What makes this case so interesting is that it kind of calls into question the fundamental purpose of justice among other things. Does the law serve to punish, or does it serve to rehabilitate? If the former is true, Madison should receive capital punishment regardless of his condition, but that sort of blurs the line when it comes to the mentally ill since Madison genuinely believes he "never went around killing folks." If the latter is true, however, then Madison in his current state poses no threat to society and has no malice, therefore rendering capital punishment pointless, which would then complicate many other cases.
What do you think? Any thoughts on this case in particular or the subject as a whole? Perhaps you have an opinion on the earlier question: Does the law serve to punish, or does it serve to rehabilitate?
30 comments:
The true purpose of justice is a mix of both. For the victim's family, it might be true that the purpose of justice is to punish the person who committed the murder of their loved one. However, justice does not purely exist to punish ("eye for an eye"); it also exists to rehabilitate (although this could be seen as possibly "rewarding" the person who committed the offense). However, there is an important function of justice that seems to have been forgotten: to serve as a deterrent to other people who might be thinking about committing the crime. In this case, if the Supreme Court had halted the execution, it would have opened the door for other people on death row to claim (truthfully or untruthfully) that they too have forgotten ever committing their crime in order to avoid execution.
I am very against the death penalty, and I think it ought to be abolished across the United States. For this case, under our current law though, I see no reason why Madison should not be executed. Amnesia is not a legal defense close to 30 years after the actual crime. Killing people is wrong, and to answer Brandon's question is most certainly the law attempting to punish wrongdoers. It's very much an "eye for an eye" style of justice, which leads to even more death. There is something to be said for the law serving functions even beyond punishment of wrongdoing, rehabilitation of criminals in that is also serves to protect the general public, by removing dangerous individuals from society. Can this be accomplished without killing people? I certainly think it could, therefore there is no reason to continue to execute people, especially not someone like Madison who can hardly be considered a danger to society when he is blind and need someone to help him walk around.
In this case, I believe the law should serve to rehabilitate. In some certain cases, it is near impossible to rehabilitate a criminal; in this case, however, Madison, as you stated, poses no threat to society. He did kill a man, but he has no recollection of this and has no intent on carrying out a second crime. What then is the point of capital punishment? But perhaps I'm putting too much good faith in a murderer. The fact that he once committed a murder could mean he (even without the memory of murder) could be willing to murder again.
Recently in the 20th century, a South African woman had both her husband and son shot to death by a white police officer. The white police officer shot the two men for the mere cruel, inhumane purpose of entertainment. No legislation in the white-dominated South African Apartheid at the time would ever have charged that white police officer with a crime. Decades later, Nelson Mandela came to power in South Africa and ended Apartheid, bringing forth the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to address horrible crimes upon blacks that were committed during the Apartheid. The South African woman went on trial against the white police officer. The white police officer admitted his guilt towards the crimes of murder. When the woman was asked how she would like the white police officer to be punished, she explained that since the officer had taken both her husband's and son's lives from her, she was very lonely now. She desired that the white police officer visit her from time to time, and live with her, acting as the role of the father/son whom she was missing.
This amazing, yet true anecdote goes to show that we can build a more simple, peaceful, beautiful society without having to rely upon capital punishment. It also goes to show that the true purpose of law ought to be rehabilitation rather than punishment. The inmate who forgot that he committed his crime should not have been executed.
I personally have mixed emotions regarding this case. While I feel bad for this inmate considering that he had disabilities and memory loss at the time of his execution, I also believe that these factors should not affect the death sentence he received for a crime he committed consciously. While I may sound cruel, think about it this way. If he did not have the disabilities he did, and he had just "freshly" committed the crime, would you not be more likely to support the capital punishment sentencing he received? Therefore, I ultimately agree with Meiling that the purpose of the justice system is to both punish and rehabilitate because while prisoners should be given "second chances," they should also not walk into prison thinking that they can eventually "get out easy" by proving things like amnesia, for instance (I am not trying to suggest that Vernon Madison was lying).
I am of the belief that whatever crime the inmate committed should be processed through a neutral-minded justice system. The inmate's memory loss does not change the fact that he committed a capital offense, and thus ought to face the appropriate punishment that accompanies such an offense. Rescinding the retribution that he is legally bound to would be perpetrating a gross moral inequity to the victim and the victim's family. Overall, I believe that the justice system is obligated to either punish or rehabilitate based on the case. This case, while some may believe treads the fine line between cruelty and justice, does not deserve the massive controversy it is receiving. The Court ought not to let emotions such as pity and sympathy cloud their judgement. Also, Frank, I would like to respectfully disagree by saying that the story you used as your example is not quite as wholesome as you painted it. It's actually quite disturbing that the woman wants to settle down with her family's killer, so I think it's actually a prime example of why capital punishment is sometimes necessary.
