From the "You-couldn't-make-it-up" files:

[zotz]

Arkansas can force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic medication to make him sane enough to execute

The New York Times reports:
"Singleton presents the court with a choice between involuntary medication followed by an execution and no medication followed by psychosis and imprisonment," Judge Roger L. Wollman wrote for the majority in ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Judge Wollman said the first choice was the better one, at least when the drugs were generally beneficial to the prisoner.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I get all that. I even agree with most of it. But this guy has already acted in his own defense, back when he was still sane. And he has continued to do so by insisting that his victim is still alive (not only did he not do it, but neither did anyone else?) He was sensible of his actions when he committed the crime and was sane when he stood trial. And he was sane for the next *seven years*. (Pruno will do that.)

At the point where they're strapping you into the chair, you have pretty much lost the capability to act in your own defense regardless of your sanity (or for that matter, innocence).

I do understand the plight of the doctors, and I think our whole penal system is a train wreck. But my feelings about this particular case are that if the man was sane when he committed the murder, I don't see why he shouldn't be sane when he's executed. That he is now insane has not changed the circumstances under which he committed the crime.

The reason he shouldn't be executed is not because his mental state has changed, but because nobody should be executed.

(Then we get to argue over whether we should spend tax money on his meds when he's in prison for life anyway...)

-Ximena