Thursday, February 17, 2022

Thiel College-Death Penalty

 Death Penalty-Comment No. 2

Should combat induced PTSD be considered mitigation during the penalty phase of a death penalty trial or should it be a disqualification from pursuing the death penalty? What is the difference between the two?


16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Student #13
Personally, I believe that combat induced PTSD should be a disqualification from pursuing the death penalty, rather than simply a mitigating factor. A mitigating factor can be any fact or circumstance that lessens the severity of a criminal act. In contrast, disqualification would involve refusal, from the judicial level, for the death penalty to be imposed on an individual suffering from combat induced PTSD.
Combat induced PTSD occurs as a result of experiencing extreme stress or life-threatening trauma. It is accompanied by judgement-impairing symptoms such as lack of emotional regulation (explosive outbursts, fits of depression, etc.), lack of impulse control, paranoia, and auditory or visual hallucinations. When the following symptoms are taken into consideration, along with the unsettling truth that many war veterans do not receive the mental health care they need post deployment, it becomes more of a systematic issue than it does of one's own judgement, which in this case is clearly clouded.
Taking the above points into consideration, I feel it would be a gross misuse of power to execute an individual suffering from combat induced PTSD, especially if they were not given proper treatment resources. It would be, and is, inherently unethical to assume that certain SEVERE mental health issues including PTSD, Schizophrenia, and Bi-Polar Disorder are not an excuse for such gruesome behavior when it is clear that their cognitive functioning is impaired to some degree.

Anonymous said...

Student #8
Combat PTSD should be a disqualification for the death penalty because a veteran risked their lives and came back to the U.S with trauma that is overwhelming. Disqualification of the death penalty is taking the death penalty off of the table as an option. The mitigation of the death penalty is lowering the significance of the crime that was committed by an individual. If someone has combat PTSD they experience mental instability at times that should not be blamed on them due to the experiences they have been through. This only applies if the crime was committed and it is proven that it was combat PTSD.

Anonymous said...

Student #15 said...
I believe that combat induced PTSD should be considered a disqualification from pursuing the death penalty, rather than just a mitigating factor. In a death penalty case, mitigating factors are factors that lessen the offender's responsibility in committing the act; in other words, mitigating factors are reasons that would put the offender in the position in which they are more vulnerable to commit a crime. Such mitigating factors include mental health problems, abuse, or intellectual disabilities or limitations that make it difficult for the defendant to adjust/reintegrate to the community. So, at the very least, combat induced PTSD should be a mitigating factor, as many war veterans have difficulty adjusting back into civilian life after witnessing gruesome acts of violence almost everyday. That being said, a disqualification from the death penalty is a judicial exemption from the prosecution pursuing the death penalty on an individual due to the unconstitutionality pursuing the death penalty would ensue. One example of a disqualification from the death penalty is severe mental illness, as it is considered unconstitutional to execute people with severe mental illness. As seen in many war veterans, combat induced PTSD - especially if left untreated - can escalate in severity, leading to complete mental disability and maladaptive behaviors in the community (that are out of the individual's control). This mental disability - and why I think combat induced PTSD should be a disqualification of the death penalty - doesn't mean that the offender does not understand the difference between right and wrong, but rather where they are and what is appropriate behavior in that environment. For example, veterans with combat induced PTSD can be triggered to flashbacks of traumatic events (which are frequent during their service) which impairs their judgment for appropriate behavior. In this case, whereas it could be necessary to commit a capital crime on the frontlines, it is not it everyday civilian life; but their impaired judgment could lead them to believe that it is necessary to commit a capital offense, for example during a flashback, because they believe they are no longer in the safety of civilian life. All in all, combat induced PTSD should be considered a disqualification of pursuing the death penalty because, although the defendant would understand the difference between right and wrong, they would not understand the appropriate "right and wrong" behaviors for where they are. Therefore, this disabling inability to differentiate between civilian life and combat service, in my opinion, is a severe enough mental illness to be considered unconstitutional for execution.

Anonymous said...

