Texas to execute inmate diagnosed as 'mentally retarded'

By FlintyV
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Tom

Posted
Posted

The death penalty is wrong and those who agree with it are simply falling into the 'eye for an eye' mentality and imo that's dumb.

If you ignore the fact that putting them in prison is cheaper than executing them, imo if someone commits a crime they should pay for it. Executing is a let off.. by doing that they don't have to pay for their crimes. Would I rather them be treated like scum for the rest of their life or let them take the easy way out? I'd rather the former.

Grand Master

HSoft

Posted
Posted

The death penalty is wrong and those who agree with it are simply falling into the 'eye for an eye' mentality and imo that's dumb.

And yet aren't you for abortion?

I find it totally hypocritical that the left is against the death penalty and yet for abortion. I also find it hypocritical that the right is against abortion and yet for the death penalty.

  • TrevorLahey
  • Like 1
Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

ok just because you are retarded doesn't mean you have the right to kill someone else - so Texas got it right IMO!

Straw man argument!

strawman1.jpg

Nobody was claiming that anyone has the right to kill someone else, whether the perpetrator is retarded or not. This discussion is about whether it is legally proper to execute a mentally retarded prisoner, especially after the US Supreme Court has ruled it illegal to do so.

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Thread cleaned

Please remember to be polite at all times, and please do not personally attack others, even if you feel provoked.

Thank you

The death penalty is wrong and those who agree with it are simply falling into the 'eye for an eye' mentality and imo that's dumb.

[. . .]

Not everyone who supports the death penalty is following "an eye for an eye." Some people feel that society will be safer if a known murderer is unable to murder again. Dogs are put down if they maul people to death because they are a danger to society and they do not understand right from wrong. Likewise, many murderers (and other criminals) will never understand that what they've done is wrong, and many of them will always be a danger to society.

I'm not sure how I feel regarding the death penalty, as I don't like the idea of anyone deciding that another living organism must be killed; however, I believe that the safety of society should always be paramount.

Grand Master

Noir Angel

Posted
Posted

The death penalty isn't about justice it's about revenge. Hopefully America will join the civilised world soon and stop killing in the name of revenge.

  • DocM and theyarecomingforyou
  • Like 2
Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The death penalty isn't about justice it's about revenge. Hopefully America will join the civilised world soon and stop killing in the name of revenge.

If you read my reply to Tom, I point out why the death penalty isn't always about revenge. In my view, it can be about ensuring society is a safer place. As I say, I'm not sure whether I'd support the death penalty or not, in cases where the criminal has been proven to have committed the crime, but putting down a murderer is the only way to make sure they cannot murder again. As I mention in that post, we put down dogs that have mauled others because of the danger they pose and their inability to understand that harming people is wrong.

Grand Master

Hum

Posted
Posted

Not everyone who supports the death penalty is following "an eye for an eye." Some people feel that society will be safer if a known murderer is unable to murder again.

And there are 3 more to take that murderer's place. ;)

Grand Master

nominak

Posted
Posted

Thread cleaned

Please remember to be polite at all times, and please do not personally attack others, even if you feel provoked.

Thank you

Not everyone who supports the death penalty is following "an eye for an eye." Some people feel that society will be safer if a known murderer is unable to murder again. Dogs are put down if they maul people to death because they are a danger to society and they do not understand right from wrong. Likewise, many murderers (and other criminals) will never understand that what they've done is wrong, and many of them will always be a danger to society.

I'm not sure how I feel regarding the death penalty, as I don't like the idea of anyone deciding that another living organism must be killed; however, I believe that the safety of society should always be paramount.

I figure if you leave them incarcerated for the rest of their lives, then the only people they can kill are other inmates.

Although, I don't think people should be incarcerated for petty crimes/drug use/selling.

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I figure if you leave them incarcerated for the rest of their lives, then the only people they can kill are other inmates.

Although, I don't think people should be incarcerated for petty crimes/drug use/selling.

That's a possibility, but it's also possible they could escape (even though that might be rare). My concern is that if they're incarcerated for the rest of their life, there is always a chance someone could come and overturn that, and I don't think proven murderers should ever be allowed out of prison. I would rather them be incarcerated for the rest of their life, though, instead of them having to be put down, if we can be sure there is no way they will kill any further innocent people.

And there are 3 more to take that murderer's place. ;)

That will unfortunately probably always be the case. But society is safer with 3 people who are capable of murder than it is with 4.

Grand Master

Charisma Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

That's a possibility, but it's also possible they could escape (even though that might be rare). My concern is that if they're incarcerated for the rest of their life, there is always a chance someone could come and overturn that, and I don't think proven murderers should ever be allowed out of prison. I would rather them be incarcerated for the rest of their life, though, instead of them having to be put down, if we can be sure there is no way they will kill any further innocent people.

I don't know... To play devil's advocate, many people maintain that jail is meant to be for rehabilitating and used with the hope that people will be changed once they come out. I do not see much evidence that it works for serious crimes, but that's the point plenty of people like to make. So if there is no reasonable chance of reform, why let them sit around for years and years wasting away on the taxpayer dime?

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I don't know... To play devil's advocate, many people maintain that jail is meant to be for rehabilitating and used with the hope that people will be changed once they come out. I do not see much evidence that it works for serious crimes, but that's the point plenty of people like to make. So if there is no reasonable chance of reform, why let them sit around for years and years wasting away on the taxpayer dime?

