Ask a New Question
Menu

The ability to generate precise and accurate summaries of the relevant facts and conclusions is one of the most important skills in the legal field. Each of our Case Study or Short Analysis assignments allows us to practice that skill. Please answer the questions below based on any relevant material provided as well as any additional research you wish to do. To make grading easier, please number your responses but do not restate the questions. Make sure you include the number of the questions in your response. As always, review the grading rubric to ensure you are properly supporting and structuring your response.

No one should advocate littering the scenic Texas highways, but the Texas approach to capital punishment might warrant some review.

Applying the materials in this module, please explain whether or not you think states like Texas should be allowed to use experimental drugs for lethal injections.
Applying the materials in this module, please explain whether or not you think incarcerating an intellectually disabled prisoner for life amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Applying the materials in this module and any other research, please explain whether or not you think the incarceration of an intellectually disabled prisoner for life is consistent with the moral foundation of the United States. You can define the "moral foundation" in any way that you can support. Here are a couple of starting points Moral Foundation TheoryLinks to an external site. and The CATO InstituteLinks to an external site..

1 answer

  1. The issue of whether states like Texas should be allowed to use experimental drugs for lethal injections is complex and raises significant ethical, legal, and human rights considerations. The use of untested or experimental drugs in executions can lead to an increased risk of botched executions and unnecessary suffering for the condemned, which may violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, the lack of transparency and accountability in the procurement of such drugs raises questions about the overall fairness and humanity of the death penalty process. As a matter of principle, states should prioritize humane methods of execution that align with established medical and ethical standards. Therefore, it would be prudent for states like Texas to refrain from using experimental drugs for lethal injections and instead seek methods that ensure dignity and reduce the risk of pain and suffering.

  2. Incarcerating an intellectually disabled prisoner for life could indeed amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, especially considering the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which ruled that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Consequently, a life sentence without the possibility of parole may similarly be viewed as disproportionate and inhumane due to the cognitive limitations of the individual. The inability of an intellectually disabled person to fully understand their actions or the implications of their punishment raises serious ethical concerns regarding the fairness and morality of such sentences. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that incarcerating an intellectually disabled individual for life may constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

  3. The incarceration of an intellectually disabled prisoner for life does not align with the moral foundation of the United States, which emphasizes principles such as justice, equality, and respect for human dignity. The moral foundation can also be understood through the lens of compassion and the belief in the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for individuals who may not possess the cognitive capacity to comprehend their actions fully. By imposing life sentences on intellectually disabled individuals, society risks violating its own ethical standards and principles, as these individuals may lack the necessary understanding and intent typically required for punitive measures. Furthermore, the United States has a long-standing tradition of advocating for the rights of marginalized groups, including the disabled. Therefore, it is inconsistent with the nation's moral foundation to subject intellectually disabled prisoners to life imprisonment devoid of considerations of their unique circumstances and vulnerabilities.