Texas death row inmate pulls out eye, eats it

[OAQfirst]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_re_us/death_row_eye

HOUSTON – A Texas death row inmate with a history of mental problems pulled out his only good eye and told authorities he ate it. Andre Thomas, 25, was arrested for the fatal stabbings of his estranged wife, their young son and her 13-month-old daughter in March 2004. Their hearts also had been ripped out. He was convicted and condemned for the infant's death.

I can't believe they're going to execute him at all. If this isn't proof enough that he's insane, what would be?

Here's his offender info: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/thomasandre.htm

 

[Evo]

Isn't anyone guilty of what we consider a heinous crime insane?

 

[OAQfirst]

Legally? I wouldn't think so. I thought it depended on whether the perp understood the difference between right and wrong. Thomas seems to think it okay to pull out his eye for a snack, so... yeah. I don't think he grasps fully the consequences of his actions where others would have no difficulty. And others still commit heinous crimes.

 

[hypatia]

What makes you think he does not understand what he did?

 

[OAQfirst]

Oh, I'm sure he understood what he did. I just don't believe he appreciates the results. With his mind, he can never live a meaningful life without therapy.

Contrast with another murderer, someone who can reason what he did was wrong and has everything he needs to become a decent man, an asset to his community.

 

[lisab]

I wish I could block this thread...:yuck:

 

[OAQfirst]

Andre Thomas can. :tongue:

Oh, lisab. Your choice of smilie!

 

[tribdog]

they asked him why he ate his eye and he said "It looked good" bad grammar, but sane.

 

[Evo]

Contrast with another murderer, someone who can reason what he did was wrong and has everything he needs to become a decent man, an asset to his community.

So, you are agreeing that this man is not someone that has a possibility of becoming a "decent man".

 

[OAQfirst]

Which man are you referring to? I think Thomas can not live life further as a decent man, where many other murderers could.

 

[hypatia]

I think once someone murders someone, living life as a decent man kinda goes out the window.

 

[tribdog]

I think once someone murders someone, living life as a decent man kinda goes out the window.

I don't know. I get by okay.

 

[mgb_phys]

Did anyone see him eat it? Perhaps he's trying to escape one bit at a time!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Which man are you referring to? I think Thomas can not live life further as a decent man, where many other murderers could.

So he should get out on an insanity plea while the ones who could theoretically live life as decent people oughtn't? LOL! sorry... that just sounds rather silly.

 

[Cyrus]

Justice is blind.

 

[TVP45]

I think once someone murders someone, living life as a decent man kinda goes out the window.

Not so. I've known three murderers that I'm aware of (two did their time, one was never charged) who were quite decent and harmless afterwards. There is a great difference between a situational crime, such as Jean Valjean stealing bread, an insanity crime, such as Jeffrey Dahmer committed, and a deliberate crime, such as those done by Albert Anastasia.

Situational crimes usually occur once, are not easily deterred, and really don't require retribution. Insanity crimes occur because of an illness; if the illness can be treated, there's no need for punishment, if not, we may as well execute the person. Deliberate crimes are beyond the pale of society and the perpetrators need to be excluded, most conveniently by execution, no matter whether the crime is embezzlement or murder. We kill people for the good of society, not to reform the criminal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Contrast with another murderer, someone who can reason what he did was wrong and has everything he needs to become a decent man, an asset to his community.

So we should only execute those capable of being an asset to their community?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Turns out that the guy in the next cell had asked Thomas to keep an eye out for lunch, but the intent of this statement was misunderstood.

We have had a string of murders around here. The victims are often found in a bathtub full of milk, so the authorities are suspicious that it's a cereal killer.

 

[WaveJumper]

I wish he would crack his head and try to eat his brain.

 

[hypatia]

OMG Ivan, I long ago thought I had toughened myself up enough, to never snort coffee out my nose while on PF. I'm here to inform you, I was wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Glad to be of service.

