Death Penalty, Article Critique Example

All too often we hear of people literally getting away with murder by means of temporary insanity.  According to an article found in Kentucky Law Journal titled, “The Undiscovered Country: Execution Competency & ComprehendingDeath” this problem has been dated back to as early as the medieval period.  Still the same battles and questions are being presented in courts across the country, how can one classify competency in cases involving mentally-ill individuals?  How can one know if an individual is playing that card to avoid the repercussions of their decisions?  The United States needs to set clear defining standards for what classifies as competent to serve the death penalty.

One of the biggest questions that arises when determining competency is does the defendant understand the concept of death?  To be capable of being tried and convicted to a death sentence, one would have to understand that execution means the end of his or her physical life.  The ban on mentally ill execution is based on many factors such as humanitarian, ethical, and moral guidelines.  This article address the history of mentally-ill individuals and the death penalty; Supreme Court’s decisions in specific cases; statutory definitions; and a proposed standard consistent with the historical ban on executing the insane and that is consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Common-law provides five possible justifications for the ban on the death penalty for mentally ill individuals.   The first justification for the ban behind criminal punishment is deterrence.  It does not serve as an example to other mentally ill individuals.  It will not prevent other insane individuals from committing the same crime because they too will have no comprehension of the potential repercussion. The second justification for the ban is retribution.  Considering the quantity and quality of retribution, the moral quality of the execution is less than that of the crime.  The third justification is based on the humanitarian grounds.  This is simply explained as an execution of the insane is offensive to the human race.  The fourth justification is based on a religious foundation.  The defendant should not be executed because they would not be able to prepare for the afterlife.  The final justification is based on the premise of procedural concerns.  There cannot be a fair and accurate process for someone who does not have the mental competency to understand it.   They could not fairly argue their case because they may not even have the comprehension of knowing it was wrong and could offer no assistance to the counsel.  However, knowing the reasons for the common-law ban still does not clearly set precedence for what would classify as competent versus incompetent.

Courts have addressed a number of cases related to the mental capability of criminal defendants, including claims of insanity at the time of the crime. They also have to consider on many different scenarios whether the Eight Amendment bans the execution of those who are mentally incompetent.  In the case of Solesbee v. Balkcom, Justice Frankfurter dissenting opinion on state courts decision for execution competency as the followings:

Whether the prisoner has not “from the defects of his faculties, sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, what he was tried for, the purpose of his punishment, the impending fate which awaits him, a sufficient understanding to know any fact which might exist which would make his punishment unjust or unlawful, and the intelligence requisite to convey such information to his attorneys or the court.” (Smith, 196)

This standard was a suitable explanation, but it was not adopted by the courts under the Eighth Amendment as a clear defining standard for execution competency.  In 1986 the United States Supreme court was faced with the decision of competency in the case of Ford v. Wainwright. Justice Marshall acknowledged the issue by saying, “for centuries no jurisdiction has countenanced the execution of the insane, yet this Court has never decided whether the Constitution forbids the practice.”Marshall wrote the majority opinion concluding the Eighth Amendment does, in fact, ban the death penalties for mentally incompetent individuals.  His analysis of common law bases the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The United States needs to set clear defining standards for what classifies as competent to serve the death penalty.   This article concluded that the resolution of the issue may ultimately depend less on the question of which we are killing and more on the question of who we are. However, it is still left dangling the overall legal question of defining standards for competency.  When it comes to a mental illness or a mental defect a condemned individual cannot fully understand the purpose of the punishment and the end of their existence. Whereas common law, Supreme Court precedents, and historical policy demands that death comprehension is a standard for deeming an individual competent to be executed.  This is often abused by individuals who are trying to avoid repercussions of their actions.  By setting a standard by which to gage mentally capable individuals it will set a guide to protect the one who cannot comprehend, while still holding accountable those who do.

Reference

Id. at 20 n.3(Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (quoting In re Smith, 176 P. 819, 823 N.M. 1918.

Kirchmeier, Jeffrey L.  “The Undiscovered Country: Execution Competency & Comprehending           Death”  Kentucky Journal Law.  Vol. 98.