|
Mental health
groups weigh in on death
penalty case
(July
2007 Issue)
By Elinor Nelson
Scott Panetti believed that the state of Texas wanted to execute
him to prevent him from teaching the Gospel, even though he had
been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1992 murder of his
estranged wife's parents.
Panetti's case was argued before the Supreme Court in April (a
decision was not available at press time), with Panetti appealing
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that he was competent
to be executed because he understood that the state intended to
execute him, even though he suffered from delusions and schizoaffective
disorder which seriously impaired his understanding of why he was
being executed.
The legal issue is what standard determines competence for execution
- merely understanding that the state intends to kill the defendant
or having a rational understanding of the reason for the execution?
The American Psychological Association, along with the American
Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness
teamed to present a brief, known as Amici Curiae, to the Supreme
Court. It is not unusual for an interested organization to file
such a brief even though it is not a party to a case. Here, the
mental health organizations took advantage of this opportunity to
educate the court about mental illness and delusions and to argue
for another standard for competency for execution.
The brief also explains how mental health professionals use clinical
interview procedures to evaluate an individual's capacity to rationally
understand information, with studies showing high levels of agreement
among practitioners using these techniques.
Ronald Honberg, J.D., NAMI's director of policy and legal affairs,
explains that the 1986 case of Ford v Wainwright held that "it is
unconstitutional to execute people who are insane, but they left
it up to the states to define what that meant. A number of states,
including Texas, defined it narrowly, to mean that the defendant
does not understand the nature and finality of death. . . We argued
that for a determination of competency for execution, there must
be a cognitive ability to understand death and a rational understanding
of why they're being executed. And if that understanding is colored
by delusions that are a direct consequence of the symptoms of mental
illness, we believe it's not appropriate to execute such a person."
"This is a tough case," Honberg concedes. "Even if our point of
view prevails, it would still be a relatively narrow decision. This
literally only focuses on the state of mind at the time of execution
. . . not competency to stand trial."
American Psychological Association General Counsel Nathalie Gilfoyle,
J.D., explains that the mental health organizations are looking
to Justice Lewis Powell's concurring opinion in the Ford case, which
talked of the appropriate justifications for the death penalty.
"One of them was retribution and that depends upon the defendant's
awareness of the death penalty's existence and its purpose. He talked
about the 8th Amendment forbidding the execution of those not aware
of the punishment - and why they are to suffer it."
Jeffrey Metzner, M.D., chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's
Committee on Judicial Action, which decides which amicus briefs
to file, explains that Panetti knew he was to be executed but thought
it was because of a plot against him. "We say that's not okay. It
doesn't serve any good purpose and it's inhumane."
|
