Ralph Blumenthal, the New York Times correspondent based in Houston, examines the case of Scott Panetti, a severely mentally ill Texas death row inmate, and growing questions about the mentally ill facing execution. It's a must-read. LINK
Despite Mr. Panetti’s obvious mental illness — he was a mental patient long before he gunned down his in-laws in 1992 — he served as his own lawyer at his murder trial, throwing the courtroom into chaos with frequent gibberish. Now the hyperactive and gangling Mr. Panetti, 48, has become an illustration of the growing quandary over the application of a 1986 Supreme Court decision barring execution of the insane.
The ruling appears to be limited to those without the capacity to understand that they are about to be put to death and why. Whether Mr. Panetti fits that definition is a matter of dispute.
In an appeal to the Supreme Court that could affect the cases of other mentally ill prisoners awaiting execution, Mr. Panetti’s lawyers argue that while he has a “factual awareness” of his execution, he has a “delusional belief” that it is unconnected to his crime, and that he should therefore be spared lethal injection.
The case of another mentally ill death row inmate, Guy T. LeGrande, who represented himself and is scheduled to die Dec. 1 in Raleigh, N.C., is going through its final state appeals, with his lawyers arguing that he, too, is delusional, and that he hastened his execution by abandoning his defense.
And:
Concern over execution of the mentally disabled prompted the American Bar Association last August to join a widening chorus of professionals calling for a halt to death sentences and executions for defendants with severe mental disorders that “significantly impaired” their rational judgment or capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. The moratorium was endorsed earlier by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
The groups also opposed death sentences for prisoners with mental disorders that impaired their ability to assist their lawyers and make rational decisions on their appeals. The Supreme Court has already barred execution for the mentally retarded and for juveniles.
“An increasing percentage of people executed are people giving up their appeals,” said Ronald J. Tabak, a lawyer at the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Manhattan and a specialist in capital cases who led the bar association’s death penalty task force. “And of these, a significant percentage have serious mental illness.”
The Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling, on a Florida case, Ford v. Wainwright, left much unclear. Although no state permitted execution of the insane, the justices affirmed that the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment prohibited it. But they did not provide a standard for determining when someone was competent enough to be executed.
In a concurring opinion later adopted as law by lower courts, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. said it was enough “if the defendant perceives the connection between his crime and the punishment.” Justice Powell also said that the Constitution “forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Mr. Panetti had the requisite legal awareness. And the Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has argued that the execution, as yet unscheduled after having been postponed in 2004, should proceed.
More on the Panetti and LeGrande cases are here.
Comments