Perry v. Louisiana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Perry v. Louisiana | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||||
| Argued October 2, 1990 Decided November 13, 1990 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||||
| The forcible medication of individuals to render them competent to be executed is impermissible. | ||||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter |
||||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||||
| Per curiam. Joined by: unanimous Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Perry v. Louisiana is a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of the forcibly medicating a death row inmate with a mental disorder in order to make sure he is competent to be executed.[1]
Contents |
[edit] Circumstances
Michael Owen Perry was sentenced to the death penalty in Louisiana. After his sentencing the trial court found that his competence to be executed depended on his taking psychiatric medication and ordered that he be forcibly medicated to be sure he remained competent. Ford v. Wainwright has already established that an insane inmate cannot be executed .[1]
[edit] Appeals
Perry appealed to the state appellate court which affirmed the trial court's ruling so Perry petitioned on a writ of certiorari to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana which also affirmed. Perry then sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. Amici curiae briefs were filed by the American Psychiatric Association and the Coalition for Fundamental Rights and Equality of Ex-patients.[2]
[edit] Ruling
Per curiam, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court's ruling without issuing an opinion. The case was remanded to the Louisiana Supreme Court for further deliberation in view of Washington v. Harper (1990), also a case involving involuntary medication, which had been decided after the District Court's ruling.[2]
Upon remand, the lower court ruled against the forcible medication of individuals in order to maintain their competency for execution. This decision was based on the distinction that, unlike Harper v. Washington which was concerned with involuntary medication for treatment issues, forcing medication for the purposes of execution was not medical treatment (being "antithetical to the basic principles of the healing arts") but punishment.[1]
In addition, the court found two state laws on which to base its holding. First it found that forcibly medicating a person for the purposes of execution was cruel and unusual punishment under Louisiana state law because "it fails to measurably contribute to the social goals of capital punishment" by adding to the individual's punishment "beyond that required for the mere extinguishment of life," and could be "administered erroneously, arbitrarily or capriciously".[1] It also held that forcible medication in this situation violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Louisiana State Constitution because the inhumanity of the situation rendered the state's interest in executing a person under these conditions less compelling.[1]
[edit] Significance
Per Ford v. Wainwright, a psychotic inmate who does not have an understanding of what is about to occur is not competent to be executed and therefore cannot be executed. The complex issues of forcibly medicating an individual to make him competent for execution posed in Perry v. Louisiana illustrates the conflict between the judicial interests in imposing capital punishment for certain murderers and the medical doctor's Hippocratic Oath, "first do no harm." Medical ethics are primarily guided by "first do no harm". If other states follow Louisiana's example and specify that the judiciary must provide legal support for this medical ethical imperative, the practice of forcibly medicating death row inmate would cease, and the conflict between these issues would disappear.[3][4] However, currently these conflicting issues continue to exist.[5]
[edit] See also
[edit] Footnotes
- ^ a b c d e Melton, Gary (1997). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, 2nd, New York: The Guilford Press, pp 184–185. ISBN 1-57230-236-4.
- ^ a b Perry v. Louisiana Certiorari to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana. supreme.justia.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-19.
- ^ Medical Ethics and Physician Involvement. Human Rights Watch (1994). Retrieved on 2007-12-20.
- ^ Perry v. Louisiana: medical ethics on death row--is judicial intervention warranted?. PubMed (Winter 1991). Retrieved on 2007-12-20.
- ^ William J. Rold, JD, CCHP-A (Winter 2003). Legal Affairs - Special Needs and Mental Health Care: A Closer Look. National Commission on Correctional Care. Retrieved on 2007-12-20.
