Another Senseless Killing

[MJS]

I saw this on the news today, and found the article here.

PHOENIX - The second of two boys who were severely beaten during an attack at a park three days ago has died, police said Friday.
Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said 10-year-old Edwin Pellecier died Friday afternoon. His 7-year-old cousin, Jesse Ramirez, died of his injuries early Friday.
Police arrested 36-year-old Joe Sauceda Gallegos within hours of the attack. Gallegos made an initial court appearance Wednesday on two counts of child abuse and dangerous crimes against children.

This guy was diagnosed with a mental disorder. He made comments that he had killed before, although no bodies were found.

Why is this guy walking around on the streets? Was he getting any help? Was he showing signs that he may snap? Certainly makes one wonder, however I will say that this guy needs to be a) locked up for life or b) strapped to the chair and put to death.

 

[MA-Caver]

Does anybody want to protest the death penalty in this case??

 

[elder999]

Does anybody want to protest the death penalty in this case??

Well, yeah.

This guy was diagnosed with a mental disorder. He made comments that he had killed before, although no bodies were found.

Why is this guy walking around on the streets? Was he getting any help? Was he showing signs that he may snap? Certainly makes one wonder, however I will say that this guy needs to be a) locked up for life or b) strapped to the chair and put to death.

Seems the authorities might have missed an opportunity to keep this from happening. Not looking to place blame on anyone but him, but this isn't really a death penalty case, and probably won't wind up being one, sadly. I recognize your visceral reaction for what it is, 'Caver, and share your feelings, but odds are good this is going to end u with option "a"-locked up for life.

 

[MA-Caver]

Well, yeah.
Seems the authorities might have missed an opportunity to keep this from happening. Not looking to place blame on anyone but him, but this isn't really a death penalty case, and probably won't wind up being one, sadly. I recognize your visceral reaction for what it is, 'Caver, and share your feelings, but odds are good this is going to end u with option "a"-locked up for life.

It is indeed a visceral reaction but I hope an understandable one.
Be that as it may a locked up for life just doesn't seem justice enough for something like this. Two young children futures snuffed out because the guy was nuts and allowed to roam the streets.
No, doesn't seem like justice by a long shot.

 

[Big Don]

If you are so insane you cannot help, but, kill people, YES, you should absolutely be removed from the living.

 

[MJS]

Seems the authorities might have missed an opportunity to keep this from happening. Not looking to place blame on anyone but him, but this isn't really a death penalty case, and probably won't wind up being one, sadly. I recognize your visceral reaction for what it is, 'Caver, and share your feelings, but odds are good this is going to end u with option "a"-locked up for life.

In your opinion, why do you feel that this will not be a death penalty case? I suppose the up side of this, is when this guy lands in jail and word gets out of what he did, he may end up being on the receiving end of the 'jail house justice' anyway.

Amazing how we can have any other crime, and its almost a status symbol to the other inmates, yet harm a child...watch your back.

 

[Cryozombie]

If you are so insane you cannot help, but, kill people, YES, you should absolutely be removed from the living.

I dunno... I mean, removed from the presence of others you could hurt, yes... Killed for being defective? I dunno.

Hell, why dont we kill people who are retarded then? And Probably red hair. That sounds like a defect to me. Actually, Anyone who isnt blonde haired blue eyed and part of the master race is probably defective and should go...

See... no. Removed from hurting others yes. But The death penalty for insanity? The guy didn't make a concious choice...

 

[MJS]

I dunno... I mean, removed from the presence of others you could hurt, yes... Killed for being defective? I dunno.

Hell, why dont we kill people who are retarded then? And Probably red hair. That sounds like a defect to me. Actually, Anyone who isnt blonde haired blue eyed and part of the master race is probably defective and should go...

See... no. Removed from hurting others yes. But The death penalty for insanity? The guy didn't make a concious choice...

IMO, I don't believe that anyone who kills someone else necessarily has a mental disorder. I mean, look at how many gangbagers shoot people. I doubt they all have mental illness.

So here is another question for the discussion: Should we send those with no mental issues, ie: gang members, to death row, but avoid sending ones with a mental disorder to death row?

Of course, this begs the question....if this person was that unstable, why were they free to roam as they please?

 

[MA-Caver]

I dunno... I mean, removed from the presence of others you could hurt, yes... Killed for being defective? I dunno.

Hell, why dont we kill people who are retarded then? And Probably red hair. That sounds like a defect to me. Actually, Anyone who isnt blonde haired blue eyed and part of the master race is probably defective and should go...

See... no. Removed from hurting others yes. But The death penalty for insanity? The guy didn't make a conscious choice...

