Thought on the Case
Looking at this case, I think the Supreme Court acted in the right way to allow the officials to administer drugs on a convicted murderer in order to make him sane for execution. Reasonably, the only way ensure a man with mental illness gains sanity prior to being executed in by putting him on medication.
Practice Justified
The practice is justified because it is only meant to ensure that convicted murderers face justice. From the look of things, some lawyers representing the defendant tend to use mental sickness to defeat justice. For instance, Charles Laverne Singleton was heard arguing that, the drugs will not be medically helpful, since they were only intended to see execution happen (Lewis, 2003). However, from an ethical perspective, doctors have deemed the idea as an obstacle to them, considering it permits nonmedical individuals to administer treatment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cruel and Unusual punishment
The act does not fall under the category of cruel and unusual punishment. In 1986, the Supreme Court had issued a judgment, that any attempt to execute mentally challenged inmates was prohibited under Eighth Amendment's, which dismisses such act as cruel and unusual punishment (Lewis, 2003). The law requires that, prior to any execution; the convict is supposed to be made aware of the punishment they are likely to suffer and reasons for the same. However, in the case of Charles Laverne Singleton, there is no violation of law since Arkansas officials sort the court’s intervention prior to executing him (Lewis, 2003). In addition, the officials were determined to put the convict under medication to gain sanity. In that sense, the act does not fall under cruel and unusual punishment.
References
Lewis, N.a. (2003). Justices let stand ruling that allows forcibly drugging an inmate before execution. New York Times.
