Mentally-ill man executed in Arkansas

[Kermit]

Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3374831.stm)

How a country which is prepared to forcibly give a man psychotropic drugs in order to make him "well" enough to be executed can then go to the rest of the world and preach about human rights and inhumane violations of those rights is beyond me.

A plague on anyone who allowed this decision, and anyone who thinks that its a good idea.

[Renzo]

erk sick:eek2:

yet another story in the 'land of the free' ay?

Surely if the man was mentaly ill anyway he should not have been given the death penalty?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
Surely if the man was mentaly ill anyway he should not have been given the death penalty?

Hed been given the drugs to make him sane. Ergo he was sane. Therfore he could be executed.

Or something.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
Hed been given the drugs to make him sane. Ergo he was sane. Therfore he could be executed.

Or something.

ah but surely if you look at it from another way if this guy was left poorly and not treated they would still be in the wrong for not treating a sick man.

[Tim the Enchanter]

I gathered from my Politics teacher today that the guy was sane when he commited the murder but in the time following that he developed schizophrenia and even after heavy medication still claimed to hear voices in his head.

In my opinion if he was still hearing voices then he wasn't fully cured and shouldn't have been given the death penalty since he wouldn't understand its full implication and goes against US law.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
ah but surely if you look at it from another way if this guy was left poorly and not treated they would still be in the wrong for not treating a sick man.

Theres a difference between treating someone and treating someone in order to kill them.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
ah but surely if you look at it from another way if this guy was left poorly and not treated they would still be in the wrong for not treating a sick man.

So they treated him in order to help him feel the full impact, pain and fear of an all American execution?

How kind...

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
Theres a difference between treating someone and treating someone in order to kill them.

oh yes, im not saying i agree with what they did. But again if they leave him to rot then they would be still in the worng.


Also if what Tim said is correct and he was sane when he commited the offence then surely if execution is what a murderer receives over there then he should get that penalty.

[morrocan roll]

when third world countries are introduced to the american way by movies where arnoldeggandbaconburger kills six hundred men a minute etc etc ...and hear that they gass, inject and electrocute criminals ...then they hear that those same people are up in arms for chopping off the hands of a thief ...then they see them topple governments that were democraticaly elected ...iran as an example ...relacing that elected government with the sha ...and all the other examples ...and they hear all this crapn about democracy and human rights ...then they see the yanks not just invade a country like iraq wich never suffered terrorism but now suffers it on a massive scale daily ...is it any wonder that people see the U.S as the ultimate rogue state. is it any wonder that billions of peple see the americans as very dangerous and trechorous people ...

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Aspartame
Treating someone for their benefit is one thing, alleviating their symptoms so they can be killed is quite another.


So supposing he was sane when he commited the offence you think now because he is mentally ill he should not face the consequences ?


Just out of interest lets assume he was not awaiting execution but we have a mentally ill man and he was not given medication to make him well what would people think about it then ? Do you think its wrong what they are doing purely because he will be executed when he is better ?

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Do you think its wrong what they are doing purely because he will be executed when he is better ? Absolutely.

Just look at what the Federal Court had to say during the appeal: "Eligibility for execution is the only unwanted consequence of the medication."

Fucking barbarian c*nts.

Come back Taliban, all is forgotten. :rolleyes:

[Jim V]

Arkansas does have quite a reputation, this is taken from -

new internationalist (http://www.newint.org/issue244/last.htm)


No case illustrates the complexity of the forces involved in an execution better than that of Ricky Ray Rector of Arkansas.2 In 1981, Rector killed two men, the second a police officer. Immediately after, he shot himself through the left temple.

The bullet blasted away three inches from the front of his brain, and lodged in the right side of his head, just above his ear. Previously disturbed, Rector’s understanding was now reduced to that of a small child. His IQ hovered between 63 and 70. A prison psychologist who examined Rector soon after noted that he ‘seemed unable to grasp the concept of past or future’ and had told several people he had been hospitalized because of a wound to his leg.