I agree with Emily and Meiling in finding the middle ground for this issue. I am against the death penalty, more so because it is disproportionately distributed punishment and other options aren't presented. But the world we live in is not as picture-perfect as the apartheid anecdote, nor is it such a devolved society that we resort to killing our fellow citizens to punish them. In extreme cases where the convicted criminal exhibits an eminent and pertinent threat to the safety of other citizens, such as a severe disconnect from society's moral ideals, I can see where the death penalty may be argued. However, because of the inherent bias within all of us, no jury nor judge can impartially sentence a convicted criminal to death.
In this case, the court's continuation of the death sentence despite Madison's mental and medical impairments can (and ought to be) be argued as cruel and unusual punishment. As Sam mentioned, he does not pose a threat to society, and while he may harbor the intention to kill again, he lacks the physical health to commit another heinous crime. He should remain in prison and receive medical rehabilitation, or be transferred to a rehab facility. In very few scenarios can one validly justify killing an impaired individual, no matter the individual's criminal history.
I really love Frank's story, and also believe that the goal of our justice system should be to promote peace and compassion in our society. If Madison no longer poses a threat to our society, and has changed dramatically following his strokes, he should be allowed to keep his own life. Killing a man who is now blind, unable to walk, and has no memory of his violent crimes only continues the culture of violence in our country.
I think that in this case, it is mostly unnecessary to execute Madison for his crimes, because, as stated above, he does not pose a real threat to society because of his numerous disabilities. While it is more costly, I agree with Juliet that Madison should have been able to stay in prison so that he would still face retribution for his crime. I think using such an extreme punishment of death on someone who has a very low chance of being a threat in the future would be unnecessary for the most part. On the other hand, choosing not to convict him for a crime he did commit could set a precedent for other inmates or courts to follow, like Meiling said. While I do agree with Diana that the Court's job is not to pity criminals, I think that even if the Court had instead decided to not convict Madison, it would not be out of pity, but out of the logic that Madison does not pose a criminal threat anymore, at least not enough that keeping him in jail would be a burden. However, I can see the logic in either decision, and find it hard to make a both moral and logical decision on what his punishment should have been.
In theory, American Law is for rehabilitation and justice as a whole, however it has become shockingly clear in the 21st century that this is no longer true. I believe it is unnecessary for Madison to be executed in this situation as he was no longer a threat to society. While I do not believe that it would be right to free him from incarceration but I do think that more time was taken to think about an appropriate advancement in this case would be as these circumstances are extremely unique and should have been responded to as such.
I believe that the point of punishment - whether it be jail time, fines, community service, or capital punishment - is to make sure citizens are safe. So, in this case I believe that Vernon Madison should not have been given capital punishment, but instead, get his sentence changed to life in prison. However, just because someone supposedly “learned their lesson,” they should not get their sentence changed. Instead they should, only change their sentence due to memory loss (or other medical conditions). If they were to change a lot of people’s sentences, criminals will just start to pretend that they learned their lesson, when in reality they just do not want capital punishment or they want a shorter sentence.
The whole point of the death penalty is to punish people who are a threat to society, Madison isn't one of those people anymore. With his current physical state, being blind, barely able to walk, having strokes and having no memory of what he did, he doesn't pose a threat to anyone anymore. He should be able to just die in prison fulfilling a life sentence instead a of capital punishment.
I understand why ending this man's life may not seem humane, as he can't walk, see or remember his crime, but at the same time this doesn't change what he did. As Meiling said, the justice system should also bring justice to the victim and their family. However, it does seem kind of unfair to punish someone who doesn't remember their own crime. In addition, he clearly is not a danger to anyone as he can't see or walk and he has clearly gone through some karma and in a way paid for his crime.
Although I would love for the law to go with rehabilitation in this case, and feel that there definitely is enough reason for the capital punishment to be cancelled, doing so might set a precedent for future inmates to fake amnesia. Because there's no way for us (yet) to read someone's mind, and questioning them probably won't be effective without torture, it's ultimately not possible for judges to let Madison off the hook.
