Why You Should Care About Madison v. Alabama & What You Need To Know.
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Wendy Lott
I know I'm going to be labeled a ignorant, barbaric, monster etc. But I support the death penalty. Thank you to those who keep reading to hear my point of view. The death penalty shouldn't be thrown around like candy and it should be considered the highest form of punishment and reserved solely for the most heinous crimes. What he did qualifies, I don't think his current state of being or decline should matter because it's not relevant to the case. What should matter and should be looked at is his state during the time of the crimes committed. If there's a mental disorder/injury then, where he wasn't in a right state of mind that's one thing. And if that's found to be the case then no, he shouldn't be on death row. But there are monsters in this world well within their right mind. Who aren't human anymore and shouldn't be given the dignity to be treated like what they threw away and stole from someone else. They can't be fixed. And spending life in prison for them is just as effective as sitting in a time out corner. Hell, some do it because they want to go to prison Don't give them what they want. Attention, fame from the media circus, people to know what they did, prison time. They don't deserve any of that. And when a crime is that heinous, I think the only true form of justice in those cases is to put them six feet under. I personally hate how our justice system slaps people on the wrist anymore. If they did the crime, throw the book at them. Don't misunderstand, what I'm talking about are the heinous crimes not the petty ones. If someone is in prison for a petty crime let's help them, get them what they need and reform them. They're still people who for whatever reason got to where they are and need help. I'm specifically talking about the death penalty for the murders, violent rapists, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying life in prison isn't valid or isn't a punishment. In fact I think there are times where that would be best punishment All I'm saying is the death penalty shouldn't be simply labeled barbaric, archaic etc and thrown out. It should be reserved and treated as the highest form of justice/punishment for the worst crimes.
reply
I know I'm going to be labeled a ignorant, barbaric, monster etc. But I support the death penalty. Thank you to those who keep reading to hear my point of view. The death penalty shouldn't be thrown around like candy and it should be considered the highest form of punishment and reserved solely for the most heinous crimes. What he did qualifies, I don't think his current state of being or decline should matter because it's not relevant to the case. What should matter and should be looked at is his state during the time of the crimes committed. If there's a mental disorder/injury then, where he wasn't in a right state of mind that's one thing. And if that's found to be the case then no, he shouldn't be on death row. But there are monsters in this world well within their right mind. Who aren't human anymore and shouldn't be given the dignity to be treated like what they threw away and stole from someone else. They can't be fixed. And spending life in prison for them is just as effective as sitting in a time out corner. Hell, some do it because they want to go to prison Don't give them what they want. Attention, fame from the media circus, people to know what they did, prison time. They don't deserve any of that. And when a crime is that heinous, I think the only true form of justice in those cases is to put them six feet under. I personally hate how our justice system slaps people on the wrist anymore. If they did the crime, throw the book at them. Don't misunderstand, what I'm talking about are the heinous crimes not the petty ones. If someone is in prison for a petty crime let's help them, get them what they need and reform them. They're still people who for whatever reason got to where they are and need help. I'm specifically talking about the death penalty for the murders, violent rapists, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying life in prison isn't valid or isn't a punishment. In fact I think there are times where that would be best punishment All I'm saying is the death penalty shouldn't be simply labeled barbaric, archaic etc and thrown out. It should be reserved and treated as the highest form of justice/punishment for the worst crimes.
reply
Nerd in Japan
When it comes to justice in the USA, American lawmakers have to first and fore-mostly decide WHAT IS JAIL FOR? Because unfortunately in the USA it doesn't seem like lawmakers, judges, or the prison system know what it's for. (And I mean historically it's because mass incarceration was a loophole to keep slavery, but I mean if people want to pretend like that's not what it's still for then y'all gotta decide what it's for now)-Is it a punishment? -Is it a justice? -Is it a safety measure? -Is it rehabilitation? If it's a punishment then yes, the person must be competent for the entire duration of their sentencing because the whole point of it is to simply torture them for what they've done. If they become incompetent, can't remember what they've done, or their very existence alters in some way that simply being alive is a torture in and of itself (i. e dementia, old age, etc) then there's no functional purpose of their sentence any longer. If it is meant to be Justice then honestly the victims or the victims families should be the ones to decide the severity of the punishment so they feel like Justice has been served, not the judge (although of course their choices in what the punishment should be should be restricted by the courts so that it's not cruel and unusual, and they should get that justice swiftly, it doesn't matter if the person who committed the crime understands what they did, they still did it and therefore justice must be served. If it is a safety measure then once again, if the person by whatever means becomes incapable of understanding or especially repeating the crime, then their sentence should end there because their ability to be a danger to society has also ended. And if it's for rehabilitation, then Execution shouldn't even be on the table, and sentences shouldn't be a matter of length but a matter of learning, showing remorse, and showing that they're willing to make amends for the wrongdoing they've done in the past.
