60 Minutes: Insanity On Death Row
By Nicole Belle Sunday Aug 10, 2008 9:00pm
This segment originally aired in November of 2007. I am a big opponent of the death penalty in general. It's unfairly applied with minorities disproportionately receiving it, studies show it offers no deterrent to other crimes and the thought of even one innocent person executed wrongly makes it just horrifying to consider. We are the only Western country that still has the death penalty and the fact that we stand with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and China in executing prisoners should not be a point of pride. We at one time at least held to the standard of not executing the mentally ill or retarded, but even that no longer holds as James Clark of Texas or Greg Thompson above show.
If you are interested in working towards the abolishment of the death penalty, contact Amnesty International for information on what you can do.
Login or Register to post comments.
We got it done here in Jersey. You can do it, too.
http://www.cuadp.org/
http://www.ncadp.org/
"I forgive him because I'm a Christian."
"... but I want to see him executed."
WTF?
"Thou shalt not kill"
Just FYI
frist!
Capital Punishment for Public Corruption.
Deter or Die in the Public Eye!
doh!
Ironic isn't it that Conservatives, who to the tee, support the death penalty while simultaneously claiming that government can't do anything right. So they entrust the state to have the power of life and death? Does the cognitive dissonance of of the right wing know no bounds?
The best argument I know of against the death penalty is not a moral one, but logical: Regardless of any appeals process, it is inevitable that we will sentence innocent people to death. In fact, new developments in DNA analysis have been responsible for proving the innocence of a number of people who have been sentenced to death. Justice is not perfect, it is a product of human error and fallibility. If O.J. Simpson can go free, certainly an innocent person can be sentenced to death. If you support the death penalty, by default, you support the state putting innocent people to death in retribution for the crimes of others. Is that justice or tyranny? You be the judge.
Snowball @ 7:
OJ is innocent!!!
Me frist.
www.StopPrisonerRape.org is also a group worth checking out. Power to the People. Strength in Numbers.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 8:
Prove it! };^D
QuakerDave @ 1:
Kick butt. Congratulations Dave.
If the glove don't fit,
it might have been left outside and soaked with blood and the defendant might be stretching his hand outyou must acquit.The death penalty is barbaric for anyone, sane or not. What's the difference between frying someone in an electric chair or stoning someone to death? It also doesn't deter crime. It's irreversible in instances when mistakes are made and our judicial system does make mistakes. When will we join the rest of the civilized world and ban it?
web_geek @ 2:
It's clear to me from that statement this is no Christian. I'm willing to bet the forgiveness is only talk.
Of course, a person of lesser financial means would have been convicted on much less, if any but circumstantial, evidence. That's the real point.
Maine does not have the death penalty much to the chagrin of the far right, you know, the same crew that call themselves Right to Life.
We also have a low crime rate.
Having the death penalty does not reduce crime.
Snowball @ 11:
the jury already did!
;<[)
Snowball @ 16:
so NYPD cops are rich?
Agree with you point by point, Nicole. Aren't we just the grand and magnanimous country to set such an example?! Only thing- shouldn't 'abolishment' read 'abolition'? (Sorry to be picky)
[Edited. Don't know if it was a typo, but when you left the "o" out of country our filter threw your post into moderation. Site Monitor]
the texas supreme court is composed completely of former prosecutors.
what chance is this guy supposed to have again?
The death penalty is a 100% deterrent. It guarantees with 100% certainty that the convicted murderer will never kill again. The issue is not whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent. The real issue is Crime & Punishment. When the crime is murder in the first degree; the just punishment is...capital punishment.
Snowball @ 13:
ask the cops who
mishandledtransported the evidence.orcas @ 22:
so screw the innocent!
excellent premise!
Does deterrence work at all? No one commits a crime without thinking they can get away with it, otherwise, they cannot be considered a rational human being capable of considering the consequences of their actions or judging whether they are right or wrong.
We are left with the conclusion that deterrence does not work because the rational person believes they can get away with it in spite of the consequences and the irrational person is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. In either case, the threat of the death penalty is spurious.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 18:
Thanks for proving my point! {:>) It's all subjective!
orcas @ 22:
Unless, of course, the prosecutors have made a mistake. Or the murderer can afford really good lawyers. Or the accused is the wrong color etc.
we as a nation are more like the Salemites than we care to admit.
