Supreme Court Implicitly Says It’s Ok to Execute the Mentally Ill

By Dale Chappell

In a recent dissent authored by Justice Sotomayor in a death penalty case, the intricate interplay between mental competence and the application of the death penalty took center stage. The opinion delved into the case of Johnny A. Johnson, an individual with a documented history of severe mental illness, whose competency to comprehend the reasons behind his impending execution was at the heart of the matter. Let’s dig deeper into this disturbing case.

The Eighth Amendment and Competency

Justice Sotomayor opened her dissent by invoking the historical and ethical backdrop surrounding executions of individuals who had lost their sanity. Drawing on the Eighth Amendment, which guards against cruel and unusual punishment, the dissent underscored the prevailing societal sentiment against executing prisoners who lacked the mental capacity to understand the purpose of their execution. This constitutional safeguard, Justice Sotomayor contended, inherently prohibited the execution of prisoners who could not form a rational understanding of the link between their crime and punishment.

Threshold Showing of Insanity: A Constitutional Imperative

Central to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was the concept of a “substantial threshold showing of insanity.” Citing pertinent legal precedents such as Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman, she emphasized that when a prisoner presented evidence of such an impairment, a fair and rigorous assessment of their competency became imperative. This threshold, she argued, ensured that prisoners facing execution were provided a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their lack of capacity to understand the reasons for their impending demise.

The Case of Johnny A. Johnson

The dissent pivoted to the case at hand: Johnny A. Johnson, an individual with a long-documented history of severe mental illness, including schizophrenia. Johnson’s claim hinged on his assertion of incompetency for execution, a plea grounded in his inability to rationally grasp the link between his crime and his impending punishment. A pivotal piece of evidence was the evaluation conducted by psychiatrist Dr. Bhushan Agharkar, whose assessment underscored Johnson’s delusional belief that Satan was orchestrating his execution to bring about global catastrophe.

The Judicial Landscape: Missouri Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit

Justice Sotomayor critiqued the Missouri Supreme Court’s denial of a competency hearing for Johnson, citing departure from established precedents like Panetti v. Quarterman. The dissent questioned the court’s failure to recognize the striking similarities between the current case and the aforementioned precedent, which had resulted in a different outcome. The dissent further scrutinized the en banc Eighth Circuit’s denial of a certificate of appealability (COA), asserting that this decision had ignored the requisite criteria for a legitimate debate on the merits of the habeas petition.

Standard for Granting a COA: The Crucial Debate

One of the key junctures in the dissent centered on the standard for granting a COA. Justice Sotomayor elucidated the criteria outlined in 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), emphasizing the significance of reasonable jurists engaging in a genuine debate over the merits of the habeas petition. The dissent underscored the presence of such a debate across different courts and judges, indicating the complexity of the issues at hand.

Errors and Implications

Justice Sotomayor identified two critical errors in the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision: failure to accord a hearing despite similarities to Panetti and conflation of the understanding of execution’s nature with the rational understanding of its reason. These errors, the dissent contended, underscored the need for a comprehensive evaluation of Johnson’s competency, as per established legal standards.

Conclusion: Safeguarding Fundamental Procedural Protections

In conclusion, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent served as a clarion call for the preservation of fundamental procedural safeguards in death penalty cases involving individuals with severe mental illness. By delving into the case of Johnny A. Johnson, the dissent underscored the imperative of conducting a meticulous assessment of mental competence before embarking on an irrevocable course of action. As society grapples with the ethical intricacies of capital punishment, this dissent echoed the importance of upholding the principles of fairness and justice even in the gravest of circumstances.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: