NCJ Number
115859
Journal
American Journal of Trial Advocacy Volume: 11 Issue: 2 Dated: (Fall 1987) Pages: 311-336
Date Published
1987
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ford v. Wainright in 1986 focuses on whether the decision provides any more protection for insane prisoners than does the common law ban on the execution of insane prisoners.
Abstract
The Ford decision purported to ban the execution of the insane as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court focused on whether the Florida procedure for determining the sanity of a death row inmate adequately protected Ford's rights. The Court decided that the increased substantive and procedural protections required in death penalty cases should be applied to the State sanity determination proceedings. The Ford decision does not mean that insane prisoners cannot now be executed where they could previously be executed. Similarly, the court's decision in Johnson v. Cabana shows that prisoners may be executed even if they can persuade some doctors that they are insane. The only result of Ford is that prisoners awaiting execution are entitled to present evidence and witnesses on their behalf, to be represented by counsel, and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses in proceedings deciding the questions of their sanity. The Court's finding that the Florida procedure's main defect was its placement solely in the executive branch may result in challenges of procedures in eight States that give the sanity decision to the governor even when prisoners receive their full range of due process rights. 177 references.