If she sinks and drowns, God will take her innocent soul into heaven.
If she floats, then she's a witch, and must be killed.
That's pretty much how our politics has shaped the death penalty arguments.
web_geek @ 2:
Hypocrisy? No?
Snowball @ 26:
when you don't get the verdict you want, did the system fail?
orcas @ 22:
And as much as you offer is just the spirit and mentality which ensures the unique status that our beloved patria maintains against all the rest of the other flawed Western nations' approach. You an Old Testament buff, BTW?
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 30:
Neither of us were there at the scene of the crime, we can't absolutely, beyond reasonable doubt, prove guilt nor innocence. By all appearances, O.J. seems to be guilty, you won't find a wingnut who disagrees with that. But according to the jury, there was enough reasonable doubt to let him free. My argument is directed at wingnuts who are absolutely assured of the guilt of anyone, except a Republican, that happens to be accused of a crime. The O.J. case is merely an example.
And yes, it is inevitable that the system will fail. It's been demonstrated numerous times to have done so. It's only based on the fallible subjective judgment of mere mortals.
Lets just say we had a way of knowing for sure if someone of legal age, and was sane, committed murder. Would we be more willing to execute them? Well I`m sure Bush and Company conspired to instigate a war costing the lives of thousands of human beings. All of which was very premeditated. I think they should be spend the rest of their lives in prison because the death penalty is the easy way out. I lived in California during the Watergate Hearings and watched The United States of America and its People remove their President from office which proved the system worked. Until something is done about the atrocities committed by the Bush Administration, America will never be the same. Sorry to be slightly OT.
Snowball @ 32:
thank you for making my point! subjective is a great substitute for "I did not get the verdict I wanted or expected."
Thanks for this - it's a shame that abolition of the death penalty has either dropped from or just isn't part of the progressive platform. I look forward to the day when it ends.
They used to publicly hang pick-pockets. This was great, because large crowds would gather to watch the hanging and because they were paying attention only to seeing the hanging, they were easy victims for pick-pockets.
Che's Lounge @ 3:
And then there's the eye for an eye crowd. You can quote almost anything to make your point. Actually, lethal injection spoils the organs so they can't be recycled. The Chinese method is better, and the government makes a profit selling the parts. A win-win, if you're gonna do it. Which we will, because it's all about the revenge, period. Talk of deterrence is BS. Sounds good, though, doesn't it?
I remember this one. I also remember one about a schizophrenic who threw a woman in front of a train. I recall the jurors saying he was clearly in a normal state of mind since he didn't just "push" her, he "lifted her up and threw her". Because apparently mentally ill people in a demented angered state aren't violent enough to do that.
Watching these shows just makes me mad. I don't think there's any concept of reasonable doubt anymore. 99% of them just debase into me wondering what ridiculous minute thing made the jurors decide the guilty outcome.
web_geek @ 2:
Having their cake and eat it too.
If that is not the most American of things I don't know what it is.
Actually, some studies have shown the death penalty does indeed act as a deterrent to crime, but that doesn't make it any more right than chopping off the hands of shoplifters to deter shoplifting.
So sorry for that "Mexican" (when convenient) guy who helped gang rape and murder those 16 and 14 year old girls in Texas, then confessed. Airtight cases happen.
If there's a shred of doubt, no death penalty. This is the era of DNA. Those imprisoned today therefore have less of an excuse than the unlucky ones who were convicted in previous decades, but that's never acknowledged.
orcas @ 22:
Then according to your logic: the just punishment for shoplifting is to steal from the accused?
Funny how when it comes to the most important issue/fault of the American penal system: capital punishment. The proponents can't muster arguments that are past a 4th grade cognitive level. For such a serious and important issue, the sheer logical dissonance is troubling to say the least.
The problem with the death penalty is that if killing is a crime, why does the state have the right to kill?
JR @ 40:
Who conducted those studies?
"minorities disproportionately receiving it"
this is not a good argument against the death penalty, because if only whites were killed, it would still be wrong, unethical, or what have you.
