.svg)
.svg)
On the books in Louisiana is a rarely noted law that provides for a mandatory death penalty in certain circumstances. The law was designed to deter people from selling crack, but was applied in the case of the death of Flavia “Cathy” Cardenas, 19, who died in July 2013 after overdosing on a deadly cocktail of substances, among them heroin and cocaine.
Her boyfriend at the time, Jarret McCasland, 27, was arrested for his role in her death and ultimately found guilty of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, but appealed the conviction based on the notion that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The judge disagreed, saying that it was a necessary response to the crime in order to protect others who might be harmed by him in the future and maintained the sentence.
Was this a fair trial? A reasonable verdict? What responsibility does someone bear when giving someone drugs?
A Fair Law?
McCasland was the first in East Baton Rouge to be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility for parole, probation, or suspended sentence for second-degree murder under that particular provision. His lawyer, Rodney Messina, argued in a motion that the law itself is outdated and that nowhere else in the country would McCasland have received such a sentence.
Assistant District Attorneys Will Morris and Robert Savage disagree. They responded in their opposition that: “Louisiana’s law is not so different from other states in the union (north and south, east and west), such that it would violate the Eighth Amendment. In any event, the Eighth Amendment does not allow a court to strike down a law simply because no other state has an equally serious punishment for a particular crime.”
McCasland’s attorneys further argued that the pursuit of a second-degree murder charge in the case was without basis, even if the laws regarding sentencing were fair. The prosecution disagreed pointing out that McCasland “overtly sold heroin to someone else after he killed the victim with heroin. Heroin is deadly, and (he) knew it. Despite that, Jarret McCasland ignored the risks and deliberately endangered others with potentially fatal doses of heroin. He even encouraged others to try it.”
Responsibility
In this and all cases in which someone is charged with homicide or murder, there is always the question of whether or not it is fair to hold the seller of the drug that was the cause of death responsible for the person’s passing. In this case, the victim was over the age of 18. She had been arrested with McCasland three months before her death for drug-related charges and had overdosed two years earlier – indications that she had repeatedly chosen to use drugs and was aware of their potential harm.
The night before she died, McCasland reportedly sent her a text asking her if she wanted to get high. She didn’t say “no” but chose to meet up with him, and her friend testified that she watched as McCasland injected her with heroin and cocaine – not that McCasland forcibly injected her with the drugs against her will.
All evidence points to her being complicit to a degree. She made choices in the years and moments leading up to her death that demonstrate that she was not only aware of the risks but also continually and actively continued to use drugs despite those facts.
Do you think that McCasland should be held responsible for her death? Do you think that any drug dealer – whether or not they personally administer the drugs as in this case – should be tried and convicted for murder if someone they sell drugs to dies? At what point does responsibility shift from the user to the dealer – if ever?
