By: Troy C. Book
Can the State execute a prisoner who can no longer remember his crime? That was the issue the United States Supreme Court decided in Madison v. Alabama.[1] In Madison, the Court had to decide if Alabama could still execute a prisoner who developed dementia while incarcerated and could no longer remember his crime.[2]
In 1985, Mr. Vernon Madison killed a police officer during a domestic dispute.[3] An Alabama jury found Mr. Madison guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death.[4] While on Alabama’s death row, Mr. Madison suffered from two strokes.[5] As a result of these strokes, a doctor diagnosed Mr. Madison as having vascular dementia.[6] Mr. Madison’s vascular dementia caused him to suffer disorientation and confusion, cognitive impairment, and memory loss.[7] In 2016, Mr. Madison’s attorneys asked for a stay of execution because Mr. Madison’s dementia no longer allowed him to understand the status of his case nor the nature of his conviction and sentence.[8]Alabama pushed back against Mr. Madison’s argument and held that Alabama was in its right to execute Mr. Madison despite his dementia under the Supreme Court’s precedent.[9]
Alabama cited two cases, Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) and Panetti v. Quaterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007),[10] to support its argument that it could still execute Mr. Madison despite his dementia.[11] Under Ford and Wainwright, Alabama argued it could execute a prisoner suffering from mental incompetence provided she can “rationally understand the reason for her impending execution.”[12] Alabama further argued that Mr. Madison’s dementia did not qualify as mental incompetence under either Ford or Panetti given those cases dealt with “gross delusion.”[13] Thus, Alabama concluded that Mr. Madison could be executed because he rationally understood his punishment and was not suffering from psychotic episodes or delusions.[14] The trial court agreed with Alabama’s argument holding, “[Nothing prevents Mr. Madison] from comprehending why he is being executed.”[15]
Two years after Mr. Madison’s original request for a stay of execution, he raised the same argument again and also claimed his cognitive abilities had declined further.[16] However, the trial court again found Mr. Madison had failed to show his dementia prevented him from understanding why Alabama sought to execute him.[17] Mr. Madison then requested a habeas petition, and the Supreme Court granted his request.
The Supreme Court accepted Mr. Madison’s habeas request to answer two questions: (1) Whether Panetti prohibits executing Mr. Madison merely because he cannot remember committing his crime and (2) Whether Panetti permits the execution of Mr. Madison merely because he suffers from dementia, rather than psychotic delusions.[18] The Court answered question one by holding that whether a person lacks the memory of his crime is irrelevant.[19] Rather, the correct question is whether the prisoner can rationally understand why the State seeks to execute her; if the prisoner can rationally understand why the State seeks to execute her, then the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and usual punishment protection will not bar the execution.[20] As to question two, the Court held that a person suffering from dementia may be unable to rationally understand the reason for his sentence.[21] What matters is whether a prisoner has a rational understanding.[22] Thus, Panetti does not require a prisoner to have a particular mental illness but only one that renders her unable to rationally understand the sentence made against her.[23] The question that comes from Panetti is does a prisoner understand why the State seeks capital punishment for the crime she committed.[24] Panetti does not hold that if a prisoner cannot remember her crime, then the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution.
The Court is comfortable with executing a mentally incompetent prisoner who understands why the State would seek capital punishment because the execution still has retributive value.[25] Stated differently, a prisoner who understands the punishment does not offend humanity to execute a person who understands the meaning and purpose of the punishment versus a prisoner who does not.[26]The Supreme Court remanded Mr. Madison’s case back to the trial court on the issue to consider whether Mr. Madison’s dementia caused him not to understand why Alabama sought capital punishment against him.[27]
Madison v. Alabama is an important case that extends the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment protections to all prisoners experiencing mental incompetence that affects their ability to understand why the State seeks to execute them. However, an interesting question arises out of Justice Kagan’s majority opinion. Does the fact a prisoner can understand why the State seeks to use capital punishment, yet not remember the crime she committed really serve the retributive value the State seeks?
If you walk into a first-year criminal law class, one of the first lessons that will be taught is theories of punishment. One of the theories of punishment that will be discussed is retribution. The theory of retributive justice is to punish the offender of the law instead of rehabilitating the offenders for their crimes against society. Retribution is one of the leading justifications for criminal punishment. The logic and reasoning behind retribution is to communicate condemnation to offenders for their actions.[28] The more severe the crime, the harsher the punishment the offender must receive to communicate society’s condemnation.[29] Therefore, under retribution, an offender who commits murder should receive the death penalty as a proportional punishment to communicate society’s condemnation of her act.[30] But is the theory behind retribution met when the offender can no longer remember the crime she committed?
I am not here to advocate whether or not the death penalty should be used against offenders who commit first-degree murder. However, logic would tell us that the theory behind retribution loses its venom when the offender cannot remember his crime. If your mother or father told you that you sneaked out last night and grounded you for three months, but you could not remember the sneaking out, your punishment would seem unjust, cruel, and unwarranted. And why? By having no independent remembrance of the wrong, you appear to be punished for no reason. What message is being communicated to the offender and society by executing a person who cannot remember her crime? I would hold no purpose is served by executing a person who cannot remember his or her crime. Part of punishing an offender is the fact the offender knows what act she committed and without that knowledge, the punishment seems unjust and cruel.
Madison v. Alabama is an important case in extending the Eighth Amendment’s protections to offenders who suffer mental incompetence that affects their ability to understand why the State seeks to punish them. However, was the Supreme Court incorrect to not extend the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment to mentally incompetent offenders who cannot remember committing the crime? This blog post would hold yes but it is up to society to decide if it is unjust and wrong to punish such an offender.
[1] See 139 S. Ct. 718 (2019).
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 723.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 723-724.
[10] See 477 U.S. 399 (1986); 551 U.S. 930 (2007).
[11] See Madison, 139 S. Ct. at 723.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 724.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. at 725
[17] See Madison, 139 S. Ct. at 726.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at 726-727.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at 727.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 727-728.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at 731.
[28] See Jonathan Masur, John Bronsteen, & Christopher Buccafusco, Retribution and the Experience of Punishment, 98 Calif. 1463, 1465 (2010).
[29] Id. at 1467-1468.
[30] Id.
tennesseelawreview.org 