I too am usually an opponent of the death penalty. But I do support it for obvious cases of war crimes, war profiteering. and the unquestionable cases of child rape and abuse. Also for unquestionable cases of torture of victims. Mass muderers, ethnic cleansing, 'pre-emptive' invasion, falsifing of evidence to commit same, etc.
Disclosure: I subscibe to Amnesty International and do support their agenda and methods. But I do hate truely unrepentant murderous scum.
Tyler Durden, I agree with what you are saying and yet at the same time I do think it appropriate for cases of multiple homicide if it unquestionable as to guilt. ie: genocide and ethinic cleansing, 'shock and awe' and that sort of thing. And I assure you I am above 4th grade cognitive level. The thing is that while the 'state' should NEVER have that power society definitly should!
A man invades a woman's home and demands money. She tells him there is no money so her grabs her 2 year old daughter and slits her throat. Minutes later, police arrest him as he emerges from the house attempting to flee with the blood soaked blade still in hand. If you do not believe that murderous scumbag deserves the death penalty; you and I have ideas about justice that are billions of light years apart.
Anybody ever check out this documentary?
This video and recent news happenings on Death Row completely changed my point of view on capital punishment. If one innocent person is or has been put to death it is murder by the citizenry.
Like most people commenting on this thread I am torn between the acceptance (in some cases) and the repulsion of the death penalty. I do not believe it's a reliable deterrent and if you're talking about an eye for an eye, I would think a lifetime in a small cell would be far more hellish than death. (you see, I don't believe in that heaven/hell thing)
But the thing that bugs me about this story are statements like "...she was 28, well-liked in her community, and just married (and white)..."
Why is it that young white women, especially those that are pretty, get the most coverage in murder cases? It's not a matter of perception, it's very obvious, they get far more coverage. As if their life is somehow more valuable. That's disturbing.
Bubba IA @ 47:
The anti death penalty advocates are frustrated. They have never been able to produce a single instance of anybody who has been tried, convicted and put to death under our system of jurisprudence; then later proven to be innocent.
orcas @ 49:
But how can you get the state to reopen a case once the person has been executed? Who would pay for that?
Terrible @ 45:
No, you cannot teach a child not to kill while being a hypocrite. If you want to do away with most murders and serious crime, you have to be an example. You can not teach while not being an example. Kids grow up seeing these executions, seeing INNOCENT people put to death. It perpetuates itself!!!
Shunning, creating an island for just them would be a better punishment. There is a reason why no prisoner wants to go to Alcatraz.
Revenge is NOT justice - if someone has committed a murder than the perfect punishment is life in prison in solitary not death. The death penalty just makes the victims and their families feel better.
Prisons are full of poor people, not guilty people. The guy is not guilty because he is off his nut. Unless you think that being out of your mind is justification for execution, there is no other way to think about this issue. But that way of thinking is what gave Eugenics a bad reputation.
Loosely Twisted @ 51, I thought I'd made some distinction between possible "innocent people" and "unquestionable cases". But as to everything else you said - absolutely I agree.
ps: Alcatraz is now a tourist trap!
pps: Devils Island was not a suitable alternative to the death penalty.
In fact Devils Island WAS a death penalty only much more horrific and anti-social.
Does anyone have the numbers to show that murder is down in states that have the death penalty?
When a man is doing life in prison for first degree murder, the taxpayers are legally obligated to pay the inevitable medical bills for that murderer even if he lives to be a geriatric 140 years old. That financial obligation remains in force even if his medical care costs run into the millions of dollars. That is goddam insane and it is the best argument in favor of the death penalty ever.
orcas @ 57:
Name the right price... LIFE.
Yeah, yeah, so was I but then I got real.
Look, the most precious and miraculous thing in the world is life. God gives it to us and only he can take it away. So, when som a-hole suddenly starts stabbing someone on a bus, then decapitates him for no reason, he should die and the rest of society should be given all the benefits in life he forfeits.
Mankind is the only species who kills his own for no reason whatsoever. We should learn from other animal groups who "cull" the herd of the weak ones, the others who hinder the strength and survival of the rest of the group.
Mankind himself refer to these animals that are thrown out of the group as rogues. We should do the same but we can't because we are not as smart.
