|
January 6, 2007
NEW YORK TIMES
Justices to Consider Impact of Mental Illness on Death Penalty
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5; The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to use the case of a schizophrenic death row inmate in Texas to
set the standard for determining when a mental illness is so severe that execution would be constitutionally impermissible.
The question is not a new one for the court or for the criminal justice system, but it has come to the fore recently as
a growing number of legal and mental health organizations have joined a call for a moratorium on executing those whose rational
judgment has been significantly impaired, including their ability to appreciate why they have been sentenced to death.
The American Psychiatric Association has expressed specific concern about the competency standard used by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the death sentence for the Texas inmate, Scott L. Panetti, in rejecting
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus last May.
Mr. Panetti, convicted in 1992 of fatally shooting his in-laws in the presence of his estranged wife and their 3-year-old
child, is a 48-year-old Navy veteran who was hospitalized 14 times for schizophrenia and other serious mental disorders in
the decade before the crime. A jury nonetheless found him competent to stand trial, and the judge permitted him to represent
himself.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment barred the execution
of the mentally ill. But the justices who decided that case, Ford v. Wainwright, did not settle on a definition of mental
illness for the purpose of determining competency for execution.
Most lower courts have adopted, as controlling, a separate opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., who said that the "retributive
goal of the criminal law" was satisfied as long as defendants were aware of "the punishment they are about to suffer"
and "why they are to suffer it."
The Fifth Circuit, which supervises the courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, has boiled this down to what it calls
an "awareness" test. In Mr. Panetti's case, Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407, the appeals court found the test
was satisfied because Mr. Panetti indicated that he understood the state's intention to execute him for killing his wife's
parents. The fact that he also held the delusional belief that his execution was part of a conspiracy by which the state was
trying to prevent him from preaching the Gospel was beside the point, the appeals court said.
In Mr. Panetti's appeal to the Supreme Court, his lawyers argue that the appeals court has distorted Justice Powell's
meaning by failing to take the delusions into account. "The moral force of retribution is lost if an inmate believes
that his execution is being carried out through a conspiracy of demonic forces rather than as a lawful punishment for a horrific
crime," their brief argues.
In a brief urging the justices to accept the appeal, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy organization,
said "this case exemplifies why mere 'awareness,' the test applied by the Fifth Circuit, is not a meaningful requirement
for determining whether to execute prisoners who are severely mentally ill."
The brief said the test "makes no sense when applied to a prisoner who is plagued by delusions of grand persecution."
At his trial, Mr. Panetti was often incoherent and tried to issue subpoenas to Jesus, the pope and John F. Kennedy.
The justices' decision to hear his appeal was the latest indication of the Supreme Court's concern about the administration
of capital punishment. In recent years, the court has declared unconstitutional the execution of mentally retarded defendants
as well as those who committed murder before the age of 18. Some opponents of the death penalty have described mental illness
as the next frontier in the debate.
Mr. Panetti's case was one of seven new appeals the court granted on a busy day as the justices returned from a four-week
recess. The cases will be heard on dates yet to be determined in March and April.
|
|
January 6, 2007
REUTERS
Court to hear delusional death row inmate's case
By JAMES VICINI
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court said on Friday it would decide whether it violates the constitutional ban on
cruel and unusual punishment to execute a delusional inmate who does not understand why he is being put to death.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal from Texas in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, whose lawyers argued he does not
understand his execution is intended to seek retribution for the murders he committed.
They said the mentally ill Panetti suffers from a delusional belief that the state's real motivation is to punish him
for preaching the Gospel.
Panetti was sentenced to death in Texas state court for the 1992 murders of his wife's parents. Two mental health experts
concluded he was mentally competent to be executed, a finding accepted by the judge without holding a hearing.
Panetti then filed an appeal in federal court.
After hearing testimony from four expert witnesses, a federal judge found Panetti suffers some form of mental illness
marked by delusions, including the delusion that he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs.
But the judge nonetheless found Panetti is aware he will be executed, that he committed the murders for which he was sentenced
and that he is mentally competent to be put to death. A U.S. appeals court upheld the ruling.
Panetti's lawyers argued his execution should not be allowed under the principles of a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that
bars the use of the death penalty in criminal cases involving those who are mentally ill.
"The moral force of retribution is lost if an inmate believes that his execution is being carried out through a conspiracy
of demonic forces rather than as a lawful punishment for a horrific crime," they told the high court.
Lawyers for the state of Texas replied that the appeals court correctly determined that Panetti was mentally competent
to be executed. They said the question presented in the case "is unworthy of the (Supreme) Court's attention."
But the high court disagreed in accepting the appeal. It will hear arguments, most likely in April, with a decision expected
by the end of June.
|
