It is not acceptable to execute anyone.  Judicial killings are a primitive characteristic in any society however 'sophisticated' it purports to be.  

Incidentally 'civilised' has nothing to do with fairness, respect for humanity or rights.  Ancient Rome was civilised, as was medieval Europe, Genghis Khan's Mongolia and the Mayans the Aztecs and the Incas.   

Dear colleague

please look at this link

https://theintercept.com/2015/05/20/mentally-ill-executed/

regards 

Mentally ill has to pass his life in his unhealthy movement which is whereby the behavior of such mentally retired individual passing his life in a disturbing mode & the connected members of the family are also passing under the stress for seeing & watching the mentally ill person .

Mentally ill person is nothing  but his action of his past previous lives for which he is suffering in this line by creating equally disturbing problems to the parents.

For this some time back i have submitted my presentation under the captioned '' Mental Disorder'' .I wonder how my presentation may relate with the mentally ill person but in the line with my observation & understanding i have submitted my presentation for your perusal & also for our valued readers.

This is may be viewed as my personal opinion 

"I believe that this is a straightforward case of mental illness. It's not even mental illness, it is idiocy. According to what I read, this person is basically an idiot, or someone with intellectual disability."

Are you saying he has mental retardation (usually congenital), ie very low IQ, or mental illness (usually acquired), which occurs at all IQ levels?

"It is not acceptable to execute anyone."

I agree, but my question has more to do with the responsibility of the mentally ill.  Do they commit crimes because they chose to do so, that they are BAD people?

A cohesive society functions best through normative behaviour.  In general we consider it to be 'wrong' to harm others  Without such behavioural norms it would be difficult to anticipate the behaviour of others. Societies develop cultural boundaries to delineate these accepted norms, and a legal framework to deal with serious transgressions.  

A key question here is whether it is ever right for groups or society to make exceptions to those norms.  Thus if an individual transgresses, breaks the law, they might be punished.  Punishment is itself inflicting harm, but this is generally accepted within the rule of law. It sets the boundaries of behaviour beyond which an individual might be punished and hopefully rehabilitated.  So where should these boundaries be and what kinds of judicial action is acceptable. 

Punishment is often said to be a deterrent, but a society works best by people operating within accepted boundaries, not through fear of punishment.  Central to these accepted norms is that it is wrong to kill.  Revenge is not part of the judicial process.  An 'eye for an eye' approach to punishment itself transgresses our normative rules. A society is stronger the less it depends on such rigid approaches to transgressions. Cooperative behaviour and mutual benefit is better than coercion and punishment. This is because it builds and consolidates trust through mutual endeavour. Imagine if all that governed our behaviour  was the fear of being punished. Such an approach breeds distrust. 

A key question in any transgression is whether the culprit was aware of the consequences of their actions, should have been so aware,  and are able to take responsibility for their behaviour. If their mental state was such that they were not so aware and enabled, then any form sentence or judicial account should reflect this. It would serve little purpose to execute someone who is not so aware. It is a moot point in any event whether the death penalty serves any purpose other than to avenge for a given crime. It is often said that punishment should fit the crime, but this is rather simplistic.  It should be perhaps proportionate to the crime, and this does not mean like for like, or 'eye for an eye'.  It needs to address whether a sentence fulfils the objectives not solely of punishment, but also of consolidated notions of right from wrong, and of rehabilitation. If the Lesson is simply that if you transgress you will be killed, it is a poor lesson.  

I agree with Barry Turners response which is that judicial killing should be no part of a civilised society. 

I have met many bad mentally ill people and many good ones.  Mentally ill people are not detached from everyday experience and are capable of moral turpitude just like everyone else.

We do not however seek to punish people because they are bad and we cannot simply measure crime, even murder in terms of good and bad acts.   The question still brings us to ask whether we should execute anyone, whether that is also a morally repugnant act.  

Judicial killings serve no purpose except base revenge, not retribution plain old nasty revenge.  They demean any society that claims to hold human life sacred and however satisfying revenge might feel it has never solved anything.  An eye for an eye leads to everyone being blind. 

Mental illness should be treated as a separate case when a patient commit a criminal act. Execution should be justified on that basis differently than normal people.

