Medication makes you feel better on death row

April 12, 2006 10:47 AM

Steven Staley was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1991. A few days before his execution in February, he was granted a stay because he was found to be incompetent, a paranoid schizophrenic. Today, the judge has ordered that he be forced to take his medication so he can be legally put to death.
posted by Roger Dodger (68 comments total)

Fort Worth, Texas - what a surprise!
posted by sfts2 at 10:53 AM on April 12, 2006

I guess the judge could use some psychiatric counseling, much like the murderer, because if he really believes a shot can inject competency he is delusional, massively so.

on preview: yeah I was about to say, Texas : it can't be but a fuckup
posted by elpapacito at 10:54 AM on April 12, 2006

Yeah. This is definitely justice!
posted by wakko at 10:55 AM on April 12, 2006

And Tom DeLay still walks free...
posted by DragonBoy at 10:55 AM on April 12, 2006

HOLY SHIT THAT IS INSANE
posted by jimmy at 10:59 AM on April 12, 2006

The issues raised here are important ones, but the context is sickening. I'm sure judge Wayne Salvant considers himself to be a Christian.

/preview: Wow. From the top of a page for the judge: Tarrant County: The perfect mix of cowboys and culture!

Fuck Texas.
posted by bardic at 11:02 AM on April 12, 2006

Get him healthy so we can kill him.
Double-plus good!
posted by Floydd at 11:03 AM on April 12, 2006

THIS IS FUCKING NUTS
posted by keswick at 11:05 AM on April 12, 2006

What was Staley's psychiatric state at the time of the murder?
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:05 AM on April 12, 2006

Why can't the US take better care of it's mentally ill? Prisons are used to keep those poor people of the streets - instead of treating them.

Watch this:

Frontline: The new Asylums
posted by homodigitalis at 11:07 AM on April 12, 2006

Eh, I'm okay with it.
posted by jonson at 11:07 AM on April 12, 2006

Who cares if the murderer is insane. Just execute the evil bastard.

That this is even considered to be a problem is a glaring flaw in our system of justice.
posted by Axandor at 11:08 AM on April 12, 2006

sanity's not all it's cracked up to be, is it?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:09 AM on April 12, 2006

Tarrant County: The perfect mix of cowboys and culture!

The "perfect mix" of course being exactly 0 cowboys, and then some arbitrary amount of culture.
posted by wakko at 11:11 AM on April 12, 2006

Assistant District Attorney Chuck Mallon told the Associated Press that he agreed with the latest assessments that Staley is mentally ill. But he added that Staley may have been deliberately refusing prescribed medications that treat his chronic severe psychosis and schizophrenia.

"I believe we're going to file a motion in the near future to forcefully medicate him, not to execute him but because it's medically appropriate," Mallon told the AP. "The guy definitely is mentally ill. But being mentally ill doesn't mean the guy's incompetent.

"Even if we could get him medicated, it would take a few weeks, but you can't medicate somebody just to execute him. It's got to be medically appropriate if he is a danger to himself or others, and he's certainly a danger to himself."

The crux of the issue. The stay didn't mean that he had escaped the death penalty, only that the state had to prove that he was competent. If he was deliberately refusing to take his medication in an effort to avoid the death penalty, well, regardless of your view of that punishment, it can't really be tolerated. If, as they say, it was medically appropriate for him to take that medicine to prevent him from hurting himself, and his taking of that medicine allowed him to understand the reason behind his execution, I don't really see a problem with this from a legal perspective, putting feelings on the death penalty aside.
posted by loquax at 11:14 AM on April 12, 2006

I came here to say that this is stunning. But on second though, it really isn't that surprising. If you believe in the concept of the dealth penalty, this seems a little odd, but understandable and reasonable.
posted by raedyn at 11:17 AM on April 12, 2006

Axandor: "That this is even considered to be a problem is a glaring flaw in our system of justice."

shouldn't kill criminals. isn't right.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:19 AM on April 12, 2006

It's got to be medically appropriate if he is a danger to himself or others, and he's certainly a danger to himself.

i'm trying to figure out what would be more dangerous to him than getting executed

staley's insanity is organic ... mallon's, and the others' who participate in this kafkaesque charade, is institutional

you'll have to forgive me if i don't see much difference
posted by pyramid termite at 11:19 AM on April 12, 2006

It's important to kill this man because by doing so, everyone will learn that killing is wrong.
posted by mullingitover at 11:20 AM on April 12, 2006

What was Staley's psychiatric state at the time of the murder?

