US authorities execute two mentally disabled prisoners in one week

Scroll to see replies

American capital punishment isn't cost effective though, as we know. The appeals process makes it all extremely expensive - more so than life without parole.

So at what point is someone mentally disabled or 'insane' enough to negate their responsibility? Mental state should absolutely be deemed relevant. How can you hold someone responsible for their actions when their actions are the result of their illness or disability? They didn't choose to have them, and it's not as if they can resist their mental state so to say. The issue is with society not protecting these vulnerable people from committing such acts which they simply don't understand the magnitude of.

That's not for me to decide, that's what court is for. Mental state is relevant in court, because the defendant can make the claim that they were insane during the crime and therefore not responsible for their actions. I assume the same claim can be made on the basis that their IQ is so low they're legally mentally disabled, although I'm no lawyer so I can't say for sure. I don't think their state should be considered after their sentence is given. I've made that point twice now. I'm not saying that their state should not be considered at all- that's a court issue- but if in the court of law it is decided that these people have committed a crime, were aware at the time and thefore charged with murder/manslaughter/homicide, the punishment they receive should not be made more or less severe because of their condition. In that situation, they've commited a crime and should serve tme accordingly. In the situation in the OP, they've done time then been executed, because that's what the justic system has deemed necessary.

Building more prisons with taxpayer money? Yeah, nah. Lowering the number of people in prison is, to me, a better solution than simply wasting more money on prisons. Arresting less people is less expensive, but more importantly less destructive, than building more facilities. You keep throwing rhetorical questions at me- these are decisions I don't have the power to make. The US justice system/State or Federal governments make the decisions about who to execute and when.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 21

mackemforever

Original post by Good bloke

You are ill-informed , to say the least. The whole point is that they are not responsible for their actions, just as a child isn't.

****ing bull****.

I challenge you, go up to a ten year old on the street tomorrow and ask them "is it wrong to murder somebody?" and see what answer you get. I guarantee that they'll say that yes it is wrong.

From a very young age people develop a basic sense of morality, of right and wrong, and even a child knows that there are certain things which are completely wrong.

They were aware of their actions and deserve the punishment that they got.

Reply 22

Nathanielle

Original post by Good bloke

You are ill-informed , to say the least. The whole point is that they are not responsible for their actions, just as a child isn't.

Original post by Reluire

I don't think it is as simple at that. The concept of it being wrong to kill somebody is a very simple one (most animals get it) and thus I don't think an IQ test is able to decide, whether you are able to understand that principal or not. They are more likely to be classified as disabled because of their inability to get a school leaving certificate and perform usual simple working tasks. Children are not only given lower sentences because of their ability to judge, but because of their ability to still develop. So that argument is a bit flawed. A mental disability does not automatically mean, you aren't able to understand, what you are doing or that you have never been able to learn anything during your life.

Neither children nor intelectually handicaped people are per se dangerous.Thus they have no excuse per se. A mentally ill person on the other hand may be really not able to take control over their brains for a certain amount of time.

A better question would be to ask, how easy it is for a intelectually handicapped person to act in court to get no death sentence.

Reply 23

JamesManc

"mentally disabled shouldn't be executed" aren't everyone supposed to have equal rights these days?

Yeah that's right, equality only works one way, when it benefits the minority against the majority

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 24

Sabertooth

People generally don't get the death penalty for simple murder, it needs to be aggravated in some way, which, happily, the news article does not go into. There's also the fact that one of these guys murdered a fellow prisoner, what else could be done with him? Life in solitary confinement?

ETA: Funny the Independent doesn't mention that the guy executed in Texas was sentenced to 40 years for killing 3 people years before and let out after serving a third of his sentence. ( http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-inmate-set-to-die-Thursday-for-1996-slaying-6048228.php )

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 25

JD8897

We're all for equality so why should it be stopped when it benefits those who demand it..? These people are disgusting and committed brutal crimes, they deserve to die for taking somebody else's life. I am close to many disabled people, some who can't walk or talk but they certainly still have a brain as well as a conscience and they know exactly what they are doing, just like these people did. There is no excuse and the media probably up-scaled their disablilities anyway

Reply 26

limetang

We take away too much agency from a person with a disability like this if we think that it's necessarily the case that they are too handicapped to know the difference between right and wrong. Can it be demonstrated that this person was/wasn't responsible for their actions.

As for the death penalty, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, if we're accepting that an element of justice is the need to punish crime then we may have to be accepting of the idea that it's possible for things like the death penalty to be a reasonable punishment.

Reply 27

JohnCrichton89

No doubt many of the people objecting to this guy being killed would argue in other threads that IQ isn't an accurate measurement of intelligence, especially of African Americans........... burned four people alive, two of them children the other two women.
One of which he beat with a hammer and strangled first.

His death was to kind a punishment in my mind.

Reply 28

Good bloke

Original post by mackemforever

I challenge you, go up to a ten year old on the street tomorrow and ask them "is it wrong to murder somebody?" and see what answer you get. I guarantee that they'll say that yes it is wrong.

It is just as well that the UK has chosen the age of ten as being the age of criminal responsibility then, isn't it?

Reply 29

JamesManc

Original post by Good bloke

It is just as well that the UK has chosen the age of ten as being the age of criminal responsibility then, isn't it?

You are totally twisting what mackemforever said to suit your own agenda but that's what apologists do isn't it.

Reply 30

Good bloke

Original post by JamesManc

You are totally twisting what mackemforever said to suit your own agenda but that's what apologists do isn't it.

I'm not an apologist for anyone. My "agenda" is very simple and open, that people who are incapable of telling right from wrong (whether through age, illness or mental deficiency) should not be executed for their actions. These people seem to me to fit into that category. If they didn't fit the category then they should be punished heavily for their crime, though that should not include execution.

Your "agenda" appears to be that anyone who kills, at any age or mental condition, deserves the retribution of execution.

I prefer the lack of barbarity and greater level of civilisation demonstrated in mine. :smile: