Execution Watch: Robert Sparks

And Also: Mets finally had a laugher vs. Marlins, but unfortunately Brewers scored six in the first before they even began. Bye bye.

My effort to address each person scheduled for execution (not all of whom were executed) continues and is starting to get a tad depressing. A tad. Looking into the latest, we have this summary:

Robert Sparks was deep in the throes of a psychotic break at the time of his crimes – that is not disputed. He was hearing voices; he thought his wife was trying to poison him. He stabbed her and his two stepsons to death and raped his two stepdaughters, but he felt he'd be exonerated. Instead he was sentenced to death in 2008 in one of the most emotionally charged trials in the history of Dallas County. Now, his execution date approaches on Wednesday, Sept. 25.

So, the crimes are clearly horrible but is execution the appropriate path, especially since claims of deterrence or incapacitation [consider someone who murdered in prison] clashes with the reality that only a few places have the death penalty. And, even they repeatedly only use is sparingly.  The article noted: "Claiming insanity isn't a good strategy to overturn a death sentence; by law, defendants have to be not merely mentally ill, but uncomprehending of what is happening to them."

Should be. As one summary notes: "Sparks has also been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, paranoid delusions, and anti-social disorder."  These are not people we want on the outside, but killing a few of them to me is not good constitutional policy.  The inability to do a frontal attack on such grounds, however, leads to trying weaker arguments:

That claim is currently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, along with one about how a bailiff’s courtroom attire may have biased the jury. During the punishment phase of trial — when jurors decided on whether Sparks deserved to die by lethal injection — one of the bailiffs wore a necktie with an image of a syringe on it.

Sotomayor, in another solo "this is troubling but not going to dissent" statement, flagged this as troubling behavior.  Also, there is an argument being made that an expert provided misleading testimony regarding his future dangerousness.  The rejoinder is that that was properly covered in cross examination.  The crime was about a decade ago and he is now in his forties. He should continue to be detained. Execution would be executing a mentally impaired person.  That's wrong.

He was executed apparently without a hitch.  

===

Under the changes, aggravated murder only applies to terrorist attacks that kill two or more people, murders of children under 14 and law enforcement officers, and killings by prisoners who’ve already been convicted of murder.

Meanwhile, in death penalty news, Oregon (Democrats control) restricted the death penalty, a total ban requiring a ballot measure. The governor, after stating she was open to the idea, rejected calls to bring the legislature back into session to weaken the restrictions.  One concern was that the new measures would be retroactive in scope so that those already sentenced to die might have their death sentenced commuted.  This was seen by some as a sign, a test, of how much Democrats would stick to criminal justice reform measures.

Since the 1970s, two people were executed, both so-called "volunteers."  There are thirty-five people on death row, so this is not trivial matter on some level.  Oregon historically was on the low side (link provides data) but before the first wave of anti-death penalty statement (1960s), it did execute some people.  When we are talking two people (both in 1990s), however, it might be time to just call it a day.  As to the usual hard cases talk, again, what does all the places without a death penalty do?