Well, no one can really know this, but he was not hospitalized until 1994. However, paranoid schizophrenia often has hereditary links, and his mother was also schizophrenic. (See first link.) He was probably in a desperate state of mind as well since he had just escaped from a correctional facility in Denver just before the murder. I want to make clear that I am not defending him in any sense. He performed a heinous crime. I just thought it raises important issues about how our justice system ought to handle mental illness.
posted by Roger Dodger at 11:20 AM on April 12, 2006

So wouldn't the fact that if he does choose to take medication in order to qualify to be executed mean that in fact he is insane?
posted by Jazz Hands at 11:21 AM on April 12, 2006

I'm a Texan, and death penalty opponent (yes, they still let me stay)... and I still agree with loquax here.

The article is clear-- he wasn't judged not guilty by reason of insanity or anything. If Staley wants to make the case now that he is not guilty because he's a paranoid schizophrenic, that's something altogether different. But that isn't happening; he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to execution.

Whether you are pro- or anti-death penalty, it seems clear that Staley is subverting the current system and delaying his execution by not taking his meds. The defense's arguments are histrionic, and twisting the facts to get national play for the story is surely the goal.
posted by pineapple at 11:21 AM on April 12, 2006

Jazz Hands - just what I was thinking.
That's some catch, Catch 22.
posted by zoinks at 11:26 AM on April 12, 2006

Reminds me of the Spanish conquistadors who would have Indians baptised before they were slaughtered.
posted by bardic at 11:27 AM on April 12, 2006

I don't get how any of this is relevant to the fact that he held up a restaurant, took hostages and executed one at point blank range. For that crime, he deserves to fry.

Read the details of his case. He seems to have been pretty well together when he escaped from prison and committed the murder. He was found to be competant at the time, and only in recent years while on death row has his mental health apparently degraded.

I don't know why the people of Texas should spend any more time or money on this piece of trash. Just fry him already!
posted by b_thinky at 11:29 AM on April 12, 2006

Jazz Hands, I think it's better to say that the fact he chooses to not take medication in order to avoid being executed means that he's sane.
posted by davejay at 11:29 AM on April 12, 2006

I don't know why the people of Texas should spend any more time or money on this piece of trash. Just fry him already!

The principle is that if he can't understand why he's being executed, then it's not really a punishment at all. That's why his current mental state is at issue.
posted by loquax at 11:30 AM on April 12, 2006

So wouldn't the fact that if he does choose to take medication in order to qualify to be executed mean that in fact he is insane?

I can't remember where I read about this (Axme maybe?), but in fact this is a significant legal issue. If you demand to leave a psychiatric hospital, a doctor can decide this is grounds for your insanity, and you can be kept even longer than if you'd just said, initially, that you wanted to stay. Hope I got that right.
posted by bardic at 11:32 AM on April 12, 2006

Surely he has to be prescribed the drugs he's taking by a medical professional.

Would any medical professional prescribing drugs to him, not be breaching their ethical guidlines not to cause harm, since the inevitable result of him taking said madication would be his death?
posted by Blue Stone at 11:41 AM on April 12, 2006

The principle is that if he can't understand why he's being executed, then it's not really a punishment at all. That's why his current mental state is at issue.
posted by loquax at 11:30 AM PST on April 12 [!]

Why does he need to know why he's being killed? He'll be dead anyways. Besides, he's had 17 years to consider, I'm sure at some point he was aware of his crime and the punishment he deserves.
posted by b_thinky at 11:46 AM on April 12, 2006

(wringing hands nervously) “Oh, no! The poor murderer is mentally incompetent?”

No shit.

As far as I’m concerned, anybody guilty of murder is fucking nuts.
Is this really a cause worthy of anyone’s outrage?
posted by mike0221 at 11:47 AM on April 12, 2006

It's not 'a punishment' at all, because the individual concerned cannot learn from the sentence (being by then, quite effectively, an ex-individual, a former person, certainly not pining for the fjords any longer, etc).

