Death Penalty-Comment No. 3
The Tennessee legislature is considering abolishing the death penalty for killers with mental illness. What is is your opinion on the legislation? Do you support it, oppose it and would you limit its scope or expand those covered by the prohibition?
19 comments:
Student #7
While I do agree that those with severe mental illness should not be executed, I am also aware of the "slippery slope" that comes out of this legislation. Similar to Atkins v Virginia with intellectual disability, there will like be no definition of what qualifies as mental illness and left to the discretion of each state. This, frankly, is arbitrary and unconstitutional that individuals with similar or perhaps worse mental illness would receive a "lighter" punishment than others who received capital punishment. Until I am feel confident or even comfortable that the definition of mental illness (which even psychologists struggle with sometimes) is secure, I cannot support this. It is almost as bad having it as it is not having it, since Atkins v Virginia did not do much to stop executions for intellectual disability. Also, there are only 5 illnesses covered by the legislation, though there is a whole 10 lb. book full of mental illness, many of which could qualify as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase anyway; these are not included, and therefore I would expand the scope covered but emphasize severe interference with activities of daily life, since many with mental illness are completely functional in society.
i think that presenting a better set of rules and mitigation that apply to the mentally ill is something that should be applied to the sentencing portion of the trial process. when looking at the understanding of mental illness there is a clear issue and divide with the decision of what a mental illness is from state to state which causes a large issue within the decision process. this is something that as a counseling major and someone who is attempting to become a psychologist have a issue with at its base level. The distinguishing factor of telling if someone is mentally ill or suffer from a mental disability is something that in the psychology field has been distinguished in the DSM-5 something that many licensed counselors use within their practices to appropriately tell if someone suffers from a mental illness. when looking at the abolishing of the death penalty for the Mentally ill i think we first need to see the problem at its source. the simple fact that there is the clear unconstitutional treatment of those who are mentally ill and being described as not Mentally ill due to the factor that the state may have a different set of guidelines that determine these things. creating a fair and understanding set of rules that allow for the proper treatment of those who suffer from mental illness and create the ability to treat people instead of sending them to death is something that should be strived for. When it comes to the intellectual disabilities we know and have an understanding that these people are not allowed to be executed. however, again this process suffer from the same issue of are they intellectually disabled under our states set of guidelines. this is something I can wish and hope is fixed in the time that i am alive. i think that since we are simply not looking at that main issue within the system there is always going to be a problem since the problem is at its source.
Student #13-
This question is difficult for me to answer, as I do believe that mental illness severely impairs cognitive function. Specifically, mental illnesses such as PTSD, Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders, Paranoia, and Psychosis can severely impair one's judgement. Unfortunately, there is no method of analysis to ensure that an individual does or does not know right from wrong. Furthermore, there is no method of analysis to determine whether or not an individual afflicted by mental illness is using it to their advantage, much so as a crutch to lean on to deter responsibility from their own actions. In both cases, we have the right to form our own opinion. However, when discussing matters of life and death, would you want YOUR opinion to be the deciding factor to end someone's life? Personally, I believe research and facts are a necessity in determining the outcome of a death penalty case, especially when we are talking about something as subjective as Psychology and Mental Illness. Personally, I believe more research needs to be done before Tennessee enacts this legislation. I would like to see background research with supporting evidence, a SINGLE, concrete definition of mental illness (coming from a psychology major, there are an abundance which could cause confusion), and a list of SPECIFIC mental illnesses that may exclude one from the death penalty, with scientific explanations as to why these specific few are included and not others.
The newly proposed legislation in Tennessee that would prohibit the execution of mentally ill individuals can poses some issues. Although I understand and agree that there are diagnoses of mental illness that seriously impact an individuals ability to make decisions, I feel that prohibiting the death penalty for all mentally ill individuals would be hard. I think a better first step would be to prohibit the death penalty for individuals with severe mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia). Other mental illnesses for the time being can be considered mitigating factors that a jury would have to consider when determining the penalty of the individual.
