Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 24

Health care law

If the Supreme Court rules that Congress can't mandate that all individuals buy health insurance, would the entire law be invalidated? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect the legislation has a severability clause, so if the court knocked out part of it, the rest would stay in force. But I haven't checked. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The suit alleges that the mandate is central to the legislation and so, unseverable. If this argument carries the day, the legislation would be invalidated in its entirety. (And, of course, if not, not.) - Nunh-huh 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and certainly not a constitutional scholar. However, I know that complicated legislation like this usually affects several different parts of the U.S. Code and that the striking down of one part doesn't necessarily impact the rest. For example, the censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act were struck down by the Supreme Court, but the provisions that shield websites from libel liability for comments made by users in forums remain in force, which is why I can write here that Oprah Winfrey tortures baby seals for fun and the Wikimedia Foundation can't be sued. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the new plan is similar to one that has been running in Massachusetts for a while and has survived legal challenges. See Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes called Romneycare after the then-governor who signed it into operation. Romney is likely to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination so it will be interesting to see how he plays it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

From what that article says, the Massachusetts law is not quite out of the woods yet. There is also liable to be a major difference in that it's a state vs. the federal. Opponents are liable to argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate that every citizen have insurance, i.e. that it's a states-rights violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

IANAL but from surfing around a little, the legal challenges don't sound very viable; they're just obstruction attempts, like the birther lawsuits against Obama. Also, apparently nobody is actually required to have insurance--the legal construction is that voluntarily uninsured people have to pay higher taxes. My guess is that the higher tax would pass rational basis review since those people might at some point need emergency medical services that has to somehow be paid for. Of course it's a highly regressive tax, not what I'd expect from a so-called "socialist" program. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit much to compare constitutional challenges to the health care law with birthers. Characterizing your political opponents as extremists is always popular, but rarely perceptive. So far the attorneys-general of 13 states have filed suit against the law, so this is not exactly a fringe idea. Constitutionalism and libertarianism might be politically dead in the US, but I wouldn't characterize adherents of those philosophies as quacks.

It is unprecedented for the government to mandate that every person buy something, so it's predictable and reasonable to expect some legal resistance to this new assertion of government power over individuals. (There are some exemptions to the individual mandate; those who are not exempted and still refuse to buy insurance must pay a $695 fine.) It appears to be a longshot, however, that the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts, but we'll see. —Kevin Myers 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Severability" clauses are contract issues, not statutory ones. Statues that are invalid "on face" are invalid as a whole, but that doesn't necesarially apply to a whole "bill". Moreoever, it's quite rare that a statue is invalid "on face", rather than "as applied." A provision may be invalid even on face, but that doesn't mean the bill that passed it is entirely invalid.

If you want discussion about that specific provision, there are lots of legal blogs talking about it, perhaps most visibly, The Volokh Conspiracy, here, as well as elsewhere on there too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

procrastination trick

If I've got to do something and I'm putting it off, I have a really bad habit of purposely avoiding looking at the clock so I don't notice how late it's getting. Sort of a form of denial--if I'm not aware of it, it's not really happening. Is there a name for that trick, of not looking at the clock? I'm thinking of programming my computer to make a voice announcement of what time it is (or play chimes or something), every 15 minutes or so through the day, to undo the habit. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Burying ones head in the sand" describes it quite well. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's rather general, I'm asking about the specific pattern of avoiding clocks and I'm wondering if it's common. It's something I've noticed fairly recently. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just call it 'avoidance'. I don't know a name for that particular form of it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be related to the Horizon effect, in that you are deliberately manipulating your subjective time-horizon. You are trying to keep your time-horizon before the time of the work you have to do, so that you can subjectively ignore it. 84.13.22.69 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Horizon effect turns out to be a term from game programming, but it sounded like it might have come from behavioral economics, which suggests some ways to understand these weird habits. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience the horizon effect accounts for me perpetually putting off unpleasant tasks that I must do, even though things will be better after I've done the unpleasant task, which in theory I therefore ought to do immediately. Perhaps having a short horizon explains reckless or criminal behaviour, psychopoathy, etc, as their horizon is too near to care about the consequences. 84.13.201.209 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Break Even

