RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Yachtie -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 6:15:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Why is okay for some states to still execute the mentally ill and other states NOT be able to execute the mentally ill?

10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Pretty simple answer to the question actually. Now, if one wants to know why Rhode Island does not yet Texas does, well that a different question.

Wrong answer. Definitely a simple answer that might appeal to simple minds but nevertheless an utterly wrong answer.

It's never OK to execute the mentally ill. Just the same as it's never OK to execute a child, which demands the same amount of 'courage' or more accurately cowardice . It's a moral issue, not a State's rights issue.


Comprehension issues again I see. How is it not a State's rights issue? How is the power of each State to determine its own laws where such is within the purview of the State? It's within that very determination of each State that one may argue morality, but not with the power of the State itself to make its own determination. That's why it's ok, not that being ok is necessarily moral.









Owner59 -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 6:23:58 AM)

Funny how cons flip-flop completely about the competence of government when comes to determining who the guilty are and executing them.....



I`ve even heard some real jerk-off elitists-cons say that killing a few innocent people is a price THEY are willing to pay....Talk about callous,talk about blood-thirsty,talk about grim....talk about stalinism.....




Yachtie -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 6:47:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Funny how cons flip-flop completely about the competence of government when comes to determining who the guilty are and executing them.....


Who flipped? It's perfectly within the power of any State to be as incompetent or competent as it desires. Do you not comprehend that State power to do something is, itself, not a moral question? What a State does may be judged morally, but not its power to do it. That's why it's ok, not that being ok is necessarily moral.





Winterapple -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 7:51:45 AM)

It is currently legal for the states to carry out the
death penalty as they choose and if they choose.

It will also be legal (and moral) for the
Supreme Court to rule that the death
penalty is to be abolished in all fifty states.
Federal law trumps state law hand over
fist. If federal law says it's off the table,
it's off the table.

Thr states can dick around with things
like sales tax but trusting things like
civil rights, a woman's legal autonomy
over her body and legally ordained
murder to the individual states is inane.




RemoteUser -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 7:52:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: RemoteUser
The death penalty is social revenge


No.  The death penalty, when appropriate, is the justice some crimes demand.


Then all justice everywhere should demand it, but it doesn't. How is that not ascribable to social revenge? The difference isn't in the act, but rather how it is reacted to, and that comes from the society in which the event occurs.

Absolutes fall apart, when they aren't.




Yachtie -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 8:22:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

It will also be legal (and moral) for the
Supreme Court to rule that the death
penalty is to be abolished in all fifty states.



It would be legal for SCOTUS to also rule otherwise. You'd declare such to be immoral. Wouldn't you?

Thr states can dick around with things
like sales tax but trusting things like
civil rights, a woman's legal autonomy
over her body and legally ordained
murder
to the individual states is inane.


Legally ordained murder. Wow! Isn't that what abortion is? Yet the liberal will argue most vociferously in its defense. And why? Because liberals hold a different opinion, argued on many fronts. On what basis does the liberal hold the keys on morality?

It's quite evident that holding opinion differing from that of the liberal is, morally inane?






Winterapple -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 9:03:20 AM)

Fuck state rights and the cross eyed horse it rode in on.
Make it legal in all fifty states or declare it
illegal that's when the hash can really get
settled.
It probably will come to a shock to you that
some of the death penalties most outspoken
opponents are conservatives. You might or
might not have a heard of a dude called
the Pope. My own outspoken condemnation
of the death penalty was influenced by
a friends father who is a Protestant pastor.

I don't think opinions other than liberal
ones are inane and I didn't say that.
I said and have said in other threads that
some issues are beyond the scope of the
state level. You don't leave fundamental
civil rights up to individual states.
An American citizen has certain inalienable
rights. You do understand that Jim Crow
segregation was considered a state's right
issue? You know, if you don't like how
they do things in Alabama just keep your
ass out of Alabama.
I'm not going to argue abortion with you.
I believe it should be kept legal in all
fifty states for many reasons. Whether it
would ever be my personal choice is
irrelevant to my belief that it should
remain legal.
I don't think an issue like gay marriage
should be decided by voters. Civil rights
are not something you vote on.
The death penalty is not something that
should be decided on by politicians
with a eye out on how it will effect them
come election time. The federal
government and federal law exists
for a reason. The fifty states aren't
a bunch of fiefdoms who are only
connected by geography.




Yachtie -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 10:01:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple
The fifty states aren't
a bunch of fiefdoms who are only
connected by geography.


Actually, that just about exactly what they are supposed to be.




thishereboi -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 10:32:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Funny how cons flip-flop completely about the competence of government when comes to determining who the guilty are and executing them.....


Who flipped? It's perfectly within the power of any State to be as incompetent or competent as it desires. Do you not comprehend that State power to do something is, itself, not a moral question? What a State does may be judged morally, but not its power to do it. That's why it's ok, not that being ok is necessarily moral.




Funny how libs have no clue what they just read, but feel the need to respond anyway, just so they can use the word "cons" in a sentence.




