Death Penatly and Mental Illness

I think the only moral use of the death penalty
is in cases where the public needs to be protected from further harm from the criminal
and are at risk of that criminal being able to again perpetrate crimes such as murder.

Given the penal system in the US, the probability of that happening here is extremely low.
I understand that people of good will may disagree with me regarding future risk,
and may having compelling arguments to back them up.

The case in Ohio points out the inconstancy of the pro death penalty side.  
This man should not be put to death, regardless of his mental capacity.
 

OK, I'll play.  So let's assume he's perfectly sane.  What do you suggest we do with him?

Incarcerate him for life.

It's the price we pay for living under the rule of law in a civilized society
that values life. 

The question is are prisons supposed to rehabilitate, or punish?

Is the death penalty retribution for society or punishment for the criminal?

I see it as both, heinous crimes deserve severe punishment, and society needs closure. There is no reason that Charles Manson should still be alive.

Based on your first post you said the death penalty should be used only for those who present a danger to society.  If we lock them up for life (truly life, no parole) then what danger do they present?  So by that logic I'd conclude that you don't feel we should put ANYONE to death?

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Yes that's correct, as long as there is a reasonable expectation that the penal system is robust enough
to protect the public from further harm from the criminal.

In the US at this time, I think it is reasonable to expect that we are protected from criminals convicted of capital crimes.
Therefore, I don't support the execution of any prisoner in the US for any type of capital crime. 

I've read so many articles and that state it's cheaper to incarcerate a person for life than to put them to death.  I'm personally against the death penalty just due to religious beliefs but from what the articles said I'm against it for fiscal reasons as well. 

That's because our legal system is screwed up.  In Texas they spent $1 million seeking the death penalty against a man who pleaded guilty to murder.  Add in the numerous, numerous appeals each person gets and it adds up quick.

I'm not trying to say that everyone convicted of killing a person should be put to death.  And I don't know exactly where to draw that line.  However I do know that there are some people that do not need to be on this planet anymore.

I don't know if it's the same case, but I heard recently about a case (I think in TX) where the guy 100% did some horrible crime and 100% was mentally insane and the state is suing to force him to take anti-psychotic medicine so he will be sane so they can execute him.

I think you are talking about the Steven Staley case. Here is the article from the Texas Tribune about them medicating him to the point where the judge would find him competent to be executed.  I think he was a schizophrenic.    

I'm anti-capital punishment in all cases. It accomplishes none of the goals to which it purports and it is a virtual certainty that we have killed numerous innocent people over the years. 

Here's the list of worldwide executions in 2011. As an American, this is embarrassing company to be in.

1	People's Republic of China	Officially not released.[51][52] In the thousands, may be up to 4,000.[53]
2	Iran	360+
3	Saudi Arabia	82+
4	Iraq	68+
5	United States	43
6	Yemen	41+
7	North Korea	30+
8	Somalia	10
9	Sudan	7+
10	Bangladesh	5+
11	Vietnam	5+
12	South Sudan	5
13	Republic of China (Taiwan)	5
14	Singapore	4[54]
15	Palestinian Authority	3
16	Afghanistan	2
17	Belarus	2
18	Egypt	1+
19	United Arab Emirates	1
20	Malaysia	+
21	Syria	+

I don't support the death penalty (lots of reasons, some philosophical, some practical). But, the point of this is that you are supposed to know what you are being punished for. 

Let me offer a (probably poor) analogy. Imagine if you drove your car while asleep (not fell asleep driving, but got up, like a sleep walker, got in the car and drove it). While driving, you hit a person and killed them, then drove back home and got back ito bed, all the while asleep. You would have no memory or understanding of what you did. Now imagine that when you woke up, you were strapped into Old Sparky. You would have no understanding of what you had done, or why you were being punished. 

Well, the law approaches mental illness in a similar fashion - if you are not deemed "sane" at the time of the execution, you have to be made "sane" (and there is a LOT of controversy in my field about treating people only to make them eligible for death). You have to understand the acts and nature of those acts to be eligible for the death penalty. It's part of why we do not (generally) execute the mentally retarded.

Oh I'm not arguing that he should be put to death when he is mentally ill.  It just seems absurd to make him better to put him to death.  However I find it odd that he was not found mentally ill during the trial but now he is.

This case, and my overall feelings on the death penalty, are two different subjects that are getting intertwined in this topic (as expected)

The way we handle the death penalty right now is not a deterrent.  If handled differently (yet still justly) I think it could be.

I think you bring up a good point.
It's why the common arguments against the death penalty such as it not being a deterrent,  
or that it's more expensive, or that innocent persons are sometimes put to death,
or that it puts us in the company of undesirable nations,
ultimately fall apart.

Those reasons may all in fact be true, but they are all correctable.
If corrected, then it would mean that the death penalty was moral. 

As far as I can see, the only rock solid reason for opposing the death penalty
is that it is an attack on the dignity of the human person
and violates a fundamental human right, the right to life. 

I do believe that for some transgressions against society you forfeit that right.

Why?

That would mean that it's not a "right," then.  At least not a natural right.

"Life" is always almost first on the list of so-called "inalienable rights," which imply to me that they are natural rights which ought not to be subject to the whims of governments and such.

In cases involving murder/rape, you should forfeit that right in my opinion.  This also requires the highest confidence in the evidence to convict.  We waste too much money allowing someone the chance to appeal in cases of being caught red handed at some of these crimes.

I understand that's your opinion.
I think you share it with a lot of people. 

What facts do you or anyone have to support that opinion?

There inlies the problem.  Our criminal system is flawed and even with the highest confidence in evidence there are still mistakes.

Case in point, in Omaha a couple years ago the Director of the CSI unit was busted planting blood/dna evidence in a car to pin a murder on some guys who had nothing to do with the crime.  Turns out they caught the actual guy who confessed and essentially the CSI guy was trying to "strengthen" the case because they didn't have enough evidence connecting them to the crime.

What I'm trying to say is even when there's DNA which "doesn't lie" there are still innocent people that can be put on death row.

(here's the Omaha CSI Story http://www.omaha.com/article/20100323/NEWS97/100329902 

So is the right to liberty but it is acceptable for this right to be forfeit is is not?