Hello. When a firm wants to find an output level and a selling price per unit to break even, the firm would like to maximize profits by finding the intersection of marginal cost curve, marginal revenue curve, and average total cost curve. Why would the average total cost curve be minimal at this point? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like mathematics. Well you have

FC = fixed Cost

MC = Marginal Cost (per item)

SV(price) = Sales Volume for each price

Profit(price) = price * SV(price) - FC - (MC*SV(price))

Profit(price)/item = (price * SV(price) - FC - (MC*SV(price)) )/ SV(price)

Profit(price)/item = price - ( FC/SV(price) ) - MC

Average Cost per item = ( FC/SV(price) ) + MC

So we have

Profit(price)/item = price - Average Cost per item

So you see it's very easy. All you have to do is find the mathematical function SV(price), the amount sold at each price 122.107.207.98 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

122.107.207.98, you assumed that marginal cost per item is fixed, while it actually also varies by quantity, due to economy of scale. For example, if you order 10 tons of plastic to produce your parts, you'll likely get a better rate than for 1 ton. Also, fixed costs aren't really fixed. That is, as you increase production, eventually you'll need to build more factories, and thus incur higher fixed costs. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One more time with passion

This sounds like mathematics. Well you have

FC(vol) = Fixed Cost

MC(vol) = Marginal Cost (per item)

SV(price) = Sales Volume for each price

vol = SV(price)

Profit(price) = price * vol - FC(vol) - (MC(vol)*SV(price))

Profit(price)/item = (price * SV(price) - FC(SV(price)) - ( MC(SV(price)) * SV(price)) )/ SV(price)

Profit(price)/item = price - ( FC(SV(price))/SV(price) ) - MC(SV(price))

Average Cost per item = ( FC(SV(price))/SV(price) ) + MC(SV(price))

So you see it's very easy. All you have to do is find the mathematical function

• SV(price), the amount of items sold at each price
• FC(vol), the fixed cost at the volume of items sold
• MC(vol), the marginal cost at the volume of items sold

122.107.207.98 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks better, but isn't SV(price) = vol ? If so, we should get FC(vol) = FC(SV(price)) or just FC(price), right ? And the same applies to MC. I also notice that none of this directly answers the original poster's Q, however. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, here's a bit of microeconomics:

Your firm breaks even at the point where total costs (FC + VC) are equal to total revenue (P x Q). (Additional - if we assume the firm is operating in a perfectly competitve market, the firm's pricing equation is P=MC.)

To maximise profit, the firm produces at the point where marginal costs are equal to marginal revenue. If a firm produces more than this, marginal costs outweigh marginal revenue, while if it produces less, extra profit remains untaken.

The reason why average total cost is minimised at the point of MR=MC falls out of this - at another point of production, either: MC > MR - Marginal costs are rising, increasing average costs MR < MC - "not enough" is produced, so fixed costs (which are not part of the MC calculation, as MC is simply the derivative of the VC formula) "push up" the average cost. --Roydisco (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Date

When was this made? 300 BCE?[1]174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

They didn't have Roman emperors in 300 BC (or BCE if you prefer). If you'd gone to the description page at Image:Bust of emperor Philippus Arabus - Hermitage Museum.jpg, you would have seen the date 244-249 AD (or CE), but that is the date of the emperor's reign. If you check the museum's own web site, you will find this page which gives the date of the bust as circa mid-3rd century -- in other words, probably about the time he was emperor, but they don't exactly know. I'll edit the description page now to add this date. --Anonymous, 08:45 UTC, March 24, 2010.

