Texas death row inmate pulls out eye, eats it

  • Thread starter Thread starter OAQfirst
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death Eye Row
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
46 replies · 6K views
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
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.
 
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".
 
Which man are you referring to? I think Thomas can not live life further as a decent man, where many other murderers could.
 
I think once someone murders someone, living life as a decent man kinda goes out the window.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
I wish he would crack his head and try to eat his brain.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
WaveJumper said:
And what would be a good reason to keep him alive?

Study.
 
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.