It's quite simply revenge. Killing someone who is, and likely was at the time of the crime, sick, is beyond civilised behaviour.

Just for the record, I am in favour of capital punishment, in some cases. But probably not in any of the United States. This is one more example of the failure of the justice system, as if we needed any more.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:48 AM on April 12, 2006

It's quite simply revenge. Killing someone who is, and likely was at the time of the crime, sick, is beyond civilised behaviour.

Sure. But that's a pro- or anti-death penalty argument, which isn't what's at stake here.
posted by pineapple at 12:00 PM on April 12, 2006

Blue Stone writes "Would any medical professional prescribing drugs to him, not be breaching their ethical guidlines not to cause harm, since the inevitable result of him taking said madication would be his death?"

I think this is a very important point. He isn's subverting anything, he's manipulating a crazy system. Not for nothing is there a whole, not incidentally, brilliant book written about this whole issue. This is a Catch-22 for any doc that wants to prescribe him medications.
posted by OmieWise at 12:01 PM on April 12, 2006

I think this is a very important point. He isn's subverting anything, he's manipulating a crazy system. Not for nothing is there a whole, not incidentally, brilliant book written about this whole issue. This is a Catch-22 for any doc that wants to prescribe him medications.


Hhhmmm. I wonder what would happen if the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription based on 'moral objections"

/derail
posted by underdog at 12:09 PM on April 12, 2006

Pharmacists aren't doctors by any stretch of the imagination.
posted by bardic at 12:15 PM on April 12, 2006

pineapple wrote:
Whether you are pro- or anti-death penalty, it seems clear that Staley is subverting the current system and delaying his execution by not taking his meds

Not quite. One must understand why the "punishment" is being administered, and it is not at all clear that Staley does. Taking his meds will perhaps change his thinking to unreal "They're out to get me" to real "They're out to get me". The bottom line here, IMHO, is that he is clinically insane. One might make the argument to put him out of his misery out of sincere compassion, but otherwise there is no justification for his execution. Mug shot and report.

There is also this, Staley, who gave a written statement implicating himself in the fatal shooting, was convicted and given a death sentence. Evidence showed Duke, a probation violator from California, also shot Read. Duke, 38, is serving 3 life sentences in Texas and has a 30-year sentence in Colorado for murder and armed robbery. Rayburn, now also 38, took 30 years in a plea bargain, which questions who in fact killed Read, taking into account Staley's mental illness and his ability to correctly state the facts.
posted by sluglicker at 12:17 PM on April 12, 2006

"Jazz Hands, I think it's better to say that the fact he chooses to not take medication in order to avoid being executed means that he's sane."
posted by davejay at 11:29 AM PST on April 12

Sure, he's sane, but he ain't stupid!
posted by Jazz Hands at 12:20 PM on April 12, 2006

Sure. But that's a pro- or anti-death penalty argument, which isn't what's at stake here.

I must be missing something here - care to elaborate? You seem to be saying my point is irrelevant. I'm saying there is occasion - sometimes, somewhere - to put killers to death. I am also saying it is barbaric to kill a killer who killed because he is ill. Just as it's barbaric to smack a child with Tourette's Syndrome for profanity. It is likely that he cannot control his actions, in both cases.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:31 PM on April 12, 2006

Just fry him already!

That sentiment devalues human life and helps make murder easier as an emotional decision. If execution is no more difficult for you emotionally than frying up a steak on a grill, then you may not be so different from Steven Staley, b_thinky.
posted by stevis at 12:39 PM on April 12, 2006

Wouldn't killing him also prevent him from taking his meds?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:41 PM on April 12, 2006

His mental state when he committed his crime is not at issue - if it was, he may have been found not guilty via insanity or somesuch, and this would not be an issue. Alternative, his lawyer could move for a new trial on the basis of his provable legal insanity at the time of the killing.

