Ohio man excuted after vulgar last gesture

Federal Judges ruled too. They don't believe it was an issue *shrug*

oh it'll be an issue for sure.

this is a big issue for me because I don't want capital punishment to be abolished but it will be if this kind of thing is becoming a problem when cases like this add up.
 
Hitler was mentally ill and quite unstable later on in his life. Luckily he's not around in this era.
 
Killers always have something mentally wrong with them. Frontial lobe not developed right, depression, or some sort of mental illness.

Court usually reconize it, if they can prove they truly did not know what they were doing at the time of the murder, and would end in result of death or harming someone.


This guy had his suitcase packed with his birth certificate. He waited til his ex wife went to work and shot and killed his three boys with the gun he purchased in advance, and took off on a bus. he knew what he was doing at the time.

Which is why serial killers are put to death. Even though they have injury to or underdeveloped frontial lobe. They know what they were doing at the time and they know the result will end with a life taken.
 
they need to change the laws then. sorry, but if you are capable of doing things like this, you really dont need to be around. i dont care what is the matter with them, if they are killers, then they need to be killed themselves to protect the rest of us.

That makes absolutely no sense. Society was protected. He was in prison. He had no chance of getting out. You were in no danger from him.:roll:
 
oh it'll be an issue for sure.

this is a big issue for me because I don't want capital punishment to be abolished but it will be if this kind of thing is becoming a problem when cases like this add up.

Exactly. There are also several cases in Texas that have raised some serious concerns.
 
Killers always have something mentally wrong with them. Frontial lobe not developed right, depression, or some sort of mental illness.

Court usually reconize it, if they can prove they truly did not know what they were doing at the time of the murder, and would end in result of death or harming someone.


This guy had his suitcase packed with his birth certificate. He waited til his ex wife went to work and shot and killed his three boys with the gun he purchased in advance, and took off on a bus. he knew what he was doing at the time.

Which is why serial killers are put to death. Even though they have injury to or underdeveloped frontial lobe. They know what they were doing at the time and they know the result will end with a life taken.

Like I said earlier, the legal definition of insanity, and the clinical definition of insanity are two separate constructs. This is not an issue of whether the man was clinically insane. How anyone can deny that is beyond me. This is an issue of competence. We have distinct laws in this country against executing the incompetent. It is not a matter of whether he knew what he was doing. It is a matter of him being psychotic, and his inability to reason and understand fully the consequences of what he was doing.

People are attempting to apply dichotomous thinking to complicated issues. This is not black and white.

Like I said, Andrea Yates knew what she was doing. She was aware that she was drowning her children. She waiited until her husband went to work. Then she systematically took all 5 of her children, one by one, into the bathroom and drowned them.

Why wasn't she sentenced to death?
 
Hitler was mentally ill and quite unstable later on in his life. Luckily he's not around in this era.

Hitler was never diagnosed with a mental illness. And the only way that Hitleer applies to this discussion is the risk we have for another Hitler to take over the minds and behaviors of people as long as they hold the ability to dehumanize and see someone who is different as less than. The Hitlers of this world are not nearly as dangerous as the supposedly sane people who follow them. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jew. The Nazis who followed Hitler killed millions of Jew because they had the ability to dehumanize them and see them as less of a human being than they themselves were. I believe the Nazis referred to the Jews as "dogs". Strikingly, the same term that has been used in this thread to refer to a schizophrenic.
 
Like I said earlier, the legal definition of insanity, and the clinical definition of insanity are two separate constructs. This is not an issue of whether the man was clinically insane. How anyone can deny that is beyond me. This is an issue of competence. We have distinct laws in this country against executing the incompetent. It is not a matter of whether he knew what he was doing. It is a matter of him being psychotic, and his inability to reason and understand fully the consequences of what he was doing.

People are attempting to apply dichotomous thinking to complicated issues. This is not black and white.

Like I said, Andrea Yates knew what she was doing. She was aware that she was drowning her children. She waiited until her husband went to work. Then she systematically took all 5 of her children, one by one, into the bathroom and drowned them.

Why wasn't she sentenced to death?

Yate's history
She had documentation after documentation of records of mental illness.
Andrea Yates - Profile of Andrea Yates

Brooks had no prior medical documentation of his illness. No mention of an illness was made until after the fact. If there was one, I would like to see it.
 
Yate's history
She had documentation after documentation of records of mental illness.
Andrea Yates - Profile of Andrea Yates

Brooks had no prior medical documentation of his illness. No mention of an illness was made until after the fact. If there was one, I would like to see it.

