| By Preston Mitchum - Mar 25th, 2008 at 5:39 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Tags: capital punishment, Death Penalty, death row, mentally ill, Scott Panetti
There are many reasons I am against the death penalty. First, it is a violation of the Eight’s Amendments cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is a clear hypocrisy to the original purpose of our justice system, which is to rehabilitate. Why would a state kill their own people to prove that killing other people is wrong? The idea in and of itself is preposterous. Secondly, the death penalty repeatedly proves itself to be racist, discriminatory to the poor, and a system that has convicted the innocent. Statistics have shown that racial bias exists in the application of the death penalty, including the fact that although over 50% of murder victims are Black, over 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are White. Unfortunately, there are cases in which mentally ill patients are on death row and have been executed. One of the most critical cases that can set precedent for the Supreme Court is Panetti v. Quarterman (2007). Although I severely disagree with the actions of Panetti, I am a believer in equal justice and human rights in the legal system.
Scott Panetti has been hospitalized 14 times in 6 institutions for symptoms of schizophrenia, manic depression, auditory hallucinations, and paranoid delusions marked by religiosity. He is responsible for murdering his estranged wife parents and holding her and their daughter in hostage. Before his capital murder trial, he decided that his attorneys were part of a conspiracy against him and insisted on representing himself in court. Dressed in a purple cowboy outfit, Panetti came into the courtroom rambling incoherently and “preaching the gospel.” During trial, he attempted to subpoena John F. Kennedy, Jesus Christ, Anne Bancroft, and many other “witnesses.” I cannot believe the judge even let this continue. He was clearly showing that he had no clue what was happening and all of these problems were ignored. When asked did he know why he would be executed, he replied, “. . . they say it’s because of the murders, but I know it’s because they [the state] does not want me preaching gospel in prison . . .” Apparently Panetti never showed a clear sign of competency from the beginning.
Ruling: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, agreeing it did not matter what he believed, but that he acknowledges the killings. Although the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the decision to the federal district judge, Panetti's delusions will still be tested. I guess being hospitalized more than ten times is not enough to decide if the psychiatrist was correct. Panetti has been on death row for ten years and counting, where he continues to believe he is fulfilling his mission of preaching the gospel to other inmates.
I can only hope and pray that one day the United States acts on its views of what it means to be "civilized," and quit killing its own people. The death penalty, no matter how practiced, is a legalized system of killing people. We should try to ensure we take the first step in helping people with problems. The first step is never to kill them off simply because we do not know how to handle them. I would much rather spend tax dollars to rehabilitate someone than buying new needles (if they are lucky) to lethally inject in someone. While we are establishing a progressive agenda, there has to be a paradigm shift for the way we view people in the criminal justice system. We are all in this together.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I think that it is ridiculous that the Fifth Circuit Court would even consider sentencing Panetti to death given his obvious condition and the existing Supreme Court precedent. The 2007 case was not the first instance of sentencing an insane person to death. The first instance I see of the Supreme Court dealing with the execution of insane and mentally retarded people is over 20 years ago in 1986, followed by a few other decisions I’d like to point out.
Ford v. Wainwright (1986) Link – This Supreme Court decision upheld the common law that the insane can not be executed. A significant effect of this ruling was that those petitioning the death penalty are now entitled to a competency hearing.
Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) Link – The best way I can describe this case is as a circus, running around in circles and through hoops. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the mentally retarded can be executed, however, in this case, Texas law did not allow the jury to sufficiently consider Penry’s mental retardation as a mitigating factor in the sentencing phase. The case was sent back for more proceedings. Penry was retried and again, sentenced to death. The case went back to the Supreme Court, who again said that the jury was not able to adequately consider his mental retardation in the sentencing phase. Ultimately, Penry was spared the death penalty because of the 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling.
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Link – the Supreme Court ruled that, under the Eight Amendment, it is unconstitutional to sentence a mentally retarded person to death.
Panetti v. Quarterman (2007) Link – the Supreme Court upholds the 1986 Ford ruling and rules that it is unconstitutional to execute an insane person.
Something to consider here: Both the Penry and Atkins cases deal with mentally retarded people, not insane people. While there is a difference between the two terms and the treatment under the law Link, the precedent is still related and relevant.
I agree with Preston that this case is a very important part of precedent. And I really like the way Preston suggested we need a paradigm shift in the way we think about people involved in our justice system. People in prison are often viewed as purely and innately evil, but many times people wind up in trouble because of the way society has failed them. Although we hate what some have done, we must remember that they are still part of our community and we need to take responsibility for that fact. This shift in attitude I think is the key to making any reform in our justice system, particularly in terms of mental health issues.
There is a short documentary about the case of Scott Panetti narrated by Phil Donohue. It is very interesting and it interviews Scott's family members. Here is the version I uploaded online:
Link