Texas Executes Man With IQ of 61; State Cites Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men” To Justify Killing - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Valnar;37144642]Because there is a lot of facts that point to it. It is generally more expensive to execute someone than imprison them for life. Our justice system is racist when it comes to dealing out the death penalty. For example, if you killed a white person you have a much more likely chance of getting the death penalty than if you killed a black person or latino. The death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent to other people causing murders. States with the death penalty on average have a significantly higher murder rate than states without the death penalty Here is some more info on the subject. [URL]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf[/URL] [URL]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state[/URL] The death penalty is a horrible thing and there really is no way it can be justified.[/QUOTE] I'm not defending the death penalty in the US, it's a first world country, you probably don't need it, but it does apply in some places of the world.

[QUOTE=BrownTown;37143976]Despicable actions by the state of Texas. The fact that the conservative Republicans applaud Texas and it's fastest rate of death row to execution is even more despicable. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcVGzqwfx7k[/media][/QUOTE] what the fuck

(Warning: extremely controversial subject ahead; proceed at your own risk. Side-effects of reading this post may include (but is not limited to) butthurt). Why do we keep the mentally challenged alive? Before you respond angrily in caps, please read what I have to say. I know a human life is a human life, but we're working to keep them alive and they will never contribute anything to human society. And what about people in comas? I guess it's really up to the family, but damn. When you wake up, your muscles have already experienced major atrophy and you quite possibly might never walk again. That isn't my idea of living. A person is a person, but there is a point where a person will either not want to or not deserve to live. Where that point is, well, that's up to you.

[QUOTE=gzg;37145183] Why do we keep the mentally challenged alive?[/QUOTE] because the constitution doesn't make a distinction between mentally challenged and not mentally challenged

[QUOTE=gzg;37145183](Warning: extremely controversial subject ahead; proceed at your own risk. Side-effects of reading this post may include (but is not limited to) butthurt). Why do we keep the mentally challenged alive? Before you respond angrily in caps, please read what I have to say. I know a human life is a human life, but we're working to keep them alive and they will never contribute anything to human society. And what about people in comas? I guess it's really up to the family, but damn. When you wake up, your muscles have already experienced major atrophy and you quite possibly might never walk again. That isn't my idea of living. A person is a person, but there is a point where a person will either not want to or not deserve to live. Where that point is, well, that's up to you.[/QUOTE] Everybody has the right to life. Why do you say that mentally challenged people don't contribute to society? Plenty of mentally challenged people have jobs and pay taxes and live out their lives happily. People in comas wake up all the time and they also survive and live normal lives all the time.

It's stuff like this that really makes me want to move out of Texas.

[QUOTE=gzg;37145183](Warning: extremely controversial subject ahead; proceed at your own risk. Side-effects of reading this post may include (but is not limited to) butthurt). Why do we keep the mentally challenged alive? Before you respond angrily in caps, please read what I have to say. I know a human life is a human life, but we're working to keep them alive and they will never contribute anything to human society. And what about people in comas? I guess it's really up to the family, but damn. When you wake up, your muscles have already experienced major atrophy and you quite possibly might never walk again. That isn't my idea of living. A person is a person, but there is a point where a person will either not want to or not deserve to live. Where that point is, well, that's up to you.[/QUOTE] I'd argue with you, but considering you joined just to post this you're probably just trying to bait us.

[QUOTE=gzg;37145183](Warning: extremely controversial subject ahead; proceed at your own risk. Side-effects of reading this post may include (but is not limited to) butthurt). Why do we keep the mentally challenged alive? Before you respond angrily in caps, please read what I have to say. I know a human life is a human life, but we're working to keep them alive and they will never contribute anything to human society. And what about people in comas? I guess it's really up to the family, but damn. When you wake up, your muscles have already experienced major atrophy and you quite possibly might never walk again. That isn't my idea of living. A person is a person, but there is a point where a person will either not want to or not deserve to live. Where that point is, well, that's up to you.[/QUOTE] Why do we keep anyone alive? Push the button to blow up the world. End all misery of any sort. Not like anyone will miss us.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37145276]Why do we keep anyone alive? Push the button to blow up the world. End all misery of any sort. Not like anyone will miss us.[/QUOTE] I'm actually trying to argue for the welfare of humanity. Why do the sick get left behind in the herd? Because they can't keep up. The rest shouldn't slow down. I also apologize that I should have made it more clear that by 'mentally challenged' I don't just mean stupid people, I mean people who are unable to operate by themselves.

I'm not here to argue about the ethics of capital punishment, but his mental impairment claim wasn't supported by other tests and assessments over the years, just one test that was done by an inexperienced agent and the test itself may have been completely incorrect on his IQ. It takes someone who is cold and calculating to rob 2 banks, then threaten someone, and then act on that threat and murder them.

