Arkansas prepares to execute mentally ill inmate

CNN ^ | Tuesday, January 6, 2004 | Kevin Drew

[presidio9]

The voices inside Charles Singleton's head vary, in volume and number, regardless of whether he has taken medication for his schizophrenia. Inside his Arkansas cell, he says he can often hear voices that speak of killing him.

Singleton's attorney says his 44-year-old client welcomes the scheduled Tuesday night execution he faces, because he is tired of living with mental illness.

[Feckless]

That last voice that says: "Die MF!". That's the one you should listen to, scumbag.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
19	Ohio	305.00	7	43.57	440	0.69	552.25	16

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[No Blue States]

"According to a Gallup Poll taken in 2002, 75 percent of those surveyed opposed executing mentally ill inmates, while 19 percent supported it. The poll surveyed 1,012 Americans across the country May 6-9 of 2002."

Anyone who murders is mentally ill. If the mentally ill want to twirl their fingers through their hair constantly, or talk to doodle bugs fine.

But Murder someone and you should die.

Any sympathy for crazy people should end when they murder another person.

[theDentist]

Arkansas prepares to execute mentally ill inmate

Does this mean Bill Clinton's going to meet his lawyers again about another bimbo eruption?

[LibWhacker]

With any luck, someday soon FOX will drive a wooden stake through the hearts of those retards over on CNN.

[donozark]

Wonder if he will leave a piece of cake from his last meal on the bunk, so he can "come back" after his execution and eat it, as Ricky Ray Rector planned on doing? Bill Clinton even took time out from his busy campaign to see him "off..."

[boomop1]

Send in Bill Clintoon to pull the switch, he is good at that. Didn't he hurry back to Arkansas during first election to prove he was pro death penalty to approve the execution of another mentally ill convict?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

"According to a Gallup Poll taken in 2002, 75 percent of those surveyed opposed executing mentally ill inmates

Mental illess is no excuse in capital murder cases.

[ColdSteelTalon]

If you are truly mentally ill or have brain damage. Then you should not be put to death but kept in a hospital (a very secure one) for the rest of your natural life. We have done a disservice to the mentally ill in this country when we emptied our mental hospitals and put insane people on the streets.

[Spok]

"Inside his Arkansas cell, he says he can often hear voices that speak of killing him."

Well, he IS on death row...under the circumstances, just because he thinks someone is planning to kill him doesn't necessarily mean he's paranoid, does it?

[Cobra64]

"Arkansas prepares to execute mentally ill inmate"

Too bad Stainman was never jailed for his Arkancides. Then he'd be eligible for the same treatment.

[Tacis]

The same headline was used in this morning Dallas paper next to an article about a Texas inmate scheduled to die tonight.

Both infuriated me. The Arkie article because it should have read "Killer To Die," but instead focussed on some maliady he has, hangnails or whatever. The Texas article did the same thing but referred to "Inmate Convicted of Killing," as if they were not certain of whether he did it. Both are KILLERS and not matter how the ultra-left wing media HATES society to be judgmental, both should be dispathched as scheduled.

[Viet Vet in Augusta GA]

Charles Singleton?
Dang, I thought Slick Willie was finally going to get what he deserved...

[WhaddaboutThisOne?]

No, that's actually not quite the issue here.

We have to start with a bit of law here. Whether or not you agree with the law, here it is: you can't execute a criminal under U.S. law if the criminal is so insane that he doesn't understand what he's done or why he's being put to death. This is very old and well-settled law, that isn't likely to be overturned in the near future.

Thus the issue: Singleton is a paranoid schizophrenic. When he's not on medication for his mental illness, he DOES NOT understand why he's locked up or why he's sentenced to die. But when he's medicated, he does.

Singleton, like lots of schizophrenics, doesn't want to take his meds. Because he refused his meds, he was rendered unable to understand the reason for his punishment. Thus, he was also rendered unable to be put to death under the Constitution.

So Arkansas wanted to forcibly medicate him, as it couldn't carry out Singleton's sentence otherwise. The Supreme Court ruled a few months ago that it was ok for Arkansas to do so in the interest of Singleton's health and the welfare of others who come in contact with him (if Singleton is potentially dangerous due to his mental illness), even if it also has the effect of rendering him fit to be executed.

