Killer understands death sentence, judge told

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Killer understands death sentence, judge told
Associated Press
Friday June 15, 2012 3:42 AM

Two psychiatrists testifying for the state said yesterday that a condemned Ohio inmate is mentally ill but understands that he faces execution because of his double murder conviction.

“It is our opinion with reasonable medical certainty that Mr. Abdul Awkal currently has the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and the mental capacity to understand why the death penalty was imposed on him,” the psychiatrists said in a report to a judge that was detailed in their court testimony.

Drs. Jennifer Piel and Phillip Resnick examined Awkal two days after he had been scheduled to be put to death last week for killing his estranged wife and brother-in-law in a Cleveland courthouse in 1992. Gov. John Kasich issued a last-minute reprieve to allow a judge to consider whether the 53-year-old is mentally competent for execution.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman has heard conflicting testimony on the issue this week. The defense argues that Awkal is too psychotic to be executed and says he thinks the CIA is plotting against him. The state says the execution should proceed.


Read more: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/15/killer-understands-death-sentence-judge-told.html

[Scootaloo]

1. I'm sure killing him will bring back the two he killed

And repair all the harm done to their families.

Best of luck, State of Ohio!

[leftyohiolib]

2. the death penalty is not about bringing back the dead

[ccavagnolo]

3. of course not

its a horrible display of getting even.

[lunatica]

4. Well of course not

It's about doing the same thing to the convicted killer that the killer did to his/her victims, only it's OK because it's the State and the citizens voted for capital punishment after a barrage and glut of terror inducing political ads that convince them that murder done by the State is really just justice. So it's OK to kill someone sometimes, but only if it's war or justice and your government says so.

It just all depends on who is doing the killing.

[4th law of robotics]

6. This line of reasoning is also flawed

A) the death penalty won't bring the victims back. But then again neither would life in prison. Or letting him go. Or any other kind of punishment you can devise.

B) it's wrong because murdering someone is a crime so why should the state be allowed to murder. True. But then again imprisoning someone against their will would also be a crime for an individual. Or forcing someone to pick up trash on the side of the road. Or taking some amount of money from them. *ANY* punishment a state doles out would be wrong if an individual did it to another individual.

[4th law of robotics]

5. While I think we should be moving away from the death penalty in most cases . . .

this line of reasoning is flawed.

Would any punishment bring back the people he killed? Obviously not. So that case can't be used for or against any particular kind of punishment.

[Scootaloo]

8. No other punishment ends a person's life

The thing is, only human life is worth human life. The ethical standard that you do not kill unless doing so prevents the deaths of others is worldwide. The death penalty is a clear violation of this ethic. Whose life is being defended? The victims are already dead, so who's life will be saved by killing their murderer? One must believe that killing the killer will somehow restore life to the victims, in order for the death penalty to make one single ounce of ethical sense.

If your claim that no one believes this is true, then we have to accept that pretty much everyone realizes the death penalty is an ethical sinkhole. So why persist in it?

[4th law of robotics]

9. Right, but then you argue that it's wrong because it's ending a human life

not because it won't bring back the victims.


And if you argue for it from the stance that it is a just punishment then restoring life is not necessary.

[Scootaloo]

10. It serves to point out the absurdity, however.

"it ends a human life" doesn't really work when talking to people who support the death penalty. After all; they usually don't regard ANY criminals as human, much less men and women facing a death sentence.

You've got to slap their ego around a little bit, make some cracks in it. And mocking their presumptions and self-righteousness by pointing out the obvious flaws of their position and making fun of it actually does work. I've done it before.

[Dr. Strange]

11. No, 4th law is right.

Using such a blatant straw-man utterly fails to point out any obvious flaws in the proDP position. It may have worked for you before if you were discussing it with someone who doesn't understand logic. If you run into someone who DOES understand logic, it won't work.

[Scootaloo]

12. Someonewho understands logic understands the death penalty causes a net loss to everyone

[Dr. Strange]

13. That sounds like classic begging the question...

but even accepting your statement, it doesn't explain why you would start with such a flawed statement. I've NEVER seen a proDP advocate make any kind of claim that the death penalty would bring back any victims.

[Scootaloo]

14. Did I say anywhere that they did claim that? I didn't, did I?

The purpose, as I have stated, is mockery. Pointing ridicule. You unsettle their assumptions, and then you present a logical case for your position.

Think of editorial cartoons. Do you often see editorial cartoons that are "just the facts?" Is hyperbole forbidden when editorializing? Of course it's not, in fact, going 'over the top' is often the POINT. The idea isn't to make the case with the cartoon itself, but to challenge the held assumptions of the reader and make them more amenable to the argument presented by the editorialize - or those of like mind.

[Evasporque]

7. The CIA had no comment on the case....nt