Perry v. Louisiana

Perry v. Louisiana
Perry v. Louisiana
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 2, 1990; Decided November 13, 1990
Full case name	Michael Owen Perry v. State of Louisiana
Citations	498 U.S. 38 (more) 111 S. Ct. 449; 112 L. Ed. 2d 338
Case history
Prior	Certiorari to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana, appeal dismissed, 543 So. 2d 487 (La. 1989); cert. granted, 498 U.S. 38 (1990).
Subsequent	On remand, State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992).
Holding
	The forcible medication of individuals to render them competent to be executed is impermissible.
Court membership
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Thurgood Marshall; Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens; Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Case opinion
	Per curiam
	Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case over the legality of forcibly medicating a death row inmate with a mental disorder, to render him competent to be executed.[1]

Background

Michael Owen Perry murdered five people, including his parents and infant nephew, at and around his parents’ home in Lake Arthur, Louisiana. Following the murders, he fled the state, leaving behind a list of five other intended targets, including Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and musician Olivia Newton-John. He was ultimately arrested at a hotel in Washington D.C., apparently on his way to kill O'Connor.[2]

A jury convicted him of the five murders and sentenced him to the death penalty. After his sentencing the trial court found that his competence to be executed depended on his taking psychiatric medication and ordered that he be forcibly medicated to be sure he remained competent. Ford v. Wainwright (1986) had already established that an insane inmate cannot be executed.[1]

Opinion of the Court

In a per curiam decision, the Court vacated the lower court's ruling without issuing an opinion. The case was remanded to the Louisiana Supreme Court for further deliberation in view of Washington v. Harper (1990), also a case involving involuntary medication, which had been decided after the District Court's ruling.[3]

Aftermath

Upon remand, the lower court ruled against the forcible medication of individuals in order to maintain their competency for execution. This decision was based on the distinction that, unlike the holding in Harper v. Washington concerning involuntary medication for treatment issues, forcing medication for the purposes of execution was not medical treatment (being "antithetical to the basic principles of the healing arts") but punishment.[1]

In addition, the lower court found two state laws on which to base its holding. First it found that forcibly medicating a person for the purposes of execution was cruel and unusual punishment under Louisiana state law because "it fails to measurably contribute to the social goals of capital punishment" by adding to the individual's punishment "beyond that required for the mere extinguishment of life," and could be "administered erroneously, arbitrarily or capriciously".[1] It also held that forcible medication in this situation violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Louisiana State Constitution because the inhumanity of the situation rendered the state's interest in executing a person under these conditions less compelling.[1]

Significance

Per Ford v. Wainwright, a psychotic inmate who does not have an understanding of what is about to occur is not competent to be executed and therefore cannot be executed. The complex issues of forcibly medicating an individual to make him competent for execution posed in Perry v. Louisiana illustrates the conflict between the judicial interests in imposing capital punishment for certain murderers and the medical physician's Hippocratic Oath to not give poison. Medical ethics are also primarily guided by the Hippocratic aphorism "first do no harm" principle.[4][5]

gollark: Oh, also power.

gollark: ABR is down.

gollark: Sorry, connectivity failure.

gollark: Huh. Weird.

gollark: ???

Footnotes

Melton, Gary (1997). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 184–185. ISBN 978-1-57230-236-5.
de Becker, Gavin. The Gift of Fear. pp. 262–66.
Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38 (1990).
"Medical Ethics and Physician Involvement". Human Rights Watch. 1994. Retrieved 2007-12-20.
Katz, D. L (1991). "Perry v. Louisiana: Medical ethics on death row--is judicial intervention warranted?". The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. 4 (3): 707–29. PMID 12186078.

External links

Works related to Perry v. Louisiana at Wikisource
Text of Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38 (1990) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Whose Right is It Anyway?: Rethinking Competency to Stand Trial in Light of the Synthetically Sane Insanity Defendant

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[melton1997-1] Melton, Gary (1997). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 184–185. ISBN 978-1-57230-236-5.

[2] Becker, Gavin. The Gift of Fear. pp. 262–66.

[justia-3] Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38 (1990).

[4] "Medical Ethics and Physician Involvement". Human Rights Watch. 1994. Retrieved 2007-12-20.

[5] Katz, D. L (1991). "Perry v. Louisiana: Medical ethics on death row--is judicial intervention warranted?". The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. 4 (3): 707–29. PMID 12186078.