E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Lawyers for condemned inmate Edwin Hart Turner say it would be cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone who is mentaly ill.
Edwin Hart Turner is no stranger to mental illness.
According to his lawyer and acquaintances, his grandmother and great-grandmother were committed to state hospitals. His mother attempted suicide twice. His father was killed in a dynamite explosion that some believe was a suicide.
At age 18, Turner tried to kill himself with a rifle but the barrel of the weapon slipped just enough to spare his life; the bullet that blasted through his face left him permanently disfigured. He was hospitalized five years later when he tried to slit his wrists in another suicide attempt.
So when Turner robbed a gas station near Carrolton, Miss., early on Dec. 13, 1995, and fatally shot a clerk in the face and a customer in the head, his lawyers say, it’s almost certain that he was – and still is – mentally unbalanced.
For that reason, says Turner’s attorney, Jim Craig of the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center, Turner should not be put to death.
Turner’s accomplice, Paul Murrell Stewart, pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life without parole. Turner was convicted at trial and sentenced to death by lethal injection.
In what he hopes will be a precedent-setting case, Craig is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court and to Mississippi’s new governor, Phil Bryant, to halt the scheduled Feb. 8 execution of the 38-year-old Turner.
“The Supreme Court has not decided the question of whether a prisoner with a severe mental disorder or disability which significantly impairs that person’s ability to rationally process information, to make reasonable judgments and to control their impulses, whether people in that category can be executed,” Craig told msnbc.com in a telephone interview Thursday.
“So we’re asking the Supreme Court to establish that it would be contrary to consensus of moral values, that it would be cruel and unusual punishment, to execute someone with severe mental illness.”
The Supreme Court in 2002 banned the execution of mentally retarded criminals. In 2005, justices ruled that it was also unconstitutional to put to death juvenile criminals. But the circumstances regarding the execution of inmates who are mentally ill - but not insane - are less clear-cut, though previous high court rulings have held that the mere presence of mental illness doesn’t necessarily exempt someone from execution.
Craig said he will also ask a federal judge on Friday to order the state to put the execution on hold so Turner can get a mental exam, including a modern type of neuroimaging scan that wasn’t available in 1995. Craig said he thinks the so-called “functional MRI” scan will show that the portion of Turner’s brain “that controls conduct that works for everyone else in this country just doesn’t work for him.”
“It’s like expecting someone with a broken arm to quarterback the Super Bowl,” Craig said. “It’s just not fair.”
Other rights groups are also backing Turner's cause.
“We’ve come a long way in our understanding of mental illness and the deep and terrible pain it inflicts on sufferers – but not far enough, at least not in Mississippi,” wrote Denny LeBoeuf, the American Civil Liberties Union's Capital Punishment Project director, in a blog post titled "Too Crazy to Kill."
“Most mentally ill people are not violent. Those who are should not be executed."
Gov. Bryant’s office and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s office did not immediately return telephone calls Thursday from msnbc.com for comment.
On Wednesday, Hood told The Associated Press that Turner has been evaluated numerous times in the past.
"He has raised the issue of mental health problems at every level and has been denied relief at every turn. We argue that his mental health claims have been fully addressed, and that this present action is nothing more than an attempt to re-litigate a claim that has been properly adjudicated at every turn," Hood said, according to the AP.
Earlier, in asking the state to set the Feb. 8 execution date, Hood said in a press release that Turner has exhausted his state and federal appeals. “These crimes were brutal and nothing short of cowardly,” he said.
Ann Dugger, executive director of the Justice Coalition, a victims' advocacy group, said mental illness in and of itself is not a reason to rule out execution.
"What's cruel and unusual is that a perpetrator would have taken the life of someone else and murdered him," she said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Cruel and unusual punishment must be seen from the perpetrator's point of view. How cruel would it be to take care of this guy in prison. He can't be allowed to contact other prisoners, for he will most assuredly kill again. You can't just lock him away like a rat in a cage. Even zoo animals go insane from being locked up. What is best for him is also best for society. He should humanely be put down.
mentally impaired. he was smart enought to plan a convenience store robbery and methodically kill 2 people. he may have a cleft lip and look pathetic. but he deserves the dose coming for the family of those 2 victims! how his pal got life is lame he should get a dose also. this also has the smell of 2 attorneys coniving to get the pathetic looking one death and the endless appeals with the pathetic looking one off in the future. i am sure alot of sleezy lawyers do this alot behind closed doors.
