Scourge and Ethical Decisions

I believe that justice was received in this case. The community wanted justice by death, but by any moral standards, it would be wrong to kill someone in the legal system because of his mental condition. This is not to say that killing was right, because it never is justified,  including death by death sentence. The only logical thing to do, in my opinion, is to put him in a mental institution. As far as the public goes, they will not understand, and they want justice, but that simply cannot be served by punishing an incompetent man for something that was out of his control.
The wife ran out of the courthouse and was pleading with the lawyer who was trying to convict her husband and said, "Taking his life won't bring them back." This brought up an interesting point for the death penalty argument. Although his crimes were unspeakable and heinous, in his head he believed he was doing the right thing. Therefore he did not actually know what he was doing, and the plea of mental defect would be correct. There would be no way for him to know right from wrong considering his disease. He should not be given the death sentence, but certainly should be put into a mental institution until death.
Theorists:
1. Kant believes in equal punishment for the crime and would therefore serve the death sentence. He would disagree with me and disregard his mental state. No matter his mental state, Kant would argue that he be given the death sentence.
2. Bentham's four principles for punishment are correctly enforced here, and he would agree with my opinion of sentencing to a mental institution.
3. Utilitarian ethics makes decision based on the greater good of everyone, and since the dead cannot be brought back like the wife said, it would not do any good to kill the murderer. It would cause further harm to his wife and children. Utilitarianism would agree with my decision.
4. Beccaria would also agree with my judgement, and what happened with the case. The man was punished in order to protect the society, but for no other reasons, which is Beccaria's main idea of punishment.
What should have been done-
a. In a perfect world- The syphilis would have been curable and the man would have been able to stand trial eventually. However, when he committed the crime, he was still mentally incapacitated, so the verdict on the murders should be the same. Once cured he would no longer be in a state to live in a mental institution, so that poses a problem. Jail in a nice, confined area or house arrest for life would be appropriate. As far as the insurance company goes, their issues would have been brought to life by the media and their company would have been properly punished, instead of saving them from humiliation. The deal the lawyer made let them get away with the crimes they committed, with basically only a slap on the wrist.
b. In the real world- The verdict that was reached for the murders would be the correct one, and the insurance company verdict would be the same (and incorrect, in my opinion).