US clears drug cure for killers on death row (thanks to Elbert McDoolihan)
It is somewhat shocking that someone whose mental condition is so bad that you have to pump them up, so to speak, so that you can put them on the table [is allowed to be executed]. It seems to be the epitome of cruel punishment and the invasion of the human body.
- Richard Dieter
It has always been a matter of law that states cannot execute the mentally ill (well, unless you're in Texas, where you can basically execute anyone with a pulse). But what if someone has a condition that, with proper medication, can be remediated? What if, when that condition is remediated, that person is in full control of their faculties? Can a state then execute that inmate because they no longer "appear" to be mentally ill? What's more, can a state forcibly medicate an inmate for the sole purpose of executing them? It sounds like an Orwellian proposition, but the answer to those questions is now "yes".
Convicted murderers with severe mental health problems can be forced to take drugs that would make them clinically sane so that they can be executed, the US supreme court has ruled.
Opponents of the death penalty yesterday described the court's decision to uphold an earlier ruling on the issue - without debating it - as shocking.
The case concerns Charles Singleton who, in 1979, killed a grocery shop worker in Arkansas. He was convicted and sentenced to death later that year.
While awaiting execution, Singleton's mental health deteriorated to such an extent that he believed his victim was still alive, that the authorities had implanted a device in his ear and that his jail cell was under the control of demons.
Because a prisoner has to be technically sane before being executed, the court was asked to decide whether Singleton could be given psychotropic drugs to qualify to be put to death. His lawyers argued that the drugs should not be administered as the only medical purpose of doing so would be to prepare the prisoner for execution.
This year an appeals court in St Louis ruled that it was acceptable to give Singleton the drugs, although the decision was not unanimous.
Of course, as represhensible as this prospect is, there is another issue in play here. What sort of ethical dilemma does the doctor administering the medication face? A strict reading of the Hippocratic Oath would seem to preclude a doctor from taking part in medicating a patient in order that the state may then execute them.
Is it really in the interest of the state to "heal" someone in order to then execute him? What does that say about what we value as a society? Are we so interested in "justice" that we will do whatever it takes in order to execute someone? I'm not at all sure just what this all says about our society, but I do know that I have a problem with the idea of medicating someone in order to kill them. It's wrong, and it's a perversion of not only the justice system, but also of the medical profession. We are all diminished for travelling down this road.
