NCJ Number
139040
Journal
Behavioral Sciences and the Law Volume: 10 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1992), 317-337
Date Published
1992
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This article analyzes the issue of competency to be executed, reviewing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ford v. Wainwright in terms of its eighth amendment and procedural due process determinations.
Abstract
The Ford Court found that determining competency to be executed requires procedures comparable to those employed in any other facet of a capital proceeding. In this case, while three evaluators found the defendant to be psychotic, but nonetheless competent to be executed, the Supreme Court ruled the process was deficient because of its failure to include the defendant. This decision left open the question of whether defendants found incompetent to be executed could assert a right to refuse treatment designed to restore them to competency for the express purpose of carrying out the sentence. The author suggests the application of therapeutic jurisprudence principles -- which evaluate the extent to which substantive rules, legal procedures, and the roles of lawyers and judges produce therapeutic consequences -- to the issue of right to refuse treatment. 142 notes