Winterapple -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 10:37:28 AM)

Only those who are nostalgic for the Dark Ages
see fiefdoms as a good way to go.

We fought a civil war in the US to
wipe out the slave states and the
nonslave states thing. We are one
nation indivisible with justice for all.
The idea that individual states can
do as they want, when they want, if
they want is reactionary nonsense.


nation




vincentML -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 10:49:18 AM)

quote:

Comprehension issues again I see. How is it not a State's rights issue? How is the power of each State to determine its own laws where such is within the purview of the State? It's within that very determination of each State that one may argue morality, but not with the power of the State itself to make its own determination. That's why it's ok, not that being ok is necessarily moral.


By this logic the 10th Amendment trumps the rest of the Bill of Rights. So then a State can determine its own laws on freedom of speech and freedom of religion or cruel and unusual punishment??? I don't think so. Does the Eighth Amendment not trump the 10th by way of the 14th? I think so.




Yachtie -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 11:37:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Comprehension issues again I see. How is it not a State's rights issue? How is the power of each State to determine its own laws where such is within the purview of the State? It's within that very determination of each State that one may argue morality, but not with the power of the State itself to make its own determination. That's why it's ok, not that being ok is necessarily moral.


By this logic the 10th Amendment trumps the rest of the Bill of Rights. So then a State can determine its own laws on freedom of speech and freedom of religion or cruel and unusual punishment??? I don't think so. Does the Eighth Amendment not trump the 10th by way of the 14th? I think so.


Did you even think for one second before hitting submit?[8|]





kalikshama -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 12:17:27 PM)

Death Watch: Texas Goes Through With Wilson Execution

Supreme Court declines to intervene in case of man with IQ of 61

By Jordan Smith, 9:08AM, Wed. Aug. 8

Despite the lingering questions about Marvin Lee Wilson's mental abilities, both Gov. Rick Perry and the U.S. Supreme Court declined yesterday to intervene, clearing the way for Wilson's execution last night.

Even in death, questions remain about whether Wilson was actually mentally disabled – and questions persist as well about Texas' approach for determining whether a death-eligible defendant is mentally disabled. The Supremes ruled in 2002 that execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutional; despite that ruling, the state of Texas has failed to codify the ban, choosing instead to have the Court of Criminal Appeals define a set of "factors" that should be used to determine intellectual disability. Those factors, however, are short on science and long on fiction. (Find more on the issues in the Wilson case here.)

Certainly, the debate over who is disabled enough to be executed will continue.

Here is a statement from Wilson's attorney, Lee Kovarsky, after learning that the Supremes had declined to step in to stop Wilson's death:

"We are gravely disappointed and profoundly saddened that the United States Supreme Court has refused to intervene to prevent tonight's scheduled execution of Marvin Wilson, who has an I.Q. of 61, placing him below the first percentile of human intelligence. Ten years ago, this Court categorically barred states from executing people with mental retardation. Yet, tonight Texas will end the life of a man who was diagnosed with mental retardation by a court-appointed, board certified specialist.

“It is outrageous that the state of Texas continues to utilize unscientific guidelines, called the Briseño factors, to determine which citizens with intellectual disability are exempt from execution. The Briseño factors are not scientific tools, they are the decayed remainder of an uninformed stereotype that has been widely discredited by the nation's leading groups on intellectual disability, including the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. That neither the courts nor state officials have stopped this execution is not only a shocking failure of a once-promising constitutional commitment, it is also a reminder that, as a society, we haven't come quite that far in understanding how so many of those around us live with intellectual disabilities."

And here are the details of Wilson's execution, including his last statement:

OFFENDER: Marvin Wilson #999098

EXECUTION DATE: August 7, 2012

PRONOUNCED DECEASED: 6:27 p.m.

LAST STATEMENT:

“Bohannon, Peg and Kim I love ya’ll. Son, get your life right with Christ, also your mother. Give mom a hug for me and tell her that I love her. Y'all do understand that I came here a sinner and leaving a saint. Take me home Jesus, take me home Lord, Take me home Lord. I ain’t left yet, must be a miracle. I am a miracle. I see you Rich, don’t cry son, don’t cry baby. I love ya’ll, I’m ready.”




Marini -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 1:40:44 PM)

quote:

Wrong answer. Definitely a simple answer that might appeal to simple minds but nevertheless an utterly wrong answer.

It's never OK to execute the mentally ill. Just the same as it's never OK to execute a child, which demands the same amount of 'courage' or more accurately cowardice . It's a moral issue, not a State's rights issue.


tweaky, what you are saying is the morally correct point of view.

In the United States over 60 people HAVE been executed in the United States that were classified as mentally ill, in the last 19 years.

death penalty.org

Many people with below normal IQ's, have been sentenced and put to death in the United States.

Just LAST WEEK, Texas executed a man with an IQ of 61, which is 9 points below normal.

See details in post # 53.




kdsub -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 3:40:19 PM)

quote:

Many people with below normal IQ's, have been sentenced and put to death in the United States.


