Argumentative Analysis: Death Penalty System
James Gragnano 10/19/12
Criminal Justice 202
Legal Research Sophia Snyder has had a long history of battling with the mental illness of schizophrenia. One afternoon, she drowned her four young children in a bathtub. She went on trial for capital murder charges and all of the mental health experts agreed that she suffered from schizophrenia when she had committed the murders but they all disagreed that the schizophrenia left her unable to know the difference between right and wrong. The state of Olympus implements and uses the M’Naghten test for insanity which requires the defendant to prove that she did not know the quality and nature of her acts and did not know in acting such a way was wrong. Since the mental health experts …show more content…
testified that they do not agree that her schizophrenia hindered her ability to know her actions were wrong, the State of Olympus denied her defense of insanity and was sentenced to punishment by way of the death penalty. On appeal, Sophia Snyder argued to the Supreme Court that the 8th Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishments” clause prohibits the execution of a serious mentally ill offender who does not qualify for the insanity defense under state law. The Supreme Court should not accept the appeal that her 8th Amendment rights are being violated and that Sophia Snyder should be sentenced to death for the crimes she has committed. An argument for this claim can be based off of the way in which the 8th Amendment is written and the way in which capital punishment statues have ben set up over time. The death penalty, or capital punishment, is something that has forever been changing and challenged throughout the history of American criminal justice. The Supreme Court has dealt with various court cases to try and establish a well written and decisive statue as too when the death penalty is applicable. They tried to word it in a way so a citizens constitutional rights that are not violated under the 8th Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” statue. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court stated “capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution.” (Entzeroth, 2011) In other words, this means that the Supreme Court tries to only apply the death penalty to those criminals who have committed the most heinous of homicidal crimes, and only to the ones that had full, exceptional knowledge of how wrong their actions were.
(Entzeroth 2011) The death penalty in the United States can be inconsistent and is a highly controversial subject. One Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia believes “the resolution to the constitutional inconsistencies and internal incompatibility of the modern U.S. death penalty system is to eliminate the constitutional requirement of discretion.” (Entzeroth, 2011) In other words, Justice Scalia believes that in order to fix the debates and inconsistency of death penalty rulings that the Supreme Court should follow the statues and requirements for sentencing someone to the death penalty. He believes that taking discretion or the power to make a judgment based on circumstantial evidence away from courts and following strictly to the statues of the death penalty is the only plausible way to end inconsistency with administering the death penalty. Take the death penalty as it is written and do not be biased to mitigating factors. (Akron Entzeroth, 2011) That being stated, it is next important to understand the …show more content…
requirements and restrictions for administering the death penalty. As earlier stated, “capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution.” (Entzeroth, 2011) The restrictions to the death penalty are as follows. “The Supreme Court holds that the death penalty cannot be constitutionally imposed on someone who is mentally retarded”, as it violates the rights protected under the 8th Amendment (Entzeroth, 2011) (Mattimore, 2012) This ruling was confirmed and established with the court case of Atkins v. Virginia. (Atkins v Virginia, 2001) (Mattimore, 2012) The Supreme Court “holds that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the use of the death penalty as punishment for crimes committed when an offender was under the age of eighteen”(DeNunzio, 2006) This holding was affirmed in the court case Roper v Simons. (Roper v Simmons, 2005) The Supreme Court holds that in order for the death penalty to be sentenced to a defendant, they must be competent as affirmed in the court case of Missouri v Johns. (Missouri v Johns, 2000) Lastly the Supreme Court holds that it is a violation of one’s 8th amendment rights to issue the death penalty to those who are mentally ill at the time of their crime as supported by the court case of Ford v Wainwright. (Ford v Wainwright, 1977) These statues and court cases will further prove why Sophia Snyder should be found guilty and should be punished by way of the death penalty. Sophia Snyder should be brought to justice and held criminally responsible for her actions of homicide by means of capital