 |
| Scott Panetti- Mugshot |
This article is about a mentally ill man who is sentenced to be executed in Texas. Throughout the reading, it is increasingly apparent how incompetent the defendant is to stand trial: let alone defend himself. The main objective of the author of this article is to implement alternatives for execution for mentally ill criminals. Schizophrenia, as explained in the article, causes extreme delusions and paranoia. Neither of these occurrences lead to success in a court. At the end of the article, the author attempts to persuade readers to cause an uprising in order to appeal the man’s sentence.
Before reading this article, I did not have a clear opinion regarding the death penalty; and I still am uncertain. In this particular case, I believe the defendant should not be sentenced to death, as he obviously is unaware of reality. Unfortunately, the article does not state what the crime was, but I am assuming it was villainous enough to get him the death penalty. In order to more accurately analyze this current event, I would need to know the charges brought to the man. Also, the author is clearly biased towards the defendant, even urging readers to have his sentence overturned to a life in prison sentencing.
You're bringing a really fine level of discernment to your reading and thought Penny.
ReplyDeleteAt first when I read this I was automatically offended because I thought that the courts did not allow the mentally ill men to have a lawyer as the 6th amendment requires. Then I read that all 3 men had fired their provided lawyers which I also didn't know was legal if you were a mentally ill citizen. After some research I discovered the following... Mentally ill citizens often don't understand the Miranda rights and will wave necessary rights without knowing the consequences. A defendant must also be able to stand trial. If a defendant is not mentally competent, then they must be taken to a hospital and treated and if needed, medicated, until they are fit to stand trial. Unfortunately the standards for deciding whether an individual is unfit is very low, and many mentally ill still qualify. It seems that all three of the trials mentioned in the article did not correspond with these guidelines regarding mentally ill defendants.
ReplyDeleteThere are some major issues in the justice system when it comes to trials and sentences. For example, many jurors see mental illness as a reason to vote for the death penalty than against it. Also, defendants who are mentally ill may act out due to delusions and other reality-altering symptoms and may frighten the jury which could lead them to decide on an unappealing and unreasonable decision. On the other hand, improper medication may lead the suspect to become lethargic and disassociated from the trial and may seem as though they don't care about the outcome. The problem with pleading for insanity is that it is usually doubted and faked so it is not ruled valid in many courts. A suspect may receive the verdict, "guilty but mentally ill", even though the sentences for mentally ill and not mentally ill are practically the same when ruled guilty. Due to their illness, many defendants may not trust their lawyers and cannot cooperate. Many believe that no one is fit to represent them and their reasons except for themselves. This is a problem for obvious reasons. If there were stricter rules around trials given for the mentally ill, I'm sure that there would be more justice in the system. It is strange that these controversial cases haven't gained more ground though.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/mental-illness-and-death-penalty#10