The issue is more complex than "killers oughta die." Rather, it gets at questions concerning what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. It also gets at questions at what's ethical for PHYSICIANS to do - note that a number of medical societies (such as, I think, the American Psychiatric Association) were opposed to letting Arkansas medicate Singleton in this circumstance. Among other issues, they noted that it would be unethical for a physician to administer medication to a prisoner in order to render him competent for execution, rather than for the improvement of his health (since that's the way they viewed it).

[Doctor Stochastic]

If it's legal to force-medicate people in order to kill them, is it legal to forc-medicate people in order to teach them?

[presidio9]

Both infuriated me. The Arkie article because it should have read "Killer To Die," but instead focussed on some maliady he has, hangnails or whatever. The Texas article did the same thing but referred to "Inmate Convicted of Killing," as if they were not certain of whether he did it. Both are KILLERS and not matter how the ultra-left wing media HATES society to be judgmental, both should be dispathched as scheduled.

I looked for a while, but was unable to find a picture of Mary Lou York anywhere on the internet. No article on Singleton mentioned her more than once and for more than one sentence.

[WhaddaboutThisOne?]

Your point being...?

[Devil_Anse]

We have done a disservice to the mentally ill in this country when we emptied our mental hospitals and put insane people on the streets.

I agree with you on that. (Aw, gee, but it seemed like such a good idea at the time..."It'th jutht not FAIR to incartherate thomeone when their only crime ith being ILL!" Never mind that being kept in a hospital was the best possible life for the severely mentally ill...)

But about executing them. I am certainly not in favor of executing someone merely b/c they are profoundly mentally ill--though I have been accused by a poison-pen disruptor of thinking that.

I'm just talking about profoundly mentally ill persons who have MURDERED someone. We hear, over and over again, how "taxpayers don't want to pay for the upkeep of criminals." Everybody gets all resentful when they talk about how government money is going to keep murderers, rapists, etc., fed and housed in prisons for life.

Personally, I don't begrudge one cent of my tax money going to keep serious criminals housed and fed, as long as they are NEVER let out. It's a far better use for my money than are most of the things politicians use it for.

But, I mean, since everyone is so outraged about paying out to keep criminals fed/housed/locked up, why would they not be equally put out about paying out to keep mentally ill murderers locked up? They should be, if they want to be consistent.

And so if most people agree that they don't want to pay out the wazoo to keep murderers in general fed/housed/locked up forever, they should also agree that they don't want to pay big bucks to keep mentally ill murderers fed/housed/locked up forever. Simple solution: execute those who are guilty of capital murder, whether they are mentally ill or not. It's the MURDER that matters.

To not want to execute an insane murderer, while condoning the execution of sane murderers, is counter-intuitive, to say the least. I'm not saying that's your position; I'm just telling you my position.

[Devil_Anse]

Thank goodness you have finally arrived on this forum to tell us all about the wisdom of the Law, and about what we, the unwashed, must strain our lesser minds to understand. And only yesterday, you blessed us by landing in our midst.

So naturally the doctors don't want to administer medication to the man if the medication will place him in a state in which he is in danger of being executed. Well, as the oath says, "First, do no harm..."

I wonder how doctors who abort developing humans justify themselves under that simple principle, "First, do no harm..."--I mean, considering that they are harming not only the developing fetuses, but the women carrying them. Isn't it funny how "THAT'S DIFFERENT, you see..."

Mental illness is a fluid enough state that there is a lot of room for disagreement on it, when more than one expert evaluates a single individual.

I'm so glad to see that the higher minds are very concerned about the ethics of physicians...........EXCEPT when it comes to... Oh, never mind, I won't go back into that digression...

I am aware that if an individual did not know right from wrong at the time of his crime, then he is not considered legally responsible for his crime. Isn't it funny, this man got convicted somehow--mental illness notwithstanding? Oh--must've been in one of his lucid periods. Hey, you know, those lucid periods, they come and go... no one but the individual can REALLY tell us just when he's lucid, and when he's not. How conveeeenient.