Texas death row inmate pulls out eye, eats it

  • Thread starter Thread starter OAQfirst
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death Eye Row
AI Thread Summary
A Texas death row inmate, Andre Thomas, who has a history of mental illness, gruesomely killed his estranged wife and children in 2004, later pulling out and eating his own eye. The discussion centers on whether Thomas should be executed or treated for his mental illness, with opinions divided on the implications of his actions and sanity. Some argue that he lacks the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions, while others believe that all murderers should face the same fate regardless of their mental state. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of the death penalty and the moral responsibilities of society towards individuals with severe mental health issues. Ultimately, the debate raises questions about justice, rehabilitation, and the ethics of capital punishment.
OAQfirst
Messages
23
Reaction score
3
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't anyone guilty of what we consider a heinous crime insane?
 
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.
 
What makes you think he does not understand what he did?
 
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.
 
I wish I could block this thread...
 
Andre Thomas can. :-p

Oh, lisab. Your choice of smilie!
 
they asked him why he ate his eye and he said "It looked good" bad grammar, but sane.
 
OAQfirst said:
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".
 
  • #10
Which man are you referring to? I think Thomas can not live life further as a decent man, where many other murderers could.
 
  • #11
I think once someone murders someone, living life as a decent man kinda goes out the window.
 
  • #12
hypatia said:
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.
 
  • #13
Did anyone see him eat it? Perhaps he's trying to escape one bit at a time!
 
  • #14
OAQfirst said:
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.
 
  • #15
Justice is blind.
 
  • #16
hypatia said:
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.
 
  • #17
OAQfirst said:
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?
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • #19
I wish he would crack his head and try to eat his brain.
 
  • #20
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.
 
  • #21
Glad to be of service.
 
  • #22
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.
 
  • #23
Topher925 said:
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.
 
  • #24
Hurkyl said:
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?
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
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. :smile:
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
So life and death is reduced to a logic problem?
Of course. At least if we plan on using reason.
 
  • #27
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #28
My news source says his other eye underwent the same fate in 2004.
 
  • #29
WaveJumper said:
And what would be a good reason to keep him alive?

Study.
 
  • #30
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.

Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #31
WaveJumper said:
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.
 
  • #32
Am I just sick or is there something slightly morbidly funny about what this guy did?
 
  • #33
Bourbaki1123 said:
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?
 
  • #34
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
  • #36
Ivan Seeking said:
But simple logic tells me that one should never give a bureaucracy power over life and death.
While that makes for a wonderfully stereotypical joke, it sounds like you mean it seriously. It would be interesting to hear that logic. (At least if it's not overly naïve, in which case it would be rather tiring)
 
  • #37
I don't think anyone should be put to death. Someone who does what he did is probably living a life of unfathomable misery anyway. I can't imagine what drives a person to do something like that.

Some people are just not apt for living amongst other people unsupervised... someone who goes over the edge like this is likely to have shown signs of instability, same with kids who shoot up schools, etc. -- what is needed is to better understand this sort of behavior and either a) learn to prevent and treat it, if possible, before it becomes a problem; or b) lock them up in a safe place where they can't harm themselves or others.

Thugs who go around beating homeless people and starting gun-fights in crowded places deserve to be locked up and punished, but a man like this who is driven to murder his entire family needs treatment-- he must be suffering enough as it is.

From the article, it sounds like he wanted treatment and was not given it. Or that someone was aware that he needed treatment. This is what happens; this whole ordeal could've been prevented.
 
  • #38
binzing said:
Am I just sick or is there something slightly morbidly funny about what this guy did?

I hear when he went to culinary school, he was the class's top... pupil.
 
  • #39
moe darklight said:
I hear when he went to culinary school, he was the class's top... pupil.
Yet no one kept an eye out for him.
 
  • #40
Gives new meaning to the UT fight song, "The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You".
 
  • #41
Hurkyl said:
While that makes for a wonderfully stereotypical joke, it sounds like you mean it seriously. It would be interesting to hear that logic. (At least if it's not overly naïve, in which case it would be rather tiring)

Clearly you are not open to the notion that no State has the right to execute its citizens, so I won't waste my time. However, I will say that there is nothing sophisticated about murder; esp when innocent people are killed by mistake. And it is naive think any system is flawless. So beyond any other concerns of morality or ethics, to support the death penalty is to support the murder of innocents. Also, anyone who feels that there is an acceptable number of innocents that may be murdered for the common good is free to be the first in line.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
CRGreathouse said:
So are you with Neville Chamberlain, or do you only mean in domestic law?

I am only referring to domestic law. Defense of the nation is another matter. I don't see how we can get out of that one for a time. And the same is true for self defense for citizens as well as law enforcement - the need for lethal force is unavoidable at times. I am only talking about legal executions.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
Clearly you are not open to the notion that no State has the right to execute its citizens, so I won't waste my time.
Why do you think that? Because I didn't immediately fall in line after a non-argument? Executions definitely violate my moral and ethical standards -- but I'm not going to impose those standards on everybody, or even pretend a functional government could adhere to them.

Also, note that you asserted bureaucracies shouldn't have power over life and death -- that assertion has far greater implications than the death penalty, and seems obviously false.

And it is naive think any system is flawless.
Exactly. And thus it's silly to condemn any system on the grounds that flaws exist.

So beyond any other concerns of morality or ethics, to support the death penalty is to support the murder of innocents.
So what?

Incidentally, I would like to point out that this is a highly misleading characterization. While literally accurate, the connotation is definitely a strawman.

Also, anyone who feels that there is an acceptable number of innocents that may be murdered for the common good is free to be the first in line.
I'm offended that you would actually present this as if it was a rational argument.
 
  • #44
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2003/20030815h.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Ivan Seeking said:
...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.
Its not just conservatives/libertarians. A better question is who does think the government can run a business? Surely its not the pending leadership (Pres. Obama)
 
Last edited:
  • #46
I pretty much have some faith in the jury of his peers, which found him guilty.
 
  • #47
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
It's one of the requirements of joining the European Union that you don't have a death penalty.
 

Similar threads

News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?
9
Replies
409
Views
44K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top