Recently, I looked at an article, “Texas to execute mentally ill man in controversial case.” It closely examined a whole new aspect to the death penalty, insanity. Insanity within the judicial system is extremely controversial, and when the issue of the death penalty is brought into it, it becomes that much more complicated.
The story that the article focuses on is the case of Jeffery Wood, a man involved in a case of armed robbery. Wood’s defense attorney stated that Wood did not kill anyone in the incident, but it was rather his partner, Daniel Reneau. This past year, Wood has been appealing the death penalty that has been sentenced to him. But according to the law, one can not be given the death penalty unless the crime they have committed involves murder.
Besides not even killing anyone, Wood was seen as mentally ill. But as I have learned in my Justice class, there is a big difference between mentally ill and mentally competent. In order to be put on trial, one must understand the situation and that they have committed the crime. As long as someone can understand that they are being put on trial, they can be tried, but this does not declare them mentally stable.
This presents quite the challenge. How should the courts determine if someone is mentally competent, and should that be determined by if they are mentally ill? Yes, most would agree it is not fair to execute someone if they have a mental disability, but some argue they are still a threat to society. Would it do the victim and their family justice to send the perpetrator to the hospital until they are mentally stable? It is hard to answer these questions, and it has been debated in the legal system, but yet a solid response has yet to be reached.
No comments:
Post a Comment