fund for ferry crash victims

I found a source of information which claims a fund has been set up for the victims of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash. Is the Ferry Fund still open or has it closed? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this where you saw it? Near the bottom, in bold type is a paragraph that reads: "Please send donations to the victims of this tragedy directly to: The Ferry Fund -- call Borough Hall at (718) 816-2000 or D'Amato's law office at (718) 442-0900." The latter phone number matches a law firm that still seems to be in business: Russo, Scamardello and D'Amato, of 1010 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10310. I would contact either Borough Hall or the law firm, who should be able to let you know what happened to the fund. It seems that many victims won substantial compensation from the city via the courts, but perhaps the fund assisted uninsured claimants with their legal expenses? Karenjc 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When I tried to contact Borough Hall quite a few times, all I got were voicemails. When I tried to call the law firm, I learned Mr. D'Amato passed away in 2007. Who else should I turn to?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've found plenty of coverage of lawsuits following the accident, but nothing suggesting payments from a public fund. I suspect it may never have come into being, or if it did, it was never a significant amount and has been used sometime in the last seven years - however, this is just speculation. This article is one of the most recent I have found about the lawsuits that followed the accident: it states that as of 1 January this year, four compensation cases remained scheduled for trial and one lawyer was trying to locate his client. There is a contact email for the writer, John Marzulli, at the foot of the article. It's a long shot, but you could try contacting Mr. Marzulli, with a link to the article mentioning the Fund, and asking for his help. He's obviously done at least some research into the story and may have an interest in finding out what happened to the Ferry Fund, or in talking to people with a potential interest in the Fund if it exists. Karenjc 10:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

developement of criminal law

I have always wondered how law and criminal law in particular, has evolved to to what it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedlaw (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of discussion at Criminal law#History. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions have different laws, all with their own histories. Is there a particular jurisdiction you are interested it? A lot of modern jurisdictions (mostly former British colonies) have their law derived from English common law with various statutes added on. English common law is derived in part from Roman law. Roman_law#Afterlife_of_Roman_law gives a good description of how Roman law influenced both English law and other jurisdictions (it influenced civil law in continental Europe rather more than English law). --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hammurabi's Code from 1790 BC already contains a number of provisions about quite "sophisticated" matters of regulating inheritance, adoption, contract law, interest, economic relief for victims of natural disaster, price regulation, medical and veterinary practice, even laws regulating building contractors. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through Amazon.com, A History of American Law by Lawrence Meir Friedman seems to be relatively popular. That is, if you're looking for a something focusing on the American legal tradition. Gabbe (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See Tang Code and related articles. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Politics. Welcome to the jungle. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoke Zarathustra

I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind? What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Overman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

Even the wisest among you is only a confusion and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I ask you to become phantoms or plants?

Behold, I teach you the Overman! The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Even the wisest among you is only a confusion and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I ask you to become phantoms or plants?

What does Zarathustra mean when he refers to the plant and the ghost? Mac Davis (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's the ghost in the machine concept. Gabbe (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

sort of. Nietzsche is really speaking against the idea that there is a separation between body and soul. in fact, the idea that there is a separation is part of the corruption he rails against:it reduces people either to pure beasts (all body, who can only find gross satisfactions in this life) or pure spirits (who can only hope for salvation in a future life). Man is something else, and should be ashamed of both that pure carnality and that pure spiritual impotence. the plant/phantasm metaphor is just an exaggeration of the body/soul division, meant to highlight its silliness. --Ludwigs2 22:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla similarly made the argument that man is a "meat machine". Part of that essay about the Overman (or "Superman") is cited in connection with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I wonder, though, what the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche would have thought about the "practical application" of their respective theories to date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