reply
When it comes to justice in the USA, American lawmakers have to first and fore-mostly decide WHAT IS JAIL FOR? Because unfortunately in the USA it doesn't seem like lawmakers, judges, or the prison system know what it's for. (And I mean historically it's because mass incarceration was a loophole to keep slavery, but I mean if people want to pretend like that's not what it's still for then y'all gotta decide what it's for now)-Is it a punishment? -Is it a justice? -Is it a safety measure? -Is it rehabilitation? If it's a punishment then yes, the person must be competent for the entire duration of their sentencing because the whole point of it is to simply torture them for what they've done. If they become incompetent, can't remember what they've done, or their very existence alters in some way that simply being alive is a torture in and of itself (i. e dementia, old age, etc) then there's no functional purpose of their sentence any longer. If it is meant to be Justice then honestly the victims or the victims families should be the ones to decide the severity of the punishment so they feel like Justice has been served, not the judge (although of course their choices in what the punishment should be should be restricted by the courts so that it's not cruel and unusual, and they should get that justice swiftly, it doesn't matter if the person who committed the crime understands what they did, they still did it and therefore justice must be served. If it is a safety measure then once again, if the person by whatever means becomes incapable of understanding or especially repeating the crime, then their sentence should end there because their ability to be a danger to society has also ended. And if it's for rehabilitation, then Execution shouldn't even be on the table, and sentences shouldn't be a matter of length but a matter of learning, showing remorse, and showing that they're willing to make amends for the wrongdoing they've done in the past.
reply
iMythica
I personally work in a Memory Care unit specializing in Dementia and Alzheimer's disease diagnosed in a patient. We work with early to late stage cases and from what is being described of Madison's symptoms it seems he is in middle-stage environmental caused dementia (the environmental cause in this case being a stroke. Any neurologist could easily examine Mr. Madison's symptoms to determine if the symptoms present match the symptoms presented in his court case however the lawyer's unwillingness to seek a third party with court approval is honestly what is strange to me. According to Mr. Madison's lawyer he presents obvious stroke induced symptoms however has not moved to produce physical evidence such as an MRI from the onset of the stroke to present day to support his case. These are items that could be gained within a week or so and would cost the same or less to taxpayers as revisiting the case in court multiple times. Further more, as someone who works with these patients every week I can confidently tell you that most Dementia patients no longer want to live. Early and mid-stage Dementia understand that they are no longer themselves and want to be released from that suffering. So honestly I'm personally surprised that the push is to keep Mr. Madison alive instead of pleading that a death sentence would be a mercy to him. Dementia is a terrible thing to witness, a person losing all of the memories and lessons in life that made them who they are as an adult. I have little doubt that Mr. Madison is fundamentally different now then when he committed the crime however that dose not change history or the fact that he committed these offenses. As cruel as it may be to say though, keeping him alive to decline may be more inhumane then lethal injection. I really enjoy your show Phil and I hope you get to see this.
reply
I personally work in a Memory Care unit specializing in Dementia and Alzheimer's disease diagnosed in a patient. We work with early to late stage cases and from what is being described of Madison's symptoms it seems he is in middle-stage environmental caused dementia (the environmental cause in this case being a stroke. Any neurologist could easily examine Mr. Madison's symptoms to determine if the symptoms present match the symptoms presented in his court case however the lawyer's unwillingness to seek a third party with court approval is honestly what is strange to me. According to Mr. Madison's lawyer he presents obvious stroke induced symptoms however has not moved to produce physical evidence such as an MRI from the onset of the stroke to present day to support his case. These are items that could be gained within a week or so and would cost the same or less to taxpayers as revisiting the case in court multiple times. Further more, as someone who works with these patients every week I can confidently tell you that most Dementia patients no longer want to live. Early and mid-stage Dementia understand that they are no longer themselves and want to be released from that suffering. So honestly I'm personally surprised that the push is to keep Mr. Madison alive instead of pleading that a death sentence would be a mercy to him. Dementia is a terrible thing to witness, a person losing all of the memories and lessons in life that made them who they are as an adult. I have little doubt that Mr. Madison is fundamentally different now then when he committed the crime however that dose not change history or the fact that he committed these offenses. As cruel as it may be to say though, keeping him alive to decline may be more inhumane then lethal injection. I really enjoy your show Phil and I hope you get to see this.
