Too old for death penalty?

[peregrinerose 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/03/elderly.execution.ap/index.html

Sorry, I'm clicky impaired. I'm sure someone will remedy that. But how can "I'm too old and sick" be a legitimate reason to not be put to death? "I didn't do it" I understand, but "I'm too old to die???"

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[tunaplanet 0]

Clicky

Forty-two

[billvon 3,120]

>But how can "I'm too old and sick" be a legitimate reason to not be put to death?

Seems to me that "I'm going to die next week" would be a good reason to just keep the guy in jail and let nature take its course, rather than spend the money on the endless appeals that precede any execution (or even on the execution itself.)

[wmw999 2,589]

The murder was committed 27 years ago. He suffers from senile dementia.

Whether or not you're for or against the death penalty, it's not much of a deterrent under these circumstances. It won't be saving much money for the state, and all it does it sate a little bit of blood lust.

He doesn't sound like a nice man; on the other hand, killing someone deliberately (which the death penalty really is doing) should be different from this. Sure it's the law. But what's the purpose of the law -- just to exist and be served in this particular way?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>But how can "I'm too old and sick" be a legitimate reason to not be put to death?

Seems to me that "I'm going to die next week"

if he doesn't die next week do they reschedule?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

all it does it sate a little bit of blood lust.

And don't forget that little pesky thing called justice.

Interesting to see you're against the state following through with it's plan to uphold the law and adhere to the court's decision.

Forty-two

[Nightingale 0]

anyone who is mildly retarded and suffering from dimentia deserves at least to have the case evaluated.

[Jib 0]

Haven't they had 27 years?
I delayed for so long they can't kill me defense?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

anyone who is mildly retarded and suffering from dimentia deserves at least to have the case evaluated.

Strongly disagree with that opinion. I don't care if they're the most retarded human on the planet or 128 years old. If they break the law in a manner which constitutes the possibility of them being put to death....Adios.

It's called luck of the draw. Natural selection. I have no sympathy for those who kill.

Forty-two

[Nightingale 0]

in Atkins v. Virginia, 122S.Ct.2242 (June 20, 2002), the supreme court ruled that the execution of any individual with mental retardation violates the 8th amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court concluded that the execution of persons with mental retardation would not "measurably contribute" to either deterrence or retribution in the criminal justice system. "Construing and applying the eighth amendment in the light of our evolving standards of decency, we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life of a mentally retarded offender."

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Interesting to see you're against the state following through with it's (sic) plan to uphold the law and adhere to the court's decision.

Why is it interesting? Please elaborate so I can understand.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DrunkMonkey 0]

We euthanize a dangerous dog who has harmed a person, right? IMHO, it is no stretch to do so to someone equally as dangerous, and due to their diminished capacities, just as conscious of their actions...

[billvon 3,120]

> We euthanize a dangerous dog who has harmed a person, right?

We euthanize dogs after they are "used up" after medical experiments, too. People are not dogs. Different rules apply.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

> We euthanize a dangerous dog who has harmed a person, right?

We euthanize dogs after they are "used up" after medical experiments, too. People are not dogs. Different rules apply.

Murderers forefeit their right to their own life when they take that of another...

[Nightingale 0]

maybe in the time of Hammurabi. not according to the laws of the United States.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Fine-murderers get to spend the rest of their existence getting a$$-raped in prison. Justice is served.

[Jib 0]

I'm not aware of case which holds that a person gets to change the penalty imposed because time elapsed.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

in Atkins v. Virginia, 122S.Ct.2242 (June 20, 2002), the supreme court ruled that the execution of any individual with mental retardation violates the 8th amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court concluded that the execution of persons with mental retardation would not "measurably contribute" to either deterrence or retribution in the criminal justice system. "Construing and applying the eighth amendment in the light of our evolving standards of decency, we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life of a mentally retarded offender."

Is that in the case of someone who is of diminished capacity at the time of the crime, trial, or later?

Just another example of humans resisting the laws of nature and Darwin.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Nightingale 0]

he's mentally retarded. therefore, he's covered under Atkins (2002).

[PhillyKev 0]

Agreed. Personally, I don't understand what argument there is for the death penalty other than revenge. It's well proven and not even in dispute that compared to life in prison; it costs more, it is no more of a deterrent, has no effect on the safety of the public, and when applied mistakenly cannot be rectified.

[Nightingale 0]

from what I read, it appears to be at the time of sentencing, as well as at the time the sentence is going to be carried out.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Agreed. Personally, I don't understand what argument there is for the death penalty other than revenge. It's well proven and not even in dispute that compared to life in prison; it costs more, it is no more of a deterrent, has no effect on the safety of the public, and when applied mistakenly cannot be rectified.

Heh...you said "rectified" after I recommended the killer get perpetually assraped...heh..

His life oughta be a recurring nightmare of that really nasty scene from "The Shawshank Redemption."

[Jib 0]

Quote

he's mentally retarded. therefore, he's covered under Atkins (2002).

His IQ has been assessed at 80 -- not quite Atkins material. He was out after serving 20 years for murder and claimed the 62 year old woman he was living with committed suicide.

I found this too: http://www.ccadp.org/jameshubbard.htm

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Nightingale 0]

Thanks for the link! I just sent a fax to the governor of Alabama opposing the execution.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I just sent a fax to the governor of Alabama opposing the execution.

I'm sure the governor will now halt the executin over your fax. From anyone else, no. But for you, yes.



Hope he dies painfully.

Forty-two