Skip to main content

Capital Punishment and the Insane

In both English and U.S. history, it has been consistently argued that using capital punishment (execution) against someone who has been found insane is both “savage and inhuman;” and in 1986 the Supreme Court affirmed that belief by outlawing it. The belief is that someone can’t be responsible for his or her actions if that person doesn’t have control of himself or herself. This issue became important in what would become one of the most forgotten assassinations in U.S. history.

A man by the name of Charles Guiteau had campaigned for upcoming President James Garfield and, after the president’s election, tried to get a job under him. The problem was that he was completely unqualified for the job he wanted (a job with the U.S. Consulate in Paris). Having harassed the president’s secretaries for this position, Guiteau became such an annoyance to them that he was eventually banned from the White House. Guiteau seems to have taken this personally, and he blamed the president.

So, on July 2, 1881, while the president was walking through the waiting room of the Baltimore and Potomac train station in Washington, D.C., Guiteau approached from behind and, with revolver in hand, fired two shots. The first was a miss, grazing the president’s arm; but the second lodged into Garfield’s back, although not in a place that would have killed him. It was only later, after doctors inspected [burrowed inside] the wound with unwashed hands, did the president’s situation become more serious. Having contracted blood poisoning, and after only eighty days in office, President Garfield died.

At this point in the story, anyone would say Guiteau was certainly responsible for the president’s death, but what came next made that a little less clear. Part of Guiteau’s resulting trial focused on whether or not he was insane (he claimed God told him to kill the president; and during the trial had to be physically restrained and told to “shut his mouth” for his continuous outbursts). A doctor familiar with the insane was called as a witness and, during testimony, said he had been “probably insane” when he’d fired the two shots at the president. Because of his previous testimony claiming he was not insane, however, Guiteau was condemned. Being sentenced, he was hanged just under a year later (June 30, 1882).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...
Post a Comment
Read more

Experiment

My social studies students and I are studying Islam right now. The other day, we were reading about one of the Five Pillars, zakat (charity in Islam that means "that which purifies"). Muslims believe that giving away money helps to purify it and also "safeguards [them] against miserliness" (1). I asked the class if this was true, that giving money away makes us less greedy. They generally agreed that it does. I wanted to test whether or not they really believed this, so I handed a volunteer a $10 bill. I told the class that I would ask for the bill back the next day. I said that they should pass the bill around among their classmates, and that as a result, there would be no way for me to know who had the bill. For that reason, whoever wanted to keep the money could keep it. Even if I did learn who kept it, I told them, I would not punish that person. I wanted them to be motivated by their own honesty. The next day, I asked for the bill, and a student handed it to me...
Post a Comment
Read more