Wrong. This man had been diagnosed prior to this event. I know a bit more about this case that what the OP has stated. Evidence of his mental illness was contained in the police reports that were witheld by the prosecution.

And whether or not he had a history of mental illness is not even an issue, even though he did. There was evidence of it at the time. That is all that matters.

But, Andrea Yates still knew she was killing her children, and still did so systematically. What is the difference in her case and this man's case? They were both psychotic, but that doesn't seem to make a difference to people. So what is the difference in her case and this case?
 
Executing the Mentally-Ill is a Crime

by César Chelala



Christopher Johnson’s execution by the State of Alabama creates serious doubts about the justice of a measure that is widely criticized by human rights advocates throughout the world. According to the group Equal Justice Initiative, the Alabama Supreme Court planned the execution without even engaging in a meaningful review of the case.

Christopher Johnson was convicted of killing his son in 2005. Johnson’s attorneys claimed that he wasn’t guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. However, during the trial, Johnson asked the trial judge for permission to represent himself. Despite ample evidence that Johnson had a long history of mental illness, the judge allowed him to do so. Although during his detention Johnson showed destructive behavior associated with mental illness, the trial judge sentenced Mr. Johnson to death. He was executed on October 21, 2011.

There were several mitigating circumstances for Johnson’s behavior. He was sexually molested by an uncle from age seven to twelve; he started taking drugs at sixteen, and throughout his childhood he was placed in programs for children with severe behavioral problems. Death sentences imposed without consideration for mitigating circumstances are inherently unreliable, held the U.S. Supreme Court.

An even more egregious case is the execution of the mentally retarded. Such was the case of Milton Mathis, 32. Despite considerable body of evidence showing that Mathis was clearly retarded, the Supreme Court denied his appeal for clemency and he was executed in Texas last June 21st. He became the 470th individual put to death in Texas in modern times.

According to Amnesty International, executing the mentally ill –those who don’t understand the reasons for their punishment- violates the U.S. Constitution (Ford v. Wainwright, 1986). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the “insane” cannot be executed.

In a 1986 opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall, he reasoned that executing them didn’t serve any punitive goals and that Florida’s procedures for determining competency to stand trial were inadequate. After he was reevaluated, Alvin Bernard Ford was transferred to Florida State Hospital for treatment and found to be incompetent to be executed.

There has been widespread international criticism of the death penalty for the gravely mentally ill. In 1997, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions said that, “Governments that continue to use the death penalty with respect to minors and the mentally ill are particularly called upon to bring their domestic legislation into conformity with international legal standards.” And in 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all states that maintain the death penalty “not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder; not to execute any such person.”

Since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States. A striking case was that of Viet Nam veteran Manny Babbitt. Because of his heroism during the war, he had been awarded a Purple Heart for his heroic behavior during the war. After returning from Vietnam, Babbitt’s life revolved around drugs, medications and mental institutions. He also suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He screamed for help, saying, “I am going to hurt somebody.”

During what seemed to be a burglary attempt, he struck a woman in the head and she died of a heart attack. The details of his crime seem to indicate that he had a flashback to his actions during the war. He wrapped his victim in a blanket and tagged her as if she were a captive soldier on the battlefield. Manny’s brother turned him into the police, and was promised counseling and support for his brother. Instead, he was tried by an all-white jury (Manny Babbitt was black) and was executed on May 4, 1999. After he was executed for his crime, he received a funeral with military honors.

The American Bar Association passed a 2006 resolution calling for the exemption of those with serious mental illness from imposition and execution of the death penalty. The National Association of Mental Health estimates that five to ten percent of those on death row have serious mental illness.

One of those in death row is Scott Panetti, convicted for the murder of his parents-in-law Joe and Amanda Alvarado on September 8, 1992, in Texas. He was sentenced to death in 1995, although he had a long history of mental illness. He was hospitalized, both voluntarily and involuntarily, for mental illness 14 times before his arrest for capital murder in 1992.

After his conviction, Sonia Alvarado, Panetti’s former wife and daughter of the victims filed a petition stating that he should have never been tried for his crimes, since he was suffering from paranoid delusions at the time of the killings. And Panetti’s mother said, “He did a terrible thing, but he was sick. Where is the compassion? Is this the best our society can do?”
Executing the Mentally-Ill is a Crime | Common Dreams
 
Wrong. This man had been diagnosed prior to this event. I know a bit more about this case that what the OP has stated. Evidence of his mental illness was contained in the police reports that were witheld by the prosecution.

