event calendar

Crazy enough to avoid the death penalty?

By CYNTHIA HALL CLEMENTS
My life won’t change if the state of Texas executes Scott Panetti, who shot his in-laws dead in 1992, a man whose lawyers now claim is insane and therefore shouldn't be executed. Besides a brief blip in my local newspaper that Panetti was tried then fried, I wouldn’t even notice if and when he’s gone.

Panetti’s lawyers are currently appealing his death sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to clarify its 1986 ruling that executing the insane violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” What is “criminal insanity”? Enough of the legal technicalities and time-and-resource-consuming maneuvering; Panetti is guilty. Execute him already.

He got a fair trial, right?

Panetti was tried by a jury of his peers who had an opportunity to hear all the state’s evidence against him. After much deliberation and a determination that the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury convicted Panetti of murdering his in-laws and sentenced him to death. Justice was served, wasn’t it? His trial judge allowed Panetti to represent himself at trial, with no assistance of counsel. Even the prosecutor objected to the judge’s decision. The defendant flipped a coin—50/50 odds–-to pick the same jurors who later convicted and sentenced him. Panetti subpoenaed President John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ as witnesses, but they were no-shows. He wore a purple cowboy suit to trial. Seems fair.

His ‘insanity’ isn’t real, right?

Now that’s he is facing a death sentence, Panetti is playing the “nut role.” His insanity comes at an expedient juncture. Panetti is faking mental illness to avoid the prick of the needle. Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz recently said, “Six professional psychiatrists concluded that he is exaggerating his symptoms, deliberately acting bizarre to prove he’s insane.” We can’t allow death row inmates to fabricate convenient mental illnesses to escape punishment, can we? Panetti was hospitalized 14 times for schizophrenia and psychotic delusions in the decade before murdering his in-laws. He hears voices and claims various personalities, including one who he thinks committed the murder. Panetti once planted his furniture in the ground and watered it, believing it to be demon-possessed. What a phony.

We've executed mentally ill prisoners before, right? The test for an inmate’s competency for execution should be simple. The prisoner should understand why he is to be executed—for murder—and that the execution will result in his death.

If Panetti would just take his anti-psychotic mediation, he would be sane. Then the state could execute him. What an easy solution.

Panetti would then join the infamous graduates of Texas’ Death Row, who include Kelsey Patterson, Class of 2004, who thought his last meal—a plate of beans–-talked back to him; James Coburn, a 2003 alumnus, who thought a man lived in his stomach; and Monty Delk, 2002 graduate, who believed he was the warden, albeit on the island of Barbados, at the time of his death. We shouldn’t allow a prisoner’s delusions to prevent the state from executing those guilty of murder, should we? Panetti thinks the state and Satan are collaborating to orchestrate his death. He fancies himself the self-ordained preacher of death row and believes his impending execution to be punishment for his spirituality. Panetti claims God cured his mental illness, so he refuses to take any medicine. Precedent says shoot him up with the lethal drugs. Insane or not is irrelevant.

The punishment should fit the crime, right?

Panetti’s victims, Amanda and Joe Alvarado, didn’t have a choice in the brutal way they died. Their former son-in-law has had some 15 years of luxurious and comfortable living on death row—all accommodations paid for by Texas taxpayers—while his lawyers dragged his case through numerous appeals. Panetti’s execution will be humane and sanitized, compared to their shooting deaths while their daughter, Panetti’s wife, and their 3-year old daughter watched. The Bible advocates “An eye for an eye.” We’re morally justified in killing criminals who murder, aren’t we?

But what if we’re wrong? Who, then, will judge our sanity?

Cynthia Hall Clements has worked for the legislatures of both Tennessee and Louisiana and was most recently a columnist for the Lufkin Daily News. She is currently attending law school.

cynthiahallclements_mmm@yahoo.com

(Distributed byMinutemanMedia.org)