punishment. Reason one being that Sophia Snyder is a fully competent human being. There is no violation of her 8th amendment rights under the statue of competency as it pertains to capital punishment. Similarly the Supreme Court held that in the case of Johns v State of Missouri that “Defendant is competent to stand trial when he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”(Missouri v Johns, 2000) Although Johns may have had mental illness, as did Sophia, the Supreme Court at this time only cares to see if the defendant is “competent” to stand trial. If they are, which Sophia is, than the death penalty is still an acceptable punishment and does not infringe on her 8th amendment rights. Capital Punishment is reserved for those people who have committed the most heinous of crimes. Sophia Snyder brutally murdered her own children by drowning them. The Death Penalty is strictly applied to those who have murdered. In order to be condemned to death by the United States, you must have killed. This has been backed by the Supreme Court case of Coker v. Georgia. In this case, a man was sentenced to death for rape. The Supreme Court established it is “grossly disproportional” and “excessive punishment” to sentence a man to death if he has not killed. The crime must fit the punishment and in Sophia Snyder’s case, it certainly does. (Coker v Georgia, 1977) Next it is important to look at the insanity statue of capital punishment. The Supreme Court held in Ford v Wainwright “that the execution of the insane is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and clarified that a state cannot execute someone who is unable to rationally understand either the reason for or the reality of his execution.”(Entzeroth, 2011) (Ford v Wainwright, 1977) It is a violation of the 8th amendment to execute someone who was insane at the time of his or her execution, but Sophia Snyder was not found insane in her state level court. Olympus uses the M’naghten test, and Sophia does not qualify as insane under this test. There for the death penalty does not infringe on her 8th amendment rights, and her appeal to the Supreme Court should be void. Sophia should be sentenced to death for her crimes.
It is a violation of the 8th amendment to sentence a mentally retarted person to death as upheld in the court case Atkins v Virginia. (Atkins v Virginia, 2001) Since Sophia is not retarted this does not violate her 8th amendment rights. Some may raise the idea that a person with serious mental health issue, and a mentally retarded person both have diminished capacity to understand nature of their crimes and punishment. This argument may have some truth, but the Constitution has absolute truth. The constitution holds that although a person may have severe mental illness, it is not a violation to execute them for their crimes. It is however, a violation to execute the mentally retarded, because they have no capacity to consistently understand their actions, and consequences. (Atkins v Virginia, 2001)
Lastly its important to note the fact that the 8th amendment protects juveniles or people under the age of 18 to be executed as seen in Roper v Simmons (Roper v Simmons, 2005) Sophia Snyder is over the age of 18 and thus still qualifies for the death penalty on this basis. It would not be a violation of her 8th amendment rights to sentence her to death. It is of no legal significance that a person with a mental illness and a juvenile have the same diminished capacity. The constitution must be followed as it has been written. Therefore Sophia Snyder still qualifies for the death penalty. Although the death penalty is a source of controversy and inconsistency, if the Supreme Court follows its statues of capital punishment strictly without discretion, then Sophia Snyder’s 8th amendment right have not been violated and she should be sentenced to death.
It may be morally wrong due to the fact that she does in fact have a serious mental illness, but since she never passed the test for insanity in her state, she is considered eligible and no rights have been broken. This coupled with the fact that she is a fully competent person at the time of her trial only further go on to prove that she is deserving of the death penalty. As unfair and harsh as the death penalty may be its statues must be followed strictly with out discretion. It is the only way to ensure that there is more consistency, and that no rights are violated under the 8th Amendment. (Entzeroth,
2011)
References
Atkins v. Virginia. U.S 991. (2001)
Coker v. Georgia, U.S 584. (1977)
DeNunzio, D. (2006). Roper v Simmons. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 369. Retrieved 17 October 2012, from Westlaw database.
Entzeroth, L. (2011). The Challenge and Dilema of Charting a Course to Constitutionally Protect the Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant from the Death Penalty. Akron Law Review, 529 Retrieved 15 October 2012, from Westlaw database.
Ford v. Wainwright. U.S 926. (1977)
Mattimore, J. (2012). The Death Penalty and the Mentally Ill. Retrieved 17 October 2012, from Westlaw database.
