In the days and hours leading up to Tuesday's execution, Hill’s legal options dwindled: On Monday evening, a federal appeals court denied a request to review the issue of Hill's mental capacity; on Tuesday morning, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, the sole authority in the state that can commute a death sentence to life without parole, voted to deny clemency. Just 30 minutes before Hill was scheduled to be put to death, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review of his case. The court turned down Hill's appeal for a stay of execution in a 7-2 vote, with Justices Stephen M. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to psychologists, Hill was not declared mentally retarded, and because of this he was executed. I am not going to try and dispute the psychologist's claim, so I believe that the execution was more or less justified based on the laws of the state and the country. If Hill was not declared mentally retarded, he should not be protected from execution. In the end, Hill committed a crime and is a criminal and should be prosecuted as such.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult issue for me to decide on. On one hand, Hill is guilty of murdering two people, therefore I think he should be sentenced in accordinance with his crimes. On the other hand, Hill was declared both mentally retarded and mentally capable in different instances by different doctors. Because of those two opposing factors, it's hard to decide if he should have actually been executed. If he was indeed mentally retarded, he shouldn't have been executed due to his mental capacity. But, if the psychologists were correct in ruling him mentally capable, then the sentence is correct. I think there are too many opposing rulings on the suspect to decide if the execution was just or not.
ReplyDeleteThere are two opposing ideas here. One is that he was mentally capable and the other that he was not. This makes this a difficult issue to decide on. If he was mentally incapable then I believe that he shouldn't have been executed but of course punished. But if he was mentally capable then I believe that if execution was his sentence then it should have been carried out. It's hard to know now so it is hard to decide whether or not it was just.
ReplyDeleteI really don't care whether Hill is mentally handicapped or not. If you do the crime then do the time. In this case Hill murdered multiple people, and therefore deserves to be sentenced to death. I am really upset how easily criminals and murderers in particular are able to get out of death row by claiming to be mentally disabled. I am glad the courts ruled the way they did.
ReplyDeleteI am against the death penalty all together as I view that there is inherit worth and dignity in each person. Instead of spending money on prisons and their operating costs, I would be pleased to see more money spent on rehabilitation programs for prisoners. Relating to the article however, it seems odd to me that his sentence was this abrupt. If there is doubt, I'd rather settle on doubt rather than certainty
ReplyDeleteI doubt the severity of Hill's mental illness. If he was promoted all the way up to a Petty Officer in the Navy, no small feat, he clearly had some semblance of intelligence. The military doesn't promote out of pity. Also, Hill's crimes, killing his girlfriend, and, in particular, beating a prisoner to death with a nail-studded board are especially gruesome. Despite this, and my general conservatism, I tend to be against the death penalty in most cases. I feel that it is rather barbaric a punishment and one that my morals cannot often justify. I also am disturbed by the accounts of lethal injections that seem botched, the criminals writhing in pain before dying of cardiac arrest. I imagine a lifetime in solitary confinement in prison would still amount to fitting punishment for our worst murderers.
ReplyDeleteSince his crimes took place so long ago, I think that if Hill was actually mentally ill it would have been officially proven by then. Additionally, his position as a petty officer in the navy shows that he was most likely at least partially aware of the horrible crimes he committed. I have almost no sympathy for murderers, but I feel that the death penalty might be a little extreme in this case. Life in prison would have been a more fitting punishment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, justice should be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, that being said, I think the courts made the right decision to subject Hill to the death penalty. I think if Hill did actually have a mental disability then it should have been abundantly clear in the the tests they gave him and even in the way he communicates with others. I've been around people on different aspects of the Autistic Spectrum all my life and I know that even if he had a "slight handicap" he is still capable of thought and controlling his actions. 11 year olds can plan murder and kill, and should also be held accountable for their actions, so Hill, who supposedly had the mental capacity of an 11 year old, should face the consequences for his actions as well.
ReplyDeleteHill's mental disabilities were not mentioned until his 1991 case, so I'm not sure how severe they were, if they existed at all. I have sympathy for the "psychological torture" of constantly postponing his death sentence,as his attorney pointed out, but I feel like the sentence should not have been postponed in the first place, unless there was abundant evidence to prove he didn't deserve the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with Andy's comment. The varying accounts of Hill's mental illness make it difficult to determine the severity of it and the influence it had on his judgment when he committed these heinous crimes. I'm suspicious about his mental illness for a few reasons: one, it seems that his mental incapacity was not even brought up until several years after his case was reviewed. Two, each level of the courts made seemingly conflicting rulings about the role his mental disability played in the execution of his crimes. Finally, his attorney complained about the "psychological torture" the last-minute decisions were inflicting on Hill, yet the attorney repeatedly fought to convince the courts of Hill's mental handicap, despite scarce evidence of it. This makes me skeptical of the attorney's honesty in regards to his client.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andy. I fully understand and agree that people need to be punished for their actions, but I have always found the death penalty morally wrong. I almost feel like it is giving criminals the easy way out and even stooping to their level. I think life in prison, even solitary confinement, is a much more fitting option. With that being said, whether Hill mas mentally handicapped or not, I do not think the death penalty was the right punishment; he should have been sentenced to life in prison.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very difficult case to have an opinion on. Hill obviously committed two horrible crimes when he killed his girlfriend and an inmate. While I do believe in the death penalty and that violent criminals like Hill should be punished, I do not believe that he should have gotten the death penalty. If he is claimed to have the mental capacity of an eleven year old, he should be excused from the death penalty. I can only imagine how torturous it would to wait for the decision of whether you are going to die or live.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't understand the argument against the death penalty. If someone poses a threat to our society in the form of taking lives then they should be put to death. Due to hill's status in the navy, I highly doubt he's mentally disabled. Even if he were, he's still dangerous and should be taken care of accordingly.
ReplyDelete