Nothing stopped Scott Panetti, a diagnosed schizophrenic with a ten-year history of severe mental illness, from obeying the voices in his mind on Sept. 8, 1992.

He shaved his head, sawed off the barrel of a shotgun and drove to his in-laws home where he murdered them in front of his estranged wife and 3-year-old daughter. Then he showered, changed into a suit and presented himself to the authorities.

By the time of his trial in 1995, Panetti dressed as a cowboy from the Old West and served as his own defense counsel. He subpoenaed John F. Kennedy, Pope John Paul II, Anne Bancroft and Jesus.

Panetti blamed the murder on Sarge, one of four personalities in his delusional mind. Sarge is gone, he told the jury. No more Sarge.

On Sept. 21, 1995, the jury returned a guilty verdict and the state of Texas sentenced Scott Panetti to death.

Well he cant be THAT crazy, right? I mean, Id want to subpoena Mrs. Robinson too. If you catch my drift.

But seriously folks, Scott Panetti is a murderer. Hes also nuts. In the time since his conviction, hes apparently come to believe that the state is executing him not for his crimes but because hes been preaching the word of God. Thats pretty bonkers. His fate, in every sense of the word, now hangs with the Supreme Court after a decade and a half of legal wrangling.

But what the Court is considering is not whether execution of the insane runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment. It has already been established that execution of the severely mentally ill is a Constitutional violation in Ford v. Wainright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). What is at issue here is the application of the Ford standard.

The Northwestern article linked above sums up the Ford decision thusly:

In Ford, the courts majority held that the Eighth Amendment barred execution of the insane. In addition, the opinion stated, any procedure that precludes the prisoner or his counsel from presenting material relevant to his sanity or bars consideration of that material by the fact finder is necessarily inadequate.

Justice Powell, in a concurring opinion, attempted to create a standard by which to determine the defendants sanity.
If the defendant perceives the connection between his crime and his punishment, the retributive goal of the criminal law is satisfied, Powell wrote. I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.

Sounds great, right? Well, its not so simple. After all, what is the definition of the word unaware? If "aware" means that the death row inmate has to fully comprehend the entirety of the situation, down to understanding the minute details of law that put him in this position, its going to be a pretty tough standard to meet. On the other hand, if it means that the convict only understands that hes going to die because he committed a crime, then it runs the risk of being over-inclusive. If its somewhere in between, it could be a reasonable standard. Unfortunately to date the Supreme Court has not drawn the line at any one of those options. This has led to different federal circuits applying the law differently.

Guess which of the above standards the Fifth Circuit (the one where Panettis case was heard) uses? If you guessed the potentially over-inclusive one, you are correct sir!

The 5th Circuit wrote that the district court found based on the testimony of the experts that Panetti is aware that he will be executed, that he committed the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to death, and that the States stated reason for executing him is that he committed two murders.

The opinion continued by saying Justice Powell did not state that a prisoner must rationally understand the reason for his execution, only that he must be aware of it.

Keith Hampton has been Panettis lead counsel since 2003 and takes issue with the 5th Circuits interpretation of awareness.
Right now, all we need [to satisfy the awareness standard] is for a guard to go in [to a prison cell] and say, Youre gonna die for this crime. Check here if you get it. Were calling it the casting-a-shadow-on-a-sunny-day test. If you cast a shadow on a sunny day, youre competent to be executed.

Indeed, in the 20 years since the Ford decision, not one death-row inmate has been spared execution for an absence of awareness under the 5th Circuits interpretation.

So, its an important issue and one that deserves clarification. The Supreme Court does not like when different circuits apply its standards in different ways, so one has to believe that this was part of the reason the Court granted certiorari. Unfortunately for those circuits (and even more unfortunately for Panetti), the Court may not get the chance to make that determination due to an appellate procedural matter.

Lawyers for the state of Texas this week urged the Supreme Court to order the dismissal of a significant death penalty case that is scheduled for argument next Wednesday afternoon, April 18 -- Panetti v. Quarterman (06-6407). Lawyers for the death-row inmate, Scott Louis Panetti, countered that the case does not run afoul of federal limits on legal challenges by state inmates.

The Court had granted review of the case on Jan. 5, to clarify the standard for "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment when a mentally impaired individual has been sentenced to death for murder. The question is whether the Eighth Amendment forbids execution "of a death row inmate who has a factual awareness of the reason for his execution but who, because of severe mental illness, has a delusional belief as to why the state is executing him, and thus does not appreciate that his execution is intended to seek retribution for his capital crime?"