 

[Topher925]

There is no reason to keep people like this alive, whether it be in prison or in the free world. I'd through the switch myself if they would let me.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no reason to keep people like this alive, whether it be in prison or in the free world.

Of course there is reason to keep people like this alive -- it's exactly the same reason that justifies keeping people like you and me alive.

The question is whether or not the reasons to keep people like this alive outweigh the reasons to kill him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The question is whether or not the reasons to keep people like this alive outweigh the reasons to kill him.

So life and death is reduced to a logic problem?

 

[arildno]

So life and death is reduced to a logic problem?

No, we do not have to descend that far, we can stop on the level of logistics instead.

 

[Hurkyl]

So life and death is reduced to a logic problem?

Of course. At least if we plan on using reason.

 

[WaveJumper]

Of course there is reason to keep people like this alive -- it's exactly the same reason that justifies keeping people like you and me alive.

The question is whether or not the reasons to keep people like this alive outweigh the reasons to kill him.

And what would be a good reason to keep him alive? Participation in a comedian show? Or in a circus? Or maybe for a plot of a horror movie where he depicts how he chopped his wife and children or how he ate his left eye? For the life of me, i cannot think of a single reason why i would want to have a neighbour like that.

 

[Monique]

My news source says his other eye underwent the same fate in 2004.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And what would be a good reason to keep him alive?

Study.

 

[OAQfirst]

So he should get out on an insanity plea while the ones who could theoretically live life as decent people oughtn't? LOL! sorry... that just sounds rather silly.

That's not where I was going. Thomas is a danger to everyone and himself. But I don't see any justice in treating him as a criminal. He needs therapy.

The sane murderers need a swift kick up their arses. But at least they have the ability to rehabilitate, to become an asset to their community via their own decisions. Thomas has no such ability.

So we should only execute those capable of being an asset to their community?

I wasn't supporting any execution in this argument. Only that Andre Thomas shouldn't be. As for others, I think it all boils down to individual intentions. Does a sane murderer (I know, there's a separate issue about whether murderers can be sane/insane) intend to lead a good, meaningful, productive life or continue preying on people? That's entirely up to him. I don't see any such choice even within Thomas' potential.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

And what would be a good reason to keep him alive? Participation in a comedian show? Or in a circus? Or maybe for a plot of a horror movie where he depicts how he chopped his wife and children or how he ate his left eye? For the life of me, i cannot think of a single reason why i would want to have a neighbour like that.

I think that Hurkyl was saying the following:

Reasons to keep him alive = Reasons to keep an innocent person X alive
Reasons to kill = Irreparably insane, probably would kill again repeatedly, cannibalism violates cultural norms

Considering the matter in this light, we essentially have a balance, the tipping of which determines the outcome we should choose. This is flawed as I see it as it disallows consideration of merit in addition to 'basic human rights'.

As for the decision being a logic game:Matters of import all boil down to logic games if we are to look at them in any systematic way. I fail to see how it could be sane to decide something as complex as whether or not to execute a person without applying a logical structure to the considerations even unconsciously.

 

[binzing]

Am I just sick or is there something slightly morbidly funny about what this guy did?

 

[Hurkyl]

Considering the matter in this light, we essentially have a balance, the tipping of which determines the outcome we should choose. This is flawed as I see it as it disallows consideration of merit in addition to 'basic human rights'.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't see how the 'balance' would disallow such consideration. If you think 'merit' is relevant, then wouldn't it go on the balance?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course. At least if we plan on using reason.

It seems to me that morality plays a bit of a role here. But simple logic tells me that one should never give a bureaucracy power over life and death.

A bit paradoxical that Conservatives don't think the government can run a business, but it can properly negotiate the business of killing people. So the logic is to trust the government with lives but not widgets.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It seems to me that morality plays a bit of a role here. But simple logic tells me that one should never give a bureaucracy power over life and death.

So are you with Neville Chamberlain, or do you only mean in domestic law?