This story from the Arizona Republic tells us about the legal skirmishes surrounding the impending trial of Christopher Redondo, accused of murdering a Gilbert, AZ police lieutenant on January 28, 2010. The accused's defense team has stated that the defendant is in such a mental condition that he can't contribute to his defense and mitigate the prosecution's demand for the death penalty.
Well, it turns out that Redondo has already been convicted of another murder and is serving a life prison term without the possibility of parole. Since his accomplice in the Gilbert murder has been sentenced to 107 years, it seems likely that the state wouldn't have much trouble getting a conviction and perhaps the death penalty for Redondo in that case. Is this really necessary? Does it make sense for the state of Arizona to use its resources, actually the resources of the taxpayers, to continue legal proceedings against an individual that can't possibly walk the streets again?