When his death sentence was pronounced, Rector’s first reaction was to inquire if he would get a television in his cell. His attorney stressed that ‘For Ricky, “I’m going to die”... had about the same meaning as “I’m going to the dentist.”’

Under other circumstances, given a sympathetic governor, Rector’s chances of survival would have been good. He was clearly not the same human being who had shot the two men dead. Unluckily for Rector, however, his governor was running for president and, as the execution date approached, was going through a bad spell.

In January 1991, Bill Clinton was campaigning in the conservative state of New Hampshire. His early momentum had been checked by allegations of an affair with Gennifer Flowers and his chances in the primary were slipping away. Clinton’s fingers had been burnt on the crime issue once before. Back in 1979 he had released a 73-year-old mortally-ill murderer who had killed again before dying. Clinton had lost the following year’s election. After that he reversed his position on the death penalty and won back the governorship.

Clinton left the campaign trail and flew back to Arkansas to ensure that the punishment went ahead as scheduled.

Rector spent his last hours as he had spent the previous ten years – alternately skipping, barking, laughing and howling. He left the dessert of his final meal, believing he could eat it when he returned from the execution chamber.

The medical crew struggled for an hour to find a vein which could cope with the injection, but Rector’s veins were too thin and kept collapsing. Eventually they were forced to slash his arm to gain access. Finally, 19 minutes after they began pumping the poison into his arm, Rector died.

Aides close to Clinton stress how difficult the decision was for him, and describe how his voice appeared choked during the evening of the execution. A personal appeal from Jesse Jackson was refused. According to Jackson, Clinton said ‘he’d been researching various ways to get around it, but it just couldn’t be done... Said he was praying about it, though.’


I've cut a lot out for size and the source might be disagreeable to some but take a look at the link for a more comprehensive overview.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Absolutely.



So what do you think should happen then ?

Edited to add:

How I see it is that this fella knew what he would recieve if he murdered someone. If he was sane when he comitted the offence then surely he should be treated the same as any other sane person who commited the offence. Just because since then he is now mentally ill that should not let him off the hook.

In his country he will have know what would happen to him if he killed someone so I think he only has himself to blame. i also think that if they left him to suffer with a mental illness and didnt treat him then people would then be saying how can they leave an unwell man in jail and not give him medication.

Im not saying i agree with the penalty imposed im saying he knew the consequenses he would face when he committed the offence.

[Aladdin]

Well I don't believe in the death penalty anyway so no one should be executed. But even in the brutal regimes where the death penalty still exists I think it is twisted in the extreme to cure the man with the sole purpose of executing him. In cases like this psychiatric help should be offered as it would to any mentally ill person, not with the objective of making the man just about lucid enough to murder him. If during the course of genuine medical care the man is cured of his mental condition then he should be made to serve life without parole- which is worse than a death sentence anyway.

The fucking lust of blood and revenge in that country is sickening in the extreme. No doubt the evil hypocrite bastards sent a priest to the condemned and asked God to have mercy on him, the nice compassionate Christians they all are.

:mad:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Well I don't believe in the death penalty anyway so no one should be executed.


But it does exist so forgetting about wether you think the death penalty is right or wrong base your thoughts on the fact that it does exist there.
So in them circumstances if he was sane when he commited the offence should he face the death penalty because he is now mentally ill ?

[Aladdin]

Well like I said in cases like this the death sentenced should be commuted to life imprisonment without parole. There is such a thing as mercy and compassion even in the US legal system, and to cure a mentally ill patient with the sole purpose of being able to execute him should simply not be done, not even in countries barbaric enough to have the death penalty.

[budda]

The death penalty is wrong. Full stop.

But you have to remember this is from Arkansas, thats real Hick country, worse than Texas, its Bill Clinton territory, a man who had his own brother locked up on drug charges after a poll showed him 'soft on the drugs issue'.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
In his country he will have know what would happen to him if he killed someone so I think he only has himself to blame. i also think that if they left him to suffer with a mental illness and didnt treat him then people would then be saying how can they leave an unwell man in jail and not give him medication.

Im not saying i agree with the penalty imposed im saying he knew the consequenses he would face when he committed the offence.