The issue is that convicted criminals have no right to control their intake of medication. They have given up that right by committing their crime. If he has been diagnosed with the mental illnesses cited (and it seems that there is no issue there), then the state has the right to determine the treatment. Would it be humane to deny him the drugs and leave him in a state of permanent, treatable mental illness? If prisoners could make these kind of decisions, we may as well leave a length of rope or rusty razors in each cell. We as a society have decided that imprisonment serves four main objectives - punishment, vengeance, deterrence and rehabilitation. Texas has also decided that the death penalty is humane. Therefore medicating this prisoner so that he can understand and suffer his punishment is more for the principle of justice (as perverse as it might sound) than it is a desire to kill this particular man. If the prisoner is allowed control over his destiny, by not taking his medicine, or in other cases by killing themselves before serving their full term, then incarceration ceases to serve any of the aforementioned principles. The death penalty is really just incidental to this case, the issue would still arise if he were only serving a 10 year term.

(Incidentally, I'm against the death penalty, but I don't believe in subverting laws or the principles of justice to avoid it in most cases)
posted by loquax at 12:55 PM on April 12, 2006

I must be missing something here - care to elaborate?

Your point does seem to be, not irrelevant, but a red herring nonetheless.

Fact: Death penalty is legal in Texas.

Fact: Staley was found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to death.

That doctors have subsequently found Staley psychotic and incompetent does not reverse the sentence.

"Should it?" might be the question. (I think so, but then again I don't think anyone should die at the hands of the state, nutjob or not.) But, whether mental illness is a suitable defense is a philosophical argument, and it's basically just the finer points of the same ol' capital punishment horse.

The reaction around here seems to be a kneejerk, "We shouldn't give the death penalty to sick people." That is a feel-good generalization of the situation at hand -- where we've already given the death penalty to a sick person, and are now simply debating whether to chemically render him competent enough to receive it.

sluglicker, you said, "One must understand why the 'punishment' is being administered, and it is not at all clear that Staley does." Nor is it clear that he didn't understand when the sentence was served, or later when he was on his meds. Speculating either way doesn't really serve the debate.

If the issue is that Staley is sick, then we should be lobbying that his lawyers should have his sentence permanently reduced to life. Otherwise, we're saying that it's okay for a convicted murderer to use a legal loophole to avoid his punishment. It's a really slippery slope, and lots of people are watching it to see what happens because it's unprecedented territory.

I worry that the next case won't be a guy who's so clearly ill, and whose lawyers don't have the resources to get his sentence reduced but instead have to rely on tricks and good press.
posted by pineapple at 1:06 PM on April 12, 2006

The reaction around here seems to be a kneejerk, "We shouldn't give the death penalty to sick people." - pineapple

I don't know, I think a good portion of it is a kneejerk "We shouldn't give the death penalty." Period.
posted by raedyn at 1:12 PM on April 12, 2006

"We shouldn't give the death penalty to sick people."

FYP.
posted by wakko at 1:13 PM on April 12, 2006

Those are sweet bons mot but they've been done. But by all means, if y'all want to have the pro- or anti-death-penalty debate, again, feel free. I've already said that I'm an opponent, so I'll just wait for a discussion that offers something besides platitudes.
posted by pineapple at 1:39 PM on April 12, 2006

I'm finding the arguments for staley being forced to take his medication presented in this thread very compelling. largely, I find the argument that he wasn't found "not guilty by reason of insanity" especially compelling.

I think it's also worth noting that decisions like this don't always come from a position of morality or justice. Often judges find themselves pressured by politicians who find themselves pressured by a vengeful public to turn over a dead body if they ever want to be re-elected. especially in texas.
posted by shmegegge at 2:11 PM on April 12, 2006

If he had cancer, would he be treated, cured and then fried?
posted by A189Nut at 2:53 PM on April 12, 2006

“The issue is that convicted criminals have no right to control their intake of medication.”

Does he have the right to starve himself? Can we then chemically lobotomize all prisoners? Experiment on them? (Not saying that’s where you were headed, but it’s a slippery slope)

“Would it be humane to deny him the drugs and leave him in a state of permanent, treatable mental illness?”

I understand your position loquax (et. al) on the subversion of justice.
I disagree however that the state has the right to force someone into competancy to kill them. It doesn’t alter the fact of his incarceration. Nor does it alter the state’s responsibility for his mental state now.

If he was not found innocent by reason of insanity - what then is the state’s responsibility to it’s prisoners?
You see, he’s mentally ill NOW.

Whether he is medicated or not does not change the fact that he is mentally ill.
He is simply a mentally ill person on medication that simulates a sane state of mind.