Those who are insane need help, I don't deny them that... but those who are criminally insane and have killed will do so again and again if allowed to. They know nothing else but killing... it is all that they will know. They are a danger to society. Redheads and those with mental retardation aren't.
I'm not an eye for an eye type of guy... what I look at is the motive. Killing someone in a robbery because they tried to stop you from doing so... definitely life in prison... killing someone because it made you feel good to do so... death. Killing someone in a jealous rage over your wife or S.O. ... life, killing a child in a rage over some spilt milk or something they broke... death.
The guy who dressed up as Santa on Christmas Eve and shot a 8 yr. old girl in the face when she answered the door (thankfully she survived) and killed 9 others before killing himself... if he hadn't committed suicide... I would say death penalty for him. Same with the cop who started shooting people randomly along a highway before killing himself.
It is the intensity of their crimes, the madness of it. Some murders are definitely life in prison without parole, but others are just plain vicious. This guy definitely.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, the thing is, according to the Article, the guy is allegedly Schizophrenic. Schizos can really fly off their rockers and have no idea what they are doing is wrong... I'm not saying someone like that shouldn't be punished, but it's a serious and real Mental Disorder... Its not like saying "Oh, I killed them because I have Adult Childhood Stress Disorder" or any of the million "disorders" that we *ahem* make up *ahem* to explain away behavior (or sell drugs).

You are correct in asking the question, "If it was known he had this disorder why wasn't he monitored"... but I'd hazard a guess for the same reason that the cops didn't stop that 7-11 robbery down the street... there just isn't enough manpower to watch every mental case 24/7 to make sure they stay on their meds and stable.

 

[elder999]

In your opinion, why do you feel that this will not be a death penalty case? I suppose the up side of this, is when this guy lands in jail and word gets out of what he did, he may end up being on the receiving end of the 'jail house justice' anyway.

Amazing how we can have any other crime, and its almost a status symbol to the other inmates, yet harm a child...watch your back.

It's not really my opinion-I don't have one. On the face of the circumstances, I'd gladly disembowel the guy with a tablespoon, personally.Then again, I'd do that to someone who cut in front of me in line, if it weren't for my extraordinary impulse control....:lol:

Realistically, Arizona has a premeditation standard for the death penalty, that's one impediment to his getting it-he didn't do this in the commission of another crime, so there's no aggravating circumstance. By all appearances, this is a crime of opportunity.

Secondly, Arizona has a mental-competence standard-he must understand that he's being tried for murder and that he faces the death penalty. Since it's pretty clear that this guy is more than a few fries short of a happy meal, to use the technical term, it becomes a question of whether he knows right from wrong-it's also not clear or not if he's delusional: he said that he's killed before, but no bodies were found because his sons live with their mother in another state. All of these could be grounds, depending upon who is defending him and who the judge is, to have a 1st degree murder charge set aside, or reduced, or even to keep a DA from bringing them in the first place.The circumstances themselves could also point to this.

Of course, if he's found mentally incompetent, he won't stand trial-he'll receive treatment. When a doctor says he's competent, he can then stand trial and be put to death. This could happen, though it's historically unlikely-no doctor is likely to go there (after he's been found incompetent) on the off chance that he might go free.

A halfway decent attorney is going to make the case that this fruit-loop thought he was killing his own sons, and is, therefore, delusional. It might not even go to trial-ever.It might be a little different if this had happened in Texas, but it didn't. THen again, what do I know? He could be found competent, and fry..(gasp?, shudder?, swing? I dunno how they do it in Arizona, anyway....)

 

[Steve]

If you are so insane you cannot help, but, kill people, YES, you should absolutely be removed from the living.

If it's a diagnosed illness, whether it's mental or physical doesn't matter. The person needs medical attention.

A person diagnosed with epilepsy has an epileptic seizure behind the wheel and runs over two children. Should this person be sentenced to death? If not, how, in your opinion, do the two situations differ?

Edit: I just want to add that the person, in both cases, needs to be held reasonably accountable to the situation.

 

[MJS]

If it's a diagnosed illness, whether it's mental or physical doesn't matter. The person needs medical attention.

A person diagnosed with epilepsy has an epileptic seizure behind the wheel and runs over two children. Should this person be sentenced to death? If not, how, in your opinion, do the two situations differ?

IMO, there is a difference in what you describe. A seizure is IMO, very different from what the guy in this article suffers from. There was no intent to harm someone with the seizure case, yet this guy set out with a bat, stalking those kids, and brutally killed them.

Is medical attention going to help the guy in the article? I'm sorry, but if this guy is having thoughts of killing people, he needs to be in a secure facility. If someone wants to try to treat this person thats fine, but like I said, given his history, he needs to be isolated from the public.

 

[Cryozombie]

I'm sorry, but if this guy is having thoughts of killing people, he needs to be in a secure facility. If someone wants to try to treat this person thats fine, but like I said, given his history, he needs to be isolated from the public.

I don't disagree with this at all... I'm just saying the Death Penalty for him is probably over the top because if he really is Schizo he had about as much control over the situation as the guy with the siezure in Stevebjjs example. Thats just how Schizophrenia works.