1) All recent studies have shown that the death penalty prevents between 3 and 15 murders. The researchers have started out with the view of many here that the death penalty has no effect. They are always surprised that this is, in fact, not the case. As the old philosophical question goes - if murders committed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays attracted the death penalty but murders on other days only get life imprisonment then on what days do you think the majority of murders would be committed?
2) I'm an atheist but have made a point of understanding Christianity, among other religions. Comments that the death penalty is at odds with "thou shall not kill" are in error. The correct translation from Hebrew is "thou shall not commit murder" with murder clearly meaning the taking of innocent life (as demonstrated elsewhere in the Old Testament). A murderer is not innocent and therefore the Commandment does not apply.
While I too am an opponent of the death penalty, I'm not at all convinced that it is applied disproportionately to minorities. According to DOJ statistics, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 52% of all murders were committed by blacks, and 45 % by whites. During the same period, 34% of those executed hav been black,7% Hispanic and 57% white. If the death penalty was imposed proportionately, more blacks would have been executed. Again, I'm against capital punishment, I just don't think the race arguement is a valid one.
Another interesting stat is that murders nationwide dropped dramatically during the Clinton years, and leveled off during George W.'s watch
To some extent, I agree with Jay #5. A few years ago there used to be an excellent site that detailed the execution policy of every country, and, unless I'm missing it, I think it sort of died when it got folded into AI. The policy can be less than black and white.
Depends on the definition of a "western" country to some extent, but back around '02 it was clear that a lot of countries that have eliminated execution for civil crimes retain it for treason. At first blush, that could be seen as the trump card for eliminating revolution and therefore essentially conservative in the bad sense and repressive. But if it is also applied to the Hitlers, Pinochets and Bushes of the world who would destroy republican democracy and bring chaos to an entire society it makes sense. The damage a monstrous ruler can create is on an entirely different scale and qualitatively different from the damage individual monsters have the opportunity to cause. They destroy whole institutions and civil morals.
So, paradoxically, Bushie has swayed me toward the _very_ limited use of execution. Too bad the odds are so long on seeing it enacted.
orcas @ 57:
Your post shows how little you know of the justice system. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the state is required to pay for all legal costs when a person who is sentenced to death appeals his or her sentence and can not pay for the legal costs. In the end, it costs a state more to execute a prisoner than it is to keep the prisoner locked up for life. And, as the vast majority of death row prisoners are destitute (that means "poor," orcas) the states with the death penalty end up spending an inordinate amount of money (that means a whole bunch of money!) on these prisoners' legal fees.
Orcas - just another LIB - low information blogger.
laura was sweeter when she was kicking around in the dirt. this shit w/the jerky journalist movements is ridiculous. we dont have to look at those movements anymore. its not the last millennium. that said... "tell me what going lulu is to you" is actually a good question.
I vote that we let all the rapist and murders free. Then make them
live in the most liberal parts of the country.
people who think the death penalty should be used against child molesters and traitors are just as bad as those who want it used for murder or other felonies. Get over your own lust for revenge and be consistent with your judgements.
orcas @ 46:
Setting aside for a moment the notion of running a civilized nation's criminal justice system on a revenge-based paradigm (and yes, my initial reaction to your scenario is "kill the mofo") your argument is nothing more than the death penalty advocate's version of the "24" 'ticking bomb' scenario. In other words, a load of crap.
If you knew anything at all about how the criminal justice system works in real life (not just on teevee) you'd know that the scenario you describe is rare as hen's teeth. In the state of Texas, for instance, there are numerous instances of people excecuted behind third-party, easily impeachable testomony, shaky eye-witness accounts, nonexistant chains of evidence etc. and whose court appointed lawyers slept through their appeals (the Texas supreme court has actually ruled that it is not necessary for one's lawyer to actually be awake at one's death penalty trial). Given the slap dash, prejudicial nature of the way these things works, it is a statistical certainty that we have put innocent people to death, perhaps a great many of them.
If you honestly think that this is somehow an acceptable form of 'collateral damage,' then we're clearly not on the same page.
Yep, Republican logic: close the state hospitals, let an insane person kill a young woman, then kill him for it.
