I agree with you. I am not anti-death penalty, although I have gone in recent years from being pro-death penalty to really analyzing that mindset. I am not sure where I sit right now.

There are certainly cases where I believe it may not be possible to rehabilitate a person in which case I question why I should pay tax dollars to keep them alive for the next 40 or 50 years serving a life sentence.

On the other hand, where some people think the death penalty is the severest form of punishment, I think a life sentence is. Death is an easy out- they're done. Let them sit in prison for 40 or 50 years worried about dropping the soap and pondering their actions.

I have a hard time now condoning state-sanctioned murder though. It would be one thing if they let the victims or the victims families kill the person themselves. At least they have a reason for wanting vengeance and wishing the person dead. Then it would be an eye for an eye so to speak. But, what justice is served by the government saying that because you murdered someone and that is against the law we are now going to murder you- do as we say, not as we do.

Now, back to the specific issue you brought up. I agree with you. Arguably he should have been found not-guilty by reason of insanity and placed in a mental institution for life. The fact that they later determined him to be mentally ill and then medicate him JUST so they can execute him is wrong.

I also think its wrong when they take someone from death row who has a heart attack or other serious incident and rush him to the hospital to make him all better so they can kill him. People on death row should automatically have DNR (do not resuscitate) orders in place so that if they die of any causes in the meantime we just let them die rather than spending time and tax dollars to bring him back to life so we can kill him on schedule.