

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?

 

[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.

Do you know what a lie of omission is?

I would have to ask yourself that same question. I'd also ask if you actually read the article, or did you simply jump to conclusions? Because including something that is entirely made up is not an "omission."

From the link:

The federal habeas judge overseeing Panetti’s case allows Panetti to put on his own expert witnesses, who testify Panetti believes that the death penalty is a satanic plot, with the state “in league with the forces of evil” and trying to “prevent him from preaching the Gospel.”

If you believe that this is a lie on the part of Slate, then you need to explain and justify that belief. If you believe that including this is an omission then you need to improve your vocabulary.

 

[SwimExpert]

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. But if you decide to have her executed because you think the world is a better place without the mentally ill, then you start to become a bit Hitlerish.

 

[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.

 

[The Germans are coming]

Oh please! You have been executing the mentaly disabled since god knows when.

Every country that use to have the death penalty is guilty of that.

In the UK the death penalty was in fact abolished because of a really shocking miscariage of justice.

When the prosecuter manipulated an inocent disabled man aswell as the jury to have him sentenced to death and later executed by hanging.

The now famous (at least in Europe) Bentley Case.

So the only shocking thing about this is that you still execute mentaly disabled people.

Mentaly disabled people were treated like shit by almoust all societies for centuries.

And it really only stopped in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

So there is still alot more work to be done on this subject by most societies on this planet.

Until 1964 you could pay at the famous "Narrenturm" Asylum to go inside and look at mentaly disabled people.

Like some fucking Orwellian human zoo.

In most parts of the middle east, mentaly disabled people are often chained to chairs and other inhumane shit, or executed for "being posessed by the devil" up to this very day.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

What you are describing is a stretch at the very, very least. Many schizophrenics respond very well to medication treatment. However, to say that they think "normally" is not really justifiable. We simply can't know what is going on inside another person's head. It's not uncommon for a patient to report a better understanding of their delusions from reality. In other words, the delusions remain, but the individual is having success managing them.

The problem is that you can never be sure just how well the individual is managing them after all. It's possible for new delusions to creep in, which will affect the patient's percieved ability to manage their delusions. A person may experience a delusion that leads them to believe they are fully cured, and that the other delusions that were previously recognized as such, are now believed to be reality.

Whatever the reason a patient may stop taking their medication, it is simply impossible to use that fact as a basis for criminal responsibility of behavior done in a delusional state.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I've known several people suffering schizophrenia in my life and so to has everyone else posting here known people suffering schizophrenia whether you were aware of the fact or not. Is the OP a psychiatrist? A psychotherapist? On what grounds do you presume this man's schizophrenia exonerates him from perpetrating two cold-blooded murders?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

We kill several hundred thousand babies a year in the US. Let's don't go pointing that eugenics-tainted finger too much, eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We kill several hundred thousand babies a year in the US. Let's don't go pointing that eugenics-tainted finger too much, eh?

If we killed that many babies, someone would notice.

 

[g5000]

Do you know what a lie of omission is?

I would have to ask yourself that same question. I'd also ask if you actually read the article, or did you simply jump to conclusions? Because including something that is entirely made up is not an "omission."

Leaving out something that is relevant is.

I simply do not trust a biased media outlet to have presented all the facts of the case objectively.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

We kill several hundred thousand babies a year in the US. Let's don't go pointing that eugenics-tainted finger too much, eh?

If we killed that many babies, someone would notice.

You're probably too busy perusing illegal web sites to have noticed.

 

[The Germans are coming]

We kill several hundred thousand babies a year in the US. Let's don't go pointing that eugenics-tainted finger too much, eh?

Nope.

 

[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 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.

 

[SwimExpert]

I've known several people suffering schizophrenia in my life and so to has everyone else posting here known people suffering schizophrenia whether you were aware of the fact or not. Is the OP a psychiatrist? A psychotherapist? On what grounds do you presume this man's schizophrenia exonerates him from perpetrating two cold-blooded murders?

Are you asking whether mental illness is a valid defense, generally speaking? Or whether Panetti's actions were fueled by his condition?

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you know what a lie of omission is?

I would have to ask yourself that same question. I'd also ask if you actually read the article, or did you simply jump to conclusions? Because including something that is entirely made up is not an "omission."

Leaving out something that is relevant is.

I simply do not trust a biased media outlet to have presented all the facts of the case objectively.

I see. So you have nothing to say about this, or any other subject discussed anywhere on this site, seeing as you have absolutely no reliable source for any information whatsoever or anything, unless it's something that happened directly in front of your eyes.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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

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...

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

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.

I think he's far more mentally fit that he lets on, and that much of the dress-up, etc., is mere smoke-screen to avoid the full penalty of the law.

His filing of petition after petition indicates a fairly strong presence of mind - a functional one, at that.

I'm not trained in such things and make no pretense at professional credentials in this area.

But, based on circumstances, I sense one whole helluva lot of 'bulls----ing' on his part.

And I think they ought to conduct another competency review, to be sure, before they kill the sonofabitch.

Grant him a stay of execution - a few weeks, or a month or two - sufficient to conduct that fresh review, and to have it validated by one or two external sources, and...

If, in their professional opinion, they determine he's incompetent, then, the execution is put on hold, and any legal work that he has done for himself, re: appeals, etc., during the estimated duration of his latest manifestation of mental illness, is legally reviewed, and, if need be, set aside, and repeated, by competent legal representation...

If, in their professional opinion, they determine that he's competent, then, off to Hell he goes, with the plunger-pusher performing a public service... taking out the trash.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.