Georgia Plans to Execute a Mentally Retarded Man Tomorrow

reply to post by johnnysixguns


As a final point regarding "solitary confinement," perhaps there could be some sort of reform of that. Perhaps a person who has murdered could be solitarily confined (meaning kept in a cell by themselves) but still have cells close to other inmates who are also solitarily confined so that they can talk to them/have some human interaction. Kind of like how it is on some death rows. They are kept in separate cells but those cells are still housed together.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

Everyone deserves life equally. I do not agree with the death penalty. We're one of the last civilized nations to even still do this barbaric practice. I don't think anyone should be put to death by the state.

yeah right thats all fine and dandy

untell one of your loved ones is murdered then i guarantee you will change your tune

reply to post by goou111


I've already addressed this but no you cannot guarantee I will change my tune. You cannot guarantee that at all. As I said when I previously addressed this:

Maybe. Maybe not. Some people do believe in forgiveness. I've seen many instances where the family of a victim forgave the murderer. Just because you may not do so doesn't mean that I or others wouldn't. I'd like to think that if it happened to someone in my family, I'd be able to keep my rationality and not let my emotions overcome me and compromise my values. Furthermore, this is what I mean by justice versus revenge. If someone killed a family member of mine, killing them would not balance the scales and it would not bring them back. I'd be doing nothing but seeking REVENGE.

Another way to think about this is the flipside of the coin: What if the killer was a loved one of yours? What if it was your father or brother or child who killed someone? Would you want them put to death? What if there was a chance that they were wrongfully accused?

Quote from this response of mine

reply to post by goou111


No. You are going off-topic and intentionally trying to provoke me. It won't happen. Please stay on topic or I'll be forced to report your off-topic and provocative/trolling responses.

reply to post by crawdad1914

Really, that list is not that long when you consider the number of inmates that have been in prison since 1970 in the US.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by johnnysixguns

 

As a final point regarding "solitary confinement," perhaps there could be some sort of reform of that

You cant go to jail if you are already in jail if you commit a crime in jail.

reply to post by SunnyDee


Not life.. mercy. They are more deserving of mercy than those that can thoroghly weight action against consequence.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


Personally I don't see it as teaching, I'm not for the death penalty because of what it teaches. I see it more as a means of prevention. Now that retarded homicidal bastard can't hurt anyone anymore and we won't have to worry about taking care of him with our tax money anymore. In fact the fact that he's retarded seems like more justification to kill him if you ask me because he's not exactly a productive member of society even if he isn't a murderer....then again I'm sort of jerk, I tend to think that if you an prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone murdered someone else (excluding extenuating circumstances) then we ought to not have to pay to take care of them. In fact if the murdering bastards can't make enough money through labor or something to pay for their own life sentence, then they should be put to death via a roman style pay per view event where they have to fight each other like gladiators so that could generate money while simultaneously eliminating the murdering populace.Of course most people probably wouldn't agree with this concept and would probably even call me a monster, I just think it makes sense.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


The law is an agreement by all parties (the people) to abide said laws. Once someone takes away the life of someone else, they have broken a contract that they should have agreed to. The law is only good as long as people abide by it. He did not. Clearly he cannot exist within the normal rules and regulations of society. And executing him isn't an "attempt to teach that killing is wrong by killing people who kill, it's punishment, not a lesson in proper behavior (Which he failed before anyways). Obviously he can't be taught a lesson because he keeps killing. At this point it's just about removing someone who will never get out of prison to make room for someone that might.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

 

He killed 2 people. Getting into a person's level of intelligence seems to be discriminatory, or are metally challenged people more deserving of life than others?

The problem with that though,is that the law is quite clear on a defendant being of sound state of mind and ,therefore, being in a position to understand the charges being brought against him/her.

I do not know the background to the original trial,were his mental capabilities assesed before he went to trial?
I'll assume that at least some of his mental difficulties were brought to light,if so was it determined that he would be a danger to others ,if placed in a general prison population?

No his life is not worth more than anyone else's,but it is worth an understanding of what living with his condition means for him.

reply to post by WalterKovacs


"To take a life when a life has been taken is revenge, not justice."

Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu

reply to post by kimish


This is a fallacy. It costs much more to keep a prisoner on death row than a life sentence. With death row comes dozens of appeals (which is why it takes 20 years to kill someone unless your Texas).

California would actually save 1 billion dollars a year just by getting rid of death row.

reply to post by auraelium


It's revenge when someone makes it personal. This is nothing personal. It's the punishment for the crimes he committed. And it's protection against further crimes by this man. I harbor no grudge against this fellow. But that's not to say he shouldn't answer for his crimes as soon as possible. He took the right to live and love from a law abiding citizen, a citizen who followed the law herself. He must be held accountable for his crimes, he made his choice. He chose wrong.

Here is another famous Catholic's stance on it "Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). St. Thomas Aquinas

I personally do not agree with the death penalty however I do believe every human should be treated equally no matter their IQ, illness etc when it comes to punishments like murder or rape. You could probably argue most people in or out of prison has some kind of mental illness so two people who do the same thing should not be treat differently.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


You cant go to jail if you are already in jail if you commit a crime in jail.

What does that have to do with solitary confinement reform?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86

I see it more as a means of prevention. Now that retarded homicidal bastard can't hurt anyone anymore and we won't have to worry about taking care of him with our tax money anymore.

1. It doesn't prevent killing. People already know there is a death penalty and yet they still commit murders
2. They can be prevented by separating the prisoner from the general population. As I talked about before, there should be some solitary confinement option.
3. If you are going to argue fiscally it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them.

I've addressed these three points numerous times before in this thread. No offense but I really wish people would read through the comments. That would cut back on people having to repeat themselves.

In fact the fact that he's retarded seems like more justification to kill him if you ask me because he's not exactly a productive member of society even if he isn't a murderer

Wow. Really? That really sounds like you are arguing for killing all mentally challenged people.

I tend to think that if you an prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone murdered someone else (excluding extenuating circumstances) then we ought to not have to pay to take care of them.

1. How do you know it was beyond a reasonable doubt? Because a jury convicted him? Juries convict innocent poeple all the time
2. Another thing I've addressed before, we don't get to decide where our taxes go. I don't want mine going to prisons and wars but I don't get to make that choice. Neither do you. Even if they kill this guy you are still footing the bill for every other prisoner. Whats the difference in one more? The number of prisoners in your state doesn't affect how much of your taxes is taken out for prisons.

In fact if the murdering bastards can't make enough money through labor or something to pay for their own life sentence, then they should be put to death via a roman style pay per view event where they have to fight each other like gladiators so that could generate money while simultaneously eliminating the murdering populace.Of course most people probably wouldn't agree with this concept and would probably even call me a monster, I just think it makes sense.

Yeah. I would agree. You do sound like a monster. You sound no different than the people in prison. You talk about eliminating the murdering populace but you sound quite bloodthirsty yourself.

reply to post by WalterKovacs


Well the punishment doesn't NEED to be to kill him. That's the point. There are alternatives. Valid alternatives. Make room for someone else? That's not a good reason to execute someone. How about doing away with petty weed busts. That would make room and no one has to die.

Originally posted by WalterKovacs
reply to post by auraelium

 

It's revenge when someone makes it personal. This is nothing personal. It's the punishment for the crimes he committed. And it's protection against further crimes by this man. I harbor no grudge against this fellow. But that's not to say he shouldn't answer for his crimes as soon as possible. He took the right to live and love from a law abiding citizen, a citizen who followed the law herself. He must be held accountable for his crimes, he made his choice. He chose wrong.

He's not being put to death for the first crime. He was doing his time for the first murder. He is being put to death for killing a second person, an inmate.

From the article:

Warren Hill was convicted of a 1985 murder, and was sentenced to death after being convicted of beating a fellow inmate to death in 1990.

So your argument that he's being put to death for murdering a law abiding citizen is completely false.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
I personally do not agree with the death penalty however I do believe every human should be treated equally no matter their IQ, illness etc when it comes to punishments like murder or rape. You could probably argue most people in or out of prison has some kind of mental illness so two people who do the same thing should not be treat differently.

Exactly! So this is one of the many reasons why I believe the death penalty should be abolished.