reply
Zack Young
I think this case actually presents another compelling angle: Is it cruel and unusual punishment to keep someone alive in these circumstances? He was previously sentenced to death when he was fit to stand trial. Now, due to his health complications, he has absolutely no quality of life, ability to understand his punishment, and is utterly unable to live without assistance. Nobody wins here - I'd never advocate that we simply sentence people with disabilities to death but given all plans were already set prior to his disability and that there is no outlook for rehabilitation, a continued life, or a life behind bars that's comprehended, the difficult question does linger in my mind. At this rate, it almost seems more likely the case that we would not be carrying out a death penalty but rather euthanasia. In lieu of the original sentence and his faculties at that time, and up and until recently, I would vote for the penalty to be carried out. Death row in and of itself is a fairly cruel process in and of itself. It's one thing to kill someone as instructed by the state in observance of their crimes. It's another to make that individual, who knows they face death, to make them wait. Then, there's the cold and calculating angle of looking at this as a taxpayer. Why is anybody paying for this man to continue to live? Similar to the above, once an inmates appeals and legal avenues run by, I don't understand why the noose still looms above someone. It's wasteful in the case of money, and it's torturous in the case of an inmate. This said I'm against the death penalty for all individuals who are not serial offenders of serious and indisputable crimes (rapists, pedophiles, murderers. Jail is meant to reform an individual and if no reform is possible, it seems reasonable to not bear their burden longer than necessary.
reply
I think this case actually presents another compelling angle: Is it cruel and unusual punishment to keep someone alive in these circumstances? He was previously sentenced to death when he was fit to stand trial. Now, due to his health complications, he has absolutely no quality of life, ability to understand his punishment, and is utterly unable to live without assistance. Nobody wins here - I'd never advocate that we simply sentence people with disabilities to death but given all plans were already set prior to his disability and that there is no outlook for rehabilitation, a continued life, or a life behind bars that's comprehended, the difficult question does linger in my mind. At this rate, it almost seems more likely the case that we would not be carrying out a death penalty but rather euthanasia. In lieu of the original sentence and his faculties at that time, and up and until recently, I would vote for the penalty to be carried out. Death row in and of itself is a fairly cruel process in and of itself. It's one thing to kill someone as instructed by the state in observance of their crimes. It's another to make that individual, who knows they face death, to make them wait. Then, there's the cold and calculating angle of looking at this as a taxpayer. Why is anybody paying for this man to continue to live? Similar to the above, once an inmates appeals and legal avenues run by, I don't understand why the noose still looms above someone. It's wasteful in the case of money, and it's torturous in the case of an inmate. This said I'm against the death penalty for all individuals who are not serial offenders of serious and indisputable crimes (rapists, pedophiles, murderers. Jail is meant to reform an individual and if no reform is possible, it seems reasonable to not bear their burden longer than necessary.
reply
Madison S
I'm currently in law school and got my undergrad degree in criminal justice and this topic is really important to me. I understand that everyone has differing views on the death penalty in America and I'm not going to try to persuade anyone a certain way. The legal use of competency and insanity in the criminal justice system gets confused by the general public and I kind of see that happening in the comments. Insanity is the state of mind during the time of the crime and not at any point after the crime. Competency can be measured on a linear scale, so a person who is competent when committing the crime can be found to be incompetent after the fact. This is especially important when it comes to the death penalty trial in this case. In Arizona in particular (because I'm most familiar with Arizona law, a lawyer can ask for a Rule 11 evaluation to determine if the defendant is competent. If the defendant is found to be incompetent they cannot be tried because they cannot rationally assist in their own defense. This is where the linear scale for competency comes in, though, because if medication would make a defendant competent again then he will be given the medication and when he is determined to be competent the trial would go forward. I know here we're talking about after a conviction and not before, but I kind of see it in the same way and don't think that he would understand what is happening and there is no punitive effect if the offender does not remember the crime. I am not trying to sway anyone to my point of view, just wanted to provide some information.