I also understand that it was five categories of mental illness in the newly proposed legislation, but I feel that prohibiting the death penalty for one diagnosis could aid in setting precedent to make a new case to cover other mental illnesses.
Whenever I think about changes like this possible being made, I always think about the people who have already paid the price. There have been many people who have already been executed with mental illnesses. Where is the justice for these people? At the same time, if some legislature like this were to be set in place, would everyone on death row in the state get reevaluated for mental illnesses? I think this legislature is a slippery slope. It would only open the door to abolish the Death Penalty for another group of people. If we are just going to keep exempting different groups from the Death Penalty then maybe its not such a great thing to have in the first place.
I believe that this comment raises a good question. I believe that it is not ethical to execute an individual who has struggled with mental illness but it becomes an issue when identifying those who may be on the "lower end" of the spectrum. For example, it would be obvious for a court to not execute a person with Schizophrenia who's disorder told them to murder their family. But, it becomes more difficult when someone with mild and manageable depression does the same action. Something that may be important in this discussion would be if the person is competent in the action that they completed. As stated in class multiple times, someone who is very mentally ill will have little to no recollection/remorse on what they did. In the direct question, I think the legislation is appropriate. But, diving deeper one has to identify exactly what mental illness counts per-say in waiving the death penalty. Also, mental illness affects people differently. For example, traumatic events can affect someone but they can go to counseling and deal with it without harming anyone versus the same traumatic events can affect someone drastically where the only option is to hurt another person. Furthermore for that exact reason is why I would limit the scope of the legislation to just people who have a mental illness that honestly blurs their competence to where they don't know/remember the action that they did.
Student #15 said:
Speaking as a psychology major, I agree with the legislation, but there needs to be more specificity behind it. One of the biggest issues posed in this legislation is the mental illness itself: which ones would be considered, how severe would that mental illness need to be, and which definitions of those mental ailments would be used (as there are an abundance of definitions for one mental illness). And, while it could suggest lapse in judgment -- preventing the individual from understanding the difference between right and wrong, therefore, allowing the individual to be assessed as legally insane at least at the time of the offense -- I feel as though mental illness should stay a mitigating factor until the definitions are solidified. Now, maybe severe mental illness could serve in this legislation (such as paranoid schizophrenia, extreme psychosis, etc.), but then that still houses the issues of which definition would we use and how would we determine a person's mental illness to be "severe enough." So, while I agree that mental illness is a strong mitigating factor, I feel as though more specificity and appropriate, universal definitions should be put in place before the Tennessee legislature passes it.
Student #17
I believe this legislation of abolishing the death penalty for individuals who stuffer from a mental illness is a great start. The five illnesses Tennessee recognizes are schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder. Which are all justified because it deals with stressor and behavior changing in a flash. What about someone on the functioning side of autism, who was manipulated to killing someone? They did not fit into one of the five categories of mental illnesses, is it fine to give them they death penalty? Most functioning people that have autism don’t show they have it unless they tell you. Is it right to execute someone based on a test to prove hearing voices or losing their minds? This is still so much that psychologist don’t know about with mental illness. We owe people a chance to get help them become a better human beings. I strongly believe that individuals with mental issues should not be placed in prison or given the death penalty. The big question is how do you prove an individual has a mental issues rather then faking to get off earlier.
I think that it could be good that Tennessee is thinking of abolishing it because people that are struggling with different disorders that affect their everyday life and for that legislation to put that into consideration now could be a good start to what the future could hold. But on the other hand, it could be a bad decision for them to take away meaning that people that have said to have a disorder or mental illness so they would not be on death row or even given the thought of becoming executed should be looked at again and be evaluated again to make sure that the decisions that they are making are the correct ways of handling it.
Student #18
I think that it could be good that Tennessee is thinking of abolishing it because people that are struggling with different disorders that affect their everyday life and for that legislation to put that into consideration now could be a good start to what the future could hold. But on the other hand, it could be a bad decision for them to take away meaning that people that have said to have a disorder or mental illness so they would not be on death row or even given the thought of becoming executed should be looked at again and be evaluated again to make sure that the decisions that they are making are the correct ways of handling it.
