To Execute or Not to Execute?

To execute or not to execute?  That is the question.  A man by the name of Scott Louis Panetti was convicted of killing his two in laws back in 1992, and in 1995 he was sentenced to death.  Since then, he has managed to avoid his sentence by claiming insanity.  Is that sufficient for that state? Should he be put to death anyway? According to Texas the answer finally, is yes.

Since his conviction and sentencing, it has come to light that Panetti is not mentally well.  He represented himself in the original hearing dressed like a cowboy.  Most would agree this is already insane behavior given the gravity of the situation.  He treated it as if it was a game.  Is that reason enough to let him skip his death sentence?  The families of the two people that he killed would surely not agree.  How crazy could he be?  Someone obviously thought he was normal enough to marry, and believe it or not, that was his second marriage.

The insanity plea is one used often to get out of extreme sentences, but is seldom accepted.  Unfortunately for those that are actually mentally ill, if you don't have a sufficient paper trail proving insanity beyond a shadow of a doubt, you’re going to suffer the full consequence of your actions as if fully competent.  Panetti had years and years of paper trails showing that he had schizophrenia along with other mental disorders.  This, however is not enough for Texas.

The cost to house the average inmate in a Texas prison is $21,390 per year.  Panetti has been locked up pending execution since 1992, so the total cost to the state just for him, is $470,580. Divided out between all the tax paying people in the state of Texas, you have a number that is almost not noticeable, but hes just one person.  What about all the other people in similar situation.  Take them into account and the numbers start to rise, and one could begin to wonder; where do we draw the line? The state of Texas is essentially a business being run with the bottom dollar in mind, and when considering the life of an individual who is a convicted felon, with no chance of ever being released, and given his prior history, no chance of ever positively contributing to any form of society, why not take that bottom dollar into account and save the state and taxpayers the additional amount?  I doubt Panetti would, in his later years in prison, suddenly have a change of heart and contribute so vastly to society as to be awarded the Nobel prize.  

Laws and statutes are in place for a reason.  Some would argue they are solely for lawyers to manipulate so they can increase their share of the profits, but regardless they are there for a reason.  Whether Panetti is mentally ill, or just a great actor, he has been deemed a significant danger to society, and one that will never breathe another free breath. The great state of Texas has seen fit to execute Panetti on December 3rd.  Unless there is an intervention from a higher power, his days are numbered. Is it right? Should Texas continue to foot the bill indefinitely? Luckily the tough questions are left to others who get paid to answer them. Texans can sleep easy, knowing there's nothing they could have done.

The Controversy of Marijuana

Ms. Tran’s editorial about the dangers of marijuana and other illegal drugs was a very well articulated argument. I agree with Ms. Tran on the majority of her points. I also have a few comments and issues to elaborate on as well.

I believe that in America, in today's society, we are not ready to fully legalize marijuana.  Besides all of the negative attributes that go along with marijuana which are being fought so hard to keep illegal, there is a plague of ignorance in our country in regards to marijuana.  The people that fight to keep it illegal run smear campaigns and spread outright lies to fool the masses.  Conversely, the people that are trying to get it legalized like to convey the point that there is absolutely no side effects to marijuana, besides a guaranteed great time.  The reality of the matter is somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately most of the country just has to take someones word on the matter.

As Ms. Tran states, drugs have completely destroyed countless lives and families in our state. Obviously it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.  The method best to address it is a hotly debated topic.  Should we pour countless more dollars into the drug war that will never truly end as long as there is money to be made?  Should we legalize some or all drugs and simply restrict them therefore increasing tax revenue and taking the market out of the hands of drug lords?  The best solution might be to look at other countries as a model, and look at our history as well.

Countries like Portugal, The Netherlands, and others in the European Union have either completely decriminalized most drugs, or have adopted policies that take a blind eye to drugs as long as its not encroaching on the well being of others.  One might then naturally assume that these places would become the new drug meccas where people want to come and party.  However, the studies that have been produced have shown that drug related deaths have dropped, drug related diseases have dropped, and that the people that have drug problems are more inclined to seek help knowing that they won’t be arrested. Would this system work in America?  Most would agree we are typically behind the curve when it comes to matters like this, so probably not.

The history aspect to bring up would be to compare the legalization of marijuana to the prohibition era of our country.  The difference is that even before the prohibition took effect, alcohol had a chance to come into the mainstream and lose the taboo of illicit substances.  In turn when the prohibition era was in effect, it became obvious rather quickly that alcohol was here to stay.  This is to many people quite an odd dichotomy, because it doesn't take a genius to know that alcohol has the potential to be incredibly dangerous and life destroying.  Most would agree that alcohol is a much worse drug than marijuana, but that taboo factor for alcohol has long since been dismissed.  It is only a matter of time for the same thing to happen with marijuana.

Are drugs dangerous? Absolutely.  Whether legal or illegal, drugs undoubtedly have the ability to destroy lives.  As Ms. Tran points out, legalizing drugs has the potential to draw more people, especially the easily impressionable, into its grasp. This is especially why regardless of what Texas and the US does, education is imperative.  People need to be completely aware of the risks of the substance they are ingesting, legal or otherwise.