Texas death row inmate plucks out eye, eats it

[desert_fox 32]

Don't mess with Texas.

[zqt3344 21]

We need public hangings again! Fry them in the chair. An eye for an eye. Then these criminals will learn to stop preying on innocents!

Don't mess with Texas.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm... someone who rips an eye out of their own head and eats it probably isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty.

[john & jean 37]

Hmmm... someone who rips an eye out of their own head and eats it probably isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty.

Hmmm.. Yes but he is going to be deterred, when the great state of TEXAS carries out the sentence!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm... someone who rips an eye out of their own head and eats it probably isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty.

Hmmm.. Yes but he is going to be deterred, when the great state of TEXAS carries out the sentence!!

No, that's not deterrence.

[Scott & Lai 12]

According to whom? Upon what do you base the claim that all killing is murder?

Ummm...killing is murder by definition.

So, if someone tries to kill you, and in the process of defending yourself you kill them, are you a murderer?

[peejay 327]

It just makes it something other than murder. Your outrage doesn't make it wrong either. The criminal justice system is not based on executing innocents or incarcerating them wrongfully.

You're right, it's not my outrage that makes it wrong. It's the merits of the function that makes it wrong. We as a society believe murder to be wrong, therefore murder IS wrong, no matter who does it, and no matter what their crime. The death penalty is not a punishment, it is revenge, which our criminal justice system (and we as a society) need to be above. We teach our children that revenge is wrong. We need to start holding our government to those same ideals that we teach our children.

Personally I'm not so gung ho about executing people right and left on a whim, but in some cases it is definitely appropriate. It should only be used in limited cases. My only beef is that it isn't uniformly applied. Some people that should get it don't and some that do get it are not as heinous murderers as those that are spared with life sentences.

Certainly, and while I think it's yet another good argument against the death penalty, I don't think it's necessary because the argument that the death penalty is morally wrong should be enough.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but your not entitled to your own facts. Your statements are based on opinion, not fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Killing is killing.

Anything else is contextually defined.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It just makes it something other than murder. Your outrage doesn't make it wrong either. The criminal justice system is not based on executing innocents or incarcerating them wrongfully.

You're right, it's not my outrage that makes it wrong. It's the merits of the function that makes it wrong. We as a society believe murder to be wrong, therefore murder IS wrong, no matter who does it, and no matter what their crime. The death penalty is not a punishment, it is revenge, which our criminal justice system (and we as a society) need to be above. We teach our children that revenge is wrong. We need to start holding our government to those same ideals that we teach our children.

Personally I'm not so gung ho about executing people right and left on a whim, but in some cases it is definitely appropriate. It should only be used in limited cases. My only beef is that it isn't uniformly applied. Some people that should get it don't and some that do get it are not as heinous murderers as those that are spared with life sentences.

Certainly, and while I think it's yet another good argument against the death penalty, I don't think it's necessary because the argument that the death penalty is morally wrong should be enough.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but your not entitled to your own facts. Your statements are based on opinion, not fact.

Umm... the debate about the DP is about opinion, hence we have to-and-fro in the courts. There's nothing "factual" about it.

You have facts that pertain to specific cases, but the terminology is defined by opinion.

[mawilson 2,133]

No kidding. This guy is criminally insane and should be kept in a mental hospital, not death row.

I'm generally against the death penalty, but I'm not going to cry for this guy.

Nor do I want to pay to keep him alive for the rest of his life.

[peejay 327]

Hmmm... someone who rips an eye out of their own head and eats it probably isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty.

The guy is totally blind at this point, having mutilated his other eye years ago according to the article. He brutally murdered and mutilated his family. At this point, killing this poor ####### would probably be putting him out of his misery. Rehabilitation and a productive life is a pipe dream. Keeping him warehoused till eternity is not worth the expensive. Seems kind of obvious that deterent is not the point.

But if Mox wants to keep him chained, fed, and cared for in his basement at his own expense till eternity, that would be acceptable to me. Far be it from me to be vengeful. Not sure if his wife would go for the arrangement though.

[mox 298]

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but your not entitled to your own facts. Your statements are based on opinion, not fact.

You've yet to quote a fact either. Everything you've said up to this point is opinion also.

The guy is totally blind at this point, having mutilated his other eye years ago according to the article. He brutally murdered and mutilated his family. At this point, killing this poor ####### would probably be putting him out of his misery. Rehabilitation and a productive life is a pipe dream. Keeping him warehoused till eternity is not worth the expensive. Seems kind of obvious that deterent is not the point.

Ah, well now that's called euthanasia, a completely different argument.

But if Mox wants to keep him chained, fed, and cared for in his basement at his own expense till eternity, that would be acceptable to me. Far be it from me to be vengeful. Not sure if his wife would go for the arrangement though.

As a DP advocate, I doubt you would be satisfied with this solution. My anti-DP wife would also be unsatisfied with this solution.

[peejay 327]

Well...I'm not exactly pro-death penalty, but it doesn't really bother me if a brutal murderer that meets the criteria outlined in the law gets executed for committing the crime.

Life without any possibility of parole is also acceptable. But history has proven in the past that a life sentence in states like Texas can be circumvented by politicians and judges when it is politically or fisically expedient. And they have been released to kill again. There is no such thing as a life sentence unless the murderer is executed. The safety of society at large is my main concern. Dead men don't kill again.

[mox 298]

Well...I'm not exactly pro-death penalty, but it doesn't really bother me if a brutal murderer that meets the criteria outlined in the law gets executed for committing the crime.

To be honest, this is a lot how I feel, on an emotional level. If someone killed a member of my family, I'd sell my soul to pull the switch. But this is why justice can't be meted out based on emotion. We're better than that. Or at least we should be.

Life without any possibility of parole is also acceptable. But history has proven in the past that a life sentence in states like Texas can be circumvented by politicians and judges when it is politically or fisically expedient. And they have been released to kill again. There is no such thing as a life sentence unless the murderer is executed. The safety of society at large is my main concern. Dead men don't kill again.

History has shown that the death penalty can also be circumvented by politicians and judges, and in fact this has been a big argument in the anti-DP movement. As I said earlier, I prefer to argue the merits on a moral playing field, rather than basically saying "I'm against the DP because the way it is implemented is broken." All that does is encourage people to make it more efficient.

I agree though that there's a lot wrong with the system. I just don't think it's right to kill somebody just in case the system isn't able to hold them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm... someone who rips an eye out of their own head and eats it probably isn't going to be deterred by the death penalty.

The guy is totally blind at this point, having mutilated his other eye years ago according to the article. He brutally murdered and mutilated his family. At this point, killing this poor ####### would probably be putting him out of his misery. Rehabilitation and a productive life is a pipe dream. Keeping him warehoused till eternity is not worth the expensive. Seems kind of obvious that deterent is not the point.

Isn't it actually cheaper keeping people in detention, rather than Death Row (complete with umpteen appeals)?

Obviously it isn't about deterrent, that was a stupid argument that was brought up by someone else - as if a self-mutilating psychopath would have been deterred from his crime by the knowledge that he could/would be executed.