Jackson Free Press

I found this article online this morning. I picked the CBC article instead of the Reuters version of it for a particular reason.

The Reuters version, in fact EVERY version I could find published in this country, contained no reference to this....

In September, the elderly convict's heart stopped, but prison doctors revived him and returned him to San Quentin's death row.

Please tell me this man didn't DIE ON HIS OWN five months ago and we REVIVED him so that we could KILL HIM AGAIN.

Because, I really don't know what to say about that.

If you read this list of his crimes, he was a very "non-nice" person. I've never discussed my death penalty views because they are fairly cavewoman-ish and kinda veer to the right. Yeah, I know, right?

I'm usually for "death all round". I support abortion AND the death penalty. Its not that I don't believe in the sanctity of life, I just also believe in the sanctity of DEATH as well. It is a part of life. I also believe there are crimes people can committ that earn them the right to stop breathing.

But, if the guy goes and DIES on us before we spend lots and lots of money to do it for him, can we NOT revive his old butt and then kill it AGAIN?

Is it too much to ask?

Previous Commentsshow

If this was not such a sad commentary on our country, it would be the funniest flipping thing I have ever heard in my life. It reminds me of what my dad used to tell me (jokingly of course): "I'm going to beat you to death, give you CPR and then beat you some more."

brandon

Jan 17 2006

I recall reading an article last week (two weeks ago?) about him being resuscitated last year. I also thought it was pretty odd, but then again-- this is the USA.

Ex

Jan 17 2006

It was in one AP version, if I recall right. I don't guess inmates get a DNR option. :)

Ironghost

Jan 17 2006

I found one version with it in it. They said he had requested DNR after that first heart attack and the responding statement was this. "At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him." Yes, the same prison that then killed him. I thought that was amusing.

Lori G

Jan 17 2006

I think it's scary as hell that Mr. Crittendon could say that with a straight face! Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 17 2006

What the...? People for or against the death penalty should find what happened to be appalling, to say the least. What a waste of time and tax dollars.

LatashaWillis

Jan 18 2006

What is the average time a death row inmate stays on death row? I would almost say why don't they just do it the day they walk through the gates if they are going to do it at all. But the chance of appeals and new evidence, after all some are innocent, poses a delay. I do not want to start a death penalty debate we have had plenty of those recently. This is just an alternative if you sentence someone to death, there is nothing for them left to do in prison, i doubt many enjoy it. So why not just get it over with if your going to do it?

*SuperStar*

Jan 18 2006

Haley's new judge could just carry people in the back and take care of them. I realize this is harsh and making light of this situation, but tuesday and wednesday are always slow. I guess everyone working to get the new issue out. The person who did not ressesitate?(sp) him would be sued by his family for not saving him. Would you jsut walk away if you could bring him back? The thougtht may cross your mind after the fact. "Dang he was going to be killed and he dies naturally, no he has to be injected with chemicals, like a steak, or a potato, after all his appeals have been denied." I would have done him a favor and let him die in peace, the way god took him." Ahh Fate....

*SuperStar*

Jan 18 2006

Incarceration. Expiration. Resuscitation. Execution. Doesn't add up to me. I wonder what kind of legistation exists for this sort of thing, if any.

LatashaWillis

Jan 18 2006

I would assume , L.W., (and we all know what that means) that resuscitation is covered under an inmates right to good medical care. A DNR simply because he is on death row would be deemed lack of good medical care, hence "cruel and unusual punishment". What I don't understand is when an INMATE himself requests a DNR and the prison, who is going to kill him later, refuses. Its really an interesting case all round. (I find disturbing things interesting, if you can't tell) ;)

Lori G

Jan 18 2006

Ali-- Your comment regarding good medical care reminded me of past articles concerning health costs of elderly prisoners-- e.g., this USA Today article.

Ex

Jan 18 2006

See, this is where I find the death penalty gets interesting. (and as you said, that's been discussed numerous times on this board and I'd like to not get into that again right now) As per my above comments, I'm somewhat "for" the death penalty. Not because it deters crime, or any of the political reasons. I support the death penalty because I believe some people deserve to die. And, I know that *I* don't really have to right to decide if someone else lives or dies. The "idea" of the death penalty is something that I support. (This is about to make no sense, so strap yourself in) Politically and policy-wise I understand that there is slim to no chance this country (or any country) can enforce the death penalty and it be "fair and balanced" to its citizens. I know this. But, if you diddle children (which has been proven to be fairly incurable and molesters WILL reoffend if given the chance) I think you should die. I'm not saying the state should do it. I'm not saying its necessarily lawful and full of human rights. But, if you diddle children I think YOU SHOULD DIE. BUt, that's just my opinion and its not backed by good science (other than the recidivism rate for molesters), but rather by outrage and a little bit of hate. That's why I don't get into death penalty debates. My belief in it isn't really well-founded. Its an emotional response because I work with abused children and I understand that. BUT, where I find this case to be interesting is in its "Right to Die" aspects. The Supreme Court (just yesterday) upheld a ruling for the Oregon state law that protects someone's Right To Die. Now, if you are ill, and have less than six months to live per your doctor, you have the right to kill yourself. But, if you are incarcerated and facing the death penalty within six months you only have the Right To Life until they put the needle in your vein. THIS is the more interesting part of the debate for me. I mean, you can logically state that a person loses their right to self-determination when they are incarcerated. Basically, they no longer get to chose when they live or die. I just think that if they request a DNR when old and ill, they should at least be given that option. Especially if they are about to bite the big one anyway. THAT seems logical to me.

Lori G

Jan 18 2006

Hmmm... You know, this might be a good piece of legislation for our friend Rep. Fleming to propose, at least, for Mississippi. Might set a wildfire for similar legislation throughout the country. Because it makes sense, from both a conservative point of view (save money, kill 'em quicker) and a liberal point of view (prisoner's right to die). And yeah, even as someone who doesn't work with very many abused kids, I can understand why you feel that way. I'm a member of MESJ and support abolishing capital punishment and so forth, but even I occasionally, when watching a documentary about a really heinous child murder or something, feel a little disappointed if the offender is "only" sentenced to life in prison. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 18 2006

Overall, I have no sympathy for the man. He's never going to qualify as innocent short of a "Road to Damascus" come-to-Jesus meeting. :)

Ironghost

Jan 18 2006