Student #5
I believe that the legislation is making a move on a topic that is becoming more and more controversial and talked about, however I do not know if it should be passed without strict rules and guidelines. If it gets passed, I think it should only be limited to individuals with severe and diagnosed mental illness. Such as individuals with Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia, PTSD, and other severe mental illnesses. They have to be illnesses that greatly affect how the individual behaves. If a person is to be cleared of the death penalty for murder, they have to be mentally ill to the point that they do not understand their own actions and consequences.
Student #20,
I believe that legislation is making a controversial move. When dealing with the Death Penalty towards mental illness because anyone can clam they have a mental illness but with most states having there own laws how how mental illness is determined does not help the situation. I believe that if this legislation is passed it would have to have very specific rules. Such as people who have Schizophrenia or Alzheimer's or people who say have a very low IQ but I think that that needs to be the same number all around.
#16
Mental illness is a very broad term. This falls under an umbrella of ailments such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, PTSD ect... These also all have different levels of seriousness of the scale of mental illness. The line between mentally ill and insane is a finite line that the criminal justice system as not yet defined in in the court of law in America. That being said, yes the mentally ill do have chemical imbalances in their brain which causes them to act irrationally witch in theory is not their fault especially if they have not had access to adequate health care for their illness, or an improper response to a traumatic event. How believable this said illness is to the court and the jury differentiates trial by trial. People with mental illness should not be executed. The issue however is determining the level of mental illness we are willing to accept.
#2
I would support the Tennessee legislature in abolishing the death penalty for killer with mental illness. I think those covered by the prohibition is a perfect scope. The only thing that I can foresee as a problem would be what is classified as a mental illness, as a compelling argument can be made for some things to be classified as mental illness. I see this as something that should be a thing, but it must be done the right way for it not to be abused.
#8
I think the legislation is not the best idea because of how loose the definition of mental illness is. The mental illness in psychology so loose about being labeled to have mental illness and abolishing the death penalty would give a potential criminal who may or may not understand exactly what is correct not have to receive the punishment that someone without it would receive. Until their is a definitive definition about what exactly mental illness is and the scope for how significantly it plays a role in committing crimes and in the criminals are aware of the crime their are committing. If the judicial system was to expand their horizons and cover all those with mental illness or none at all then I could understand, but giving every person with a mental illness, despite how significantly the illness effects them, gives people who commit crimes a potential out even if they are not effected enough by the illness but they play it off as they are. This can save someone from having to get the death penalty. This is why I can not support the legislation until their is a specific definition for mental illness or the judicial system defines the scale for who would be considered for mental illness.
Student #6:
My opinion on the Tennessee legislature considering abolishing the death penalty for killers with mental illness is similar to my opinion on the previous comment. I do not believe having a mental illness should fully disqualify a killer from the death penalty, I believe it should be a mitigating factor that is taken very seriously. The reason I do not support fully disqualifying people with mental illness from the death penalty is that there are different levels of severity for all mental illnesses. If the individual’s mental illness is diagnosed as mild or moderate, then this should not affect the outcome of the trial, but of the diagnosis was severe, then it should be considered as a mitigating factor and be taken very seriously. Many mental illnesses do not have symptoms of violence.
I support abolishing the death penalty for killers with mental illness but only severe mental illnesses that would alter the knowing of surroundings of society or stop someone from knowing the difference of right from wrong. I also think that they would need to make sure that this could in fact happen to the individual at hand. Some may fake or lie about the situation to lessen their sentence. If legislation does do this I think that it will be good but it might have some negative and positive effects like anything else would.
Student #1
I support abolishing the death penalty for killers with mental illness but only severe mental illnesses that would alter the knowing of surroundings of society or stop someone from knowing the difference of right from wrong. I also think that they would need to make sure that this could in fact happen to the individual at hand. Some may fake or lie about the situation to lessen their sentence. If legislation does do this I think that it will be good but it might have some negative and positive effects like anything else would.
Post a Comment