Some of you pretend this man didn't know how to use a gun. He shot someone. He had that weapon with the intent to commit a crime. Therefore, at some point prior to committing the murders, he had a plan He (and his partner in crime) were able to formulate a plan that included known risks to their safety and success of the planned crime, they determined that they needed a weapon.
Or do you bleeding hearts think all insane people just carry guns around "just in case they decide to commit a robbery"?
Whether or not this man had mental issues before the murder, it is clear he (and his partner) were capable to deductive reasoning (which is more than I can say for some of you) and therefore should be held to the same standard as the rest of society.
Now, if you don't see the logic in my arguments, then at least support the death by lethal injection for this man (and others like him). He has attempted suicide twice and failed. If he tries and fails another 2 or 15 times, then you have sentenced this man to cruel and unusual punishment.
also, I do believe that our forefathers did not mean "cruel and unusual" to mean that people can't be put to death. I think they meant that you can't impale someone on a stake. or you can't smother them with honey/molasses and dump a can of red ants on them, or some other sick form of punishment. Lethal injection isn't necessarily cruel. If any of you have ever had surgery with a general anesthetic, its probably more like that.
G, what our forefathers thought and put in the Constitution changes as the times change, that's why the Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of the Constitution. Society changes and the "Law of the Land" changes with it and so far that has stood the test of time. As an example look at the arguments over gun control, many say the Constitution says everyone should have access to a gun, and some say it only meant a organized militia. Lol, some folks point with pride to our "Wild West" and talk about the freedom to go armed. Yet, when entering many towns there was a sign; "Carrying of firearms is not allowed, check your firearms at the Sheriff's office." Well, words to that effect. So, times have changed and law changed with the times. Well, ok, gun control is another and very volatile subject.
Mellow, your comments are noted. I for one support gun ownership. What I don't agree with is allowing criminals access to guns but not allowing law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. But like you said, that is another subject.
You're right, times change. Sometimes, humankind (and governments) go backwards)
One has to wonder about our judiciary, and the decisions made. Is our judiciary truly making decisions based on law or are they injecting their own personal will (or worse, the will of the POTUS)? Based on the comments here, it seems that the majority of the posters are not against the death penalty for people with mental disabilities. It also would seem that the majority doesn't support death for all criminals with mental disabilities. The reasoning provided by quite a few posters is well reasoned and outlines that this man was involved with planning a crime. Even if we disregard those seem to only want (an eye for an eye)revenge, I think we would see a majority to supports death by lethal injection for cases like this one. That majority is The People. After all, our Constitution starts with "WE THE PEOPLE..."
This guy apparently comes from a long line of mentally ill people...and he apparently WANTS to die??...OK!! Let's oblige him with a quick pain-less sendoff, and move on. Next problem?
Pass the scotch.
You know, the more and more I read thru these comments I have to come to the conclusion that if this man is so screwed up and is suffering terribly from his mental illness, it would be a crime to society and a crime to him not to end his pain and his suffering. He should just be executed to put him out of his misery and to deliver some form of justice. And if he doesn't want to die, then he obviously has some sanity after all and he still should be executed. That's my last take or comment on the subject. I'm really trying hard to reason my way thru this but to be dead serious and truthful to myself, I'd have to say if he killed my wife or my daughter, if the system didn't execute him, I would myself knowing fully well and being aware of the fact that I would be executed as well which would be fine with me because I couldn't live with the pain. My Bad!
There's a underlying factor that hasn't been mentioned, yet. It may all come down to a dollars and cents thing. Much cheaper to just execute. Hey, how often have we heard, when told about the high cost of government, to "Cut the fat." Cool, cut the cost of sheltering, clothing, feeding and giving health care to criminals in prisons. Just execute them, prisons are supposedly overcrowded anyway.