Missouri v. Johns. U.S 34. (2000)
Roper v. Simmons. U.S 543. (2005)
Criminal Justice 202
Legal Research Sophia Snyder has had a long history of battling with the mental illness of schizophrenia. One afternoon, she drowned her four young children in a bathtub. She went on trial for capital murder charges and all of the mental health experts agreed that she suffered from schizophrenia when she had committed the murders but they all disagreed that the schizophrenia left her unable to know the difference between right and wrong. The state of Olympus implements and uses the M’Naghten test for insanity which requires the defendant to prove that she did not know the quality and nature of her acts and did not know in acting such a way was wrong. Since the mental health experts …show more content…
testified that they do not agree that her schizophrenia hindered her ability to know her actions were wrong, the State of Olympus denied her defense of insanity and was sentenced to punishment by way of the death penalty. On appeal, Sophia Snyder argued to the Supreme Court that the 8th Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishments” clause prohibits the execution of a serious mentally ill offender who does not qualify for the insanity defense under state law. The Supreme Court should not accept the appeal that her 8th Amendment rights are being violated and that Sophia Snyder should be sentenced to death for the crimes she has committed. An argument for this claim can be based off of the way in which the 8th Amendment is written and the way in which capital punishment statues have ben set up over time. The death penalty, or capital punishment, is something that has forever been changing and challenged throughout the history of American criminal justice. The Supreme Court has dealt with various court cases to try and establish a well written and decisive statue as too when the death penalty is applicable. They tried to word it in a way so a citizens constitutional rights that are not violated under the 8th Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” statue. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court stated “capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution.” (Entzeroth, 2011) In other words, this means that the Supreme Court tries to only apply the death penalty to those criminals who have committed the most heinous of homicidal crimes, and only to the ones that had full, exceptional knowledge of how wrong their actions were.
(Entzeroth 2011) The death penalty in the United States can be inconsistent and is a highly controversial subject. One Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia believes “the resolution to the constitutional inconsistencies and internal incompatibility of the modern U.S. death penalty system is to eliminate the constitutional requirement of discretion.” (Entzeroth, 2011) In other words, Justice Scalia believes that in order to fix the debates and inconsistency of death penalty rulings that the Supreme Court should follow the statues and requirements for sentencing someone to the death penalty. He believes that taking discretion or the power to make a judgment based on circumstantial evidence away from courts and following strictly to the statues of the death penalty is the only plausible way to end inconsistency with administering the death penalty. Take the death penalty as it is written and do not be biased to mitigating factors. (Akron Entzeroth, 2011) That being stated, it is next important to understand the …show more content…
requirements and restrictions for administering the death penalty. As earlier stated, “capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution.” (Entzeroth, 2011) The restrictions to the death penalty are as follows. “The Supreme Court holds that the death penalty cannot be constitutionally imposed on someone who is mentally retarded”, as it violates the rights protected under the 8th Amendment (Entzeroth, 2011) (Mattimore, 2012) This ruling was confirmed and established with the court case of Atkins v. Virginia. (Atkins v Virginia, 2001) (Mattimore, 2012) The Supreme Court “holds that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the use of the death penalty as punishment for crimes committed when an offender was under the age of eighteen”(DeNunzio, 2006) This holding was affirmed in the court case Roper v Simons. (Roper v Simmons, 2005) The Supreme Court holds that in order for the death penalty to be sentenced to a defendant, they must be competent as affirmed in the court case of Missouri v Johns. (Missouri v Johns, 2000) Lastly the Supreme Court holds that it is a violation of one’s 8th amendment rights to issue the death penalty to those who are mentally ill at the time of their crime as supported by the court case of Ford v Wainwright. (Ford v Wainwright, 1977) These statues and court cases will further prove why Sophia Snyder should be found guilty and should be punished by way of the death penalty. Sophia Snyder should be brought to justice and held criminally responsible for her actions of homicide by means of capital punishment. Reason one being that