Connecticut Supports State-sponsored Suicide
A Civilized Society Should Be Committed to Treating Its Mentally Ill, Not Executing Them
On May 13, 2005, the state of Connecticut engaged in state-sponsored suicide. On that fateful day, convicted serial killer Michael Ross died by lethal injection upon his request. Ross vehemently fought off attempts by public defenders and his own family members to appeal his case and block his execution. Ross got his death wish.
Some may regard this as an efficient way to deal with Ross. After all, he had confessed to the crimes of which he was accused, and he spared the state the expense of a potentially lengthy appeals process. However, aside from the usual arguments by death penalty opponents, in this case the state may have failed to adequately consider Ross's mental state.
Psychiatric evaluations gave mixed results. Ultimately, a superior court judge pronounced him competent despite compelling evidence to the contrary, and Ross was hastily put to death.
Do we really want to be so quick to risk erring on the side of death?
The execution of a person with a mental illness is clearly prohibited by international law. In April 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all states that maintain the death penalty "not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder."
Despite this international convention, however, in recent years Texas, Florida, Alabama, and Missouri have executed convicts who had been diagnosed with mental illness. Now, by rushing to execute Michael Ross, Connecticut may have joined this dark league.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. Then, on March 1, 2005, it banned the execution of juvenile offenders who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. I hope that someday it will also ban the execution of the mentally ill.
If we are to consider ourselves to be a culture of life, a culture of decency, and a culture of morality, we must progress beyond this culture of revenge and this culture of executing the ill whom we somehow judge to be disposable. If we get there, perhaps the U.S. can regain some respect amongst our European counterparts, most of whom have long since abolished the death penalty in their countries and view our rentionist policies as backward and barbaric.
Human Rights Watch has estimated that as many as 10 percent of death row inmates suffer from a serious mental illness. The organization stated in a 2003 report that "mental illnesses are very different disorders than mental retardation, but they still may cause lapses in judgment, inappropriate or dangerous behavior, and interfere with a person's ability to think clearly and make sound decisions. It is as cruel and senseless to execute those who are mentally ill as it is to execute those with mental retardation."
Most of the world's democracies, and even some dictatorships, agree.
A civilized society should be committed to treating its mentally ill, not executing them.
Some may regard this as an efficient way to deal with Ross. After all, he had confessed to the crimes of which he was accused, and he spared the state the expense of a potentially lengthy appeals process. However, aside from the usual arguments by death penalty opponents, in this case the state may have failed to adequately consider Ross's mental state.
Psychiatric evaluations gave mixed results. Ultimately, a superior court judge pronounced him competent despite compelling evidence to the contrary, and Ross was hastily put to death.
Do we really want to be so quick to risk erring on the side of death?
The execution of a person with a mental illness is clearly prohibited by international law. In April 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all states that maintain the death penalty "not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder."
Despite this international convention, however, in recent years Texas, Florida, Alabama, and Missouri have executed convicts who had been diagnosed with mental illness. Now, by rushing to execute Michael Ross, Connecticut may have joined this dark league.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. Then, on March 1, 2005, it banned the execution of juvenile offenders who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. I hope that someday it will also ban the execution of the mentally ill.
If we are to consider ourselves to be a culture of life, a culture of decency, and a culture of morality, we must progress beyond this culture of revenge and this culture of executing the ill whom we somehow judge to be disposable. If we get there, perhaps the U.S. can regain some respect amongst our European counterparts, most of whom have long since abolished the death penalty in their countries and view our rentionist policies as backward and barbaric.
Human Rights Watch has estimated that as many as 10 percent of death row inmates suffer from a serious mental illness. The organization stated in a 2003 report that "mental illnesses are very different disorders than mental retardation, but they still may cause lapses in judgment, inappropriate or dangerous behavior, and interfere with a person's ability to think clearly and make sound decisions. It is as cruel and senseless to execute those who are mentally ill as it is to execute those with mental retardation."
Most of the world's democracies, and even some dictatorships, agree.
A civilized society should be committed to treating its mentally ill, not executing them.
Published by Mary Shaw
Philadelphia-based writer, editor, and communications consultant. More info here: http://www.maryshawonline.com/ View profile
- US Refuses to Join UN Human Rights Council Over Lack of CredibilityU.N. Human Rights Council has been described as not credible by United States who have refused to join or hold a seat on the newly formed Human Rights Council
- Mental Illness, Rising Rates and What They Really MeanDeconstructs the rise of mental illness in America, and examines causes other than a general decline in American mental Health. Provides interesting facts and statistics about mental illness at home and abroad, and o...
Doctor's Oath Kills Death Penalty in North CarolinaTo resolve problems of cruelty with the death penalty the NC State Legislature required a doctor to monitor the prisoner. The State Medical Board determined that a doctor cannot...- Studies Indicate that the Death Penalty Deters Potential MurderersA series of studies indicate that the death penalty deters potential murderers, although advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have disputed the results of the studies.
- The Death Penalty is Never JustifiableThe death penalty actually increases criminal activity and does not serve as a deterrant.
- Ohio's Capital Punishment: Why it Took 2 Hours for a Man to Die
- Females on Death Row
- Capital Punishment: Die Scum Die!
- Making Human Rights a Global Reality
- How Long Does an Inmate Spend on Death Row?
- Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual?
- Still on Texas Death Row, Despite Confession from Co-Defendant
- Amnesty International USAHuman Rights WatchCampaign to End the Death Penalty
- On May 13, 2005, Connecticut executed convictged serial killer Michael Ross.
- Many believed that Michael Ross was suffering from a serious mental illness, but the courts quickly dismissed that evidence, and may have risked erring on the side of death.
- If we are to consider ourselves to be a culture of life, a culture of decency, and a culture of morality, we must progress beyond this culture of revenge and this culture of executing the ill whom we somehow judge to be disposable.
The United States is the only western democracy that still uses the death penalty.