By the way, I love Lara Logan.
orcas @ 49:
Actually they're mostly frustrated by the fact that the state, in order to shield itself from liability, seals much of the pertinant evidence in death-penalty cases where the sentence has been carried out.
The best the anti-death penalty people have been able to do is exonerate (usually through DNA evidence unavailable at the time of conviction) a number of death row prisoners who would most certainly be dead by now without their advocacy.
No human system is perfect. If you're willing to accept the death of a few innocent people as acceptable that just say so, but don't try to convince us that the justice system is perfect when there's ample evidence that it's not.
Umm...other species kill for no apparent reason. Perhaps you should contact a...biologist...with credentials.
Gee, if sane, I'm executed..if insane, I continue to live. What an incentive!
OJ was not found guilty. Get over it.
Pretty white girls make for great TV.
I have reached the age when I will sleep better knowing that some humans are dead and no longer able to hurt/harm others. We terminate animals for being a threat, why not humans?
orcas @ 22:
Oh, come now! You know as well as I and everyone else that by calling the death penalty a deterrent, we are referring to future crimes by future perpetrators. Most murders are crimes of passion and are committed impulsively so possible punishment is not on the minds of the perpetrators at the moment. And even for those crimes committed "in cold blood", the perpetrators think they will not be caught or they "will get away with it". There basically is no argument at all for the death penalty in that it is a deterrent to crime.
BTW, since I decided to comment, I'd like to say that Nicole pretty well expressed all my reasons for being against the death penalty. I'd like to add Martin Buber's comment that by killing an individual in revenge, society reduces itself to the same level of the murderer.
Mold @ 69:
Perfect. Justice, logic, humanitarianism, all out the window so you can feel 'safe.'
"We terminate animals."
Jesus, I have no response to that.
John Doheny @ 68:
Those in favour of state-sponsored murder are too dishonest to address one important fact: once falsely convicted, the victim of persecution has the burden of proof on him. Falsified evidence and false witnesses have to be refuted by the victim's lawyer rather than easily shown for the lies that they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Willingham
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238
Of course no one has been exonerated after being murdered by the state because US states that have murdered inmates refuse to allow evidence to be retested. Allowing the victims' innocence to be proven would open the states to justified lawsuits for incredible amounts of damages.
Gretchen @ 15:
Are you kidding? That's exactly how most of them behave.
orcas @ 46:
No offense, but what you describe is a truly horrific fictional crime. Real life is complicated. Let's take your example and fictionally say that the man was mentally retarded, schizophrenic and had spent the better part of his life being physically and sexually abused by his stepfather. Our fictional man is seeing things that aren't there, hearing things that aren't real and even smelling things that aren't really there. His entire life has been spent being horrifically abused by his stepfather, then he begins to go mentally off-balance. All he knows is pain, despair and madness. He walks into the house because a person that doesn't exist is telling him to do so. Once inside, instead of a child, he sees a devil or a giant insect. Sounds farfetched, right? Well, no. It's entirely possible. He lacks the intelligence to distinguish the real world from his psychosis. He doesn't have access to medical care to keep himself medicated. He's so paranoid that he thinks the devil is trying to kill him (a very common paranoia). So, he tries to defend himself.
Objectively and from a sane point of view, this guy has done something horrible. And if he were as sane as your or I, he certainly deserves to die, but the point is that he isn't as sane or as intelligent or as fortunate as you or me. His lawyer is a public defender, fresh out of law school. He has no money, no family and no way of properly defending himself.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think reducing crime to black and white issues is too easy. Real people commit crimes, not fictional people.
As the son of a person who's schizophrenic, let me tell you, it's a baffling, horrific disease even under the best of circumstances; even with the best medical care and money, a person afflicted with schizophrenia will do incredibly unthinkable things. My mother never hurt me or my sisters, but she certainly did bizarre, tragic and dangerous things. There were times when she didn't even know who I was. Can you imagine? She gave birth to me, but had no idea who I was. Several times she just disappeared, only to be found days later living in a park. God only knows what she did for those days. She doesn't even know. I would come home from school and she would be in the front yard, in 90+ degree heat, in a sleeping bag. The mentally ill do things that don't make sense. Usually, it's just sad and harmless things, but sometimes it's terrible things.
