Stephanie Probert Ethics Paper Comms 300 Media Ethics Whisenant Due: February 11, 2013

A judge has declared Ronell Wilson eligible for the death sentence for the murder of two New York City police officers. The case has been on hold for years, but was recently brought back into the media spotlight because there was speculation that Wilson might be considered mentally retarded, which would lessen his punishment. After numerous IQ tests, it was found that he is not retarded and is mentally capable and functional. If Wilson were declared mentally retarded it would have been illegal to sentence him to death because of the Eight Amendment, which would deem the sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. Wilson would also be covered by the Federal Death Penalty Act which states that a sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a person who is mentally retarded. Multiple issues can be identified from this case. Is the death penalty ethical? Does the state have the power to take lives of citizens? Can people claim mental illness to avoid punishment? Can the state put a number on someones intellectual ability? With all of these ethical issues, there is one that I will focus on in this paper. The ethical issue here is that some people are covered, while others are not, despite the fact that they all are not at a full mental capacity. According to Death Penalty Focus, mental illness is defined as any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or

other factors, such as infection or head trauma."1 Their website also says nearly all death row inmates suffer from brain damage due to illness or trauma, while a vast number have also experienced histories of severe physical and/or sexual abuse. Their research found that 5-10 percent of all inmates on death row suffer from a serious mental illness. Since the 1980s, more than 60 mentally ill or retarded criminals have been executed in the US. Current legislation makes it illegal for juvenile or mentally retarded individuals to be sentenced to execution. However, that leaves those who suffer rom other mental illnesses basically unprotected from the law. A principle that can be applied to this ethical issue is the non-consequential ethics theory. This theory states that that action itself should be the focus of the decisionmaking. It implies that actions taken are either right or they are wrong. In terms of this issue, some might take the approach that no matter who the person is, they should pay for their action because they did something that was wrong. Another way people may create their viewpoint on this issue is through use of the harm principle. This is John Stuart Mills principle which states, a persons liberty may justifiably be restricted only in order to prevent harm that the persons actions would cause to others, (p.94, Bivans). This means that the government is able to limit the freedom of any individual, or group, if they feel that they are likely to cause harm to society. Therefore, someone might view any person, despite their mental capacity, as a harmful threat to society and feel as though they should be removed. On the other hand, still applying the harm principle, others might say that those who are mentally incapable do not mean harm, thus lessening their punishment.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=53

With ethical issues such as this one it is extremely difficult to draw a fine line of what is acceptable and what is not. There are so many factors and each case is unique. However, applying ethical constructs can help us make hard ethical decisions.