The Supreme Satirist

[goofyfish]

My theory is that God is actually Dean Swift. Who else could create a world capable of producing this headline: "State Can Make Inmate Sane Enough to Execute."

The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled yesterday that officials in Arkansas can force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic medication to make him sane enough to execute. Without the drugs, the prisoner, Charles Laverne Singleton, could not be put to death under a United States Supreme Court decision that prohibits the execution of the insane. (Full text here – free registration required)

Like all newspapers, the New York Times makes an absurd little bow to the notion of judicial neutrality by not identifying federal judges as Republican or Democratic appointees. Anyone interested in discovering this enormously relevant point about U.S. judges named in the news has to go to this site. In the present case, the two identified dissenters were named by Presidents Carter and Johnson. The majority opinion was written by a Reagan appointee.

The bad news is that six federal judges reached a decision that was insane on the face of it. Or, as the lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur. The good news is that five other federal judges dissented. These days, we should be thankful that any crumbs of sanity fall from the bench at all.

:m: Peace.

 

[Tiassa]

Consolation

Two points come leaping to mind:

- Human diversity being what it is, I would assert that sooner or later we had to answer the question of whether or not you can heal someone if your only purpose is to make them well enough to kill. I mean, if humanity evolved long enough, it would necessarily have to undertake the question.

- There is no guarantee that we will ever get any question answered correctly. And certainly no guarantee they'll get it right in 2003 in the United States of America.

Not much consolation, I admit. But there it is.

:m:,
Tiassa