Jackson Free Press

In separate cases, federal judges have ruled that two Mississippi inmates on death row in Parchman are mentally ill. Both cases stem from 1981 crimes, and the two inmates have each served 27 years.

James Billiot received a death sentence in Hancock County for beating three members of his family to death with a sledgehammer. Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Tom Lee suspended the sentence and ordered Billiot to the State Hospital at Whitfield.

DeSoto County convicted William Wiley of shooting and killing J.B. Turner, owner of a convenience store, during a robbery. Friday, U.S. District Judge Alan Pepper Jr. ruled that Wiley is incompetent and therefore, cannot be put to death. Pepper said he will vacate the death sentence in 60 days if the state does not respond.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood announced plans to appeal both rulings. "After providing the courts with additional evidence, we will ask the courts to reconsider the opinions," Hood said in a Tuesday release.

Previous Commentsshow

Here's the lead on the Clarion-"Ride That Needle!"-Ledger version of the story. Remember this is supposedly a news story on their front page: Suspect ruled incompetent Medicaid billing clerk Alisha Jackson was found stabbed 52 times in her north Jackson apartment in September 1998, but her family may never get justice for her. Ledger, what about all those murderers of wives and girlfriends that Barbour has been letting off? The ones who aren't mentally incompetent? Why didn't they get similar treatment from y'all?

DonnaLadd

Nov 12 2009

What a fascinating use of the word "justice" in an objective, corporately balanced newspaper story. The word they're likely looking for is "retribution." Why is it that the word "justice" seems to have entered the mainstream media lexicon as a synonym for the death penalty?

Todd Stauffer

Nov 12 2009

Maybe I am missing something ya'll two are seeing. Donna-you said that was the CL version of the story, do you mean JFP's death row story?

BubbaT

Nov 12 2009

Just playing devil's advocate, iTodd, but justice is a philosophical concept, and is, therefore, wide open to interpretation. Many see "eye-for-an-eye" as a perfectly logical way to define the word. Personally, I don't (and agree with you that it's rightly defined as retribution), but I suspect we're in the minority 'round these parts. Wikipedia has an interesting article on justice, perfect for word geeks like me. "Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, or equity," the site reads. I guess, then, that if you see killing as moral, you have no problem with the state carrying out killing in your name. What confuses me, however, is the many people who define killing as fundamentally immoral (e.g., anti-abortion advocates), yet have no problems with killing to dispense "justice." Ladd referenced the wrong C-L story, btw. Here's the correct lead: "Two inmates are no longer facing execution based on separate federal judges' rulings removing them from Mississippi's death row, but the state attorney general will ask that the decisions be reconsidered." Yeah, OK ... let's spend a whole bunch more taxpayer money to keep them on death row and/or execute them. That'll help. How are these mens' executions going to do anything to change the outcome of anyone's life after 27 years? How does killing them serve the concept of "moral rightness"?

Ronni_Mott

Nov 12 2009