What if the reverse was true? What if he was on drugs of some sort and he kills someone? Do we let him off then?
No, we recognize that there is some responsibility there.
That “I was on drugs” might mitigate the act, but doesn’t excuse it.
In the same way - the drugs the state wishes to administer only a partial fix. He is not truly competant in the way a sane man is.
We cannot partially kill him.
To me this smacks of pro-death penalty folks looking for an excuse to kill him.
To me that’s the subversion of justice.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:56 PM on April 12, 2006

I’ll add that this is not the same as a jailhouse penitant or some such - however valid or invalid that repentance might be. The law cannot recognize a change of heart or soul. This however is straight biology. He is - by the state’s own admission of requiring anti-psychotic drugs now vs. not finding him insane and institutionalizing him upon conviction - a different man. This is medically verifiable. And has been verified to the satisfaction of the state (they're giving him drugs aren't they?)

And indeed - why isn’t he in an institution?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:02 PM on April 12, 2006

Well, he is in an institution. Just not a mental one.
posted by raedyn at 3:10 PM on April 12, 2006

Physician, heal this murderer so that we may better kill him.

WTF? Is this about justice or making them feel better about executing the guy?

I'm all for the death penalty but this is pretty fucked up.
posted by fenriq at 4:16 PM on April 12, 2006

loquax: "The issue is that convicted criminals have no right to control their intake of medication. They have given up that right by committing their crime."

WHA..?! Sorry, loquax, but medication should be a matter between the patient and his doctor, and "the state" shouldn't have any role in it, except eventually to protect the patient from himself, and this really does not appear to be the issue here.

Besides all of this, I really can't believe the court found this guy sane at the time of the crime. Schizophrenia does not appear all of a sudden, it is a largely genetic disorder (and this guy seems to have had his genetic cards largely stacked against him) that generally starts unfolding at puberty.
posted by Skeptic at 4:41 PM on April 12, 2006

WHA..?! Sorry, loquax, but medication should be a matter between the patient and his doctor, and "the state" shouldn't have any role in it, except eventually to protect the patient from himself, and this really does not appear to be the issue here.

According to the article, he is a danger to himself. And you're right, I phrased that badly - I only meant to draw attention to the fact that wheras a diagnosed mentally ill "free" person can refuse medication (for whatever reason), an incarcerated person does not have that luxury.
posted by loquax at 5:31 PM on April 12, 2006

So, a person convicted to death can then have themselves suffocated to the point of brain damage, and thereby escape the death penalty, since they would no longer be able to understand the punishment, and no medication can repair their damaged brain.

Kind of like partially killing themselves, to avoid the total death.

The notion that a person must 'understand' their punishment seems ridiculous, in the context of the death penalty. It is like demanding that they enter the situation with maximal terror and dread. Sounds cruel and unusual, to me.

It seems reasonable that a person would be driven insane by years on death row. I would think execution would be a relief after waiting so long. The sentencing and wait are the punishment. The execution is the closing of the case.
posted by Goofyy at 9:01 PM on April 12, 2006

I always thought the most important aspect of the death penalty was the example it sets for others. It really shouldn't matter whether the guy knows he's being executed for murdering someone or not. The fact is, everyone else knows, and that's what really matters.
posted by b_thinky at 10:38 PM on April 12, 2006

Truly a perfect American story.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:13 PM on April 12, 2006

According to the article, he is a danger to himself.

Then medicating him (forcibly if necessary) is the right thing for the institution to do. I would think the same if it were a psychiatric hospital, too. It's always better to have a compliant patient, but if force is necessary it makes sense to use it.

This doesn't seem so absurd to me.

And as long as the guy was found to be sane enough to be legally culpable at the time of the crime, he shouldn't get to weasel out of his duly rendered sentence, whatever the mechanism. (Assuming a fair trial with no bullshit shenanigans, yadda yadda.)

A murderer crosses a line - they, by their actions, indicate that it's okay to them to live in a world where people kill other people (after all, they are doing it themselves). To suddenly get all wussy when it's *them* that someone wants to kill is really hypocritical. You don't want to live in that kind of world? Fine, don't kill anyone. Easy peasy.

Also: I live in Texas.
posted by beth at 4:15 AM on April 13, 2006

I always thought the most important aspect of the death penalty was the example it sets for others. It really shouldn't matter whether the guy knows he's being executed for murdering someone or not. The fact is, everyone else knows, and that's what really matters.