In America, the death penalty has not actually caused that many deaths. There is a huge legal process involved in executing the criminal. The process is so long that the death penalty is basically unneeded as keeping prisoners indefinitely is basically just a normal prison. Concerning the case presented in this blog, I'm assuming that the psychoanalysts did not do much because of their dislike for the inmate. The criminal lost his ability to see, walk, and somewhat talk, but the judges still want to execute him. The criminal cannot remember his crime, meaning that he will be unable to repent for what he did. This case truly is raising a question of whether people should still be held for their crime even if they do not remember what they did. I think rehabilitation should come first if an incident does happen, and then the decision should be made.
In my opinion, the law acts as a deterrent to future crimes, and therefore should be a means of punishment. Society has determined these rules that must be followed, and should anyone be out of line, they would be properly dealt with. I believe that the man was still rightfully executed. Even if he doesn't remember, the family of the victims remember. The irreversible damage is still done even if he can't recall it. If he had been let free, it would let other would-be criminals think they can get off easy if they either pretend to not remember or to self inflict damage to their memories.
Frank gives an interesting example above, but I don't believe that can be generalized to all cases. This woman was able to forgive the officer and knew what she wanted, but this is not the case for all family members of victims of violence and murder. In these cases, perhaps the people who suffered a loss of family or other injuries should decide punishment years after the fact when things have changed. I don't think any of us are in a position to decide how much a murderer's life is worth or how much the victim's lives were worth. Ultimately, if someone is murdered, we'll never be able to know what they would have wanted for their killers, but the people closest to them have the responsibility to honor those who are dead on a case by case basis.
I think that the law should serve neither the purpose of punishment nor rehabilitation, but protection. Rehabilitation and justice should be taken into account but protection of citizens should be placed higher than both. In this situation, I think justice was plenty served without the execution. If the family of the victims are the one pushing for the execution, this makes them just as guilty as the criminal in the first place. They want he death of a harmless, defenseless man. Rehabilitation has also been achieved in his prison stay. Although it is clearly not a favorable way to rehabilitate, the result has been reached. I think that due to these reasons plus the fact that no one is in danger because of him anymore, the execution should have been called off. The death penalty is a deterrent and some would say that letting him off the hook would soften the deterrent, allowing more crime, but this is such a rare scenario that it cannot be used for that argument. If everyone had multiple strokes after committing murder, I would say that deterrent is just as powerful as the death penalty.
I love that you came up with the question of whether the justice system serves to punish or to rehabilitate. While ideally, the justice system ought to serve the nation by rehabilitating individuals and thus, help form a more civilized society, various cases have demonstrated the contrary. As a mentally ill man, the individual should be given serious medical help and I don't believe he should be put through death row. There are various other methods which the court can use to handle this situation, but by giving a seriously mentally ill man the death penalty, no justice is being served whatsoever. I am by no means defending this man's heinous actions and I am not arguing that he should receive no punishment at all, rather I am proposing that this case needs to be revised and a thorough investigation ought to be done.
This article reminded me of something that we briefly discussed during class. Should the justice system try to be consistent in its punishment of criminals, or should they consider each case case individually and go from there? There are difficult issues to consider on each side.
On one hand, trying to be fair by staying consistent might inherently be unfair. If the type of punishment used in a previous case (such as for murder) was not exactly the best way to go, then it should be changed and improved.
But on the other hand, if two people committed the same crime, shouldn't they both receive the same punishment?
In this special scenario, I believe that he should not have had to carry out his death sentence. At this point, he is no harm to society, as he cannot see, walk, or remember his murder. Because he poses as no threat, I do not see why he would still have to die from the death penalty; I would rather have him be given medical attention. I do understand that he did kill someone in the past, but I agree with Lydia in how the government should promote peace and compassion. If the government were to kill him too, it would go against this. Regarding the question of whether our justice system should either serve to punish or to rehabilitate, I believe that it is their job to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment, even though a mix of the two should be used.
I think that carrying out the death penalty was good, because even though he does not remember committing the crime, that doesn't change the fact that he did it. The government can promote peace by giving him the death penalty to show that if you commit the crime, you will receive the punishment. Also, to not punish him for what he did would steal justice from those close to who he murdered.
After reading this summary, I think about others who don't remember their crime. From what I have read, those who are drunk or "temporarily insane" can sometimes get away with crimes due to a lack of criminal intent. They as well do not remember crimes, and sometimes get off scotch free. I wonder if this man was put to death not on a justice sense, but on the grounds of him being a burden on society. If so, that would be a shame, but the outcome is justified. I do not believe in the death penalty, but I think once something is declared, follow though is important. I do not believe this man should have been put do death, because I believe the death penalty is an outdated form of punishment.