reply
I'm currently in law school and got my undergrad degree in criminal justice and this topic is really important to me. I understand that everyone has differing views on the death penalty in America and I'm not going to try to persuade anyone a certain way. The legal use of competency and insanity in the criminal justice system gets confused by the general public and I kind of see that happening in the comments. Insanity is the state of mind during the time of the crime and not at any point after the crime. Competency can be measured on a linear scale, so a person who is competent when committing the crime can be found to be incompetent after the fact. This is especially important when it comes to the death penalty trial in this case. In Arizona in particular (because I'm most familiar with Arizona law, a lawyer can ask for a Rule 11 evaluation to determine if the defendant is competent. If the defendant is found to be incompetent they cannot be tried because they cannot rationally assist in their own defense. This is where the linear scale for competency comes in, though, because if medication would make a defendant competent again then he will be given the medication and when he is determined to be competent the trial would go forward. I know here we're talking about after a conviction and not before, but I kind of see it in the same way and don't think that he would understand what is happening and there is no punitive effect if the offender does not remember the crime. I am not trying to sway anyone to my point of view, just wanted to provide some information.
reply
Rhyesa Jackson
Question I have for you Phil, in a video earlier in the week you had said you were all about believing people can change and grow over time. Yet, you're not willing to consider that this person, after suffering a severe brain injury, is incapable of changing and should be held accountable for his past self. Now, I understand we are talking about different crimes and different levels of bad here. I'm not saying that old tweets and murder are the same thing. And I certainly don't think this man should be released or anything of the sort. However, I'm curious what your rationale? Only racists and homophobes can change over time? People who commit murder can't change and grow? Personally I am very torn on the death penalty. I believe in imprisonment. I believe in rehabilitation. I do recognize that some people are beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated or shouldn't be trusted with trying. However, in those cases I weigh the evil of legally murdering them (execution) with the drain to society feeding/housing them in prison. and I don't know which one I side with. I know I could never the the one to throw the switch which makes me think that life sentences without parole are more acceptable. In this particular case, Madison's quality of life sounds like it's own special form of hell. Let him suffer and save us all the morality of it.
reply
Question I have for you Phil, in a video earlier in the week you had said you were all about believing people can change and grow over time. Yet, you're not willing to consider that this person, after suffering a severe brain injury, is incapable of changing and should be held accountable for his past self. Now, I understand we are talking about different crimes and different levels of bad here. I'm not saying that old tweets and murder are the same thing. And I certainly don't think this man should be released or anything of the sort. However, I'm curious what your rationale? Only racists and homophobes can change over time? People who commit murder can't change and grow? Personally I am very torn on the death penalty. I believe in imprisonment. I believe in rehabilitation. I do recognize that some people are beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated or shouldn't be trusted with trying. However, in those cases I weigh the evil of legally murdering them (execution) with the drain to society feeding/housing them in prison. and I don't know which one I side with. I know I could never the the one to throw the switch which makes me think that life sentences without parole are more acceptable. In this particular case, Madison's quality of life sounds like it's own special form of hell. Let him suffer and save us all the morality of it.
reply
Poi Lethe
I'm honestly conflicted, though in the end I dont support the death penalty anyways. More so i wonder if someone is later found to be and becomes incompetent after their initial sentencing should they still serve their sentence? Should the sentencing be adjusted? If someone does go insane or becomes physically or mentally disabled should their placement and accommodations change? As they said that would be a motivator of other prisoners to injure themselves or find ways to become or pretend to be incompetent. And does it matter? Like you committed the crime knowing the consequences, and those are the consequences of being in jail for life. You dont get the best medicine and treatment available, or assistance, or anything no matter what happens to you in jail. Even if you dont remember that's kind of part of the consequence. Maybe part of the problem is that treatment of physical and mental issues in jail are so bad. If it was more about rehabilitation and removal from society and less about punishment it couldnt get to this point, where hes had a stroke and cant remember what has been done. I am definitely curious what is decided and how they decide it. If he gets put on the stand (or at least interviewed by the judge) and what the doctors say.
