The Government Is Going To Murder This Retard On Wednesday [VIDEO]
Please ignore our politically incorrect title for the moment and focus on the case of one Mr. Scott Panetti, who the government of Texas will execute on Wednesday. This is a man who has been found guilty by a jury of the crime of murder. He is also deeply mentally ill. He’s been in and out of hospitals since 1978, and has been officially diagnosed with schizophrenia as well as other disorders.
Panetti believes that the State of Texas wants to kill him because they’re afraid of him preaching the gospel on death row. He also thinks that Selena Gomez is his daughter. His co-counsel Kathryn Kase said to Vice Magazine that “It really can’t be seriously disputed that he has schizophrenia. I assure you the Army doesn’t go around casually diagnosing people with serious mental illnesses.”
The issue legally is whether Panetti is mentally fit enough to be executed. He’s not, and the system has failed him multiple times.
Panetti shot his in-laws at close range before bunkering down with his wife and kids. He released his family unharmed, changed into a suit, and then surrendered to police. In 1994, during a pre-trial competency hearing, one of his lawyers testified that he was unable communicate with Panetti because of his mental illness. A person can’t stand trial if they don’t have “sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree or rational understanding,” and “a rational, as well as a factual, understanding of the proceedings against him or her.”
Panetti tried representing himself multiple times, asking once for a continuance so he could get his medication. “I’m not looking for a long delay, but I’m going to definitely need a couple of days to get the medicine, to see my doctor, and to prepare my case.” The judge wouldn’t grant one saying: “All right, we need to go ahead and stop and kind of catch our breath and we will be starting here in about ten minutes.”
“It took the jury only two hours to find Panetti guilty in 1995. In the sentencing hearing that quickly followed, Dr. James P. Grigson testified that Panetti would kill again unless executed and that psychotropic drugs would have no effect on him. Grigson’s penchant for predicting the dangerous behavior of defendants he’d never met earned him the nickname “Dr. Death” and got him expelled from the American Psychiatric Association that very year. It took the jury four hours to determine that Panetti deserved to die by lethal injection.
Fast-forward three decades. Panetti’s lawyers have appealed his death sentence, arguing that he should never have been found competent to stand trial, should not have been permitted to represent himself, should have been found insane, and should not have been sentenced to die. But courts have denied all appeals, which is why his lawyers are focusing on his current mental incompetence.”
Scott Panetti’s lawyers argued in front of the US Supreme Court that Texas didn’t prove his mental competence in order to execute him. Then solicitor general, now Senator Ted Cruz of Texas argued in 2007 that the basis for execution of a defendant was that they had a factual awareness of their crimes. The US Supreme Court disagreed with Cruz, and required that a death row inmate must have a rational and factual awareness.
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that the English common law found executing the insane to be “savage and inhumane.”A 1986 decision in Ford v. Wainwright upheld that “the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.”
Believe it or not, a free society might sometimes have need of restraints such as prisons from time to time. And a free society, if it also wishes to remain a just society should not permit cruel or unusual punishments.What does it say about us? And how can we truly say we are pro-life and that we think a fetus should have rights, but then we turn around and execute someone on death row?
If you are for the death penalty, are you saying it because we shouldn’t waste our jail cells or tax money on these evil people? Then why do we even have to pay for their criminal defense at all? Why should they even be afforded so much as a fair trial? Why don’t we execute them on the chopping block in full public view?
The man is clearly severely disabled, and not mentally retarded as it’s commonly understood. And while that is not politically correct, I don’t give a sh**. Why? Because the government is going to kill him on Wednesday, and we should think long and hard about exactly what that means and what that says about us as a society. Educating the public about this important story is more important than the impotent rage of social justice warriors.
Nothing will be accomplished by killing this man. No justice can be done when the government takes the life of a man who has been restrained and is no longer of any danger to society. Society, and humanity is only elevated when those who have the power to kill, stay their hand and remember mercy. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. A just society doesn’t execute the mentally ill.
Otherwise, let’s just shoot them in public for all to see. No execution should go on without public oversight. Give us the games. If we must murder people at taxpayer expense, then let’s all see it on public display, as we did before 1936? If that life is property of the state, then there is no expectation of privacy. And if we are to watch the state murder a sick man, would we then reflect on our ignorance? Would the sickness of watching a head explode, or heart collapse be enough to cause people to realize the depravity of the crimes we have asked the state to commit on our behalf? Is that perhaps then the reason that the state would have an interest in not televising our executions so broadly? Because maybe people might finally call for an end to it once and for all?
Panetti’s lawyers wrote that “Executing Scott Panetti now — without at least pausing to consider whether such an execution offends contemporary standards of decency — will irreparably harm public confidence in the administration of the death penalty.
Good. Then perhaps something positive might come of this evil deed.