Regards

SM Najim 

"A key question in any transgression is whether the culprit was aware of the consequences of their actions, should have been so aware,  and are able to take responsibility for their behaviour. If their mental state was such that they were not so aware and enabled, then any form sentence or judicial account should reflect this."

I am no lawyer, but my understanding is that this is basically the current legal position.   Which is why so many of the mentally ill end up in prison or worse, since they generally are quite aware that they are breaking the law, but either cannot stop themselves or are led by their delusions to think their behaviour was justified. 

At last some support for the general US attitude to mental illness and the law:

"Dylann Roof does not want jurors to consider his mental health when they decide next month if he should face the death penalty for killing nine black Charleston church worshippers, according to a handwritten motion he filed.

Roof’s decision late on Friday to not call mental health experts to testify is not too much of a surprise. In his hate-filled, racist journal read to the jury during his trial, Roof said he did not believe in psychology.

“It is a Jewish invention and does nothing but invent diseases and tell people they have problems when they don’t,” Roof wrote.

Roof, 22, is acting as his own lawyer during the penalty phase of his trial, which starts on 3 January."

The Guardian Dec 17th 2016

It is interesting that the words hate-filled are used in this debate.  Dylann Roof is a hideously dysfunctional character, racist, murdeous and perverse.  It is obvious that he cannot function in normal society unless some 'miraculous cure' can change him from what he is.

None of that matters of course.  The desire of the state or those within it to kill him can only be a manifestation of something hate-filled.   Retribution is a poor form of justice that leads only to more retribution.

If you want him dead then at least say it is because you hate him. 

"Dylann Roof is a hideously dysfunctional character, racist, murdeous and perverse."

So, Barry, you agree with Roof that no evidence as to his mental state should be introduced into Court.   Presumably you think that the Independent Psychiatrist below was fraudulent, or at least irrelevant.   Roof is far from the only example of someone preferring to be executed than have evidence of their mental illness submitted.  If Roof's multiple diagnoses are held to have no effect on his crimes or ability to engage in Court, then what is the point of Psychiatry?  Or indeed of psychologists like Thomas Hiers -- just an interfering busybody?

"In early December, defense attorneys asked the judge for certain accommodations to help the 22-year-old killer navigate his death penalty trial. In that motion, they referenced psychiatric disorders that an independent doctor had diagnosed during an earlier examination.

Dr. James Ballenger, a local forensic psychiatrist, found that Roof showed signs of “Social Anxiety Disorder, a Mixed Substance Abuse Disorder, a Schizoid Personality Disorder, depression by history, and a possible Autistic Spectrum Disorder," the court filing indicates...

The newly unsealed motion also states that the defense "offered evidence of an autism diagnosis by a highly-qualified autism expert" at a closed-door hearing to determine whether Roof was competent to stand trial.

The competency hearing also included evidence that Roof had a high IQ "compromised by a significant discrepancy between his ability to comprehend and to process information and a poor working memory,” the motion said.

That competency hearing was held before testimony began in the guilt phase of Roof's trial in December. Gergel ruled then that Roof was competent to understand the charges and punishments he faced and could assist his attorneys with his case.

Defense attorneys argued that accommodations were necessary given the effects of his mental illness, including excessive focus on non-essential details, difficulty processing multiple simultaneous information sources, trouble shifting between subjects and activities, and an extreme need for predictability and routine. Roof's attorneys asked Gergel to provide more breaks, shorter court days, and permission to break as needed when Roof became overwhelmed with the volume of information...

"The Court has found Defendant mentally competent to stand trial, and, indeed, Defendant was extremely engaged during his two-day competency hearing," the judged states in his ruling. 

Roof was convicted in December of 33 federal offenses stemming from the June 17, 2015, church shooting. He chose to represent himself during the trial's penalty phase in an effort to block his legal team from introducing evidence about his mental health history. He told the jury that he had no mental illness and nothing to hide.

"There's nothing wrong with me," he said in his opening statement. 

Unsealed filings show his attorneys did not agree and labored to convince the judge that additional evidence about his mental health and behaviors should be presented to the jury. 

In a Dec. 13 motion, the defense sought to elicit testimony about Roof's withdrawal from society, extreme social isolation, depression, lack of coping skills and other factors.

