Death Penalty: comfortable with it?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Death Penalty: comfortable with it?
A survey found that 71 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for convicted murderers. But only 51 percent think survivors and victims' relatives should view the execution, and 81 percent said they would not want to watch.
This subject came up with my brother when we were talking about the Andrea Yates trial. I believe that there are crimes so heinous that no form of punishment would seem harsh enough. I also am not sure that I would be comfortable taking another person's life. I think that God created life, who am I to take it? I cannot comprehend why that woman would want to kill her children. But I just don't believe it is my place to take a life for a life. Ok that's my belief, what's yours? 
Jujubee, I think you raise two topics here: the death penalty, and the Andrea Yates trial.
I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. My reasons are (1) if a mistake was made and the person was imprisoned for life, the mistake can be corrected - if the person was executed there is no way to correct the mistake. (2) The death penalty, by all studies, is applied in what appears to be a very biased fashion - almost no wealthy people are executed (like duPont, who murdered his wrestling instructor in Delaware a few years ago), and the majority of the people who are sentenced to death are poor and non-white. (3) Some of the people who are sentenced to death are people who by any clinical standard are not able to make "right or wrong" decisions - they are retarded or were not sane at the time of their crimes, and are often "marginal" people, people who are not able to cope in our society. (4) The deterrent effect of the death penalty is not, by any studies I have read, proven. Most sane, normal people don't plan to commit murder (though murders are often committed in the process of committing another crime), and I very much doubt that knowledge of the death penalty deters them.
Pennsylvania is one state that has a true "life without parole" sentence, and I think all states should have this. I believe there are some crimes so heinous that the person who is convicted of the crime should never walk the streets again, which life without parole accomplishes, leaving the system able to correct its error if it is later found that an error was made. The governor of Illinois mandated a moratorium on the death penalty because in Illinois over half of the people condemned to death in a 5-10 year period were later found to be innocent, and in many cases had been convicted because the police and prosecutors deliberately withheld evidence from the trial that would have worked to prove the person's innocence. That is, I think, a strong argument.
Other states have a "guilty but insane" verdict possibility, in which a jury can find that the person committed the crime but was not sane at the time. This means the person is committed to a mental health facility (high security) or the mental health wing of a prison, and can receive treatment for their illness. Texas, unhappily, is not one of those states. In Texas it is either guilty, or innocent by reason of insanity.
As for Andrea Yates, from what I have read, I am convinced that she was not in her right mind or able to tell the difference between right and wrong when she killed her children. She had suffered severe post partum depression after the birth of her fourth child, sufficiently severe that she was hospitalized. Knowing this, her husband then decided they should have a fifth child, and says she "agreed" and "wanted a fifth child". As I understand it, for quite some time they lived in a modified school bus, and only moved into a house after the birth of the fourth or fifth child to, according to the husband, have more room for home schooling. Her doctor, for reasons yet unknown because he hasn't testified, decided that she should be weaned off of her medication (according to the husband). A friend testified that she spoke with the husband many times, begging him to get help for Andrea Yates, that she was in severe depression and needed help, but the husband seems to have not responded. At least one person has testified that Andrea Yates said she heard voices in her head telling her that her children were doomed and the only way she could save them from hell was to kill them. Do I think she should go free - no. Do I think she should be executed - absolutely not. I think she should be hospitalizes, for many years, and receive the kind of treatment and medication she should have been getting all along.
As for her husband, in my not-humble opinion, I think he is an accessory to the death of those children at least by neglect and wilful blindness. I wish I were a judge and could order him to have a vasectomy and never, never, never be allowed to do to another woman what he did to Andrea Yates.
I agree Ginny, he was an accessory. It sounds as if she has schizophrenia on top of deperssion. I don't believe she was in her right mind either. But her husband HAD to know she wasn't right! Yes, she needs treatment, and what hell will she be in if she is ever right again?
As for Susan Smith, I totally think she was in her right mind or she wouldn't have gotten out of the car! And she wouldn't have lied, etc.
As for the death penalty, that is hard. Can't answer right now.
I agree, Kim - Susan Smith was a totally different story.
I believe in the law, and I do think it's a deterrent to the person commiting the crime, maybe not others but that person won't murder again. I have read that because of the death penalty, cop killings have gone down, criminals are less likely to shot at the cop in the commission of a crime if he knows the death penalty is attached. Could I do it, I don't honestly know.
As to Andrea Yate, if she is found "not guilty by reason of insanity" she won't be just set free.
This is from TexasDistrictCourts.com
http://www.texasgov.com/mentallyilloffender/partfivea.htm
INSANITY DEFENSE UNIQUE; DEFENDANT NOT AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED WHEN ACQUITTED. The insanity defense is unique among the various defenses to crime in that an acquittal by reason of insanity does not necessarily mean that the defendant is immediately set free.
All jurisdictions, including Texas, have provisions for determining whether a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity is dangerous to others and is in need of psychiatric treatment. And all jurisdictions allow detention of such an acquitted person, if necessary, to make the necessary determinations and provide the needed treatment. For example, John W. Hinckley, Jr., remains in detention in a public psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C., notwithstanding his acquittal in 1982 by reason of insanity. In Texas, these matters are governed by the provisions of Section 4.