When he killed someone he was sane, so yes, he knew the possible consequences. But since then his mind-state has changed, he is not the same person, and no longer DOES know the consequences.

The drugs, remember, merely alleviate the condition, not cure it. If he didnt take the drugs he would still have the mental illness, therefore the mental illness is still there. The man is not healthy just because theyve given him medication, hes lucid. Theres a difference.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by bongbudda
its Bill Clinton territory, a man who had his own brother locked up on drug charges after a poll showed him 'soft on the drugs issue'.

Careful, youre sounding like a Bushbot:p

[budda]

Isnt that similar to saying you can never treat a mental illness with drugs? I'm not sure thats true. Not that I am defending their actions.

[Acrobat]

Originally posted by Kermit
When he killed someone he was sane, so yes, he knew the possible consequences. But since then his mind-state has changed, he is not the same person, and no longer DOES know the consequences.

But if he knew the consequences when he actually committed the crime, then surely he should be sentenced like any other, whether his mind-state has changed or not?

[budda]

I just think this is more an issue that they shouldnt be doing it at all in ANY situation, the mental health of this bloke is unfortunate but its only a sideline.

Its tragic whenever they put anyone to death, whatever their mental state. To be honest I find the fact that they can sentance minors to death even scarier than this case.

[Aladdin]

But even the barbaric regimes passing as freedom-loving democracies that still have the death penalty at least pretend to have some rules about it, and to at least spare children and the mentally ill/disabled from a punishment they cannot even comprehend fully.

Sadly in the US they don't beat around the bush with such trivial matters as the ethics of murdering minors or the mentally incapacitated. Absolutely everyone is fair game for their insatiable death industry in that caring, devout Christian nation.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by MoonShiner
But if he knew the consequences when he actually committed the crime, then surely he should be sentenced like any other, whether his mind-state has changed or not?

If he is back to the same mental state that he was originally, and if that mental state is not artificially induced by drugs, then yes.

Otherwise its pointless killing for the sake of satisfying a disturbing blood-lust.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
If he is back to the same mental state that he was originally, and if that mental state is not artificially induced by drugs, then yes.



Sorry Kermit but that just dont make sense :confused:

Its normally the only way to cure a mental state like his with drugs. They aint just gonna pump him with drugs and say there you are your better now, it would be a proper course with the reccomended dosage.He would then be made well again with drugs and i presume weaned off the drug so he was not dependent on them, eventually he would be in the normal frame of mind like he was before he killed someone............wouldnt
he :confused:

Gotta dash to pick Becks up from school, catch up later on this :)

[Acrobat]

Originally posted by Kermit
If he is back to the same mental state that he was originally, and if that mental state is not artificially induced by drugs, then yes.

Otherwise its pointless killing for the sake of satisfying a disturbing blood-lust.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I managed to misinterpret what you said earlier, though I don't know how.

[Kermit]

Becky, mental illness is not like a broken leg. Its not "take this twice a day for three months, and youre cured". If he is like many schizophrenics he will be lucid whilst he is taking the treament, or, indeed, being FORCED to take it, but if and when he stops taking the treatment that is the time to decide that hes been cured of the ailment.

The drugs alleviate the symptoms, but they dont cure the rpoblem- think of it this way, taking paracetomol to stop toothache cures the symptom of the toothache, but it doesnt fill the cavity causing the toothache.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
If he is like many schizophrenics he will be lucid whilst he is taking the treament, or, indeed, being FORCED to take it, but if and when he stops taking the treatment that is the time to decide that hes been cured of the ailment.



True, yeah Ive had depression before but obviously schitzophenia (sp) is a lot more complex which i have no knowledge about. I was thinking the way they treat me was with pills and weaned me off them and I have been fine ever since.

[Jim V]

fyi

Mind's Understanding Schizophrenia factsheet (http://www.mind.org.uk/NR/exeres/D7276F87-0811-45DE-B955-99F4109A2AAD.htm?NRMODE=Published&wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished)

[Aladdin]

Thanks Jim. And your earlier post about that guy with a mental age of a child being executed was devastating, even more so than this latest case.