Ford v. Wainwright

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.[1]

Ford v. Wainwright
Argued April 22, 1986
Decided June 26, 1986
Full case nameFord v. Wainwright
Docket no.85-5542
Citations477 U.S. 399 (more)
106 S. Ct. 2595; 91 L. Ed. 2d 335; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 64; 54 U.S.L.W. 4799
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
SubsequentPost-conviction relief denied at, Writ of habeas corpus denied Ford v. State, 522 So. 2d 345 (Fla., 1988)
Holding
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the insane.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall (parts I and II), joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
ConcurrenceMarshall (parts III, IV and V), joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens
ConcurrencePowell (in part and in judgment)
Concur/dissentO'Connor, joined by White
DissentRehnquist, joined by Burger
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV

Background

Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida. In 1982, while on death row, Ford's mental health diminished to a point resembling paranoid schizophrenia. Ford began referring to himself as Pope John Paul III and reported such accomplishments as thwarting a vast Ku Klux Klan conspiracy to bury dead prisoners inside the prison walls, foiling an attempt by prison guards to torture his female relatives inside the prison, and personally appointing nine new justices to the Florida Supreme Court. Ford also claimed he was "free to go whenever [he] wanted" because he theorized that anyone who executed him would, in turn, be executed.

A panel of three psychiatrists was eventually called to examine Ford's behavior, and it concluded that while Ford suffered from psychosis and various mental disorders, he was still capable of understanding the nature of the death penalty and the effect that such a penalty would have on him. Florida Governor Bob Graham acted without further comment on the panel's findings but in accord with a Florida statute in signing a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford sued the secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright.[1]

Opinion

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Marshall, reviewed the evolving standards of the Eighth Amendment to be those consistent with "the progress of a maturing society", and one not tolerable of acts traditionally branded as "savage and inhumane", as the execution of the mentally insane was considered in early English and American common law reasoned that executing the insane did not serve any penological goals and that Florida's procedures for determining competency were inadequate. Thus, the Court made a preliminary finding that the Eighth Amendment bars states from inflicting capital punishment upon insane persons.[1]

The Court then further addressed the procedural issues present in making a determination of insanity for Eighth Amendment concerns. The court found that such a determination could not be left solely to the executive branch, as was done via the Florida Statute allowing then Governor Graham to sign Ford's death warrant solely on recommendation by an appointed committee of psychiatrists. Rather, the Court held, that a proper judicial hearing, in which full procedural rights would be afforded, including the right to counsel and to cross-examine witnesses, was necessary for such a finding.[1]

In their dissents, Justices O'Connor and White claimed that execution of the insane was not per se unconstitutional. The Justices further commented, however, that states had a right to create certain protected liberties in state statutes, of which a prohibition on the execution of the insane was a liberty which could be validly created. Once validly created by a state, that liberty interested required the minimum due process protections afforded to other constitutionally protected liberties, in which sole action by the executive branch, as in this case, would still fail to provide.[1]

Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, stated a belief that in common-law tradition, it was actually the executive branch who was sole arbiter of decisions involving the sanity of prisoners sentenced to death. In this respect, Justice Rehnquist felt that the majority had formed its opinion at the "expense of 'our common law heritage'".[1]

The inmate was transferred to Florida State Hospital for treatment after he was reevaluated and found to be incompetent to be executed.[2][3]

In 1989, a federal district judge ruled that Ford was sane, but defense lawyers appealed that ruling.

The appeal was pending when Ford died on February 6, 1991 of natural causes, at 37.[4]

gollark: Well, not the language, the java version, don't use java.
gollark: Java 9Ever!
gollark: It's simple: don't use bedrock edition!
gollark: If we can access CIA data too I'm in.
gollark: Nothing, probably.

See also

References
  1. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
  2. Executing the Mentally Ill: The Criminal Justice System and the Case of Alvin Ford. Sage. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
  3. "Executing the Mentally Ill". Sage. April 22, 1986. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
  4. "Alvin Ford, 37, Dies; Stricken on Death Row". 9 March 1991. Archived from the original on 13 January 2013. Retrieved 28 April 2016.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.