Sophia Snyder is a fully competent human being. There is no violation of her 8th amendment rights under the statue of competency as it pertains to capital punishment. Similarly the Supreme Court held that in the case of Johns v State of Missouri that “Defendant is competent to stand trial when he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”(Missouri v Johns, 2000) Although Johns may have had mental illness, as did Sophia, the Supreme Court at this time only cares to see if the defendant is “competent” to stand trial. If they are, which Sophia is, than the death penalty is still an acceptable punishment and does not infringe on her 8th amendment rights. Capital Punishment is reserved for those people who have committed the most heinous of crimes. Sophia Snyder brutally murdered her own children by drowning them. The Death Penalty is strictly applied to those who have murdered. In order to be condemned to death by the United States, you must have killed. This has been backed by the Supreme Court case of Coker v. Georgia. In this case, a man was sentenced to death for rape. The Supreme Court established it is “grossly disproportional” and “excessive punishment” to sentence a man to death if he has not killed. The crime must fit the punishment and in Sophia Snyder’s case, it certainly does. (Coker v Georgia, 1977) Next it is important to look at the insanity statue of capital punishment. The Supreme Court held in Ford v Wainwright “that the execution of the insane is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and clarified that a state cannot execute someone who is unable to rationally understand either the reason for or the reality of his execution.”(Entzeroth, 2011) (Ford v Wainwright, 1977) It is a violation of the 8th amendment to execute someone who was insane at the time of his or her execution, but Sophia Snyder was not found insane in her state level court. Olympus uses the M’naghten test, and Sophia does not qualify as insane under this test. There for the death penalty does not infringe on her 8th amendment rights, and her appeal to the Supreme Court should be void. Sophia should be sentenced to death for her crimes.
It is a violation of the 8th amendment to sentence a mentally retarted person to death as upheld in the court case Atkins v Virginia. (Atkins v Virginia, 2001) Since Sophia is not retarted this does not violate her 8th amendment rights. Some may raise the idea that a person with serious mental health issue, and a mentally retarded person both have diminished capacity to understand nature of their crimes and punishment. This argument may have some truth, but the Constitution has absolute truth. The constitution holds that although a person may have severe mental illness, it is not a violation to execute them for their crimes. It is however, a violation to execute the mentally retarded, because they have no capacity to consistently understand their actions, and consequences. (Atkins v Virginia, 2001)
Lastly its important to note the fact that the 8th amendment protects juveniles or people under the age of 18 to be executed as seen in Roper v Simmons (Roper v Simmons, 2005) Sophia Snyder is over the age of 18 and thus still qualifies for the death penalty on this basis. It would not be a violation of her 8th amendment rights to sentence her to death. It is of no legal significance that a person with a mental illness and a juvenile have the same diminished capacity. The constitution must be followed as it has been written. Therefore Sophia Snyder still qualifies for the death penalty. Although the death penalty is a source of controversy and inconsistency, if the Supreme Court follows its statues of capital punishment strictly without discretion, then Sophia Snyder’s 8th amendment right have not been violated and she should be sentenced to death.
It may be morally wrong due to the fact that she does in fact have a serious mental illness, but since she never passed the test for insanity in her state, she is considered eligible and no rights have been broken. This coupled with the fact that she is a fully competent person at the time of her trial only further go on to prove that she is deserving of the death penalty. As unfair and harsh as the death penalty may be its statues must be followed strictly with out discretion. It is the only way to ensure that there is more consistency, and that no rights are violated under the 8th Amendment. (Entzeroth,
2011)
References
Atkins v. Virginia. U.S 991. (2001)
Coker v. Georgia, U.S 584. (1977)
DeNunzio, D. (2006). Roper v Simmons. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 369. Retrieved 17 October 2012, from Westlaw database.
Entzeroth, L. (2011). The Challenge and Dilema of Charting a Course to Constitutionally Protect the Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant from the Death Penalty. Akron Law Review, 529 Retrieved 15 October 2012, from Westlaw database.
Ford v. Wainwright. U.S 926. (1977)
Mattimore, J. (2012). The Death Penalty and the Mentally Ill. Retrieved 17 October 2012, from Westlaw database.
Missouri v. Johns. U.S 34. (2000)
Roper v. Simmons. U.S 543. (2005)