Reuters: (Supreme) Court to hear delusional death row inmate's case

[Eugene]

Court to hear delusional death row inmate's case

By James Vicini Fri Jan 5, 6:53 PM ET

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.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070105/us_nm/execution_court_dc

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Wasn't it Shrub who lowered the bar on Mental competence?

[zanne]

2. He started with himself. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Good one!!!

[keopeli]

4. Fascinating! He's delusional because he believes he's being executed for preaching the gospel. n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

5. One of the challenges of capital punishment is that it exists for the victims, the

families and friends of victims, and society-at-large. It is a cursory device to "even the score". Society would rather use its opportunity to kill killers rather than to take a look at the various reasons why people do murder. It could be a result of a breakdown of societal institutions (family, education, government, justice, religion); it could be mental illness; it could be personal (having an unresolved grudge for years and directly acting on the "tormenter" or vicariously against someone else like the tormenter). In the meantime, I have not been shown evidence that our society improves after each execution. I wouldn't even say we preserve the status quo.

If an inmate thinks he is being executed for preaching the gospel, not for his crime, I don't understand how he was allowed to go this far in the system, let alone convicted. An element for acquittal by means of insanity is not understanding what one has done and its consequences (e.g., a defendant who thought he was squeezing the neck of a goose was throttling the life out of his victim).

This Supreme Court Opinion should be interesting. Wonder who's gonna write it.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. A couple of side notes on this...

from a DP list I'm on.

The Court reverses two out of three death penalty decisions it hears, so this case bears serious watching if the Court thinks it's worthy of cert.

No one can read their minds at this point, but the key here is that in Ford v. Wainright the Court set standards on why we shouldn't execute the mentally ill but in this case the convict apparently became ill after the conviction and sentencing, which wasn't specifically addressed in Ford. Good chance that the Court is looking to redefine its Ford standard in the light of advances in medicine and justice theory.