Death Penalty Case Study: Dusky V. United States

The case study about Joe’s death row appeal gives a brief snapshot of the overall situation. In the study Joe complains about his quality of life and expresses that death is better than living like an animal. While no specifics were given about Joes crime or his living conditions, the study gives a clear picture of his possible options. Being that Life in prison or death are the only options available to Joe I expect his Living conditions to be sparse. Furthermore, conditions should include at minimum three hot meals, reasonable lodging, and adequate access to basic needs such as medical care. While the conditions might not meet Joe’s expectations if all items mentioned are provided, Joe’s quality of life would be considered basic, limited,
yet adequate considering he is incarcerated. As proven in Wellman v. Faulkner, the eight amendment protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment, which can only be deemed if basic human needs are being deprived or prisoners are treated with deliberate indifference (Jawetz,2008).
To find the legality, morality, and ethics behind preventing Joe from making his own decision one must first have to put the question into clear context.
To clarify one must first deem if Joe is capable to make his own decisions, secondly one must compare the outcome to the that of Dusky v. United States (University of Virginia) where the supreme court ruled that: a federal court in which criminal proceedings are pending to make a finding regarding the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, may not make a determination that an accused is mentally competent merely because he is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events; the test must be whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
The case study clearly states that while Joe is schizophrenic and has prior experiences where he could be deemed mentally unstable, he has shown to be able to communicate intelligently while completely understanding the legal ramifications of his actions. Thus, it would not be legal, moral, or ethical to prevent Joe from making his own
decision. Sally’s role as a social worker is to properly assess Joe’s condition, document, and advocate the best possible options without outside factors guiding her professional opinion. The ruling from Estelle v. Gamble, ensures that all prisoners get needed medical attention regardless of their legal status (Cornell Law School). Conversely, Ann must represent her clients wants and wishes to the best o her legal ability while not allowing her personal views or opinions to interfere. In this case Ann and Sally must work together to ensure that Joe is presented with the best information to make an educated decision. In Conclusion, Joe’s quality of life cannot be properly addressed from the information provide. The legality, morality, and ethics of preventing a person from deciding is directly related to person's’ mental state and ability to be regarded as competent. In Joe’s case, he is competent and should be allowed to make his own choice. Ann is an attorney, and should not let her own views hinder her ability to represent her clients. Sally is a social worker who needs to ensure outside pressured do not sway her assessments, in addition she must do what’s right in the situation not what her employer is asking.