The motion described one instance, uncovered by the FBI, in which Roof posted an anonymous ad on Craigslist seeking a companion to accompany him to Charleston for a historical tour. Dr. Thomas Hiers, a retired child psychologist, spotted the ad in February 2015 and was struck by its blunt message advising "No Jews, queers or (N-word)s." Hiers reached out to Roof through Craigslist, suggested that he expand his world view and offered to pay him a quarter for every TED talk he watched online, the motion stated.

Roof thanked Hiers for the suggestion but said he could not take his advice because "I am in bed, so depressed I cannot get out of bed. My life is wasted. I have no friends even though I am cool. I am going back to sleep," the motion states.

The motion also references statements from Roof's former co-workers at a Columbia-area pest control company who painted a picture of a distant, aloof and odd young man who spoke in a monotone and seldom smiled. Roof told one co-worker he had no hobbies and did nothing after work but sit in his bedroom. When the co-worker asked if he played video games, Roof replied: "No, I literally look at the walls."

Roof is currently housed in a protective custody cell at the Charleston County jail, awaiting his state trial on murder charges. He was sentenced to death last month after his conviction in federal court. He faces another potential death sentence in the state proceedings. No date has been set for that trial."

The Post and Courier Feb 2 2017

Anthony

I don't presume anything.  I am opposed to the death penalty for all so it is largely irellevant whether Roof is insane or not. 

"it is largely irellevant whether Roof is insane or not."

So you basically agree with Roof, his jury, and the majority of US public opinion. 

The question of mental illness cannot be ducked regardless of what punishment is selected.   And if his mental illness is not recognised, he will be left to rot untreated in the prison system.  How can the mentally ill get a fair hearing when they are characterised thus:

Dylann Roof is a hideously dysfunctional character, racist, murdeous and perverse.

   It is precisely this sort of attribution that results in the prisons taking over the "care" of the mentally ill from the old asylums.

Anthony

When I studied medical ethics I was led to believe that autonomy was a fundamental pillar of ethics.  When I studied law and later when I practiced in the criminal courts I tended to go with the idea that juries, as triers of fact were the gold standard of justice.  I am not too concerned with public opinion, it rarely indicates anything.  

I am sorry but I do not suscribe to the 'mad or bad' theory of criminal justice.  That individual murdered innocent people because he wanted to.  While I do not think that even a hideous example of humanity as he is should be executed I would not be shedding any tears over his incarceration in the prison system.  That is where murderers belong.

I am unsure what your suggestion is here, is it that all racist murderers are considered 'ill'. 

"I was led to believe that autonomy was a fundamental pillar of ethics."

Probably a good general rule for the population at large, possibly for most of the mentally ill, but a total disaster for the severely mentally ill.   Every day in London I pass by street sleepers who are obviously mentally ill but incapable of using the services provided for them.  Any society that does not see this as a scandal is delusional if not clearly mentally ill itself.  Expecting autonomy from those who lack the ability to formulate their autonomy or act in their own best interests is as much an example of faulty reasoning as occurs in many with severe psychosis.

"I do not suscribe to the 'mad or bad' theory of criminal justice."

Neither do I.  For a start, three main criminal clusters can be identified: mad, bad and sad.  Then, they are not independent, but interact.   So, I am saying that in many cases, madness causes badness. 

Racism has many causes:  genetic, family environment, social norms, etc.  In a few cases it is a result of mental illness.  I don't think it makes any sense to propose that racism is simply a voluntary choice, made quite arbitrarily irrespective of a person's history and of influences beyond their control.  One exception is racism released by drugs (see my RG question on this).  Once under their influence, racist comments are likely even if never expressed at other times.  So the person has a duty to avoid intoxication, and society needs to take drug abuse, especially from alcohol, far more seriously. 

Denying autonomy to those who are mentally ill is as unjust as denying them intervention when they want it.  I have many years (decades in fact) of working with the mentally ill, from front line acute admission through supporting them and their relatives in achieving the correct drug regimens and establshing MHA 1983 rights to facilitating discharge from hospital.

I have long ago lost count of the 'mentally ill' people I have worked with and I hope helped in their crises.  In the vast majority of cases they had autonomy, sometimes attenuated by their illness but very very rarely absent altogether.  Very, very few of them were criminals, dangerous in any way (except maybe to themselves) or bad.  All of them wanted to be allowed to decide their own lifes.