Student #10
I firmly believe that combat induced PTSD should be considered a disqualification when pursuing the death penalty rather than a mitigating factor. In death penalty cases, a mitigating factor is any factor that lessens one’s responsibility when committing a crime. PTSD is a severe mental illness that can affect one’s intellectual and adaptive functioning, trigger flashbacks to traumatic events, and impair a person’s judgement. PTSD is a very common diagnosis in veterans. In 1986 the supreme court ruled that the execution of people with severe mental health issues is unconstitutional. PTSD is considered a severe mental illness therefore I think that PTSD should disqualify one from the death penalty. If treated, PTSD is a very controllable illness, however most men and woman who are discharged from the military are left with military health care. From personal experience I can attest to the fact that military healthcare does not actively work to help their veterans diagnosed with PTSD. A family member of mine, a veteran who has served in Iraq and worked as a local police chief, has struggled with PTSD for over twenty years, and instead of helping him by getting him into proper therapy and treating him he was put on the same strong medicine for over twenty years which was later proven to heighten his delusions leading him to almost harm himself. In witnessing delusions of his, I have seen that one minute he is convinced there is something there, and the next minute he is totally fine. I truly believe that people who have PTSD and commit violent acts don’t always know what they are doing in the moment and it is only after when they come to that they are able to comprehend what they have actually done.

Student 9 said...

Pursuing the death penalty as a sentence for an individual with combat induced PTSD should be disqualified rather than just be considered a mitigating factor. Because If an individual is professionally diagnosed with PTSD (before or after) and they are found guilty of first degree murder they should not be able to be sentenced to death. As the understanding of mental health increases, disqualifying the use of the death penalty on veterans with PTSD could be considered "evolving standards of decency." As psychologists continue to learn more about mental health and the effects of PTSD, it may show that individuals with combat PTSD can act in ways they would not if they did not have PTSD from combat. For those with combat induced PTSD, if convicted they would receive a sentence to a mental hospital for an "X" amount years. However, if combat induced PTSD was only a mitigating factor, it would allow the jury to consider that the PTSD of an individual while determining the sentence.

Student #7 said...

Mitigation in the death penalty are factors that lessen responsibility for their actions. It does not entirely excuse their behavior, but it considers outside situations more significantly into court decisions. On the other hand, disqualification is when those circumstances exempt the individual from culpability. After reading this article, I believe that PTSD should be considered as a mitigating factor, though my first instinct was to disqualify it. There is a stereotype that the majority of those suffering from PSTD are violent and this perpetuates the idea that they are unable to survive in society or act as "regular" citizens. However, the vast majority live with little trouble, though there are plenty of resources available to assist them however they can. I do not mean to undermine the service or suffering of those victims, however the severity of their situation should be taken into consideration as a mitigation, since not everyone with PTSD is dysfunctional; each case should be considered closely and not as an overarching disqualification. PTSD may also be aggravated by other mental illnesses and therefore lead to violence; if other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are not taken with the same levity or considered disqualifications, PSTD should not be either. This is not to say that these stigma-laden troubles should remain as a mitigation, but more a matter of consistency (something our court system as not been known for).

Anonymous said...

Student #17

I believe combat induced PTSD should be considered a mitigation during the penalty phase of a death penalty case. Mitigation is where evidence on the defendant half is presented to why they should not receive a death sentence. Some of the factors are the defendant’s age, mental illness (bipolar and schizophrenia), if the crime committed was an accident, or the defendant can provide if was self-dense. Post traumatic stress disorder should also fall under mental illness because it is an awful event that happen to the person that keeps replaying in their head. This is developed when a person experiences a shocking, scary, or dangerous event in their lifetime. When certain incidents remind the person about the traumatic event their body goes into defense mode, without them even realizing or even meaning to. This is their fight or flight mode reacting to the traumatic event even though the threat is no longer existing. Also, causes flashbacks to the terrible day and the person can never seem to put it become them. If a mental illness that honorably discharges people from service, then why can people be put on death row with the same illness? This is not an uncurable mental illness with the right help, a person can over come the traumatic event. People with PTSD are not violent human being and they know right from wrong. If a person is capable of showing remorse, then why should their life have to end because they were stuck in a flashback and was trying to prevent themselves from it happening again. I believe people with PTSD should be given a second chance to overcome their traumatic event, especially veterinarians who give up time with their families to fight for our freedom. Veterans who are fighting in the front lines for freedom go through a lot of mental and emotional toll with an intense amount of stress.

Student #4 said...

Mitigating factors are factors that may lesson a persons punishment. Some of these factors include mental health problem, prior abuse (sexual or physical), and intellectual disabilities. If all these are considered mitigating factors, then I believe PTSD should be held to that same standard. It may sound harsh but people suffering from similar mental health problems are not exempt so the playing field should be leveled. Either all of these factors should serve as disqualifiers for the Death Penalty or none of them should. We shouldn't be able to pick and choose. It is very unfortunate because these veterans with PTSD risk their lives for this country and come home to this type of treatment. At the same time, being at war makes you a trained killer. With all that being said, PTSD should be treated as a mitigating factor.

