Texas death row inmate pulls out eye, eats it

  • Thread starter Thread starter OAQfirst
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death Eye Row
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the case of Andre Thomas, a Texas death row inmate who reportedly pulled out and ate his own eye. Participants explore themes of mental health, criminal responsibility, and the implications of his actions in relation to the death penalty. The conversation touches on legal definitions of insanity, the nature of heinous crimes, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Thomas's actions indicate a lack of sanity, questioning the morality of executing someone deemed insane.
  • Others suggest that understanding the difference between right and wrong is crucial for legal sanity, implying that Thomas may not fully grasp the consequences of his actions.
  • There is a contrast drawn between Thomas and other murderers who may have the potential to rehabilitate and become assets to society.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the possibility of Thomas leading a meaningful life, suggesting he requires therapy rather than punishment.
  • Debate arises over whether life and death decisions can be reduced to logical reasoning, with some asserting that such decisions involve deeper ethical considerations.
  • Several participants question the justification for keeping individuals like Thomas alive, with some suggesting that study could be a reason, while others dismiss the idea of any redeeming value in his existence.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of labeling crimes as situational, insanity-based, or deliberate, and how these classifications affect views on punishment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of Thomas's mental state and the appropriateness of the death penalty. There is no consensus on whether he should be executed or treated as insane, and differing opinions on the potential for rehabilitation among murderers persist throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various legal and ethical frameworks regarding insanity and criminal responsibility, but these frameworks are not universally accepted or agreed upon in the discussion. The conversation reflects a complex interplay of moral, psychological, and legal considerations without resolution.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in criminal justice, mental health issues in the legal system, and ethical debates surrounding the death penalty may find this discussion relevant.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.