I have also had the privilege of working with vicious, nasty and evil criminals who regard the rest of the population, especially the vulnerable as prey.   They belong in jail!

"I have also had the privilege of working with vicious, nasty and evil criminals"

This sort of binary thinking should be left to the tabloids, lawyers and politicians.  Of course no one wants to stand up for the vicious, nasty and evil psychotics.  Badness trumps madness.

This book review discusses "the overrepresentation of mentally ill persons behind bars", so this bias is not just confined to death row.  I don't see how there is any other explanation other than that the mentally ill are being discriminated against and/or blamed and punished for their illness:

"The percentage of inmates with mental illness has been steadily increasing, with rates more than quadrupling from 1998 to 2006... Many have attributed this trend to the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill persons beginning in the 1960s, when mental hospitals... began closing their doors.  It is estimated that more than two million arrests in the United States each year involve people with severe mental illness, and on any given day in the United States, there are approximately 550,000 people with serious mental illness in our jails and prisons.   Jails and prisons have become places where a disproportionate number of people with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders spend significant amounts of time."

DL Lish Am J Psychiatry 2016;173:1048

I guess it boils down to, do we want to separate mentally ill people from the rest of the population.  That is the problem not the solution.  Mentally ill people get banged up in the most hideous places and circumstances even if they don't commit crimes.  

I sincerely hope Anthony that you are not advocating the return of the asylum system.  It is not the closing of the hideous psychiatric hospitals that puts the 'mentally ill' behind bars, its the failure of the rest of the population to accomodate them. 

Arkansas is shortly going to kill someone with paranoid schizophrenia.  Am I the only person bothered by this?

Would any RG reader in the US care to defend this outrage?

"BLOG / JULY 14, 2017

William Morva executed in Virginia in spite of pleas for clemency

“The execution of a man suffering from severe mental illness is an act of particular barbarism — especially if his condition may have been misdiagnosed in trial,” the Washington Post wrote  about the William Morva case late last month. But that editorial, as well as one that ran in the LA Post Examiner declaring that, “There are many good, even honorable reasons, for Governor McAuliffe to spare Mr. Morva’s life,” had no effect on Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who turned a deaf ear to pleas that Morva’s sentence be commuted to life without parole, and instead allowed him to be executed last week, July 6, for killing two people, a security guard and a sheriff’s deputy, in 2006.

We interviewed Morva’s attorney Dawn Davison in last month’s issue of the Focus, where she explained that as he entered his teens, Morva became increasingly irrational and consumed by delusions. He dropped out of high school in his senior year and eventually claimed to live in the Virginia woods. After being held in a county jail for a year awaiting trial on attempted robbery charges, his mental condition deteriorated even further. In 2006, after receiving medical treatment at a local hospital, Morva disarmed the deputy escorting him, and fatally shot a hospital security guard during his escape. The following day he shot and killed a sheriff’s deputy.

“He maintains he did what anyone would have done,” Davison says. “He thinks what he did was self-defense. What he doesn’t understand or believe is that he is mentally ill, which is common with people with who suffer from psychotic delusional disorder. They believe their delusions are reality.”

Davison says that the jury was never fully informed of the extent of Morva’s mental illness. In fact, trial experts told jurors he simply had “odd beliefs” and that he didn’t suffer delusions. (Just before he was sentenced to death Morva told the court he was renouncing his “slave name” and was now to be called “Nemo.”)

“If the death penalty is for the worst of the worst, then a person whose actions are driven by an illness over which he has no control can’t be defined as being the worst of the worst. And I have a hard time believing that 12 reasonable jurors who heard that evidence would have sentenced that person to death,” Davison says.

Morva’s attorneys appealed to McAuliffe to commute Morva’s sentence based on his mental illness. Tens of thousands of people from around the country and beyond signed online petitions, emailed and called the governor, and tweeted for clemency. Two United Nations representatives released a statement calling for clemency, stating, “We are deeply concerned about information we have received indicating that Mr. Morva’s original trial did not meet fair trial safeguards, which include reasonable accommodation in all stages of the process, and may therefore have breached international standards.”