well, Marx officially declared that he wasn't a Marxist sometime after the 3rd International. It's actually a fascinating issue. What you have starting with Hegel and running up through modern existentialism is a philosophical effort to ground morality in something other than religion, something analytic. most of those efforts though (in one way or another) got reinterpreted that sacrificed morality entirely (e.g. Neitzche says we must discard the social conventions around sin and virtue otherwise we will never understand or achieve virtue, and yet the Nazis turn his philosophy to advocate the denial of pity and compassion; Marx says we should give up religion because it is a drug that keeps people from seeing the true nature of their exploitation, and a generation later Marxist leaders turn to indoctrination so that people will focus on the bright socialist future rather than on their current misery). I think Erich Fromm pegged it. people are afraid of the inherent moral responsibility implicit in true freedom, and so they reject freedom outright by subjugating themselves to an ideology (be it an ideology of constraint, like religion, or an ideology of indulgence that absolves them of responsibility for their behavior). --Ludwigs2 02:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche was an inveterate lover of puns. If you have the original text available, you might check if the German words translated as 'plant' and 'phantom' aren't cognates in some way, perhaps even in Greek. Many people misunderstand Nietzsche's sense of humor. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Architecture Copyright

I created a logo for a non-profit organisation (yes about the same logo I referred to here). One question popped up was copyright, as my design features a stylistic representation of the Calgary Tower. I remember something about the Sydney Opera House being copyrighted and I can't seem to find it? Is it an urban myth? How do I know if an iconic building and its likeness is copyrighted? Our article is US based. --Kvasir (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Buildings are creative works like drawings or writing or musical composition, so in general they're subject to copyright like anything else. The extent and use you make of an image of another's building is covered, in part (and for Wikimedia purposes only) at Commons:Freedom of panorama. Beyond that you need to consult a lawyer, as permissible uses will vary with use and jurisdiction. If your non-profit can't afford a lawyer or get one to do this pro bono, you might consider using a different logo. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Freedom of panorama#Canada, there is no problem. --Kvasir (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Still, talk to a lawyer. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or ask the people at Calgary Tower - they may be more than happy for you to use a depiction of their building. On the other hand, it would be a problem if they say "no". Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Atomium#Worldwide copyright claims.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I had read something similar about the Sydney Opera House. I can't remember where or if it was real now. --Kvasir (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