Anonymous said...

#16
The death penalty should be excluded in sentencing an individual with intense combat induced PTSD. PTSD is known to cause memory loss, black out that result in them hurting themselves or others, and very drastic mood swings. I don't think it should be used as mitigation because this is something they cannot control. Also, combat veterans already have a tough go of things when they get home. Trying to adjust to normal life again, functioning at home with their family's, and not receiving the adequate care they need to treat their PTSD. After fighting for their country so bravely, and being sent home without the care that they need, then that resulting in them harming someone, and the being put on trial with the possibility of the death penalty is barbaric.

Anonymous said...

Student #18

I think with the different symptoms that are within PTSD and how severe some can be. I think that it should not be used as mitigation because PTSD is something that they have to live with, and they cannot control. I think that they shouldn't even be considered because PTSD is a mental illness when it has been said that if someone is mentally ill, they cannot be on death row or with a death penalty trial.

Anonymous said...

student #12

Combat PTSD like any other Mental disorder should be considered as a mitigation when on trial for the Death penalty. I also believe that it should be in some cases depending of the severity of the Persons PTSD that it should be a disqualifying factor in the decision making process of the trial. The huge difference in the two would be that a mitigation is something that is taken into account like mental health, age, and many other things depending on the state that you live in. where the disqualifying factor is something that changes that case in a sense. There is an issue within this world were we are bring combat veterans home from wars and battles without proper mental health and awareness of the trauma that these veterans go through on the front lines. this really should be something taken into account long before the crimes are committed.

Anonymous said...

Student #6

If combat induced PTSD were considered a disqualification from pursuing the death penalty, combat veterans would never be executed no matter the circumstance of the crime. If combat PTSD was considered a mitigating factor, it would be considered in front of the court, and it may or may not affect the outcome of the trial. The jury would decide based on their opinion on the situation, and whether this combat veteran deserves to be put to death despite their PTSD. PTSD has levels of severity, and this is the reason I think it should be a mitigating factor in pursuing the death penalty, not a disqualification. Some PTSD is mild, and if this is the case, then it was not the cause of their crime. If it can be found that the reason the crime occurred is because of this detrimental mental disability, then they should not be put to death. The jury should be able to decide the individual’s fate.

Anonymous said...

student 20,

Combat PTSD should be used as mitigation in Death penalty cases. It it just like any other mental illness and effects your daily life. I also believe that it depends on the severity of the PTSD in which I believe a jury could decided weather the person should be accountable or not.

Anonymous said...

#2
I believe Combat induced PTSD should be a disqualification from pursuing the death penalty. Combat induced PTSD should be treated on the same level as a mental illness. PTSD is something that requires some form of treatment. Even in terms of how it is viewed in society it’s viewed with the same importance as something like mental illness. Something that could be considered mitigation would be their combat service if it was applicable. Service to a country is used to lessen the penalty against them. A mitigating factor should be that and not something as serious as combat PTSD.

Anonymous said...

Student #1
Combat induced PTSD can be triggered by many things. Even though the individual knows right from wrong when their PTSD is triggered the reaction is from combat and survival not thinking that they are in a safer environment instead of war. With this I believe that it should be a mitigation because while it is not completely their fault for having a reaction that might have been triggered off PTSD it cannot be completely disqualified. The difference between mitigation and disqualification is that mitigation is giving a lesser sentence or being less harsh towards the original outcome of a sentence. An example of this would be instead of 100 years it might be 75 years in prison. Disqualification from pursuing the death penalty means that the individual would not have to face the death penalty at all. They would still be punished and it could still be life in prison but the individual would not be put on death row.

11 said...

I believe that PTSD triggers should count as a mitigating factor. These factors are used in the court room as a way to lessen a sentence due to an unlimited amount of other factors. These can include, age, mental capacity, self defense, etc... In my opinion, I believe that PTSD can fog ones brain for them to commit unspeakable acts. If one can prove that the individual is unaware or had no malice behind the attack then why would they receive punishment. Rather than a disqualification, PTSD related crimes should be a mitigating factor. Disqualification from the death penalty is when the person is charged for their crime that they committed but the death penalty is not pursued.

Post a Comment