Ahhhh...the old "deterrent" effect. That works so well that there's no more murder in places like Texas! Oh wait...

The most important aspect of the death penalty is that it's barbaric, immoral and makes people feel better because they killed someone for killing someone else, which is somehow supposed to be respectful of the importance of human life or something.
posted by biscotti at 5:22 AM on April 13, 2006

So it's more moral to spend taxpayers' money keeping these monsters alive for umpteen decades?

I think that money could be better put to use helping non-criminals have a better life - health care, education, and, dare I say it, crime *prevention* would be a better use of the funds.

Or maybe we can come up with a system whereby those who are vehemently opposed to capital punishment can pitch in to subsidize the lifelong imprisonment of such creatures.
posted by beth at 6:20 AM on April 13, 2006

Um, beth...

"Every major cost study has shown capital punishment to be more expensive than an alternative system where life-imprisonment is the maximum sentence."

There may be other reasons to prefer capital punishment (although I don't), but it doesn't seem that cost should be one of them.
posted by OmieWise at 6:25 AM on April 13, 2006

It seems counter intuitive, but OmieWise is right - capital punishment costs taxpayers more than life in jail. So the "save money, kill criminals" line just doesn't hold.
posted by raedyn at 6:54 AM on April 13, 2006

You know, I was gonna leave it at that, but I think that's too easy. The death penalty is a big deal, and if the reason you support it is proven false, as in this case, you should really really come clean and change your stance. I assume that now, beth, you're going to change your mind about supporting the death penalty. Otherwise you're a hypocrit who just wants to kill people for no good reason. If you change your reasoning after hearing it's more expensive, you're morally despicable.
posted by OmieWise at 8:50 AM on April 13, 2006

Jesus, that came off as even more sanctimonious than I thought it would. My point is, if economics is really one's reason for supporting the death penalty, the economics favor life imprisonment. If one finds that out and does not change their mind, one should take a serious look at their reasoning and moral stances.
posted by OmieWise at 9:07 AM on April 13, 2006

OmnieWise: This argument was part of why I changed my mine on the issue. The other part was all the miscarriages of justice.

It's easy to kill someone. It's difficult to bring them back if you discover you made a mistake.

Besides, I've come to be of the mind it's just plain wrong for 1) States to kill, and 2) States to exact revenge.
posted by Goofyy at 9:34 AM on April 13, 2006

To quote Ron White: "This is Texas. If you kill someone, we will kill you right back."
posted by dejah420 at 2:06 PM on April 13, 2006

Jesus, that came off as even more sanctimonious than I thought it would. My point is, if economics is really one's reason for supporting the death penalty, the economics favor life imprisonment. If one finds that out and does not change their mind, one should take a serious look at their reasoning and moral stances.

Well, my base instincts argue for the death penalty...because at heart, I think like a vigilante when it comes to certain crimes. I'm willing to admit that I think some people need killin.

That said, I've also come to the decision that while I may want some people to die, it is probably not in the best interest of the state or the culture to cater to my basest of dark vigilante desires.

Do I think some people deserve to die? Oh...yeah. I'm willing to go so far as to say there are some people for whom I would be willing to be the executioner. But I'm also willing to admit that I'm making emotional decisions when I think those things...and the law should be above emotion. And I'm not sure that the death penalty serves any purpose other than as a "Well, good...he deserved to die" emotional placebo to make us feel better about the monstrous acts some members of our culture are capable of doing.

I also think that if the state is going to perform executions, they should be televised. On every channel. No exceptions. During prime time. Let's bring the debate to the actual population of the republic and see how they feel about executions when they have to watch.
posted by dejah420 at 2:15 PM on April 13, 2006

Cases like this are a great example of why the death penalty is stupid in the first case. It's not even a question of morality (I think it's wrong, but this is besides the point) ... it's a question of resources.

He should be confined for life without parole. This seems sensible since he killed someone, and the state doesn't have to waste resources endlessly playing out appeals and motions because he's not going to be killed.

If you eliminate the death penalty, then more time and resources can be spent on other problems with the judicial system.
posted by illovich at 2:47 PM on April 13, 2006