UPDATE - First New England execution in 45 years put on hold

[TaleWgnDg]

"Monday, January 31, 2005
"UPDATE ~ First New England execution in 45 years put on hold
"Russell Adkins at 7:40 PM

"(JURIST) Updating an earlier JURIST story, Connecticut has postponed Monday's (January 31, 2005) scheduled execution of convicted serial killer Michael Ross (About.com profile), putting off what would be New England's first execution in 45 years after Ross' attorney filed a motion questioning the killer's competency (JURIST post). The execution is delayed for at least a month after Ross, who had asked an attorney to expedite his death, agreed to an mental evaluation after admitting that he may be mentally incompetent. The rescheduling of the execution will depend upon the results of the competency hearing. Ross, 45, admitted to killing eight women in the 1980s, and last year waived his remaining appeals, seeking to speed up his death and thereby give closure to his victims' families. Before agreeing to the mental evaluation, Ross had fought efforts by his attorneys and his father to have him declared incompetent to waive the appeals, and the execution has been delayed several times in recent weeks. Reuters has more" at
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050131/ts_nm/crime_death_dc_7 .

. . . more at . . . http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/01/update-first-new-england-execution-in.php

---

New England is proud of its no death executions for forty-five years. Despite http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=408&invol=238">Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in 1972 that halted death executions in America, New England has been loathe to execute its citizenry.

However, this death row inmate is requesting his own immediate death, and his own attorney and his father are requesting mental insanity/sanity (mental competency) hearing(s). It's ironic but case law in America indicates that the government cannot kill someone who is mentally insane (legal definition), hence the request for hearing(s) to determine whether this death row inmate (Ross) is mentally sane (legal definition) in order for the government to kill him. If (legally) sane = death; if (legally) insane = no death unless, of course, other legal issues may arise that would successfully prevent his death.

See also: DU State/Connecticut forum thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=143&topic_id=906 . . . for earlier discussions about Ross.

---

edited to correct hyperlink

---

[TaleWgnDg]

1. More on Ross at . . .

http://www.courttv.com/archive/map/library/capital/special.html

[LuLu550]

2. This really confuses me

If the guy didn't want to die, he would be considered sane and put to death. But because he wants to die, he is considered suicidal and therefore insane and should not be put to death...

Am I the only one who thinks this is really really crazy?

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Legal insanity and its issues are very difficult to comprehend . . .

why so? Because it's silly -- legal or no -- to say that a state can kill you if you are legally sane but not if you are legally insane. Think about it. And how about adding this too: What if you are only legally sane while on M.D. prescribed drugs? What happens next? The law around these issues is complex because the rationality is irrational, pardon the pun. We, lawyers, after spending 3 years in law school trying to make sense of it, realize that there's no damn sense in any of it.

The bottom line is that no government entity should be granted the right to kill people, period.

.

[CTLawGuy]

4. it is tough to understand

the reason we have a long line of appeals in DP cases is to make sure we are actually killing the right person, because we cannot bring a mistakenly killed person back to life.

If it were possible that Michael Ross might NOT be guilty, but because of some mental illness he was convinced he is, or if he just can't take living anymore, he would cut short a process that might prove his possible innocence.

If he was sane, he would be better equipped to understand if he is guilty or not, and could waive appeals responsibly.

Also, I believe a recent Supreme Court case said its unconstitutional to execute mentally ill persons. So if he is found to be insane, he could possibly get his sentence commuted.