Logo image
Marking the Progress of a "Maturing" Society: Madison v. Alabama and Competency for Execution Evaluations
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Marking the Progress of a "Maturing" Society: Madison v. Alabama and Competency for Execution Evaluations

Marissa Stanziani, Jennifer Cox, Elizabeth Bownes, Keisha D. Carden and David S. DeMatteo
Psychology, public policy, and law, v 26(2)
01 May 2020

Abstract

Government & Law Health Care Sciences & Services Health Policy & Services Law Life Sciences & Biomedicine Psychology Psychology, Multidisciplinary Science & Technology Social Sciences
In February 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed whether dementia and/or dementia-related amnesia of the crime precluded a defendant from being executed (Madison v. Alabama, 2019). Consistent with their previous holdings in Ford v. Wainwright (1986) and Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), SCOTUS reaffirmed the prohibition on the execution of an individual who lacks a rational understanding of the crime he or she committed and their impending punishment. However, SCOTUS did not make a direct determination in Madison's case and instead remanded the case to lower courts to decide his fate. Two important rulings were proffered: (a) failing to remember the crime does not preclude an individual from execution, and (b) mental illnesses other than psychotic disorders may render an individual incompetent for execution. This article explores the confluence of factors underpinning Madison's case and the important consequences of these rulings for mental health professionals working with the growing aging prisoner population. More specifically, this article traces the evolution of the competency for execution (CFE) standard, explores dementia and associated effects within the context of the Madison ruling, and discusses Madison v. Alabama and its implications for CFE and forensic evaluators.

Metrics

16 Record Views
4 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Health Policy & Services
Law
Psychology, Multidisciplinary
Logo image