The real issue here isn't the death penalty. It's mental illness. The mentally ill in any society are rarely given the treatment that they need. And even with treatment, schizophrenics are never cured. If you're poor and without health insurance, it's 100 times worse. No one understands the mentally ill, even people who have loved ones who are sick don't understand them. People think that you can just snap out of it or try harder, but the truth of the matter is that sick people can't do that.
The man in this segment appears somewhat sane, and that's a very misleading thing. He is heavily medicated. If you notice he was smacking his lips and rolling his tongue during the interview. That's a side-effect of the medication he's on. Without it, he would be hearing strange noises, seeing bizarre things and even smelling odors that aren't there. It's a nightmarish world that is probably impossible for sane people to even imagine. It would have served him better if they had taken him off his medication, then you would see an empty void in his eyes and everything he said would have been completely divorced from reality.
It's sad that he killed a woman. It really is. If he were in a society better equipped to deal with his mental problems, he might not have. I'm not sure that society even exists today in our world. It certainly doesn't in the U.S.
Putting someone to death won't bring that poor woman back, and it doesn't make us look very civilized either. A real, honest-to-goodness evil bastard put to death makes sense, but to kill a sick or retarded person is just plain wrong. I'm not letting that guy off the hook, he deserves to be punished as well as treated for what he did. And for the protection of all of us, he should remain behind lock and key, which, undoubtedly, he will. Death? I think not.
well I think the death penaty is bad because no one has the right to give you a death sentence. I think eveybody should live their life to the fullest without getting penalties.
Everybody commits mistakes and they disserve 2nd chances.
Jesus... Saw this vid... What a mess... A innocent dead woman, a mentally ill perp... And a medical/Insurance system, and social services system.. And justice system, that seemingly, just doesn't see, in the following order;.. money to be made by helping someone with mental issues if they are poor... Funding that's needed to run a mental heath service in order to intercede at a point where help might have incurred a different outcome for the perp before he got that bad off, and the vic, who might not have ended up a vic at all if this guy had got help before his act of violence... And a just legal outcome that doesn't involve some form of fatal vengence offered up as justice even though all parties seem to accept at this point that significant pieces of information about the perp was withheld at trial, and that he's nuts now and probably was then as well.......
And now, 22 years later.. the victims family, reduced to just the lone sister, wanting to offer fogiveness, and yet still see this man executed even if he's insane... Yea... What a mess.... I can't point fingers really,or feel anything other than sadness at the whole situation..... The one thing about all this that I can't quite shake off or ignore, is that now... It seems to be the strategy of the state justice system to make this guy sane, thru meds, so the state can execute him...instead of leaving him behind bars for the rest of his life. And for what reasons? So they can feel good about themselves? So they don't have to feel like they just executed a crazy man??? So they can pretend he actually understands why they are killing him... Does it really make that big a difference??? I think he's prabably too mentally ill to feel the remorse you and I might feel about that...on meds or not. So what does it really matter to induce the facade of sanity on this guy before you pull the plug on him....Dead it dead..period... Sane or insane... It's the same hole in the ground at the end.......
I can only shake my head and wonder if this guy is the only one who is nuts in this situation. And yet, I know in my heart of hearts that if it was my son, my daughter, mother some other loved one.. I'd be just as likely to want my pound of flesh too.... Just as conflicted as that sister comes off as being... Maybe I'm just as nuts as well................Trying to see this from both sides, sad and tragic... is still where I end up thinking on it.....JD
Death penalty? Absolutely not! Can't give your government the kind or power required to take the lives of its citizenry. But this asshole needs to remain locked up, forever!
Junior @ 75:
Hey trolly... baitee not takee?
"Gretchen Says:
web_geek @ 2:
“I forgive him because I’m a Christian.”
“… but I want to see him executed.”
WTF?
It’s clear to me from that statement this is no Christian. I’m willing to bet the forgiveness is only talk."
I guarantee you the vast majority of "Christians" in this country practice the same kind of cognitive dissonance daily. Hell, it's built into any "the only true god is our god" religion.
Login or Register to post comments.