U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS THAT TEXAS MAY NOT EXECUTE SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL MAN
Austin, Texas - Texas may not execute a severely mentally ill man who believes his execution would be the result of a satanic conspiracy to prevent him from preaching the Gospels of Jesus rather than for murdering his wife's parents, the U.S. Supreme Court said today. Scott Louis Panetti, 49, was allowed to represent himself at his capital murder trial in 1995, despite having been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals over a dozen times in the years leading up to the crime. Mr. Panetti defended himself dressed in a purple cowboy outfit and wanted to subpoena John F. Kennedy, the Pope, and Jesus.
Gregory W. Wiercioch, a staff attorney with Texas Defender Service who argued the case before the Supreme Court in April, hailed the decision. He said, "The Supreme Court today reaffirms the wisdom of a legal principle nearly a thousand years old - that the execution of persons like Scott Panetti serves no purpose and offends our sense of decency and common humanity."
"Today the Supreme Court recognized that executing Scott Panetti would be a mindless, meaningless, and miserable spectacle," said Mr. Wiercioch.
Since his conviction and death sentence, Mr. Panetti's mental condition has deteriorated even further. Although he is aware that he killed his parents-in-law, he suffers from psychotic delusions that cause him to believe that demonic forces have conspired with the State of Texas to put a stop to his preaching by seeking his execution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Mr. Panetti's execution could proceed - despite his irrational, delusional belief that had no connection with his crime. The Supreme Court reversed and held that the lower courts must consider whether a person has a severe mental illness which renders them to rationally understand the reason they are to be put to death. The Court reaffirmed the analysis articulated in Justice Powell's concurrence in Ford v. Wainwright, that the retributive goal of capital punishment is not met if a person fails to meaningfully appreciate the connection between his crime and punishment, and in those cases, the execution would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The decision represents the fourth time this term that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a ruling by a Texas state or federal court allowing an execution to proceed. (See Jalil Abdul-Kabir, fka Ted Cole v. Quarterman (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued Apr. 25, 2007), Brent Brewer v. Quarterman (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued Apr. 25, 2007), and LaRoyce Smith v. Texas (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, issued Apr. 25, 2007)).
Judge Sparks of the Federal District Court has ordered more briefing which will be filed in the fall.
|
