Abstract
Following a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that approved revised capital punishment statutes that provided for individualized determination of sentence in capital cases, and further procedural rulings that significantly diminish the numbers of appeals possible from death sentences, the number of executions has risen dramatically in the United States. Attorneys representing condemned prisoners and those generally opposed to the death penalty have discovered that common law prohibitions against the execution of “insane” prisoners may provide the last legal chance to avoid execution. The number of allegations of incompetency to be executed has risen concomitantly with the number of approaching executions. Despite a recent Supreme Court decision barring execution of incompetent prisoners and commenting on acceptable procedures for determination of competency to be executed, a number of issues remain unresolved. Particularly troubling for many clinicians is the prospect of having to treat an incompetent prisoner without consent to render him/her competent to be executed. The author presents the results of a national survey of attorneys general inquiring about current procedures for the determination of competency to be executed and treatment of incompetent condemned prisoners, and discusses the ethical issues involved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.