There was an article in the new york times today that said Arkansas prision officials can make an insane death row inmate sane by forcing medication and then executing them. A recent Supreme Court ruling prohibits execution of the insane.

My question, do you think it's right for states to force medication so the inmate is 'sane enough' for execution?

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/national/11DEAT.html
You may have to register (it's free)

They just did something like that as a storyline in "The Practice" TV show. It is an interesting dilemma.

There is no "Undecided" option in the poll. Things could vary from case to case, so I would go with undecided if that were an option.

Yep..2 mondays ago I think. The episode was actually based on the appeal..

Didn't think there'd be a need for "undecideds"....it has to be either right or wrong in all cases

Well, were they sane at the time of the crime and they become insane later on? If they became insane later on, why? How is the current law worded? Are there provisions to address these issues?

There can be variables from one case to another, so I do think it isn't just totally a blanket right or wrong for everything.

Current Federal Law states that it is illegal to execute persons with IQs less than the low limit in the state (less than 60-70 is mentally retarded) or those that have been declared mentally unfit/insane by the court. A declaration could come before or after the conviction in *most* states, but i dont' think there have been any cases like they had on the practice.

The issue of whether or not a state can make an inmate sane enough to execute hasn't been brought up before, and this case will probably be the first. Expect to see it in the Supreme Court this year or next Fall...

The supreme court has already said it is cruel and unusual for an insane inmate to be executed. Now I dont know how closely WHT members follow supreme court decisions, but MY interpretation of this decision was that it once in inmate is declared insane, then they are no longer able to be executed - no matter if they are taking drugs or not.

Just to clarify ... here's a senario .. person commits a crime and is found guilty and sentenced to death .. at the time of the crime and hearing there is no mention of insanity. Whilst on death row he becomes insane ... he then can't be exectuted ... "is this the way it stands at the moment?" I assume if he or she was found insane at the trial they wouldn't end up on death row anyway.

My Thoughts.

1. I don't believe in Capital Punishment. Neither does my country.
2. If you do have capital punishment and a person is sentenced to death then that's what they should get regardles of mental or physical state at the time.
3. Catital punishment should be carried out asap not months down the track.

Once again

I don't believe in Capital Punishment

NO body has the right to take another persons life.

**genuine self defence is entirely different matter ..your not taking a life your defending you own .. I'm talking about an individuals not nations or countries.

Doc

This is stupid, Theyre not, not getting executed cause their crazy, their not getting executed because they were too crazy to tell right from wrong when they did the crime, So it would be extremely inhumane making them sane and then killing them.

It's absurd to have a dealth penalty.

Placing conditions on enforcing it; disgraceful.

If you're gonna murder someone; murder them.

The death penalty is pretty good, but i always change my oppinion after going through half a box of tissues watching "the green mile: :bawling:

I don't feel it's right for a state to "alter" a persons mindset before execution.

The Death penalty must be maintained. There is nothing absurd about it. If they took a life intentionally, they must pay with their own life. In my country Spain, we don't have the death penalty (though we used to, and I think it should be brought back) nonetheless when we sentence murderers to life, it means life in some terrible conditions. Our prisions are not resorts like that in some US States. And Parole is not an option.

The Green Mile, pattox, in my opinion was a great movie and very touching... however it was done at a time when there was no DNA evidence. DNA evidence can make or break a whole case against somebody accused of committing murder.

If they took a life intentionally, they must pay with their own life.

GC: That's not the question I asked though....
1) Should insane inmates be executed?
2) Is it right for states to force medication on insane inmates so the state can execute when the inmate is insane?

I am totally against the death penalty. It's just murder vs murder. Stats from the death penalty information center don't prove that it's a detterance against future murders, and it doesn't rehabilitate the inmates. What point is there to it?

Now the quote before implies you believe in the "eye for an eye" type deal. Tell me, why don't we rape rapists, or beat assailants? Why let them live in the prison system and kill those people say are the most heinous individuals to society?

we need to get back to the "eye for an eye" mentallity. Bet you'd see a lot less crime. Plus, just think of all the fingers and hands we could cut off in this industry from all of the thiefs :D

Originally posted by akash
GC: That's not the question I asked though....
1) Should insane inmates be executed?

I agree, yes.

2) Is it right for states to force medication on insane inmates so the state can execute when the inmate is insane?

Yes.

I am totally against the death penalty. It's just murder vs murder. Stats from the death penalty information center don't prove that it's a detterance against future murders, and it doesn't rehabilitate the inmates.

Rehabilitation? I don't want former murderers out on parole. So either the death penalty or life in prision.

So then you are saying executing the insane and forcing medication to execute is not cruel and unusual?



Rehabilitation? I don't want former murderers out on parole. So either the death penalty or life in prision.

I never said anything about parole. Life in prision would be the ideal solution. And as long as they are alive, why not have them do some community service under guard?

Yes I do support it and it is not cruel or unusual.

Murderers should be life in prision and never see outside ever again. If it were life, I would support reducing the resort like standards in prisions. The death penalty should also be an option depending on the severity of the crime

If it were life, I would support reducing the resort like standards in prisions.

Murderers are not sent to the low/medium security prisions you might see on tv. Visit a US maximum security federal prision and you'll probably **** your pants. No where near a resort.

If anyone has kids...a field trip to a prision is cheaper than shipping them off to boot camp.

I support bringing Turkish standards to maximum security prisions. They have similar standards in Spain... ETA members get sentenced to life (with NO parole) in maximum security prisions where living standards are generally poor.

I wish Canada had the death penalty. Canada is far too soft on crime.

Look @ Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson..undeniable proof that they are guilty, they should be given 48 hours to say good-bye to family before getting the chair.

If they turn themselves in, it shows remorse, and life imprisonment should be considered over death.

The thing with Canada, is that if you're going to kill one person, you might as well kill everyone that ever upset you because your sentence will be the same...heck, if you're like Clifford Olson you even get protected from the other prisoners...it's like club med if you're not in general population.

America views itself as the most civilized country in the world, and we're 1 of the 4 or 5 countries left that feels its right to kill someone if they do something wrong.

Murder is much more than "doing something wrong." If somebody murders one their life is forfeited.

i dont believe in it . First off , it cost twice as much to put someone to death then it does to let them serve a full life sentance . Deathrow inmates have computers , special cells , special rights , and usually sit on death row with these added death sentence bonuses before they ever see thier actual sentence . i cant say its not cruel or unusual , because i have never been put to death , nor have i had the oppertunity to go through what a person put to death has felt . I also think its low to stoop to the individuals level and murder them back . I dont think anyone man has the right to take another mans life , regardless of thier actions . No one is that great . I also look at it like this , they either

a:sit and think about thier crimes for 50-40 years , maybe more

b:take the easy way out , sit in cell with all the added extras , then get put to death ... and never have to worry about thier crime .

Regardless of the crime in my opinion , that person needs to live with that burden for the remainder of thier jail life . The death penality doesnt solve anything , nor does it bring back victims . I rather spend less money on crooks , let them rot in jail then give them the easy way out .

Either it is life without parole in a Turkish like prision or death (the death penalty can be cheap... like execution by firing squad which was done to murderers under the Franco dictatorship in Spain).

If life without parole in a Turkish prision is chosen as the way chances are the convicted murderer will be dead in several weeks because of very poor conditions.

Hiccups...I was going to mention that Practice episode as well. Totally off topic, but I never saw the continuation....can you fill me in on what happened? Did she get excuted anyways? If not, did she get her meds back?