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;37144971]I'm not defending the death penalty in the US, it's a first world country, you probably don't need it, but it does apply in some places of the world.[/QUOTE] The death penalty would be even worse in a third world country, especially if the government is corrupt.

What's the problem with 61? Isn't 60 the average for most Texans?

[QUOTE=gzg;37145342]I'm actually trying to argue for the welfare of humanity. Why do the sick get left behind in the herd? Because they can't keep up. The rest shouldn't slow down. I also apologize that I should have made it more clear that by 'mentally challenged' I don't just mean stupid people, I mean people who are unable to operate by themselves.[/QUOTE] You know, I'm pretty sure someone tried this before. He also added other undesirables to that list like jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Most people thought it was a bad thing. I mean, I'm sorry to use such an extreme example, but justifying doing horrible things "for the welfare of humanity" really does sound, well, let's just say that this might be one of those rare times where invoking Godwin's Law is actually justified.

[QUOTE=gzg;37145342]I'm actually trying to argue for the welfare of humanity. Why do the sick get left behind in the herd? Because they can't keep up. The rest shouldn't slow down. I also apologize that I should have made it more clear that by 'mentally challenged' I don't just mean stupid people, I mean people who are unable to operate by themselves.[/QUOTE] Yes let's guide ourselves solely on survival and other basic animal instincts.

[QUOTE=gzg;37145342]I'm actually trying to argue for the welfare of humanity. Why do the sick get left behind in the herd? Because they can't keep up. The rest shouldn't slow down. I also apologize that I should have made it more clear that by 'mentally challenged' I don't just mean stupid people, I mean people who are unable to operate by themselves.[/QUOTE] because as much as people try to claim that humans are just another type of animal it's not true. we aren't animals so we don't act like them.

[QUOTE=The mouse;37144132]Isn't using of Mice and Men ironic as one of the points of the book is that Lennie is fundamentally innocent of all his actions.[/QUOTE] To a certain point, yes. But there are quite a few instances in the book where he takes advantage of George's kindness and tolerance towards him.

Did they shoot him in the head with a luger? I mean if they're going to cite the book...

[QUOTE=scotty1;37146065]To a certain point, yes. But there are quite a few instances in the book where he takes advantage of George's kindness and tolerance towards him.[/QUOTE] no there isn't. i don't know where you pulled that from, but it's not John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men.

Did they read the book? [sp]George the protagonist only kills his mentally-challenged friend Lenny because there was an angry mob after him because he (accidentally) killed a woman. He didn't want him to die slow.[/sp] gj texas

a criminal is a criminal. the execution was totally justifiable.

[QUOTE=Primus;37147106]a criminal is a criminal. the execution was totally justifiable.[/QUOTE] Carefully explain to me why it was justified. Going by "a criminal is a criminal" as a justification, I can say a murder is a murder. Killing someone with full intent outside of self defense is murder.

though i disagree with execution in any situation, under the assumption that there will always be executions i can at least understand their rationale [editline]9th August 2012[/editline] actually no, i just thought about the book and they totally misused the lesson it was trying to teach. fuck off Texas.

Warden should be executed. His HQ (Humanity Quota) is far below legal standards

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;37143533]The title made me think they executed him because of his IQ. It's a bit misleading, but what exactly did he do?[/QUOTE] He pet mice to death.

[QUOTE=Exxon;37143414]Honestly, even if they are mentally retarded. A criminal is a criminal, they are also people, they should have the same rights and restrictions and repercussions as any other citizen. [editline][/editline] and yes I realize how extremely handicapped he is. I still see it the same.[/QUOTE] Yes they deserve the same rights. They deserve the same rights to be able to defend themselves in a court of law. When you're incapable of basic function you're incapable of defending yourself. You deserve that right.

[QUOTE=Exxon;37143414]Honestly, even if they are mentally retarded. A criminal is a criminal, they are also people, they should have the same rights and restrictions and repercussions as any other citizen. [editline][/editline] and yes I realize how extremely handicapped he is. I still see it the same.[/QUOTE] So would you be in favour of executing a child convicted of murder?

[QUOTE=James*;37147462]So would you be in favour of executing a child convicted of murder?[/QUOTE] They already do that anyways. No wait, they first let them wait until they're 18 (or 21?), then they go trough the whole appeal thing and then they're 60 and have lived their whole life in prison and get executed.

[QUOTE=Derposaurus;37145718]What's the problem with 61? Isn't 60 the average for most Texans?[/QUOTE] Oh man, aren't you cool? Insulting a group of people who can't even reply to you, man you must feel awesome.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37144709]The death penalty is stupid because everyone is only a victim of their circumstance. People are only the way they are because of what happens around them and their genetic structure.[/QUOTE] by that logic, all punishment is immoral

It seems odd I should always be the first one to bring up rights in a CP debate, but it looks like I'll have to do it again. Death Penalty violates human rights. I support human rights, so I'm against the death penalty.