NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/andre-thomas-texas-death-_n_156765.html?page=2

Andre Thomas, Texas Death Row Inmate, Pulls Out Eye, Eats it

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.
..
..
""Thomas said he pulled out his eye and subsequently ingested it," agency spokesman Jason Clark said Friday.
..
..
"He will finally be able to receive the mental health care that we had wanted and begged for from day 1," Bobbie Peterson-Cate, Thomas' trial attorney, told the Sherman Herald Democrat. "He is insane and mentally ill. It is exactly the same reason he pulled out the last one."
..
..
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in October upheld his conviction and death sentence for the death of 13-month-old Leyha Marie Hughes. Also killed March 27, 2004, were his wife, Laura Christine Boren, 20, and their son, 4-year-old Andre Lee.

Thomas, from Texoma, walked into the Sherman Police Department and told a dispatcher he had just murdered the three and had stabbed himself in the chest.

Thomas told police how he put his victims' hearts in his pocket and left their apartment, took them home, put them in a plastic bag and threw them in the trash.

Court documents described the three victims as having "large, gaping wounds to their chests."


What about the other eye, I hear you asking...well...

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/37299199.html
Five days after the murders in March 2004, Thomas gouged out his right eye inside a Grayson County jail cell after reading a Bible verse.


Well, the only two questions I have are:
- Does it surprise anyone the patient is black?
- Does it surprise anyone that this happened in Texas?

Well, the only two questions I have are:
- Does it surprise anyone the patient is black?
- Does it surprise anyone that this happened in Texas?

Insane and dangerous people can be found anywhere in the globe, regardless of skin color.

What are you trying to get here? Outrage over someone who is both a threat to others and himself? Or outrage of lack of care that he's maiming himself in lieu of other victims?

Insane and dangerous people can be found anywhere in the globe, regardless of skin color.
Well, you're of course right, but in the USA blacks are overrepresented in Death Penalty statistics...no?

edit: A source (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/046/2003/en/dom-AMR510462003en.html)
What are you trying to get here? Outrage over someone who is both a threat to others and himself? Or outrage of lack of care that he's maiming himself in lieu of other victims?
Outrage? I'm not outraged. I'm merely curious and mildly amused as to how the justice is served in this case.

Put him out of his misery.

See, this is what is known as 'begging the question' or 'baiting your opponent.' It's typically done by someone who is not so much interested in a discussion, or is actually seeking knowledge, as they are in just looking for a argument or a opportunity to make snide comments. See also:'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

Well, you're of course right, but in the USA blacks are overrepresented in Death Penalty statistics...no?

Are they justly convicted? Has their guilt been ascertained beyond all doubt? If so, then beyond the socio-economic reasons that might lead to a higher incidence of death penalty incurring crimes among that group, what would be the problem? If not, then it would indicate a problem and possible bias in the conviction process.


Outrage? I'm not outraged. I'm merely curious and mildly amused as to how the justice is served in this case.

How it is served? By the accounts presented, the person committed murder, was found guilty, and was sentenced to death. During the incarceration period in between, the convicted maimed himself with nothing to indicate that it was the fault of anyone other than his own derangement.

I do not see what is wrong here. Can you elaborate?

See, this is what is known as 'begging the question' or 'baiting your opponent.' It's typically done by someone who is not so much interested in a discussion, or is actually seeking knowledge, as they are in just looking for a argument or a opportunity to make snide comments.
I'm not entirely sure who you're directing this to...

But I'm personally more interested in opinions and information about the case rather than engaging to a discussion myself because I don't have the competence or strong opinions about the matter, beyond the fact that I'm personally against DP and find the incident - sentencing mentally imbalanced (according to the source) man to death - rather silly.

I do agree that the questions were, perhaps unnecessarily, confrontational but I assure you, I put them there in good faith rather than with intent to troll.

Are they justly convicted? Has their guilt been ascertained beyond all doubt?
I couldn't say - I haven't studied the cases.

If not, then it would indicate a problem and possible bias in the conviction process.
That would be what the Amnesty International's study I linked implies: Both that black's are more prone to get DP and people murdering black people are more prone to avoid DP.

A quote from the source: "We simply cannot say we live in a country that offers equal justice to all Americans when racial disparities plague the system by which our society imposes the ultimate punishment." US Senator, January 2003(1)
I do not see what is wrong here. Can you elaborate?
I admit that I don't know all the details, but according to the article the person has exhibited mentally unstable behaviour in which case one should expect a different verdict from death penalty...which, in my opinion, serves no purpose in a case with details like this:
- Five days after the murders in March 2004, Thomas gouged out his right eye inside a Grayson County jail cell after reading a Bible verse.
- Thomas, from Texoma, walked into the Sherman Police Department and told a dispatcher he had just murdered the three and had stabbed himself in the chest.
- Thomas told police how he put his victims' hearts in his pocket and left their apartment, took them home, put them in a plastic bag and threw them in the trash.