Tough to pick out of a lineup? That is a depraved comment. You bloodthirsty creeps disgust me. Sometime I think you people are crazier than the people you would like to execute. Anyone who can find levity in the taking of a human life, whether by murder, execution or any other means is one sick puppy. If you folks want the death penalty so bad, make the executions public. Take the kiddies, sell popcorn and hot dogs. Better yet, draw lots to see who gets to pull the switch. And no, I don't sympathize with the killers. I just don't believe the state has the right to take a life. It coarsens us all. The death penalty is racist, class prejudiced and murder defendants are often represented by incompetent lawyers, some who are alcoholics and sleep through the trial. The fact that hundreds of death row defendants have been released because of DNA evidence makes it a certainty that we have executed innocent people. I really believe that pro-death penalty people think that executing a few innocent people is a small price to pay for keeping the death penalty. I don't.
Keith, hey guy, good idea. Take the kids and sell popcorn. Why not, they used to do that at public hangings and being hung is a lot more traumatic than pulling a switch or sticking in a needle. Besides, one execution might be all it takes to make a kid think twice about a life of crime. Keith, how many innocent people have been executed? I suspect that very few have been and looking at it logically which would be worse; Executing one innocent person for every thousand murderers, or, dropping the death penalty and turning the one thousand loose on society? Ok, what if I were one of the innocent? I'll take my chances. Most of those so-called innocent were on the wrong side of the law anyway, or they wouldn't be in prison. One thing to keep in mind, the death penalty is not meant for all criminals, just those that murder.
This guy is a lost cause but you think we should all chip in an pay to keep him safely locked away from those he would hurt including himself? What a nice guy to offer up our money to keep something dangerous and insane around just to comfort your desire to not be responsible for the bad things in the world while you live off the good things. Sometimes it takes strength to make the tough choices and do what is best rather then hide behind some misguided morality that it's unjust to take a life even if that person would certainly take one. Must be nice to live in a safe world where others keep you safe and secluded from the horrers that do exist in society. As long as the strong protect the weak and those that chose to be weak, you will have a forum to complain about things like this. I fought for our country and I have seen death. It is never a good thign but sometimes it is a just thing.
Robert Heinlein covered a similar situation in his book' "Starship Troopers." In that book a man, while insane, kidnapped and killed a child. The decision to execute him was rationalized thusly: If the man is truly insane, not only will he not know he is being executed, doing so may actually be "putting him out of his misery." If he were to receive treatment and become sane, the only recourse he would have would be to take his own life out of guilt and remorse for the terrible act(s) he had committed. Either way, the man is just as deceased.
Society cannot make some people "safe". One does not hate them, but rather pity them and hope that they can find peace in death that they could not in life.
Everyone who opposes death penalty: It costs $40,000 a year to care for a criminal. If u give someone life that could easily be $1,200,000 or more! Multiply that by all the for-life crinminals and we've got millions and millions of taxpayer dollars paying for these scumbags. That includes the families of victims's money. Think of how many starving people (or pets) we could save with that food. Hundreds of thousands! I personally would rather save innocent people and animals than these losers... One of my friend's friends got murdered this summer, and I would love to see her killer die and some kid in Africa get fed. Same with psycos like Jaycee Dugard's kidnapper.
Simon, you can't reason with emotionalism, it'll win every time. People talk about "In my heart I know the death penalty is wrong!" I've even heard some; "In my heart I know a life sentence is wrong!" How can you debate that? All we can do is maintain a sense of logic and reason, keep pressuring our legislators to keep the death penalty, and, maybe even extend it a bit.
Any evidence of that?
The laws of nature should apply... we fail to understand & agree, in nature it works well. For some reason, nature no longer applies to humans. In nature, those who can not survive a healthy existence are methodically eliminated. Humans struggle with those laws, view the weak (specifically those who repeatedly commit acts against other humans) and then, somehow, wonder what is wrong with our system?
Provided the penal system simply allowed "bare existance" i.e. a room, meals and little more, it would be a deterrent to most crimes. Those who suffer "mental illness" AND commit crimes, regardless of if they understand or not, should be segregated from society. If no corrective action applies to healing those persons, (same as those who are repeat offenders and not mentally ill) the laws of nature should be considered and applied.
