[Admin Moderator]

Do you have a link for this?
Thanks.

[Jaysun]

This may be an unpopular stance, but to me his mental capacity is a non-issue. If the guy is so brainsick that he couldn't resist "shooting Joe and Amanda Alvarado with a sawed-off shotgun at their Fredericksburg home." then he's just as worthy of the needle than the next guy. Once it's established that he committed the murders, the question as to why he committed the murders is irrelevant. His mental illness doesn't make his victims any less dead.

[PropheticZero]

Whats the alternative? Being doped and tranqued out of his mind for the rest of his life? Locked in a padded cell with a padded low-flow (so he doesn't drown himself) toilet, eating pureed food off a padded tray because they don't trust him with spoons, forks, or knives.

[yankeedame]

Panetti was convicted of killing his in-laws in 1992, shooting Joe and Amanda Alvarado with a sawed-off shotgun at their Fredericksburg home. Panetti was looking for his estranged wife and their 3-year-old daughter.

This action might or might not prove he's nuts. It might be the action(s) of a cold blooded killer or a paranoid; though the fact that he was deliberately looking for his ex-wife and child at this ex-in-laws' tends, IMHO, to tip the scale somewhat towards the former.

...Panetti took them to his cabin and held them hostage before putting on a suit and turning himself in.

If I were the judge (or on the jury) these actions would be the deciding factor:

- By kidnapping his child and ex-wife, and going (fleeing?) to his cabin he was conscience of the fact that he had done wrong/evil/bad and sought to get away.

- The fact that he out on a suit means that he felt he needed to look "respectable" hence not the kind of man who would do this act. This a sign that he knew good(guys) vs. bad(guys), social expectation re: dress and the social preconceived notions about it, etc.

- "...and turned himself".

The fact that he turned himself in meant that he knew the police were there for a reason -- they were after him -- and the reason the police were there was because he -- not his wife or child -- had done something bad/wrong/evil.

In a nutshell: The legal definition of insanity is when the doer of the deed does not know the difference between right and wrong -- ever and/or at the time of the action.

The fact that this man did the above things,i.e. fled, changed his clothes, surrendered to the authorities mean that -- even if for only that short span of time -- he did know right from wrong and therefore is guilty of the the crime of which he had been charged.

If it is proven that he is nuts at this point in time, he should be reprimanded to a lunatic asylum for the rest of his life.

If it is shown that he was sane than (his action and/or that he was on the proper Rx at the time) and at this point in time, then he should face the full consequences of his actions.

[goldstategop]

Liberals believe if you don't know what murder means, its inhumane to put you to death.

[BykrBayb]

Well, if they're so convinced his mind isn't fully functional, they should send him to Saint Petersburg, Florida for medical treatment. There's a wonderful hospice there that's happy to provide starvation and dehydration to it's brain damaged patients. That should make everyone happy.

[sr4402]

Do the words, Thou shalt not suffer a Murderer to live ring a bell? Right now one murderer is given a life sentance and another gets the death sentance. What is the difference - an arbitrary decsion by politicans or a judge. If the penalty was not arbitrary, we would have far less murders and murderers in society.

Remember the Dukakis furlows and the murder/rape in MD that he allowed? The murderer you sentance to life is paroled with the next liberal judge.

I agree with DNA testing, but wish we had that for all criminals. The ACLU will not stand for that. Wonder why.