I don't think that Madison should have been executed. Our country should try to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and executing someone for killing someone else seems hypocritical to me. The death penalty is taking a human life away unnecessarily when, instead, a criminal can serve a life sentence where they won't be a threat to society. In Madison's case, he didn't even remember the murder and was deemed sane, so he didn't seem like a threat. While he should've still served time, maybe his sentence could've been reduced. But I definitely think it was wrong for him to have been executed.
I would like rehabilitation of criminals to be more present in our justice systems, but some crimes are just to heinous to not bring punishment to and those convicted are sometimes excellent liars. However, that's not the case for every criminal apprehanded, rightfully or wrongly done, so that shouldn't be held against all of them. I believe that this execution was justified, if it hadn't been done then I'm sure plenty of other death row inmates would have started claiming the same thing, not to say that in this persons case it wasn't true.
I always believe in rehabilitation. It's much more productive and less costly than punishment. However, they have to make the line clear. If this man is let of his sentence, it could serve as a signal to other convicts that there is an easy way to escape justice. Proper tests and procedures for this type of thing must be put firmly in place.
I think currently, the law serves to punish, as seen in this situation, where someone who should have been rehabilitated was punished instead. However, I strongly believe that the law needs to change to focus on rehabilitation instead. I also strongly disagree with the death penalty, so everything about this case feels wrong. The man clearly had gone through many physical setbacks, which have had an impact on his psychological abilities. Therefore, the justice system should be focusing on helping him rehabilitate instead of punishing him through execution. I think that if someone is going to jail for such a violent crime, there is some sort of psychological reason behind the crime that must be dealt with, and ideally, prison should help them understand it and better from it. However, they are generally punished instead, which does not lead to any progression. I think the law currently serves to punish but needs to shift so that it serves to truly rehabilitate.
In this case, the law obviously serves to punish because capital punishment doesn't rehabilitate. By the time someone receives the death penalty, they are written off as a danger to society and thought of as unable to be helped. I don't believe in the death penalty to begin with, but the fact that this man was effected so extensively by his strokes, makes me further disagree with his punishment. This is a really difficult case because doctors and scientists need to decide to what extent his personality was damaged by the strokes, and if he is even the same person as he was before. And, even the justice system decided against carrying out his sentence, what would they do with him? Would they keep him in prison for life for a crime he can't remember? Would/should they release him into society? It raises a lot of difficult questions.
I think in theory the law should be to rehabilitate those who committed minor crimes or those who have served their time and show remorse, but in reality our law serves to punish because it is more practical on the government's part. It is easier to lock someone up for their life or give them capital punishment than it is to help them reintegrate into society and ensure that they won't commit crime again. In terms of this case, it's hard to overturn a death penalty verdict because the man says he no longer remembers committing his crime. It is a very random circumstance without much prior experience to make a confident decision. I am tore on whether he should have received capital punishment, because his mental state doesn't erase his past, but he also doesn't remember it and would probably no longer be a threat to others.
This is a very interesting case indeed. In general, I am split between the law's purpose of either punishing or rehabilitating. While I do think that the law needs to serve as some sort of punishment, and that the sentence and punishment for breaking said law must always be carried onto the criminal, I also believe that after being convicted, the law must also help criminals rehabilitate and become better individuals. In this case, however, I think that I lean towards the punishment side of the law. From what I understand, the man DID murder people, and because of this, I think that he must be punished, no matter if he can actually remember committing the crime or not. If he was not executed, he was going to remain in jail for the rest of his life either way, because killing a cop in any state is a capital offense punishable by either life in prison or death. Because of this, while I really do support rehabilitation of criminals, there would be not point in attempting to rehabilitate Mr. Madison, since he was never going to be able to reenter society because of his life sentence. Also, from a health standpoint, what is there to rehabilitate with Mr. Madison? While he should still receive all medical attention necessary, based on his conditions, there is not much doctors can do to "rehabilitate" him and improve his health. Mentally, it also seems as if there is nothing to "rehabilitate" or improve, as he cannot remember any of the crimes that he committed. Overall, I feel a lot of pity for Mr. Madison and his condition and situation, but in this case, the law had to carry out the punishment that he deserved, despite if there was any potential to rehabilitate him.
Post a Comment