The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals - Essay Example

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals of the affiliation The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals The controversial issues in the case are evident, and the application of the law should be handled with care. The case has two major sides of consideration. The first concerns the rule of law, which in the State contends that capital murder should be served with punishment equating to execution. This is the only way that the rule of law can be upheld and justice served to the victim of the murderous act.

Conversely, it would be absurd to execute an insane individual who has no mental capacity to comprehend his actions or the case for punishment (Kanady, 2006, p. 34). To the extent that drugs are used to treat individuals to get better, it would contradict the health practitioners’ code of ethics to prepare the individual for death. Further, this case is strengthened by the reality a case for execution cannot be substantiated after realization of insanity while in prison. The initial crime committed by Singleton is supposed to take charge in this case and he should be given the antipsychotic drugs ready for execution.

The essential claim premise would dictate that the claims of such an argument be supported by a plausible claim within the rubric of written laws. The claim made on the execution of Singleton is strictly supported by the written laws in the constitution (LaFave, & LaFave, 2006, p. 91). Given the fact that he committed the crime insane conditions, he is presumed to have had full knowledge of the implications of his actions at the time. In this perspective, a case for insanity that happened thereafter cannot be used to reverse a stipulated law to relinquish the previous charges.

Singleton should be restored to his sane sense to realize the events of the proceedings to his execution. From the fact that the law recognizes equity to all citizens, pardoning Singleton overruns the rights of the innocent individual whose life was cut short by Singleton’s action. Actually, Singleton did not consider his actions even when he was sane, and a medical antipsychotic would only restore his senses to understand the charges as he faces the consequences of his actions. An objection to the above argument would be based on the health practitioner’s duty to protect life.

Given that the intentions of any actions dictate whether the deed is good or bad, it would be plausible to assume that treating Singleton with the intention of execution after recovery is bad. Medicine should be administered with the sole intentions of getting individuals better and relieving them of pain to realize better lives. Further, it is evident that Singleton has a right of determination despite his sentence, and given the fact that he is psychologically inept of giving an opinion of what to be done; such an action would contravene his personal rights before the law (LaFave, & LaFave, 2006, p. 81). Subjecting the above objection in the eyes of clear scrutiny implies that the intention or motive is clear and well deserved.

The intention, according to this case is to seek the rights of the innocent individual who was murdered, and if this reasoning is anything to go by, the action is good. In addition, protection of the Singleton’s personal rights of determination overrules the fact the protection of the slain individual, who was not given a chance by the convicted individual to determine his unfortunate fate (Kanady, 2006, p. 57). The law should cover all individuals equally and protecting their rights equally in this scenario.

ReferencesKanady, J. (2006). Capital offenses. Seattle, WA: Literary Road Publication. LaFave, W. R., & LaFave, W. R. (2006). Criminal law. St. Paul, Minn: West Pub. Co.