The briefs in the case focus on that issue. But, after briefing was completed, and the records of lower court proceedings had been sent to the Court, one or more Justices discovered a potential jurisdictional question -- one that actually has lingered in the case since Panetti's federal habeas challenge to the planned execution was filed in January 2004. Neither lower court had confronted the issue. On April 2, the Court told lawyers for both sides to file new briefs on whether Panetti's habeas challenge must be dismissed as a "second or successive" plea under federal habeas law.

Basically, the issue is that death row appellants are only allowed one bite at the apple, so to speak. Panetti had filed a habeas appeal before this one, but that appeal did not focus on his competency to be executed. Briefs for the state of Texas on this issue can be found here, and for Panetti can be found here.

While I am not versed in federal appellate procedure enough to form an opinion on the habeas issue, the civil rights advocate in me is pulling for a Panetti victory. It seems to me that the Ford standard was meant precisely for people like Panetti, who may be aware in the broadest sense of the word, but only barely. To apply the Ford standard the way the Fifth Circuit has is unconscionable and renders the entire standard meaningless. Panetti, who probably shouldnt have been deemed sane to stand trial in the first place, now may lose out on his day in the Supreme Court because his lawyers failed to raise this issue in a timely fashion. And whether that failure was intentional or unintentional, it still could cost a crazy man his life.

Though I suppose its tough to expect fairness of any sort when dealing with the barbaric institution of capital punishment.

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA

September 2006

APR 16, 2007 12:12 PM

i so knew this was going to be a texas case before i even clicked.

soft_shoulder

Madison, WI

May 2006

APR 16, 2007 12:31 PM

I love your quest for justice.

phrogg

Greenville, SC

August 2005

APR 16, 2007 12:37 PM

Haven't they heard that former Gov. Bush wants to promote a "Culture of Life"? Um... never mind.

Suitsme

Regina, SK

October 2005

APR 16, 2007 01:01 PM

Not that I'm a big fan of the death penalty in general, but if anyone killed my grandparents or parents in front of me, you'd have to work pretty hard to convince me that they don't deserve to die too.. crazy or not crazy.

RigorMortis

Portland, OR

September 2004

APR 16, 2007 01:08 PM

Crazy or not, Panetti has done the world more harm than good, twice over. I could care less if the state wants to dispose of him or any other murderer or child molester. I support the death penalty. Infact, I think crime and punishment should be served eye-for-an-eye.

I'm well aware that my opinion is in the minority and I don't care. You can resume your arguments against capital punishment... now.

Jasper

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

APR 16, 2007 01:17 PM

I'm not really all for this death penalty stuff, but on the other hand, its obvious this guy's insane. I wouldn't really want him to be roaming the streets because he was crazy enough to spend 3 years digging through the cell wall with a sharpened tooth brush.

DeadBilly

Burnt Cabins, PA

February 2004

APR 16, 2007 01:20 PM

Did the jurors have the option of giving him life without parole? And is that still an alternate sentence?

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2007 01:24 PM

Subrosa said:
Though I suppose it's tough to expect fairness of any sort when dealing with the barbaric institution of capital punishment.

Ding ding ding! The whole fucking process is insane. The notion that whether or not a person is fit to be executed rests on his level of comprehension of the reason why he is being executed is nuts. If the purpose of criminal law is the betterment of society, the protection of rights, and the greater good of mankind, how well a prisoner understands his punishment is irrelevant; you simply punish him in whatever way is the best for society at large. It is only in the use of the law as a tool of retribution that such a question matters in the slightest. Splitting hairs as to why one man should die and another, less "aware" man is not fit to be executed is simply a process for avoiding guilt.

If you think that the law should be used to make society better, you should have no guilt about its application to that end (regardless of whether or not that means executions would be justified, though I would suspect any rational application of logic to the question would find the death penalty ineffective and unwarranted). If, however, you believe in the use of the law as a tool of revenge, there is shame in meting out that revenge on those incapable of understanding their own actions.

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2007 01:27 PM

bean said:
If, however, you believe in the use of the law as a tool of revenge, there is shame in meting out that revenge on those incapable of understanding their own actions.

rigormortis said:
Crazy or not, Panetti has done the world more harm than good, twice over. I could care less if the state wants to dispose of him or any other murderer or child molester. I support the death penalty. Infact, I think crime and punishment should be served eye-for-an-eye.

I'm well aware that my opinion is in the minority and I don't care. You can resume your arguments against capital punishment... now.

I take it back. Some people feel so strongly that the law is a tool for revenge that they have no shame.