Charles Laverne Singleton was convicted of murder in 1979 and was sentenced to death in the state of Arkansas. However, during his time in prison, Singleton began to show signs of a mental health issue and was placed on psychiatric drugs to help him cope with the voices he was hearing inside of his prison cell. As Singleton’s mental health began to become better, this made him eligible again to be executed because, previously, the US Supreme Court ruled that the execution of the insane was barred by the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (Liptak). To avoid death, Singleton would have had to stop taking the drugs that were helping with his mental illness and thus affect his mental health further. Near the end of his …show more content…
In the case of Charles Laverne Singleton, Singleton only had to choices, either to take medication and face execution or not take medication and live with a crippling mental illness. Given a third option, that being giving Singleton the ultimatum that if he took medication to help with his mental illness, his sentence would be lowered to something other than death. Judge Gerald W. Heaney, who was a part of Arkansas Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled that the state of Arkansas can force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic medication to make an inmate sane enough to execute, argued that giving mentally ill death row inmates only two choices at life also affects the inmates doctors by saying “his leaves those doctors who are treating psychotic, condemned prisoners in an untenable position: treating the prisoner may provide short-term relief but ultimately result in his execution, whereas leaving him untreated will condemn him to a world such as Singleton's, filled with disturbing delusions and hallucinations'' (Liptak). Given a third option to a mentally ill death row inmates life would not only benefit the inmate but their doctors as well. By doing so, the inmates doctor will be able to do their job knowing their patient will be …show more content…
Detractors of the third option would claim that there would be a surge of death row inmates claiming that they have a mental illness to get out of being executed, but proper tests would be conducted to determine whether an inmate has a mental illness or not. Also, giving inmates a lower sentencing would not necessarily mean that they would get out of prison faster, they could have their sentence changed to life in prison without parole. That way, mentally ill death row inmates would be able to, to some degree, have their mental illness properly manage will they still serve time in prison for their actions that got them there in the first
The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate (Death Penalty
Many people have tried to stop the use of solitary confinement by calling it “Cruel and Unusual Punishment. (Holt vs. Sarver, 1969).” People also say that it is a direct violation of our eighth amendment rights. The definition of cruel and unusual punishment is as follows: “Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. (Farflex Inc., 2011).” Studies show that solitary confinement can alter the mental state of a prisoner so far that it is detrimental to his or her health; I see no reason why this cannot be classified as cruel and unusual punishment. In an experiment conducted by the BBC’s Horizon group, they studied the effects ...
The “cruel and unusual” clause in the eighth amendment states that “cruel and unusual punishment” such as torture or lingering death can not be inflicted on anyone as a form of execution. It is however permissible under the 8th Amendment to execute a convict by means of hanging, shooting, electrocution, and lethal gas.
In the early 1950’s, the number of executions sharply declined. Opponents of the death penalty claimed that it violated the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents also claimed the death penalty violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. In early 1972, William Furman was convicted of burglary and murder. While Furman was burglarizing a home, a resident arrived at the scene. Startled, Furman tried to flee, but tripped and fell in the process. The gun Furman was carrying discharged, killing the resident in the process. Furman did not believe he deserved the death penalty. The constitutionality of capital punishment in this circumstance was considered in the supreme co...
... rape or treason was committed ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). However, there are some cases where the death penalty is unacceptable regardless of the crime. In the Supreme Court case of Roper v Simmons the court decided that the execution of someone for a crime they committed when they were a minor violated the eighth amendment . The court case of Atkins v Virginia established that the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for mentally ill felons (Lemieux, "The Supreme Court's Empty Eighth Amendment Promise"). The Supreme Court has also ruled that executing anyone under the age of 18 is an act of cruel and unusual punishment ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). The death penalty is the worst punishment a person could get, and because of that there are many restrictions on when to use it.
A significant aspect of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution is that the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments is prohibited. However, interpretations of the definition of what a cruel and unusual punishment consists of have become extremely ambiguous. For example, many argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel to take another person’s life willingly; however, others argue that it is acceptable if it is done in a controlled and humane manner. Over the course of the United States history, punishments have ranged from public whippings
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
The cost of the death penalty is extraordinary. California has spent more than $4 billion administering the death penalty since 1978, or more than $300 million per person for each of the 13 people who have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. Conversely, it costs approximately $200,000 to $300,000 to convict and sentence an individual to life without the possibility of parole. If those sentenced to death received life sentences instead, we accomplish the same deterrent effect of the death penalty: criminals remain off the streets for the rest of their lives. The money saved could be spent on improving the criminal justice system such as increasing
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
Mill’s utilitarianism, it is evident that absolute morality is necessary to understand Dr. Kevorkian’s actions. Utilitarianism would argue that terminally ill patients would inevitably die and in accordance to the Hippocratic Code, the patients’ welfare and financial state must be taken into consideration by the physician.(Cahn 575) They would argue using the Greatest Happiness Principle where morality is measured on the happiness it creates for the individual making the decision. Utilitarianism would focus on Dr. Kevorkian’s intentions as being moral by supporting his patients’ suicide. They would argue that he helped his patients avoid the financial burden and suffering of their illness through suicide. Although some validity is evident, they disregard the possibility that Dr. Kevorkian may have been wrong in his diagnosis and acted immorally in his failure to keep his patients alive through his decisions. If the utilitarianism decide to interpret the Hippocratic Oath as a reason for Dr. Kevorkian’s decision to kill his patients, they avoid questioning the implications of Dr. Kevorkian’s decisions on his role as a physician. By acting outside of good will, he violated his role as physician to keep his patients alive since “prevention is better than cure” by giving himself the power to play God. He did so by crossing the boundary that prevents healers from taking life from his/her patients and thus stepped into the realm of executioner rather than healer. (Lasagna) For Dr. Kevorkian to decide when his patients can die, he not only violated the Hippocratic Oath, but led to question the role of the physician whose job is to treat the sick and not determine when a person could die. Although he have granted his patients what they wanted and believed that he was acting in his role as a physician, the outcome reinforces Kant’s philosophy to act in an absolute
...already in there for life, there is nothing to stop him or her from killing other prisoners on a spree. The death penalty ensures more safety in that sense, because the prisoner will most likely consider his punishment of life sentence as bad enough and not want anything worse.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
This is a fascinating case because it presents the distinction between a patient’s right to refuse treatment and a physician’s assistance with suicide. Legally, Diane possessed the right to refuse treatment, but she would have faced a debilitating, painful death, so the issue of treatment would be a moot point. It would be moot in the sense that Diane seemed to refuse treatment because the odds were low, even if she survived she would spend significant periods of time in the hospital and in pain, and if she didn’t survive she would spend her last days in the hospital. If Diane were to merely refuse treatment and nothing else (as the law prescribes) than she would not have been able to avoid the death which she so dearly wanted to avoid.
middle of paper ... ... An alternative, such as a jail sentence, would mean that the family and friends of the offender would still have contact with their loved ones. and there would be no trauma caused by death. This is yet another side effects of capital punishment.
...t on them, and they were “caught” doing these wrong things, they would most likely change. With this change, those 100+ executions from last year, can become a lower number. In my eyes, no one deserves to die, especially if they/we aren’t even sure that the person committed the accused crime.