The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on January 5 to hear anoth­er death penal­ty case from Texas, this one involv­ing a defen­dant who may be men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent. In 1986, the Supreme Court held that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute an inmate who is present­ly insane. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Scott Panetti, who was allowed to defend him­self in his Texas tri­al despite his schiz­o­phre­nia and 14 stints in men­tal hos­pi­tals, and who says the dev­il com­pelled his actions, was aware that he com­mit­ted a crime and that he was to be pun­ished. The ques­tion for the Supreme Court is whether mere aware­ness of one’s acts can be equat­ed with men­tal com­pete­tence, or whether the per­son also needs to ratio­nal­ly under­stand what is tak­ing place. The National Alliance on Mental Illness had urged the Justices to take the case, Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06 – 6407.

(N.Y. Times, Jan. 6, 2007). See Supreme Court and Mental Illness. The Court has tak­en three oth­er cas­es from Texas for this term, all involv­ing low­er courts’ inter­pre­ta­tions of pre­vi­ous Supreme Court rulings.

Citation Guide