Texas death row inmate pulls out eye, eats it

In summary: I don't know what you're trying to say.The question is whether or not the insanity defense should be used in this particular case, given the defendant's history of mental problems.In summary, Thomas pulled out his only good eye and told authorities he ate it. He was convicted and condemned for the infant's death. He has a history of mental problems and is likely insane. If the insanity defense is used, he may be able to get out of prison.
  • #36
Ivan Seeking said:
But simple logic tells me that one should never give a bureaucracy power over life and death.
While that makes for a wonderfully stereotypical joke, it sounds like you mean it seriously. It would be interesting to hear that logic. (At least if it's not overly naïve, in which case it would be rather tiring)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I don't think anyone should be put to death. Someone who does what he did is probably living a life of unfathomable misery anyway. I can't imagine what drives a person to do something like that.

Some people are just not apt for living amongst other people unsupervised... someone who goes over the edge like this is likely to have shown signs of instability, same with kids who shoot up schools, etc. -- what is needed is to better understand this sort of behavior and either a) learn to prevent and treat it, if possible, before it becomes a problem; or b) lock them up in a safe place where they can't harm themselves or others.

Thugs who go around beating homeless people and starting gun-fights in crowded places deserve to be locked up and punished, but a man like this who is driven to murder his entire family needs treatment-- he must be suffering enough as it is.

From the article, it sounds like he wanted treatment and was not given it. Or that someone was aware that he needed treatment. This is what happens; this whole ordeal could've been prevented.
 
  • #38
binzing said:
Am I just sick or is there something slightly morbidly funny about what this guy did?

I hear when he went to culinary school, he was the class's top... pupil.
 
  • #39
moe darklight said:
I hear when he went to culinary school, he was the class's top... pupil.
Yet no one kept an eye out for him.
 
  • #40
Gives new meaning to the UT fight song, "The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You".
 
  • #41
Hurkyl said:
While that makes for a wonderfully stereotypical joke, it sounds like you mean it seriously. It would be interesting to hear that logic. (At least if it's not overly naïve, in which case it would be rather tiring)

Clearly you are not open to the notion that no State has the right to execute its citizens, so I won't waste my time. However, I will say that there is nothing sophisticated about murder; esp when innocent people are killed by mistake. And it is naive think any system is flawless. So beyond any other concerns of morality or ethics, to support the death penalty is to support the murder of innocents. Also, anyone who feels that there is an acceptable number of innocents that may be murdered for the common good is free to be the first in line.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
CRGreathouse said:
So are you with Neville Chamberlain, or do you only mean in domestic law?

I am only referring to domestic law. Defense of the nation is another matter. I don't see how we can get out of that one for a time. And the same is true for self defense for citizens as well as law enforcement - the need for lethal force is unavoidable at times. I am only talking about legal executions.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
Clearly you are not open to the notion that no State has the right to execute its citizens, so I won't waste my time.
Why do you think that? Because I didn't immediately fall in line after a non-argument? Executions definitely violate my moral and ethical standards -- but I'm not going to impose those standards on everybody, or even pretend a functional government could adhere to them.

Also, note that you asserted bureaucracies shouldn't have power over life and death -- that assertion has far greater implications than the death penalty, and seems obviously false.

And it is naive think any system is flawless.
Exactly. And thus it's silly to condemn any system on the grounds that flaws exist.

So beyond any other concerns of morality or ethics, to support the death penalty is to support the murder of innocents.
So what?

Incidentally, I would like to point out that this is a highly misleading characterization. While literally accurate, the connotation is definitely a strawman.

Also, anyone who feels that there is an acceptable number of innocents that may be murdered for the common good is free to be the first in line.
I'm offended that you would actually present this as if it was a rational argument.
 
  • #44
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2003/20030815h.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Ivan Seeking said:
...A bit paradoxical that Conservatives don't think the government can run a business, but it can properly negotiate the business of killing people. So the logic is to trust the government with lives but not widgets.
Its not just conservatives/libertarians. A better question is who does think the government can run a business? Surely its not the pending leadership (Pres. Obama)
 
Last edited:
  • #46
I pretty much have some faith in the jury of his peers, which found him guilty.
 
  • #47
Ivan Seeking said:
It seems to me that morality plays a bit of a role here. But simple logic tells me that one should never give a bureaucracy power over life and death.
It's one of the requirements of joining the European Union that you don't have a death penalty.
 

Similar threads

News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?
12
Replies
409
Views
42K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top