Do I think Andrea Yates is mentally ill? Yes, do I think she knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of her crime? Yes, I do and she should be punished for her crime and not just sent to a hospital until she is no longer delusional.
I am not sure how I feel about the death penalty. In some cases, I think it's the most appropiate punishment. But, if I was a member of a jury that had to decided between death and life in prison, I don't know if I could sentence someone to die. It is an awesome responsibility, and not one I ever want to have.
As far as Andrea Yates, I don't believe she should be put to death. She was (and is) very ill and I would like to see her get treatment. I would also like to see her in jail for the rest of her life. I think living with the knowledge of what she did will (and should) haunt her for the rest of her life.
As for the husband, I agree he's an accessory. I think he knew how sick his wife was and chose to ignore it. I read somewhere that he thought they could continue to have kids and she would be medicated and all would be fine. I don't think I could effectively put into words how I feel about him. Perhaps knowing that he let his wife AND kids down is punishment enough. 
Jann, thanks for the input. I was operating on incorrect information, sorry to say. But, that still means that a jury has to decide whether Andrea Yates is guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. Only if she is found not guilty by reason of insanity does the scenario you put forth come into play. And the jury will not be told about this provision of Texas law, only that they must choose between guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. I can see a juror feeling very strongly that she was insane but, because the juror does not know about this provision of Texas law and will not be told (I guarantee that), the juror could easily vote guilty because s/he feels Andrea Yates should not be released, even if she was insane at the time of her actions.
As to whether Mr. Yates has been "punished" enough, he will get off scott free, sorry to say, with community disapproval being his only punishment, and probably not much of that. I read an article this morning where Susan Smith's husband was saying that Yates should be left alone and allowed to grieve for his dead children. This poor excuse for a man is getting a great deal of sympathy from a lot of sources, sorry to say. And I doubt very much his conscience is bothering him - it sure didn't before. I cannot begin to express the level of anger I feel toward this man.
Ginny, from my understanding, her plea is "not guilty due to mental defect".
And the statute you are referring to 1e is in direct reference to subsection d that says that if they are found not guilty by reason of insanity they are considered acquitted.
ACQUITTAL THROUGH VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. Subsection 1(d) provides that a defendant who is found not guilty by reason of insanity is acquitted of the offense charged, and may not be considered to be a person charged with a criminal offense, as that terminology is used in other statutes.
JURORS PROHIBITED FROM KNOWING CONSEQUENCES OF VERDICT. Subsection 1(e) prohibits the court and the attorneys from informing a juror or prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is returned. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the jurors, if possible, from being influenced by the consequences of their decision to the defendant. It has been held that this provision does not deny fundamental fairness to the defendant. Zwack v. State, 757 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d).
This is ironic that this thread was started, just last night I was at a party, and we were talking about all this. The host was a retired Texas (last year) judge and most of the guests were attorneys. I was very concerned that she was just going to walk away without any treatment or anything if acquitted. The host emailed me this information this am to go with our conversation.
I used to believe whole-heartedly in the death penalty. And I still feel that if something were to happen to one of my family members, I would want the perpetrator to be executed...BUT, now, as my children are getting older and developing minds of their own, I wonder....what if, God forbid, one of my children committed a crime someday? How, as a mother, could one believe in the death penalty when applied to one's OWN child? (I have no reason whatsoever to even think that this would ever happen, but who does?!) Just as every victim is SOMEONE's mother, father, child, sibling, etc., so is every defendant. That is why I think it is beyond mere mortals to make such a choice...
No, I don't beleive in the death penalty. I don't beleive we have the right to take another life. Thou shalt not kill. Do I think the Yates woman is guilty? Yes. I do beleive that she is ill, but I also think she knew what she was doing. She had to chase these children and kill them one by one! I just don't understand how someone can do this FIVE times and not know it was wrong. I think she should spend the rest of her days in prison. I don't understand sometimes how people can get "insanity" non guiltys. I think everyone that kills someone else in cold blood is insane, that is exactly why they should be put away. JMHO
I haven't read everything yet and I would like to comment on the Yates topic but i have to take my children to school
I have NEVER believed in the death penalty and I NEVER will. I see it as murder that is justified by our criminal system because they can. I do believe in life WITHOUT parole and think that all murderers, child abusers, distributors of child pornography, and many more should be put in jail for LIFE with no chance of getting out EVER unless they are ever found not guilty.
This brings me to another topic that I would like to discuss but I will start another post
I am sure I will have more to add to this post
I FIRMLY believe in the death penalty!! Life without parole is just like a free vacation for muderers!! They can live the rest of their lives & never have to worry about where their next eal will come from, if they have enough money to feed their kids, etc. Lethal injection should be outlawed, what a punishment for them, they get put to sleep!!!!! Murderers should die the same way as their victims!!. Like Susan Smith & andrea Yates. In my opinion, they should both be drowned until death!!!!!!!!!
|
Members