I admit that I don't know all the details, but according to the article the person has exhibited mentally unstable behaviour in which case one should expect a different verdict from death penalty...which, in my opinion, serves no purpose in a case with details like this:

I do not really understand the ideas behind the insanity plea for lesser or different punishment for what would be a felony crime. If the crime has been committed, then aside from ascertaining the actual criminal and handing out a sentence in accordance to the crime committed, any other reason or excuse should not be factor. Age, mental state, it should not matter.

I do not really understand the ideas behind the insanity plea for lesser or different punishment for what would be a felony crime. If the crime has been committed, then aside from ascertaining the actual criminal and handing out a sentence in accordance to the crime committed, any other reason or excuse should not be factor. Age, mental state, it should not matter.
The way I see it, (mostly) only those who are capable of understanding and deliberately act with premeditation to achieve the result should be charged with murder.

Thus, in this and other similar cases, IMO, a more correct penalty would be one which would lead into rehabilitation - curing of mental ails, for example - rather than condemnation of half-a-person who might be completely incapable of either understanding the reason behind the sentence, stopping himself or herself from commiting the act in the first place or incapable of seeing why he or she shouldn't've done the act.

Though, my stance to justice system in general is that it should be primarily corrective rather than punitive so your mileage will probably vary.

edit:
Perhaps the best analogy I can offer would be that the situation in my mind is akin to beating a horse to death because it kicked its rider, instead of teaching the horse not to kick riders.

Obviously we should cure him before we execute him.

Obviously we should cure him before we execute him.
It's always the same thing. It's when you start to become really afraid of death that you learn to appreciate life. Do you like life, sweetheart? That's good, because I take no pleasure in taking life if it's from a person who doesn't care about it.

The way I see it, (mostly) only those who are capable of understanding and deliberately act with premeditation to achieve the result should be charged with murder.

Thus, in this and other similar cases, IMO, a more correct penalty would be one which would lead into rehabilitation - curing of mental ails, for example - rather than condemnation of half-a-person who might be completely incapable of either understanding the reason behind the sentence, stopping himself or herself from commiting the act in the first place or incapable of seeing why he or she shouldn't've done the act.

Though, my stance to justice system in general is that it should be primarily corrective rather than punitive so your mileage will probably vary.

edit:
Perhaps the best analogy I can offer would be that the situation in my mind is akin to beating a horse to death because it kicked its rider, instead of teaching the horse not to kick riders.

The purpose of the justice system is twofold. First, it is redress the cost/loss/etc incurred on society by the crime. The second, is to prevent a repeat of the act.

If rehabilitation is the only component of the sentence, then there has been no redress, and justice is not served. If the cost to society has been repaid, but nothing is done to prevent a repeat by the offender, then justice is ineffective.

A Texas death row inmate with a history of mental problems pulled out his only good eye and told authorities he ate it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=165VjNKRNdw

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=165VjNKRNdw

:D
That makes me hurt.

Why the bloody hell is this man on death row instead of in a mental institution? If he's this violent and insane he obviously isn't capable of rational action.

Leave it to Texas to not give a damn.

Why the bloody hell is this man on death row instead of in a mental institution? If he's this violent and insane he obviously isn't capable of rational action.


This was what the OP was going for with the "black" comment, I believe.

Yeah, sorry, I don't the magic potential in this guy. He's obviously about as likely to decide to kill someone as to do a push-up, I honestly don't think it's worth the years of men's time, money, and effort just to hold up the superficially functional shell of a human that remains at the end and say "Look, we fixed him!". He's been a bad puppy, put him down.

And I'm black, and don't bloody care; there's racism in the system, but here?

Thus, in this and other similar cases, IMO, a more correct penalty would be one which would lead into rehabilitation - curing of mental ails, for example - rather than condemnation [...]
Curing... how? The only "cure" reliable enough that he can ever be let out of high security holding is lobotomy. And, if the choice is between that, execution is a more humane solution.

Make no mistake, if a person is arrested for libel, disorderly conduct, etc., and it's proven to be a result of mental problems - they surely should receive treatment, not punishment. If a person has engaged in assault, as a result of mental problems, their penalty should be replaced with treatment in confinement. But this isn't a case like that. It's a case where treatment is impossible and the person is an immediate and lethal danger to anyone around.

Incarceration is replaced with treatment if and because treatment is possible, not because insanity is a defense.


Perhaps the best analogy I can offer would be that the situation in my mind is akin to beating a horse to death because it kicked its rider, instead of teaching the horse not to kick riders.
But it's not a horse that kicked its rider. It's a guard dog that, unprovoked, ripped apart its owner and his family.

Hey! No stealing my canine metaphor!~