Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2004 18:00:57 GMT -6
He's history. Extract from the Houston Chronicle +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 18, 2004, 6:29PM
Schizophrenic killer executed after Perry denies request for stay Associated Press AP Kelsey Patterson, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia in early adulthood, is scheduled for execution this evening.
HUNTSVILLE - Prison officials executed a mentally ill convicted killer this evening as Gov. Rick Perry rejected a parole board recommendation to commute the sentence to life in prison or delay the lethal injection.
The U.S. Supreme Court also denied a stay for Kelsey Patterson, 50, whose lawyers challenged lower courts' rejected claims that Patterson was mentally incompetent to be executed.
Patterson, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, was condemned for a double slaying in Palestine in East Texas almost 12 years ago.
In a 5-1 vote, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles endorsed a petition from Patterson's lawyers and supporters that he be spared. Texas resumed carrying out executions in 1982, and Monday's board action marked the first time at this late stage in a condemned inmate's case the panel recommended the governor commute a death sentence.
"State and federal courts have reviewed this case no fewer than 10 times, examining his claims of mental illness and competency, as well as various other legal issues," Perry said in a statement less than an hour before Patterson's scheduled execution time. "In each instance the courts have determined there is no legal bar to his execution.
"This defendant is a very violent individual. Texas has no life without parole sentencing option, and no one can guarantee this defendant would never be freed to commit other crimes were his sentence commuted. In the interests of justice and public safety, I am denying the defendants request for clemency and a stay."
|
|
The Ghost Of George Stinney
Guest
|
Post by The Ghost Of George Stinney on May 18, 2004 18:08:10 GMT -6
Once again the blood-thirsty protege of Bush kills andother victim. It isn't justice, it's murder. Yep, must be fun to execute mentally ill people...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2004 18:31:10 GMT -6
I see. A vicious career criminal and two time murderer is now the "victim" and all the courts and judges and jurors are pawns to a surrogate for Dubya.
Apparently Patterson isn't the only one delusional around here, but "mental illness" is not a license to murder. The mere fact he didn't feel guilty about murder does not mean he didn't understand what he was doing.
He won't do it again.
"Alls well that ends well."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2004 19:23:21 GMT -6
I see it as justice, he is no longer a burden on the tax payer, and he will never be able to kill again. How is it you are able to justify it in your mind that when they are executed it is no ones fault but their own? Once again the blood-thirsty protege of Bush kills andother victim. It isn't justice, it's murder. Yep, must be fun to execute mentally ill people...
|
|
|
Post by jenniferwa on May 18, 2004 19:46:45 GMT -6
THANK YOU TRex!!! and thank you Texas Department of Corrections!!!!
|
|
|
Post by nevenera on May 18, 2004 20:49:39 GMT -6
First I would like to express my deepest sorrow for their loss to the family members of the victims of Kelsey Patterson, Dorothy Harris and Louis Oates. I hope that whatever closure you were hoping for you have received. I am not familiar enough with the case to determine if Mr. Patterson deserved the death penalty or not, so I will not comment on that, others have done so abundantly on this site. I would like to offer a slightly different perspective, just something to think about. My mother suffers from Manic depression she has from the time I was born. When she is 'normal' which would be neither Manic, or depressed, she is a friendly outgoing, energetic woman that loves going to church, socializing, and working on her house and garden. When she is manic, she is all the above, but she also goes into overdrive, spends money without thinking, places herself in dangerous situations, becomes angry at the slightest irritation, yells, screams and has a view of herself as invulnerable. When she is depressed, she hates going out, can't read the bible, she hates her garden, her house, herself, has no confidence, is easily scared, is filled with guilt and often talks about suicide. It is impossible for me to be angry with all the stuff that happens in her manic stage, because I know that she can't really control it. Mentally ill people are not incapable of knowing right from wrong, but sometimes they are incapable of knowing that what they are doing is wrong. I did not fully understand what my mother was going through for many years until I had my own battle with depression. I hope that all of you that feel so passionately about this case, whatever you view, will lobby for better treatment options for the mentally ill so that fewer people have to go through what the family members of the victims of this horrible crime will go through for the rest of their lives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2004 22:27:53 GMT -6
Well spoken. But now let me ask you: Should the "mentally ill" be allowed freedom if their "mental illness" is such that it may be submitted as a defense in a criminal assault or murder trial?
Doesn't our legal system exist to protect the constitutional rights of the innocent to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If someone is so impared they jeopardize those rights by their willingness to assault others, and then presume to use that imparment as a criminal defense, then haven't we failed as a just society to granting them the same freedom of action we give to citizens held fully responsible for their actions?
Doesn't seem to me you can have it both ways. If the ACLU wants the mentally ill to have the same freedom of action as all others, then under the concept of equal justice, they are equally liable. Otherwise, identify them early, limit their freedom and minimize their ability to harm others.
If Patterson had been constrained he'd be alive today, and so would his victims and their survivors would have been spared the hell they've gone through for 12 years.
|
|
|
Post by RobertP on May 19, 2004 0:15:14 GMT -6
From "The International Justice Project":
"Kelsey Patterson was convicted for the 1992 killing of Louis Oates, a 63-year-old owner of Oates Oil Co. in Palestine, Texas, and his business secretary Dorothy Harris, 41. Louis Oates was standing on the loading dock of his business when Patterson walked up behind him and shot him with a pistol. Patterson walked away after the shooting but returned to shoot Dorothy Harris in the head when she came outside and began to scream. Patterson then walked a short distance to a friend’s house, put down the gun and took off his clothes, except his socks, which he kept on for some unfathomable reason. He was standing almost naked in the streets when he was arrested. A motive in the murders is unclear."
This description indicates premeditation (aiming and shooting twice), meaning voluntarily killing someone. And there is absolutely no doubt here.
The law does not make the distinction whether the person is mentally ill or not for charging someone with murder.
During the trial and sentencing he met the criteria for mental competence, and throughout the different appeals (more than 10) he acknowledge that he was is prison and that he was going to be executed (the two criterias for constitutionally excluding a mentally ill person from death penalty). The other criteria is mental retardation (incompetence) which does not apply either.
President Bush has nothing to do with this. The recommendations from the Texas Board are not mandatory for carrying out the sentences, but a recommendation is needed for commuting a sentence. The person in charge of the final decision was Governor Perry. And the latter interpreted the law as it is and refuse to chage the sentence, which is his perrogative, but not his obligation.
People has the right to be against the Death Penaly, and to question the ethics of our laws. And if someone does not like any of the present laws, that person should address his/her legislators in order to push them to change the laws. Otherwise we are under the Constitution and the current laws which indicate that Mr Patterson has been rightfully executed.
|
|