Consider "Universal Laws" where we determine we want a healthy world to live in & as such, those who break the laws are dealt with accordingly. Stealing = surgically cut off one thumb. I'd wage those considering such a crime will think first, before acting. Rape = surgically remove mans organ... I'd bet that crime rate would drop... murder = you guessed it... make sense? Maybe not to some, however these suggestions are consequences for actions... unlike those children who are taught correctly and develop as adults who become healthy members of society, unhealthy members of society realize and accept the consequences for their actions.. so they continue to act in an unhealthy manner.
With the mentally ill, society must determine a persons status, deal with that "status" accordingly. Mentally ill who commit crimes = build a huge, centrally located facility with professionals and (those currently unemployed) who treat/service those who have committed crimes. period. If they are unable to "understand" what a crime is, one assumes you an not "MAKE" them understand, right? So, what to do? Ongoing treatment for the illness, if they heal great, then lock-em up for the crime. Otherwise continue treatment and throw away the key... what options do you have? Killing those people is "unhealthy" decision as a society... or didn't you get that understanding when you were a child? If not, it's part of the problem with society's rules as we were taught (or not..).
Those who are mentally competent and repeatedly commit crimes.... these are individuals who are useless in a healthy society. Remove them from society. The penalty for unhealthy actions is a penal system that "punishes"; a very simple existence. period. Criminals eat, sleep and exists in a cell, 24/7/365. When they enter the cell, they stay in the cell, i.e. basketball, volleyball, TV, radios, are memories for healthy members of society. It's called punishment for a crime. Seems to be a real waste and no deterrent when we see penal systems ruled by unhealthy individuals. Worse is penal systems ruled by groups or gangs of unhealthy individuals...
Rehabilitation? I'd say it would deter and teach any person, to first make healthy choices, avoid unhealthy decisions/actions and become a healthy member of society.
Mentally ill need professional help. Provide it to them. It's simple decision making. Whats all the fuss?
I'll take him out myself. This ANIMAL has already MURDERED two human beings in clod blood. What about their right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Being shot in the head in a robbery seems pretty cruel and unusual to me.
THE VICTIMS ARE ALWAYS FORGOTTEN. In your semantical arguments, the victims are always forgotten.
Bastards.
The mental creulty is in making him live. Would a rabid dog be allowed to roam the streets? Even in a prison he is a threat to others lives. The choice to let him continue being a threat to others should transfer the criminal liability to those that made such choice. You know, without doubt, that this man will commit another act of violence against another or himself. So, why are you protecting him.
There also comes a time to recognize the cost of keeping this man safe in a prison or hospital. The idea that this money exceeds the costs to support 4 families of 4 per year is not acceptable. We pay taxes to improve the quality of life for all of us, not to keep animals alive until their natuaral death. And, in the case of this individual his natural death will probably be at the cost of someone else's life.
The question of weather this person should be put to death or not, should be whom accepts the liability for acts committed by this individual in keeping him alive. Is the AG or the Judge going to be charged with the next murder committed by this man?
Excuse me, could someone please explain to me what possible use or contribution this person has to the welfare of humanity.
I don't get it! If a person is menatly unstable and a threat to society and himself, why should society pay for him to live his life in prison. If you are worried about being humane, give him some different meds one night before bed so he never wakes up again. To me....life in prison is a joke... sane or insane!
Although i'm not an advocate of the death penalty, it seems to me the legal standard of having the ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of a crime is more than sufficient. Who commits a murder and isn't suffering from sort of mental illness?? i'd hate to see - " i've been depressed lately" - become a recognized defense.
The question before the court is whether or not he knew what he was doing was wrong.
In the former Soviet Union, those who stood up against the communist party were adjudicated "mentally ill". It's a legal definition that can be extended; likely by Obama's Crazy Czar or something. If he knew it was wrong to kill someone and he did it anyway, he needs to take the big sleep. This mental illness stuff is all eyewash.
We feel sympathy for him. We are sorry for his mental illness. Now let's line him up and give word to the firing squad: Fire!!!