death penalty and insanity

Suppose there is a hypothetical situation where some place in the US with the death penalty (Texas, Oklahoma whatever) gives out a death sentence to someone for a crime. At the time of sentencing they are legally sane, however, in the 20 years it takes before they are to be executed, they lose their minds, would they still be executed? Googlemeister (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with law, but why not? They were sane at the time of the crime, so they still should be punished for it. Of course, I'm sure lawyers could find some way to argue their way out of that one. And why would it take 20 years for them to be executed? That defeats the "don't support them in jail" idea. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually in some places in the US, the average time before execution can be even longer. Googlemeister (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the first yellow graph at this link, the average time between sentence and execution in the US has been on an upward trend since 1977 and currently stands at about 12.75 years. (The graph work is sloppy and I'm not sure whether that's the median or mean.) To answer PrincessofLlyr's question as to "why", it's because in the US there are automatic appeals of every death sentence to each state and federal appellate court, up to and including a chance at the U.S. Supreme Court, in an effort to make sure the original trial and sentence were not tainted by any unfairness. The defense attorney always files an endless series of motions at the appellate levels, for many ostensible reasons, but for the real reason of delaying the execution of his client. Our article Capital punishment in the United States has lots of juicy content. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I've no experience in law. My common sense obviously doesn't agree with it! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear not, but the state can forcibly medicate someone to make them sane so they can execute them, as in the case of Charles Laverne Singleton.ref). See Ford v. Wainwright for background. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not your exact question, but you may be interested in the "Death row phenomenon", whereby people on death row for long periods of time become emotionally distressed and often suicidal. Some say this amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" and should void the death sentence. Our article says "arguments about the death row phenomenon have never been successful in avoiding the death penalty for any person in the US". Staecker (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No wonder, since the reason they are there "for long periods of time" is typically due to obfuscating by their own lawyers and/or by themselves (John Gacy is a good example of that). Maybe they would prefer dispensing with the lengthy appeals, and string them up 30-60 days or so after sentencing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect anybody under the threat of death to stop fighting for their lives? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate these things. How about just providing references and links to valid information? Staecker (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Insanity is only a consideration for trial purposes - a defendant must be capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting in his defense. once convicted of the crime, his later mental state becomes irrelevant. A good lawyer might make the case that a defendant needs to be legally sane (capable of understanding and assisting) for the obligatory appeals processes as well, or might claim that a legally insane prisoner was also legally insane at the time of his original trial - neither argument would have a lot of chance at success, however. legal insanity is a very narrow thing. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Same would apply to a person who was convicted of a heinous crime and later had some sort of accident from which they fully recovered physically but it removed their memory of everything that happened before the accident. Just because they can no longer remember committing the crime doesn't mean they didn't commit it and shouldn't pay. Any notions of remorse would go by the wayside, but still ... -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys, could you please look up some references so you could find out when you're wrong? Ludwigs2 and 202 are incorrect. In Ford v. Wainwright, which Finlay McWalter linked above, the US Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional to execute an insane person. Ford had been sane when he committed murder, his mental state declined in prison, and at that point he could no longer constitutionally be executed. Looking up references prevents these sorts of errors! Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I normally refuse to be hobbled by mere 'facts', but I'll allow it in this case. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that the legal system would probably prefer that the defendant be fully aware of why he's being put to death, which may be hard to do if he's insane or otherwise mentally handicapped; but that's not necessarily a usable excuse for commuting the sentence, because if it were, there would be an epidemic of "insanity" on death rows everywhere. The insanity defense essentially comes down to a decision about whether the perp is "responsible for his actions" at the time of the crime. The theory is that if they're legally insane, they're not responsible, even if they pulled the trigger. But as Ludwig notes, legal insanity is a much narrower definition than the broad brush of "mental illness". It usually comes down to the question of whether the perp was cognizant of the fact that he was breaking the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) preceding comment deleted by Bugs. Staecker (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sentence #1 incorrect as above. Supply references, please. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Commonwealth the Privy Council or Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided in 1993 no executions should take place after a prisoner had been on "death row" for more than five years. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International and others campaign again the length of time inmates spend on death row and the detrimental effects upon their mental health, here is a report about the effects on health. Also, as individual US states determine mental competence for execution there have been many questionable executions despite Ford v. Wainwright. meltBanana 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the cause of the length of time spent on death row nowadays, vs. the "old days" when time spent on death row was relatively short? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots and lots of lawyers. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unconstitutional to execute an insane person, even if the defendant was found sane at trial, according to this article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff is correct. For purposes of execution (in the USA), the relevant time-frame for consideration is whether or not the defendant is insane at the time of the execution, not at the time he is sentenced to execution. In other words, say that Criminal X is sane at the time of his sentencing and, further, that he is (properly) sentenced to death. Twenty years later, his execution date arrives, but -- at this point -- he is now insane. The US Supreme Court bars his execution, despite his sanity at the time of the crime (or the time of sentencing). The (basic) underlying principle is that a person should understand that they are being executed and should understand why they are being executed. And, an insane person cannot understand or appreciate these facts. See US Supreme Court Blocks Execution of Insane Convicts. This link details the US Supreme Court decision in Ford v. Wainwright. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

But sanity at the time of the crime also matters, as does sanity at the time of the trial. It is presumed that someone insane during a crime is "not guilty". If they were insane at the time of a trial, it would also be presumed that they were not competent to stand trial. So, a retrial would be in order and it would likely be delayed until the defendant was competent to stand trial, if ever, with the defendant confined to a mental institution until then. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, StuRat. However, anyone who is insane at the time of the crime (or at the time of the trial) never "advances" to a stage in the proceedings where he is actually ever sentenced to death. In other words, one who is insane (at crime or at trial) would never receive a death sentence, or at least a legal/proper death sentence, in the first place. And, thus, there would never be an execution taking place at all. The original question, I believe, inquired about a non-insane person (at the time of crime) who later becomes insane while waiting umpteen years between a death sentence and the actual carrying out of that death sentence. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC))