Death Penalty

I found this editorial in the New York Times. It’s titled A Schizophrenic on Death Row. I was unable to determine the author.It briefly highlights a case in Florida where a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia has been given an execution sentence andthen describes how this action violates his constitutional rights. John Ferguson was on trial due to murders he committed. The Florida Supreme Court decided on Wednesday, October 17 to allow the state to proceed with his execution for next week. His lawyers stated that they will be asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. A few things that stood out to me; the editorial states that the U.S. Supreme Court would have to review the case because there are two different interpretations of what constitutes competence betweenwhat the state of Florida says and what the Supreme Court says. The Supreme Court ruled that it would be unconstitutional to execute someone who doesn’t have the ability to comprehend the penalty, but Florida requires the accused to have only an awareness of the penalty.  

​ The authors intended audience is assumedly those that are somehow related to those with mental disabilities, more specifically schizophrenia, and those that may have strong feelings about the death penalty.  For the audience that have someone in their lives with a mental disability, this is a very sensitive issue that can stir up heart breaking emotions, but those that have strong opinions either for or against the death penalty are the ones that will possibly be more vocal about their opinions on the matter at hand. The author does well to argue against the death penalty in this particular case. He or she argues that the test Florida does to determine awareness is “plainly inadequate” because the level of understanding needed for the situation is not possible by Mr. Ferguson’s delusions and that “mistaken findings” from such tests have allowed states to execute many people with mental disabilities. He or she also argues that theU.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is the “law of the land” and should extend to Florida laws. In the closing comments, the author clearly states that the Supreme Court has an obligation to explain the different standards of Florida and the Supreme Court and how Florida is in clear violation and that they should stop the execution.

​I’m pretty sure I’m against the death penalty. I don’t believe men should decide whether a man should live or die unless that person is putting others in immediate danger, such as in self-defense. And I believe it’s just too easy of an out. If undecided, I would say that if there is any doubt at all that the accused does not understand or comprehend what is going on then they should not go to the extremes of execution.  Regardless, I agree with the author. Ialso think this editorial definitely makes those that are adamantly for the death penalty rethink their stance on it.