But the day Morva was scheduled to be executed,  McAuliffe issued a press release stating, “I personally oppose the death penalty; however, I took an oath to uphold the laws of this Commonwealth regardless of my personal views of those laws, as long as they are being fairly and justly applied,” and allowed the execution to go forward.

“McAuliffe’s excuse rings hollow. In Virginia, as elsewhere, the death penalty is never mandatory, and a governor may stop an execution any time he believes it is right to do so. As the Florida State Supreme Court once wrote, ‘An executive may grant a pardon for good reasons or bad, or for any reason at all, and his act is final and irrevocable,’” Austin Sarat wrote in Cognoscenti.

Gov. McAuliffe could have shown courage and empathy, and commuted Morva’s sentence to life without parole, and allowed him to get the psychiatric medications he needed, his demons at bay, of no threat to anyone. It would have been an act of mercy, and been in line with the teachings of the Catholic faith that McAuliffe purports to follow. But political calculations and personal cowardice are powerful motivations, and it appears both played a role in McAuliffe’s decision to allow this act of barbarism to go forward."

No wonder the US legal system cannot or will not recognize a delusional offender, since it is so delusional itself.  I doubt my own sanity when reading this account, especially the section I have highlighted in Bold.

"BLOG / JULY 14, 2017

U.S. appeals court rules for mentally ill Texas death row inmate

“We will now reverse the district court’s denial of appointed counsel and expert funding . . . vacate its factual findings relating to Panetti’s competency, and remand for additional proceedings, another chapter in this judicial plunge into the dark forest of insanity and death directed by the flickering and inevitably elusive guides.”

With that dramatic opening statement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sent the case of Scott Panetti, a mentally ill man, back to a U.S. District Court, with an order to the court to appoint a new lawyer for him and authorize federal funds for a mental health expert and investigator to assist in his defense.

Panetti, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who was convicted of killing his wife’s parents in 1992, represented himself at his trial in 1995, and attempted to call as his witnesses the pope, Jesus Christ, and John F. Kennedy. He was found guilty and sentenced to death, but appealed his conviction based on his mental incompetence. He was granted stays of execution in 2004 and 2014, and in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked his execution, saying a condemned inmate must have the mental capacity to know he is going to be executed and understand why.

In this week’s ruling the appeals court wrote, “We need not and do not treat the merits of Panetti’s claim that he is incompetent to be executed—that is for the district court after Panetti has been afforded the opportunity to develop his position. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying Panetti funding for counsel and for experts to assist in preparing his contemplated federal habeas petition.”

The Texas Tribune reports that following the ruling, Panetti’s defense attorneys issued a statement saying, “We are grateful that the court found that Mr. Panetti’s nearly four decades of documented schizophrenia and severe mental illness provided a sufficient showing to obtain experts and resources to pursue the claim that he is currently incompetent for execution.”

“There is no justification for executing the insane, and no reasoned support for it, as only a glance at the brief of amici—filed by able and fervent citizens spanning the spectrum of political views—will confirm,” the Fifth Circuit wrote in its ruling.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has not found that it is unconstitutional to sentence a mentally ill defendant to death, only that an insane person cannot be executed. And, as the New York Times pointed out in a recent article on the death penalty and the mentally ill, “‘ insane’ is narrowly defined as ‘those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it’ — a definition that excludes most people with severe mental illness.”

Which means, as Think Progress writes, “This rule creates a bizarre framework whereby an inmate who flashes back and forth between periods of delusion and moments of sanity may be killed so long as the execution occurs while the inmate is lucid. It encourages the very kind of never-ending litigation that characterizes the Panetti case, and potentially pulls prosecutors into the ghoulish task of repeatedly asking a court’s permission to kill a person whose mental state is in flux. . . .” subjecting Scott Panetti to “a very peculiar form of torture.”

With people on all sides now relying on the will of the people and referendums to decide complex issues, here is what is soon likely to happen in the UK to someone clearly psychotic (the reporter here did not feel it necessary to state that Crossley had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia!):

"91-Year-Old Pushed Onto Tube Tracks Sobs As Assailant Is Convicted Of Attempted Murder

📷Sara C Nelson HuffPost UK 5 October 2018...

Crossley told jurors his victims were chosen at random but claimed he had not intended to kill them.