May I ask...what difference does a low IQ make when it comes to murder. I happen to know more that a few mentally handicapped individuals and none of them would dream of hurting a fly let alone another human being. It is demeaning for you to even hint that low IQ makes a murderer.

All low IQ does is perhaps make them easier to apprehend...Low IQ should have no bearing or weight at a sentencing hearing.

You must remember these are not poor disenfranchised people lashing out at a society…they are murderers plain and simple and deserve all we can give them in punishment.

Butch




JstAnotherSub -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 3:54:38 PM)



Marvin Wilson is on death row for the 1992 kidnapping and murder of a police informant, 21-year-old Jerry Williams.

On November 4, 1992, police officers entered Wilson’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant. Jerry Williams was the confidential informant whose information enabled them to obtain the warrant. Williams entered and left the apartment minutes before the police went in.

Wilson, another man and a juvenile female were present in the apartment. Over 24 grams of cocaine were found, and Wilson and the other man were arrested for possession of a controlled substance. Wilson was subsequently released on bond, but the other man remained in jail.

Sometime after the incident, Wilson told a friend that someone had “snitched” on Wilson, that the “snitch” was never going to have the chance to “to have someone else busted,” and that Wilson “was going to get him.”

On November 9, 1992, several observers saw an incident take place in the parking lot in front of a grocery store. In the parking lot, Wilson stood over Williams and beat him. Wilson asked Williams, “What do you want to be a snitch for? Do you know what we do to a snitch? Do you want to die right here?”

In response, Williams begged for his life. A friend of Wilson's, Andrew Lewis, was pumping gasoline in his car at the time. Williams ran away from Wilson and across the street to a field. Wilson pursued Williams and caught him. Lewis drove his car to the field and while Williams struggled against them, Wilson and Lewis forced Williams into the car.

At some point during this incident, either in front of Mike’s Grocery, across the street, or at both places, Lewis participated in hitting Williams and Wilson asked Lewis: “Where’s the gun?” Wilson told Lewis to get the gun and said that he (Wilson) wanted to kill Williams.

They drove toward a Mobil refinery. Two other witnesses drove back to their apartments, which were close by, and when they arrived, they heard what sounded like gunshots from the direction of the Mobil plant.

Sometime after the incident, Wilson told his wife, in the presence of Lewis and his wife, “Baby, you remember the n***** I told you I was going to get? I did it. I don’t know if he dead or what, but I left him there to die.” When Lewis's wife looked back at her husband, Wilson stated, “Don’t be mad at him because he did not do it. I did it.”

On November 10, 1992, a bus driver noticed Williams’ dead body on the side of a road. The autopsy report concluded that Williams died from close range gunshot wounds to the head and neck.


http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/wilson-marvin-lee.htm


He wasn't too mentally ill to have 24 grams of cocaine.
He wasn't too mentally ill to plot to kill , find, and kill a man, who begged for his life.
Sorry, he does not deserve a "break" for some sort of mental illness now, that it serves him.
Lots of talks about Wilsons rights, let us not forget the person he brutally murdered.

One less oxygen thief in the world.

I am good with that.




vincentML -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 4:43:57 PM)

quote:

May I ask...what difference does a low IQ make when it comes to murder. I happen to know more that a few mentally handicapped individuals and none of them would dream of hurting a fly let alone another human being. It is demeaning for you to even hint that low IQ makes a murderer.


I don't see where Marini is saying that but she can defend herself.

My question to you is if low IQ is not a barrier to execution why should youth be a barrier? Or do you think children should be executed equally with adults?




Musicmystery -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 4:48:58 PM)

quote:

Legally ordained murder. Wow! Isn't that what abortion is?


That depends on at what point human life begins. If you could establish that, the debate would be over.

In the meantime, execution and war are clearly legally ordained murder, with no doubt we're terminating human life. When the "right-to-lifers" get behind that, I'll take their rhetoric seriously. Until then, it's partisan noise.




PeonForHer -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 5:39:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Many people with below normal IQ's, have been sentenced and put to death in the United States.


May I ask...what difference does a low IQ make when it comes to murder. I happen to know more that a few mentally handicapped individuals and none of them would dream of hurting a fly let alone another human being. It is demeaning for you to even hint that low IQ makes a murderer.


Ah! Thanks, Butch. I've been looking for a really clear example of a 'straw man argument' to explain the idea to my niece. :-)




mnottertail -> RE: Executing the Mentally Ill (8/9/2012 5:48:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Legally ordained murder. Wow! Isn't that what abortion is?


That depends on at what point human life begins. If you could establish that, the debate would be over.

In the meantime, execution and war are clearly legally ordained murder, with no doubt we're terminating human life. When the "right-to-lifers" get behind that, I'll take their rhetoric seriously. Until then, it's partisan noise.


The debate is actually over on this one, there is whining and caterwauling about it, but SCOTUS settled it in Roe v. Wade.

Life begins at the point where there is a high chance of viability outside the womb.

Thats why abortion is illegal after about 28 weeks in some states. 




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625