 

[MJS]

It's not really my opinion-I don't have one. On the face of the circumstances, I'd gladly disembowel the guy with a tablespoon, personally.Then again, I'd do that to someone who cut in front of me in line, if it weren't for my extraordinary impulse control....:lol:

Realistically, Arizona has a premeditation standard for the death penalty, that's one impediment to his getting it-he didn't do this in the commission of another crime, so there's no aggravating circumstance. By all appearances, this is a crime of opportunity.

Secondly, Arizona has a mental-competence standard-he must understand that he's being tried for murder and that he faces the death penalty. Since it's pretty clear that this guy is more than a few fries short of a happy meal, to use the technical term, it becomes a question of whether he knows right from wrong-it's also not clear or not if he's delusional: he said that he's killed before, but no bodies were found because his sons live with their mother in another state. All of these could be grounds, depending upon who is defending him and who the judge is, to have a 1st degree murder charge set aside, or reduced, or even to keep a DA from bringing them in the first place.The circumstances themselves could also point to this.

Of course, if he's found mentally incompetent, he won't stand trial-he'll receive treatment. When a doctor says he's competent, he can then stand trial and be put to death. This could happen, though it's historically unlikely-no doctor is likely to go there (after he's been found incompetent) on the off chance that he might go free.

A halfway decent attorney is going to make the case that this fruit-loop thought he was killing his own sons, and is, therefore, delusional. It might not even go to trial-ever.It might be a little different if this had happened in Texas, but it didn't. THen again, what do I know? He could be found competent, and fry..(gasp?, shudder?, swing? I dunno how they do it in Arizona, anyway....)

Ah, good points. What sucks is there is a lawyer out there thats actually going to have to defend this guy, making him out to be the victim, that nobody gave him treatment, he had a rough life, etc.:sadsong:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Ah, good points. What sucks is there is a lawyer out there thats actually going to have to defend this guy, making him out to be the victim, that nobody gave him treatment, he had a rough life, etc.:sadsong:

They won't be up on the stand arguing "well his life was tough, so he should be let off". Given that the defendant was a registered schizophrenic, the argument would be that he was completely incapable of the mental state needed for a conviction, i.e. he was unable to recognize what he was doing as a crime or a wrong. That, of course, will all depend on whether there's a doctor who can say how severe his case of mental illness is. I didn't read the article, just this thread, so no idea on that issue.

Also, with the killer being a schizophrenic with an apparent violent history, the fact that he was walking the streets means that SOMEONE dropped the ball. I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation lead to a criminal negligence case against whatever mental health facility or hospital should have been keeping tabs on the guy.

 

[MJS]

I don't disagree with this at all... I'm just saying the Death Penalty for him is probably over the top because if he really is Schizo he had about as much control over the situation as the guy with the siezure in Stevebjjs example. Thats just how Schizophrenia works.

Good point and I see what you're saying. I don't know, I guess the way I was looking at it was, with a seizure, there isn't any thought of manslaughter in ones mind. If this guy is Schizo, are there constant or periodic thoughts of killing?

 

[Cryozombie]

Good point and I see what you're saying. I don't know, I guess the way I was looking at it was, with a seizure, there isn't any thought of manslaughter in ones mind. If this guy is Schizo, are there constant or periodic thoughts of killing?

Hard to say... it can manefest in Paranoia, Delusional Behavior, Hallucinations, memory loss, etc... The Killing stuff is likley a side effect of that, especially paranoid delusions.

 

[Nolerama]

Could this be a by-product of the breakdown in funding for public mental health services in the United States? I think so.

It's a sad situation, but here's my question: where were the parents? Why did they let their young children play unsupervised in a public park?

IMO, they're almost as much to blame as the mentally unstable guy.

Most parents don't want their young ones to play in the middle of traffic. They should be protective enough to supervise them in a park.

 

[MA-Caver]

Could this be a by-product of the breakdown in funding for public mental health services in the United States? I think so.

It's a sad situation, but here's my question: where were the parents? Why did they let their young children play unsupervised in a public park?

IMO, they're almost as much to blame as the mentally unstable guy.

Most parents don't want their young ones to play in the middle of traffic. They should be protective enough to supervise them in a park.

Used to be (even when I was younger) that kids could go practically ANYWHERE and their parents not worry until it's after dark. Kids could go unsupervised and unchecked in parks and playgrounds and where-ever and they by and large got home at or just before dark (dinner time). My brother and I used to be able to pass a football in the street and get out of the way when cars came by... then get back out there again... no fuss. I could ride my bike for miles and still not have to worry about coming home to "where you been? We've been worried about you!!"
Could fall off a porch at a friend's house and the friend's parents didn't worry about my parents calling their lawyer to sue them.

It's saying something where this cannot happen anymore without some nut, perv, idiot causing some harm to the little ones. We talk about where are the parents a lot but it's in the methodology of how they're raising (or NOT raising) their children.
To stay together or to at least be aware of what and who is around them in their surroundings. Kids now by and large have cell phones at least to make calls of "pick me up".

Now-a-days... I dunno... different.