And whether or not he had a history of mental illness is not even an issue, even though he did. There was evidence of it at the time. That is all that matters.
So it wasn't just evidence of mental illness but an actual diagnosis of mental illness by professionals prior to the commission of the crime?

But, Andrea Yates still knew she was killing her children, and still did so systematically. What is the difference in her case and this man's case? They were both psychotic, but that doesn't seem to make a difference to people. So what is the difference in her case and this case?
One difference is lack of premeditation. Another difference is Yates didn't attempt to escape the scene.
 
So it wasn't just evidence of mental illness but an actual diagnosis of mental illness by professionals prior to the commission of the crime?


One difference is lack of premeditation. Another difference is Yates didn't attempt to escape the scene.

Lack of premeditation? There was plenty of evidence for premeditation in Andrea Yates' case. It was very systematic. It took several hours for her to carry out the murders, display the children, and call her husband. Whether she attemtpted to escape or not is not relevent. In fact, there is more evidence for premeditation in her case than in the case in the OP. Those are the standards people seem to be using for premeditation in his case. Then they must be applied to hers, as well.

Yes, he had been diagnosed prior to the crime and had been exhibiting psychotic behavior for several days prior to the crime.

There is no difference. Both were psychotic, both killed their children in a systematic way.

The problem lies in the fact that people are applying 2 different standards. One standard for premeditation in the Yates case, and one standard for premeditation in the OP.

But again, that has virtually nothing to do with the execution. The man was decidedly mentally ill at the time of execution. That is the issue. No one is .
arguing his conviction. What is being argued is the legality of the state in executing a mentally ill inmate. And not just the legality, the humanity.

Kasick had the opportunity, in light of his mental status and information that had been withheld at the time of sentencing, to commute his sentence.
 
Please do not laugh at state sanctioned murder of the mentally ill.

Article made no mention of his mental illness, your presumption seems to have fallen short.

But for a guy to shoot someone and then flip off his wife doesn't strike me as being mentally ill, but rather a defiant individual who showed no regard to life and to anyone around him, especially with his wife whom he has sworn in a vow to respect her when he married her.

Some people are just plain dicks.

Btw, he had it coming to him, fark with Karma and it'll come back to bite ya in the ass. Every single time, sooner or later.

Yiz
 
Lack of premeditation? There was plenty of evidence for premeditation in Andrea Yates' case. It was very systematic. It took several hours for her to carry out the murders, display the children, and call her husband.
"In less than an hour that morning, five children had all been drowned"

Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who drowned her 5 children -- The Crime Library — The Call — Crime Library on truTV.com

Whether she attemtpted to escape or not is not relevent...
You asked for a difference, and that is a difference.

Yes, he had been diagnosed prior to the crime and had been exhibiting psychotic behavior for several days prior to the crime.
His defense lawyers never presented the diagnosis during the trial?
 
Article made no mention of his mental illness, your presumption seems to have fallen short.

But for a guy to shoot someone and then flip off his wife doesn't strike me as being mentally ill, but rather a defiant individual who showed no regard to life and to anyone around him, especially with his wife whom he has sworn in a vow to respect her when he married her.

Some people are just plain dicks.

Btw, he had it coming to him, fark with Karma and it'll come back to bite ya in the ass. Every single time, sooner or later.

Yiz

You have no idea what you are talking about. He wasn't flipping off his wife. He was flipping off the injustice of the system.:roll:

And yes, the article did make mention of mental illness. You need to read a bit more carefully.

Yes, some people are just dicks. Look in the mirror.
 
You have no idea what you are talking about. He wasn't flipping off his wife. He was flipping off the injustice of the system.:roll:
Is that what he said?

...Yes, some people are just dicks. Look in the mirror.
What a mature response. :roll:
 
"In less than an hour that morning, five children had all been drowned"

Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who drowned her 5 children -- The Crime Library — The Call — Crime Library on truTV.com


You asked for a difference, and that is a difference.


His defense lawyers never presented the diagnosis during the trial?

And then she dressed them, and systematically displayed them, all adding time to the total amount of time she used to carry out the crime.

The information they needed to show his mental state at the time of arrest was withheld.

Again, no one is arguing his conviction. What is being argued is the act of executing a mentally ill inmate, and the fact that information regarding his mental health status was withheld from the 3 judge panel that recommended the death penalty. One judge has already publicly stated had the information been available, he would not have recommended death.

Point being, information has come to light following sentencing. He was mentally ill at the time of execution. It is illegal to execute mentally ill inmates. Kasick was provided the opportunity to commute this sentence to life without parole. He did not. This was an illegal execution.
 
Back
Top