But he was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder on Friday.

The Recorder of London, Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, adjourned sentencing for reports.

Sir Robert, who sat in the public gallery with his arms folded, showed no emotion as the verdicts were read out.

But he sobbed after the jury left the court, removing his glasses to wipe away tears.

Prosecutor Benjamin Aina QC said Sir Robert was “in a very bad way” following the attack, but added: “Fortunately he has recovered. He is able to walk and go about his normal affairs.”

11 reactions📷GuidelinesPost1 viewingTop reactions

• 📷2019 hours ago Why is Crossley allowed to wander around freely?ReplyReplies (2)15
• 📷snowball19 hours ago Well done to the brave man who rescued him putting his own life at risk but still begs the question what was the motive behind these assaults or was it another care in the community nut job?Reply162
• 📷Y11 hours ago Not the most enriched...is he?Reply4
• 📷Y11 hours ago And a Muslim man to the rescue. This board will go very silent now.Reply114
• 📷Dave9919 hours ago When will these multimillionaire business people get themselves minders. What is to stop vicious gangs kidnapping them or some nut in London stabbing them up. Rich vulnerable 90 odd year old millionaires out on their own with their 'independence' in hand, it's totally daft!. This is 2018 not 1948, times have changed, in many ways not for the better either. Rich types and Celebs learn from this, get yourself a minder, or do some people have more money than sense.ReplyReplies (2)33
• 📷zzz2 hours ago You mean to tell me, my fears ff this happening could actually happen? OnfgReply1
• 📷Patricia2 hours ago What is the matter with the males of this world?! every day there are more stories of rape, murder and violence of all kinds, can the real men sort out your kind, please!ReplyReplies (1)1
• 📷iain19 hours ago Another nutterReplyReplies (1)7
• 📷PANTHA2 hours ago Put him down as you would with a rabid dog, he is no use, and a danger to people.Reply21
• 📷P2 hours ago Hang him!Reply31
• 📷ann18 hours ago Hang himReply1624"

I do not know if there was mental illness in this case, but this possibility was surely not seriously considered. Below are the top replies to this news item. As these comments make clear, the paramount consideration is justice for the family, in which case the mental state of the perpetrator is irrelevant. With the inexorable rise of populism, we will end up in the UK with this situation (only 2% disapproved). Who will protect the psychotic from outrage?

"Yahoo News UK [Oct 17 2018]

A Pakistani man convicted of murdering and raping a seven-year-old child has been executed.

Imran Ali was hanged in the eastern city of Lahore in the presence of the father of seven-year-old Zainab Ansari, whose rape and murder in January ignited nationwide outrage.

Imran was arrested two weeks after he threw her body into a rubbish dump in the city of Kasur in Punjab province.

After his arrest, Imran confessed to the other killings and was convicted in court for the deaths of six other girls...

Comments Sign in to post a comment.

• Top
• Starr 1 hr agoMy head tells me this is wrong, but my heart is JUMPING FOR JOY. Show replies (13) Reply 121 9
  • 📷
  • Giac 41 mins agoI know it is not right but I don't feel it is wrong either. My first thoughts are for the final moment of this little innocent girl Show replies (1) Reply 28 2
  • 📷
  • fred 1 hr agoJustice. Reply 56 2
  • 📷
  • mac 54 mins agoCould do with a bit of that justice here. Show replies (2) Reply 51 1
  • 📷
  • Roy R 48 mins agoBrilliant Outcome, Justice served for heinous crime, No TV and a nice warm cell costing Taxpayers a fortune for life. Job Done. Reply 33 1
  • 📷
  • diap 1 hr agoThis is justice, well done Show replies (12) Reply 118 7
  • 📷
  • Mike J 50 mins agoGood news day. Show replies (1) Reply 21
  • 📷
  • Bacon Sarnie Brigade 1 hr agoProper justice ..! Reply 72 2
  • 📷
  • stu 1 hr agoI can see me coming around to some of this cultures beliefs . Not many but this yeah all day long . Show replies (4) Reply 76 5
  • 📷
  • Planet Of Freaks 2 hrs agoTo me although an archaic way of death i feel justice was well served. No messing get the job done. Good riddance. Show replies (1) Reply 121 4 "

Three judges in the Supreme Court think it is OK to execute someone on Death Row 33y who has no idea why he is being executed. I suspect there are SC judges who have no idea why they were appointed in the first place!

