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.
What is wrong with people in the world these days? When we are called crazy, it’s natural that we react and we all react in different ways. Depending on which definition and/or our definition of crazy are we actually considered crazy?
ReplyDeletecra•zy (ˈkreɪ zi)
adj. -zi•er, -zi•est, adj.
1. mentally deranged; insane.
2. impractical; totally unsound: a crazy scheme.
3. intensely eager.
4. infatuated (usu. fol. by about).
5. unusual; bizarre.
6. Slang. wonderful.
n.
7. Slang. an unpredictable person; oddball: one nice sister and two crazies.
In Mr. Young’s editorial, he asks whether to execute or not execute a person. His question pertains to a man by the name of Scott Louis Panetti, who was convicted in 1992 for the killings of his two in-laws and in 1995 was sentenced to death, which he then managed to avoid by claiming insanity. With a previous history of schizophrenia and multiple hospitalizations for mental illnesses, Panetti was scheduled to be executed on December 3, 2014, and in an article published in the Texas Tribune, federal appeals court issues stay for Panetti, in which the court halted Panetti’s execution just hours before his scheduled departure.
Mr. Young states that the insanity plea is often used to get out of extreme sentences and that those who are mentally ill has to provide sufficient paperwork proving insanity or be held fully responsible and suffer major consequences which I most definitely have to agree. That being said, we go back to Mr. Young’s question, to execute or not to execute?
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, chapter 46 Insanity as Defense, under article 46.05 Competency to be Executed:
(a) A person who is incompetent to be executed may not be executed
(c) A motion filed under this article must identify the proceeding in which the defendant was convicted, give the date of the final judgment, set forth the fact that an execution date has been set if the date has been set, and clearly set forth alleged facts in support of the assertion that the defendant is presently incompetent to be executed. The defendant shall attach affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting the defendant's allegations or shall state why those items are not attached. The defendant shall identify any previous proceedings in which the defendant challenged the defendant's competency in relation to the conviction and sentence in question, including any challenge to the defendant's competency to be executed, competency to stand trial, or sanity at the time of the offense. The motion must be verified by the oath of some person on the defendant's behalf.
(h) A defendant is incompetent to be executed if the defendant does not understand:
(1) that he or she is to be executed and that the execution is imminent;
and
(2) the reason he or she is to be executed.
In an article from the Dallas new, Abby Johnson: If Texas values life, it shouldn’t execute mentally ill man, Ms. Johnson states that Panetti did not even understand why he was being executed. If a prior diagnosis of schizophrenia, multiple mental hospitalizations and the fact that Mr. Panetti does not understand the reasoning for his execution not enough proof or evidence, the state of Texas not only violated his 8th amendment, but also violated the Code of Criminal Procedure, chapter 46 Insanity as Defense, article 46.05 Competency to be Executed.
In all, I agree with Mr. Young. An inmate who is found guilty and convicted for murder (not by self defense), why not save the state and us tax payers the additional amount if it cost more than my annual income just to house a single inmate in a Texas prison. The law is the law and the law is put in place for a reason. We have to abide by them, which punishment has to also be followed accordingly to the law.
As my classmate John Young briefly tells in this excellently written blog the tale of Scott Louis Panetti is a tumultuous one. He was convicted of killing two in laws in 1992 and 1995 was sentenced to death. But now it is a question of his mental capacity is enough to justify ending his life. It is an excellent point he makes that the annual price tag for a year stay for a prisoner is around $21,000, and not only that but there are several other cases of individuals of extreme heinous sucking away precious tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this question is to be left up to those who are paid to answer it, but as a student I can't help but implore them to think about the programs that could be kept alive with this money, or the hardworking teachers that could really use some finical help. As my classmate John Young briefly tells in this excellently written blog the tale of Scott Louis Panetti is a tumultuous one. He was convicted of killing two in laws in 1992 and 1995 was sentenced to death. But now it is a question of his mental capacity is enough to justify ending his life. It is an excellent point he makes that the annual price tag for a year stay for a prisoner is around $21,000, and not only that but there are several other cases of individuals of extreme heinous sucking away precious tax dollars.
I agree that this question is to be left up to those who are paid to answer it, but as a student I can't help but implore them to think about the programs that could be kept alive with this money, or the hardworking teachers that could really use some finical help.