It is truly frightening how many commenters on stories like this seem to want to kill another human being (mentally ill or not). It's almost as if they are looking for any excuse to "put him down", "snuff him", "put him out of his misery", etc. (note their wimpy avoidance of the word "kill" or "murder"). It is also frightening that these people actually trust the government court system and juries to make sound and reasoned judgments based upon good evidence (which is odd, because many of the supporters of capital punishment seem to mistrust the government in just about any other arena. Personally, I don't trust the courts or juries as far as I can throw them). The issue of whether the guy is mentally ill or not is moot. Obviously in today's society there is something wrong with one human being who willingly kills another. The real issue is the existence of state-sanctioned murder in a modern society. It is amazing to me that people like many of the commenters fail to recognize that there is little difference between this unfortunate man and the society who will probably end up killing him. Life is sacred, remember the 6th Commandment, and God have mercy upon us. . .
Anyone that commits robbery and murder is mentaly unstable. Best thing to do is just shoot them on the spot and save a lot of state money. Arm yourselves.
I am amazed @ the hate shown on this thread. I knew this man when he was a child. I believe that the punishment fits the crime. I also know that he is someones child, someones brother and someones friend. There was a time in his live that I remember seeing him laugh and play tee ball with my younger brother. I am not making excuses for him or for what he did. The victims were also someones son, someones father and someones husband taken by his act. If God forgave the ones that nailed his son to the cross, us as humans should have compassion for both families the victims and his. There is nothing harder than loosing someone you love. No matter how it happens. Was he mentally retarded no, mentally ill yes. He still must be held accountable for his actions, my heart does go out that noone intervened or saw the destructive environment he was in. We can not change the past but we can learn from it. I pray that all involved finds peace and strength through the Lord. Parents,teachers, friends and family when you see a problem become involved. He lived in a small town, came from a family with money so everyone closed a blind eye to what was going on, and kept their lips sealed. Tragic!!!
Why would they be trying to stop this execution? He wants to die, he brutally killed 2 people, witnesses are pretty dang sure this was the guy they saw, whats the point here? Are they hoping to somehow cure his hereditary mental ilness so he can go on and continue the family tradition of bringing another psycho into the world? The bleeding heart liberals who are against this execution are themselves in some form, mentally disabled too. Let him out and make him live with the people wasting tax dollars fighting this.
Sometimes when you read an article you just have to say "What the F???" Seriously? Are they afraid we will lose a contributing member of society? This is worth court time? Come on!!!!!
The article did a poor job of describing the problem. They said he is NOT insane but he is mentally ill. Judging from his actions and the intention to use a fMRI for diagnosis, I would guess that the diagnosis is psychopathy - which IS partially diagnosed with an fMRI. Psychopathy is not actually a mental illness, but a personality disorder. And yes psychopaths know how normal people judge right from wrong, but they don't FEEL any empathy or remorse when they cross those boundaries. And BTW, it IS contagious. Psychopaths can ensnare others to become or to feel as evil as they are.
I hate to say this because I'm mostly against the death penalty, but in the case of this man, it seems that respect for human life would necessitate killing him to save people he would otherwise kill - even if he stayed in prison. He wants to die and that makes him very dangerous. What makes a psychopath dangerous is that he can care less than everyone else. He has no limits because he doesn't care about anything.
The injection will make him better. When will it change here. Anyone that can kill the way he did is not right in the head, actually anyone that can just kill another is mentally ill. So why do we waste time even having a trial, just put them in a mental hospital. He's guilty right? So what is the question again?
PDQSailor and those who think like him: Think about this we just leave him in prison. Ok, cool, he is dangerous can't be with the more sane criminals he might kill them or they might kill him. His life has been hell I am sure but he has shown that he will rob and kill if he has the chance to do so. So fast forward 5 years, 10 years, 15, 20 some do gooder will decide he has served enough time the prison system will turn him loose. Cool again, he did his time at least partially, but now he is free to rob and kill again. Perhaps it will be your son, daughter or wife who he decides to kill this time. Certainly it will be someones dad, mom, son, daughter etc. Juice the little feller before he gets the chance to kill anymore people. It's just as simple as that. Society will be the better off without this killer on the loose.