Singleton: Affirmative Or Inhumane?

As we know today that Charles Laverne Singleton was executed by a lethal injection on January 6, 2004 for the murder of Mary Lou York (19 years old) while robbing Mary’s grocery store. According to the records available, Mr. Singleton was diagnosed with mental disorder such as schizophrenia/psychosis after he was arrested. In 1986, US Supreme Court made the decision that the execution of the insane is against the law and constitution under Ford vs. Wainwright. After wards Mr. Singleton was set up for multiple dates for execution, but the dates were appealed according to 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision under Washington vs. Harper. So it made Mr. Singleton to be treated involuntarily to make him stable because he was danger to himself and others.

Charles Singleton’s execution is unjust because he was mentally ill. Justice Powel, associate justice, states, ” The Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it” (https://www.aclu.org/mental-illness-and-death-penalty). Charles Singleton was a schizophrenic, a disorder that shows atypical social behavior and not knowing what is real. The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed that it is unconstitutional to kill someone who's mental capabilities are not within normal standards (n.d.). NAMI. Charles Singleton’s execution is unjust as he was insane but medicated to be sane. He was forced to take antipsychotic medications initially so he would not harm other

Whether the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician-assisted dying found in s. 241 (b) violates the claimants’ rights to life, liberty and security (s.7) and rights to equal treatment (s. 15) of the Charter (Carter, para.29, 40).

The primary reason the execution of Charles Singleton is considered to be unethical is because it conflicts with the American Constitution. The 8th amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” Part of the 8th amendment states that no cruel and unusual punishment should be inflicted; thus the execution of Charles Singleton is unjust. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, “the U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is unconstitutional and cruel to execute people who are insane” (n.d.). To force a person to take antipsychotic medication in order to make them sane enough to execute is wrong. It should be considered cruel and unusual to make Singleton

In 1979 Charles Singleton was tried and executed by the state of Arkansas by lethal injection for the murder of a Caucasian nineteen year old woman, Mary Lou York. According to the state, Singleton was found guilty of stabbing the woman twice in the neck for befriending him. Once Singleton was convicted for murder he began taking psychotropic medication. Soon after, singleton mental state began to decline. In 1987 Singleton declared statements of witnessing demons in his cell.

Once they are jailed, they are prone to mistreatment, and the only way the mentally ill receive ‘’help’’ is by being injected with drugs, which have no medicinal effect on the person. George’s case is also significant in that it proves to show that the judges and officials refused to believe George, but rather they believed a fake doctor who had no prior experience in the medical field, and who had fooled his way into the hospital. Their denial only shows us that they did not have trust in Stevenson when he represented George in his court proceedings, and that they did not trust that

physician-assisted suicide protect patients’ rights and maintain justice. Not allowing a patient todecide when his life should end is in fact denying them freedom. In the case of physician-assisted

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.

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

The law also allows a physician to deny performing the treatment for personal beliefs. Yet, if the harm is done and the patient is incurable, the doctor can save tremendous pain and suffering of patients. With the multitude of obstacle courses the protocol have set in place, have been thought out and designed to protect the rights of not only the patient but

In The Frivolity of Evil, Theodore Dalrymple expresses the views of a real life psychiatrist who has just retired employment for 14 years in a British prison hospital. He had worked as a general practitioner in a wretched Birmingham slum and spent part of every week treating inmates in the prison. His practice involved him with an large range and care for humanity. He dealt with many different people who all had different stories, and cases. He tried to understand prisoners who cheerfully confessed to fathering four or five children, in which he knew none of them, to having talks with a suicidal Muslim girl who was tyrannized by a marriage choice made for her by her parents.

“When it comes to healthcare, ‘bad people’ are as equal as the rest of us” (646). When someone is sentenced to execution it is decided by the criminal justice system, not the medical community. The justice system views these peoples’ social worth as so low that they deserve to die for the crimes they have committed. “The

Legally a mentally unfit person who is awaiting execution in today’s penal system does not have the right to refuse psychiatric treatment (drugs) that would restore their competency. In todays society we as free Americans share certain liberties, such as the right to pick and choose our physicians, course of treatment and on the other hand the refusal of those same treatments. The state must be able to restore competency to an incompetent defendant so that he may stand trial or be executed; if not the prisoner would remain in the system indefinitely (Swedlow, n.d.). Ethically, if it’s possible to restore their competency for the defendant to stand trial, I would be in support of this. As far as execution if the defendant has been through the legal system, sentenced to death and the appeal process has progressed to its limit, do we really want to medicate someone for a period of time just so they will understand their impending death? Ethically it seems that the punishment has been accessed and should be carried out.

A competency for execution evaluation is required by law to be performed before the execution of a person sentenced to death. This exam aims to make sure the accused is death ready, or in other words are they competent to be executed. To be considered competent to be executed, one must: “(a) understand and appreciate the punishment, (b) understand and appreciate death, and (c) have the ability to work with the judicial team” (Neal, 2010, p. 148). The mental health care professional also needs to take into

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.