Unfortunately, I cannot deem rehabilitation appropriate because it doesn't always work. Rehabilitated criminals are released with the hope they will not recommit, rather than the certainty they won't recommit, and I believe that is dangerous for society. I would rather the government spend more of our money on keeping known murderers in prison because we know then that they won't be able to murder more innocent civilians.

Grand Master

WelshBluebird

Posted
Posted

Most of the cost comes from the trail. If someone like james holmes gets arrested for murdering people you really think he's innocent? No need to drag on the process. Whos going to argue that hes innocent anyway? Swift justice. innocent until proven guilty? I believe the people he killed pretty much proves hes guilty.

So he has a chance to be proven innocent? The trial will drag on and on when everyone knows he's guilty even the court of law. I'm not saying this should be the case for ALL cases but when someone shoots up a bunch of people and has numerous witnesses and gives him self up to the police. He's guilty right there and everyone knows it. If it was up to me I would of hanged him on the spot. Call me barbaric all you want but it would save a hell of a lot of money to just get rid of them right then and there. Again I wouldn't consider it for all cases only the most extreme cases. Death penalty swift and fast for anyone that commits mass murder. Kind of drifting off the topic a little but.

Wow.

Thats all I can say.

Surely EVERYONE deserves a fair trial?

You say you know he is guilty, but how do you know? How do you know that the evidence has not been fabricated or is just plain wrong? The fact those people are dead does not mean this person did it!

I am not saying he is innocent, but there is always the chance he is. Without a fair trial how can you know?

If you start disallowing people the right of a fair trial, then you start a very dangerous game.

Not everyone who supports the death penalty is following "an eye for an eye." Some people feel that society will be safer if a known murderer is unable to murder again.

But surely that goal is completed if they are put in prison for life?

Experienced

scratch42069

Posted
Posted

A retard is deemed not to have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.

I thought the word "retard" was deemed not very politically correct? Is "retard" back in style now or is it still offensive?

Grand Master

TrevorLahey

Posted
Posted

Well according to this 90,000$ a year to house someone on death row in California. As for the the axact amount just for an execution, I couldn't find out. But in my opinion, it would be significantly less, just for the procedure. You can't tell me that the chemicals to put someone down costs 25mil.

Don't count california. They have no idea what a budget is. Can give that state back to Mexico for all I care... The rest of American will probably have to bail them out soon....

Grand Master

nominak

Posted
Posted

People shouldn't be put in prison for selling drugs?

Making them pay fines wouldn't work unless those fines were pretty hefty.

Well ok, maybe it would depend on which drugs.. do I think people who exclusively sell marijuana should be sent to prison? No. Should they get caught, maybe they should be forced to pay taxes on the money they've earned through the sale of marijuana.. somehow.. or possibly for future sales? Although probably not a viable option really.

Grand Master

TrevorLahey

Posted
Posted

I thought the word "retard" was deemed not very politically correct? Is "retard" back in style now or is it still offensive?

I hate politically correctness!!!! ugh. It's just words! Sticks and stones people! We aren't 5 years old!

(Good question though, I'm interested in what a liberal has to say)

Grand Master

SirEvan

Posted
Posted

Have you ever even been to England and ate food here? - I've been to America and tasted your food and honestly I noticed no different. Guess what, chicken, beef and fries tastes the same regardless of what country you're in. Shocking I know.

Go to the middle east...Pizza does NOT taste like pizza

Community Regular

dr_crabman

Posted
Posted

I find it totally hypocritical that the left is against the death penalty and yet for abortion.

So for you a fetus is the same as a full grown human being? For me and others there's a HUGE difference and It's not hypocritical at all to support one but not the other.

I thought the word "retard" was deemed not very politically correct? Is "retard" back in style now or is it still offensive?

I guess it's okay as long as only people outside of this forum are called retards. No harm done, right? Which is all kinds of ironic after reading through this thread.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

I thought the word "retard" was deemed not very politically correct? Is "retard" back in style now or is it still offensive?

I meant to say 'retarded person' but I don't see that it matters, as clearly no offence was intended.

Grand Master

TrevorLahey

Posted
Posted

So for you a fetus is the same as a full grown human being? For me and others there's a HUGE difference and It's not hypocritical at all to support one but not the other.

People have abortions because they know the kid is going to come out retarded. Not a HUGE difference like you say, so it is hypocritical. Who can define when life starts? And btw, a baby is a full grown human so are you alright with killing them?

Experienced

Routerbad

Posted
Posted

The US Supreme Court gave a nebulous decision back then. They ruled out executing the mentally retarded, but did not define it. That they turned back to the state legislatures to decide.

What little guidance they did give may not help this guy;

so if he could care for himself, communicate, etc. he could well not meet the legal definition outlined by SCOTUS.

What it boils down to is can he function on his own. Even people with Down Syndrome can be high functioning and live normal lives, and can also be held responsible for their decisions.

He may have been diagnosed with an Axis 2 personality disorder, but many people with personality disorders are high functioning (Anti-Social PD, Borderline PD, etc.). These would not prevent you from being held responsible if you committed and were convicted of a crime.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing