Competency to be executed: Panetti v. Quarterman.

Abstract

The ABA has studied extensively the constitutionally minimum requirements for executing mentally ill offenders. That study has led the Association to conclude that execution of such an offender is constitutionally permissible only if the offender "not only ... [is] 'aware' of the nature and purpose of punishment but also ... 'appreciate[s]' its personal application in the offender's own case, that is, why it is being imposed on the offender." Report in Support of Resolution 122A (Aug. 2006) (emphasis in original). The court below held that a death row inmate who, due to a serious mental disability, suffers from the delusion that the actual reason he is to be executed has nothing to do with his crime is nevertheless competent to be executed. To survive constitutional scrutiny, however, capital punishment must serve the purpose of retribution. The Fifth Circuit's holding breaks that link because it does not require that the offender have any understanding of why he is being put to death--that is, of the retributive purpose of his execution.