Pros And Cons Of Capital Punishment

In Texas, a man with schizophrenia was executed (Kelsey Patterson) even after the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended clemency after learning of his time spent in mental hospitals and his unintelligible rambling.

There are laws and decisions of United States government and higher orders that present controversy to the people of America. In the state of Texas the application of the death penalty is difficult to interpret, especially for the mentally ill, because there is no written law or bill that explains the execution implication in complete detail. The death penalty is a capital punishment of death for those who have committed such high crime. This penalty goes for everyone who does such act no matter who you are, how rich how poor, or where you stand in society. For the longest time, even with the mindset and understanding that those who commit crime to a certain level can receive the execution punishment, the concern and debate whether the mentally

As long as the psychosis dangerousness and treatability can be achieved, the state’s interest in the administration of justice outweighs the inmate’s interest in avoiding medication and execution. However, there are other positions on this case that are noted. One position is to not medicate and not execute. With this position the state would accede to the inmates wishes and withhold medication. If the inmate becomes incompetent, the death sentence would indefinitely be postponed. With this treatment the inmate risks that his medical condition will continue unrelieved which is unacceptable by todays standards. A third position would be to medicate only with the inmates consent and not execute remitting the death sentence indefinitely. Death penalty abolitionists such as New Yorkers for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, or NYADP, would favor this position, as they believe the death sentence to be immoral and would rather argue for compassion for the inmate. members of this group believes that noone benefits from the death penalty, including the justice system, family members of the accused, or the taxpayers. Still it sacrifices justice as it also implies that the offender has done nothing to deserve the sentence although he did commit a heinous

When it comes to capital punishment there are no exceptions, especially when you savagely murder an entire family. On November 15, 1959 the Clutter family was murdered in their home by two men that they did not even know. One of these men was mentally unstable, meaning that his brain did not work they way an average persons does. He committed all four murders without feeling anything emotionally. However this man was still given the death penalty along with his partner who instigated the entire thing. People who are mentally unhealthy should not be given the death penalty because it is morally wrong.

This article concerns a Texas man named Scott Panetti who committed murder by shooting his wife’s parents. Scott Panetti was diagnosed with schizophrenia about 14 years prior to the shootings, and was set to receive a lethal injection; however, the execution was stop do to “the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledges the legal complexity of putting a mentally ill inmate to death.” The court explains that they had to sort out legal issues that are involved with mental instability.

The majority of the United States’ perspective and value of capital punishment is to punish and kill prisoners, but with that system nothing is accomplished. Plus, there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces crime. In fact, most people on Death Row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their

In most cases it is inherited or results of traumatic experience or injury. There have been many executions in the past decade, of those there have been over sixty of whom have suffered from mental illness. The supreme court concurs that it is against the eighth amendment in the constitution to put these people to death. That these people who are mentally impaired at the time the crime occurred would not understand what was happening or why they were sentenced to death. This would be considered a cruel and unusual act of

People would argue that making the death row prisoner sane is the right thing to do. The prisoner will be able to understand the process of what’s going to happen during his execution day. Also, they have to pay for the crimes they committed and not get away with it. They have to be able to understand the severity of their crimes and the effect it caused on the victim’s family and their family as well.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, 75% of females and 63% of males in local jails have suffered from mental illness. This means most criminals are dealing with serious mental health issues and aren’t getting the help they need. Thus, leading them to commit unlawful crimes. They are mentally ill and are committing these crimes due to the fact that they aren’t receiving treatment and aren’t being assisted. Additionally, many times when people are diagnosed, they often reject a professional’s diagnosis and treatment. They feel as though they are mentally healthy, and the thoughts they think and decisions they make aren’t unethical or immoral. This mentality stems from the ignorance common people have on mental illness. When these people

Although mental illness cannot be seen in the same way as external injury, our society needs to become more aware of both the reality of mental illness and the effect of our actions on the mentally ill. There is not enough awareness and research of mental illness and this leads to people being afraid to seek treatment. The mentally ill deserve humane treatment because they are equal to all other humans. Mental illness is a result of chemical imbalances in the brain and traumatic events, and the mentally ill deserve the same treatment and respect as other people with illness and injury. Throughout American history, the mentally ill have not received equal treatment and we should work to help the mentally ill to gain respect and understanding.

An issue arises as to whether or not the execution of those with mental health retardation desecrated the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This was built on a report by the American Psychological Association (APA), the court had spoken about this issue

There are crucial factors to consider when sentencing a human being the death penalty. In the Atkins v. Virginia case, Atkins and Jones were indicted for first-degree murder (Reuters, 2017). The prosecution made Jones plea guilty, in-order to get to testify against Atkins. This made Jones eligible for the death penalty (Reuters, 2017). Atkins would have been put on death row, but a doctor interviewed his family, his correctional officers, looked at his school records, and gave him a free intelligence test. The doctor declared in court, Atkins is mentally retarded (Fabian, 2011; Reuters 2017). To help better understand the reasoning behind the Atkin’s diagnosis, The American Association of Mental Retardation defines mental retarded by, “Mental

“Since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States.” That is completely wrong they should not be treated like this. It is truly unfair to put those people on the death row. Rather than doing that, the US government should make mental illness people take recovery including meaningful roles in social life, school and work. Make their lives full of things that will help them to get better so they will not even attempt to do any kind of horrible situation like stealing, killing, smuggling and selling illegals.

In Addition, there is a chance mentally ill citizens could be convicted to death (“Facts”). According to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness, One out of every ten persons who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill. “Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury” (“Facts”). Many mentally ill defendants have been drugged against their will in order for them to be competent enough to be executed (“Facts”). Some states still haven’t put a ban on executing mentally ill people such as Organ, although the United States Supreme Court has declared that

Many are disturbed by the execution of mentally challenged or incompetent criminals. The U.S Supreme Court on June 20, 2002 declared that the execution of the mentally challenged is unconstitutional, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The “criminal” is usually pardoned when further evidence comes out. An incident of this happening is the case of David Vasquez. David Vasquez was arrested for the murder of a woman who was killed in her Arlington County, Virginia home. She was sexually assaulted and then hung. Vasquez, who was borderline mentally retarded, had reportedly confessed to the crime, allegedly supplying details not released to the public. Additionally, Vasquez could not provide an alibi and was placed near the scene of the crime by two eyewitnesses. Investigators also found pubic hairs that visually resembled those of Vasquez. Vasquez’s attorneys argued that the interrogations were tainted because of his lower than normal intelligence. Friends said that he reacts to the world like a young child and that he is easily flustered under pressure. He was described in court as having “borderline retarded/low normal” intelligence. He was so scared of being executed that he pled guilty to a crime he did not commit.