BLOG / MARCH 8, 2019 [Death Penalty Focus]

SCOTUS rules in favor of Alabama man suffering from dementia

If Alabama were to go ahead with its plan to execute 68-year-old Vernon Madison, he wouldn’t know why. Because of several strokes over the past few years, he has vascular dementia, which has left him with no memory of the crime that sent him to death row 33 years ago. And, because the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment precludes executing a prisoner who doesn’t understand the reasons why he’s being put to death, the U.S. Supreme Court last week threw out a state court ruling allowing Madison’s execution to go forward and ordered the lower court to reconsider his case.

The 5-3 decision was written by Justice Elena Kagan, with Justices Roberts, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor concurring.

Reading a summary of her ruling from the bench, Kagan said, “Based on our review of the record, we can’t be sure that the state court recognized that Madison’s dementia might render him incompetent to be executed,” according to NBC News. 

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joining in."

"BLOG / MAY 10, 2019 [Death penalty Focus]

Texas may finally redefine intellectual disability

Seventeen years after the U.S. Supreme Court found in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled prisoners constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Texas House last week approved by voice vote a bipartisan measure that would put in place a system to determine whether a defendant has intellectual disabilities and is therefore ineligible for execution....

In another possible change to the state’s death penalty scheme, on Thursday the House passed, by a vote of 77-66, HB 1936, which, the Tribune reports, would prohibit sentencing to death a defendant who suffers from a severe mental illness. Evidence would be presented at trial that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime and, if the jury agrees, the defendant would be sentenced to life without parole if found guilty."

Comment

I suppose this is progress, even though 66 representatives still think it perfectly acceptable to kill a paranoid schizophrenic. If the homicide is particularly shocking and was carefully planned, the likelihood of a jury ignoring the mental illness is extremely high.

"Grandmother beaten to death by woman who thought people were 'out to get her'

Sky News 19 hours ago

A woman with a history of mental illness beat a 64-year-old grandmother to death in her own garden and left her body underneath a stone bird bath, a court heard.

Sherry Moore, 55, battered neighbour Sue Atkinson with a metal pole and later told police: "I'm a bad person, I killed a lady, I need to be in prison."...

A post-mortem found the grandmother died from blunt force trauma and suffered more than 100 injuries to her head, neck and chest.

Prosecutors told Hull Crown Court that Moore, from Hull, had been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and believed she was under threat from people who were "out to get her".

She had reportedly been admitted to psychiatric hospital at least 12 times but was not taking her medication at the time of the attack.

Moore has pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Patrick Palmer, prosecuting, said the 55-year-old was exhibiting symptoms of psychosis when she was arrested.

He said: "She had consistently reported that she believed she was under threat and unknown people were out to get her. She clearly was not acting rationally.

"She was suffering from an abnormality of mental function, on the balance of probabilities she acted on her paranoid beliefs."

Mrs Atkinson reportedly told a friend previously she had seen "increasingly bizarre behaviour" from her neighbour.

Following her arrest, Moore told police: "She was my next-door neighbour, I'm an evil person."

She added: "I pushed something heavy, it fell on her, I didn't think it would make her die.""

Comment

This case shows the legal system is more deluded than psychotic defendants.

If you believe that people are plotting against you, it is not irrational to do something about it. While not advocating homicide, there is no effective alternative course of action.

The reason psychotics are sent to jail or executed relies on the patently false assumption that they cannot plan a crime. The above account suggests it might have been a spontaneous crime, but her previous record (see below) shows that she could plan and implement a violent attack:

"Hull Crown Court heard Moore's previous hospital admissions included one in 1993 after she stabbed her two-year-old son with a kitchen knife and one in 2014 after she entered a child's bedroom in a stranger's house and put a necklace around the child's neck.

She was due to be sentenced on Tuesday but the case was adjourned for the judge to consider all sentencing options, after a psychiatrist recommended Moore is made subject to hospital order.

However Judge Paul Watson QC told the court he was considering imposing a jail term after initially sending the defendant to hospital for treatment.

---Watch the latest videos from Yahoo UK---"