Restoring competency for execution: The paradoxical debate continues with the case of Singleton v. Norris

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 55-68

  Hensl, Kursten B ^a  

^a VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Competency; Ethics; Execution

Indexed keywords

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS;

ARTICLE; COMPETENCE; CONFLICT; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MENTAL CAPACITY; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH; MENTAL HEALTH CARE; PRISONER; PUNISHMENT;

EID: 29244449624     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v05n03_03     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. American College of Physicians (1994). Breach of trust: Physician participation in executions in the United States [On-line]. Available: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/usdp/8htm
2. American Psychiatric Association (2001). The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry [On-line]. Available: http://www.psych.org/apa_members/medicalethics.cfm
3. American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct [On-line]. Available: http://www.apa.org/ethics
4. Associated Press (2003). Death row case raises insanity defense paradox [On-line]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/11/execution.insanity.ap/
5. Byers, K. A. (1994). Incompetency, execution, and the use of antipsychotic drugs. Arkansas Law Review, 47, 361-391.
6. Cabell, B. (2004). Arkansas executes mentally ill inmate [On-line]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/06/arkansas.executions/index.html
7. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).
8. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
9. Crosby, K. W. (1993). State v. Perry: Louisiana's cure-to-kill scheme forces death-row inmates to choose between a life sentence of untreated insanity and execution. Minnesota Law Review, 77, 1193-1217.
10. Drew, K. (2004). Executed mentally ill inmate heard voices until end [On-line]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/06/singleton.death.row/index.html
11. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
12. Harding, R. M. (1994). "Endgame": Competency and the execution of condemned inmates - A proposal to satisfy the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 14, 105-143.
13. Hensl, K. B. (2004). Restored to health to be put to death: Reconciling the legal and ethical dilemmas of medicating to execute in Singleton v. Norris. Villanova Law Review, 49(2), 291-328.
14. Horstman, L. A. (2002). Commuting death sentences of the insane: A solution for a better, more compassionate society. University of San Francisco Law Review, 36, 823-852.
15. Jenkins, R. K. (1995). Fit to die: Drug-induced competency for the purpose of execution. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 20, 149-179.
16. Katz, D. L. (1991). Perry v. Louisiana: Medical ethics on death row - Is judicial intervention warranted? Gcorgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 4, 707-729.
17. Kemna, D. J. (1985). Current status of institutionalized mental health patients' right to refuse psychotropic drugs. Journal of Legal Medicine, 6, 107-138.
18. Kermani, E. J., & Kantor, J. E. (1994). Psychiatry and the death penalty: The landmark Supreme Court cases and their ethical implications for the profession. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 22, 95-108.
19. Ladds B., & Convit A. (1994). Involuntary medication of patients who are incompetent to stand trial: A review of empirical studies. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 22, 519-532.
20. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).
21. Miller-Rice, R. A. (2000). The "insane" contradiction of Singleton v. Norris: Forced medication in a death row inmate's medical interest which happens to facilitate his execution. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 22, 659-677.
22. Mossman, D. (1995). Denouement of an execution competency case: Is Perry pyrrhic? Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 23, 269-284.
23. National Mental Health Association (2001). Death penalty and people with mental illness [On-line]. Available: http://www.nmha.org/position/deathpenalty/deathpenalty.cfm
24. Parker, F. R., & Paine C. J. (1999). Informed consent and the refusal of medical treatment in the correctional setting. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27, 240-248.
25. Psychiatric News (1997). Debaters clash over ethics of death-row competency exams [On-line]. Available: http://www.psych.org/pnews/97-06-20/death.html
26. Radelet, M. L., & Barnard, G. W. (1988). Treating those found incompetent for execution: Ethical chaos with only one solution. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 16, 297-308.
27. Redding, R. E., & Hensl, K. (2003). Treating the illness but killing the patient: The ethical dilemma of restoring competency for execution. Commonweal, 130, 9-10.
28. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992).
29. Rivkind, N., & Shatz, S. F. (Eds.). (2001). Cases and materials on the death penalty. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
30. Salguero, R. G. (1986). Medical ethics and competency to be executed. Yale Law Journal, 96, 167-186.
31. Stricker, B. W. (2000). Seeking an answer: Questioning the validity of forcible medication to ensure mental competency of those condemned to die. McGeorge Law Review, 32, 317-340.
32. Singleton v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (2003).
33. State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992).
34. Taylor, P. H. (1992). Execution of the "artificially competent": Cruel and unusual? Tulane Law Review, 66, 1045-1065.
35. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
36. United States v. Sell, 282 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2002).
37. United States v. Sell, 123 S.Ct. 2174 (2003).
38. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).
39. Winick, B. J. (1993). New directions in the right to refuse mental health treatment: The implications of Riggins v. Nevada. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2, 205-238.
40. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).