reply
I'm honestly conflicted, though in the end I dont support the death penalty anyways. More so i wonder if someone is later found to be and becomes incompetent after their initial sentencing should they still serve their sentence? Should the sentencing be adjusted? If someone does go insane or becomes physically or mentally disabled should their placement and accommodations change? As they said that would be a motivator of other prisoners to injure themselves or find ways to become or pretend to be incompetent. And does it matter? Like you committed the crime knowing the consequences, and those are the consequences of being in jail for life. You dont get the best medicine and treatment available, or assistance, or anything no matter what happens to you in jail. Even if you dont remember that's kind of part of the consequence. Maybe part of the problem is that treatment of physical and mental issues in jail are so bad. If it was more about rehabilitation and removal from society and less about punishment it couldnt get to this point, where hes had a stroke and cant remember what has been done. I am definitely curious what is decided and how they decide it. If he gets put on the stand (or at least interviewed by the judge) and what the doctors say.
reply
Matthew Eden
Well, it depends on what you see the role of our Justice system to be. is it to protect society through elimination or rehabilitation of those who harm it, or is it to bring vengeance to criminals, to make them pay for their crimes, hopefully deterring further crime in the process? I think, in practice, it's clearly been shown to be the latter, in which case he should still be punished. If someone were to suffer a concussion and forget a crime they committed, but was still able to function in society, they would still be held accountable. Likewise, if someone became physically (or mentally) unable to repeat a crime they committed, they would also still be held accountable. Is it cruel? Arguably so; though, that hasn't stopped the Justice system in the past. And it's not unusual. It's just. It makes a statement that one can't escape reconciliation for their crimes. That said, I don't personally agree with the current interpretation of our Justice system. It's expensive and ineffective at best; it mainly seems to serve to provide some small amount of relief to those affected by the crime (family of the victims, etc. And on that note, I guarantee that those people would like to see this man punished, regardless of his current state.
reply
Well, it depends on what you see the role of our Justice system to be. is it to protect society through elimination or rehabilitation of those who harm it, or is it to bring vengeance to criminals, to make them pay for their crimes, hopefully deterring further crime in the process? I think, in practice, it's clearly been shown to be the latter, in which case he should still be punished. If someone were to suffer a concussion and forget a crime they committed, but was still able to function in society, they would still be held accountable. Likewise, if someone became physically (or mentally) unable to repeat a crime they committed, they would also still be held accountable. Is it cruel? Arguably so; though, that hasn't stopped the Justice system in the past. And it's not unusual. It's just. It makes a statement that one can't escape reconciliation for their crimes. That said, I don't personally agree with the current interpretation of our Justice system. It's expensive and ineffective at best; it mainly seems to serve to provide some small amount of relief to those affected by the crime (family of the victims, etc. And on that note, I guarantee that those people would like to see this man punished, regardless of his current state.
reply
Caroline Sine
I realize ahead of posting this that my opinion is probably an unpopular one, but I believe that the death penalty should still be given to proven perpetrators of unforgivable crimes (i. e. murder with intent or premeditated, rape- especially of children, and things of that nature. This man murdered that officer in cold blood because he was afraid to go to jail, and then tried to murder a woman and her child. He knew exactly what he was doing when he fled and came back with that gun. And anyone can pretend to be crazy, you see in it movies and TV shows all the time. Granted you can't fake an MRI, but really whether or not he is mentally inept now does not negate that he was of sound mind at the time of the crime. If that officer was my family, I would not believe that his murderer deserves to continue to get 3 square meals a day and a warm place to sleep at night. Call it revenge, justice, whatever you want. But the fact remains that the inmate killed someone and then tried to kill two others, probably to silence any witnesses. I wouldn't even say that his mental state and having two strokes is sad, because that's karma going to work. Maybe that's a savage way of thinking, but oh well.
reply
I realize ahead of posting this that my opinion is probably an unpopular one, but I believe that the death penalty should still be given to proven perpetrators of unforgivable crimes (i. e. murder with intent or premeditated, rape- especially of children, and things of that nature. This man murdered that officer in cold blood because he was afraid to go to jail, and then tried to murder a woman and her child. He knew exactly what he was doing when he fled and came back with that gun. And anyone can pretend to be crazy, you see in it movies and TV shows all the time. Granted you can't fake an MRI, but really whether or not he is mentally inept now does not negate that he was of sound mind at the time of the crime. If that officer was my family, I would not believe that his murderer deserves to continue to get 3 square meals a day and a warm place to sleep at night. Call it revenge, justice, whatever you want. But the fact remains that the inmate killed someone and then tried to kill two others, probably to silence any witnesses. I wouldn't even say that his mental state and having two strokes is sad, because that's karma going to work. Maybe that's a savage way of thinking, but oh well.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
12:19
13:47
14:30
12:51