forensic psychology in the legal world
The advent of forensic psychology in the legal world is changing the criminal justice system at an astounding pace. The criminal justice system has undergone various changes in recent years, which are not limited to juvenile codes, probation, sentencing statutes, and parole policies. The transformations in the legal conduct are made with the laudable aim of avoiding incarceration of mentally ill individuals or people with alcohol and addiction problems. Over the years, we have seen a rise in treatment courts, specialty courts and family courts, which require the assistance of forensic psychologists. A recent impact of psychology in the legal system was the supreme court decision on Madison v Alabama. Madison v Alabama was a case touching on the eighth amendment rights argued before the supreme court of the USA from October of 2018. The eighth amendment was adopted as part of the bill of rights and prohibited the state from imposing excessive bail or fines, cruel and unusual punishment. The supreme court was tasked with the mandate of determining whether the state still had the right under the eighth amendment to execute a prisoner whose mental state robbed them of the ability to comprehend the nature of their punishment.
Background of the case
In April 1985, Vernon Madison was found guilty of shooting and killing a police officer in the mobile county of Alabama. Madison was tried and sentenced to death three times; the first two convictions were overturned on appeals. In his first trial, the Judge found gross misconduct in jury selection since not even a single black person was selected. Also, there were several cases of misconduct in the second trial, which warranted nullification. Madison’s execution was scheduled for May 2016. Still, he petitioned the state trial court for a stay of execution on the grounds that he was mentally incapacitated and didn’t have knowledge of having committed the crime. While awaiting execution, Madison suffered numerous life-threatening strokes and was diagnosed with vascular dementia. The strokes impaired his mental capacity, and he couldn’t even remember his arrest, trial, or offense. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
In 2016, Madison petitioned the state trial court for an execution stay on the grounds that he was not legally competent to understand or remember committing the crime or the nature of his penalty. The court-appointed a psychologist to help in examining the psychological state of the petitioner. The court-appointed expert revealed that while Madison had suffered from severe cognitive and body damages due to the strokes, he experienced while in death row, he was capable of understanding the nature of the impending punishment and reasons for his conviction. The state responded that even if he had no memory of committing the crime, he could clearly understand the reasons for his execution. The state added that Madison’s case failed to implicate Ford and Panetti precedent because these decisions involve cases of severe delusions, which apparently Madison didn’t suffer from. The state attorney general argued that understanding was enough to warrant execution.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the US court of appeal for the 11th circuit granted a stay of execution pending an appeal. In 2017, the eleventh circuit ruled that Madison was incompetent to be executed. However, the supreme court overturned the ruling clearing Madison for execution in the same month. Following that decision, the state of Alabama scheduled Madison’s execution for January 25, 2018. However, Madison filed another petition claiming that the eighth amendments precluded the state from going through with the execution at his current mental state. The Alabama 13th circuit court heard the appeal on January 16, 2018. After reviewing the competency issues, the court denied the request to stay the execution. According to the court the defendant didn’t sufficiently meet the legal requirements of insanity set by the US supreme court. Therefore, Madison filed another appeal with the US supreme court on January 18, 2018.
The supreme court decision
In a ruling of 5-3, the supreme court vacated the Alabama 13th circuit court’s decision and remanded the decision. The verdict delivered by Justice Elena Kagan held that the eighth amendment could allow the execution of a capital offender even if they cannot remember committing the crime. However, the same amendment precludes the execution of prisoners who have severe dementia rather than psychotic delusions. While the supreme court acknowledged the fact that a person lacks a recollection of their crime, they might still understand the meaning and reason behind their type of punishment. Conversely, the supreme court ruled that if a person is not able to rationally understand why the state is seeking such kind of penalty, then the eighth amendment prohibits the state from executing such a prisoner. The main questions of these cases were already addressed by two previous instances of Ford and Panetti. According to the five justices, the rulings on Ford and Panetti did not make Madison automatically eligible for execution. Therefore, the supreme court directed the lower court to establish if the petitioner rationally understood why the state wanted to execute him.
The court clarified the scope of their decision drawing from the Panetti v Quarterman and Ford v Wainwright. In the case of Ford v Wainwright, the court decides that the 8th amendment prohibits execution whose mental state does not allow her to rationally understand the reason behind the punishment imposed on them by the state. A person must be able to comprehend why they are single out to die. Panetti suffered a severe mental illness while on death, which impaired his cognitive processes. Four experts testified before the court confirmed that he was delusional and could not understand why he was to be executed. The court found that Panetti’s case satisfied the standards of Ford v Wainwright. Pursuing to the 8th amendment as well as the state laws, the court found it cruel to take the life of a prisoner with no recollection of their crimes and cannot comprehend the meaning of the community judgment. The court further explained that executing prisoners who could not understand why the state wants them dead lack retributive value. Retributive justice is only achieved if the accused understand why people like her must suffer such punishments.
Another case that changed the role of forensic psychology in the justice system is Ford v Wainwright. Alvin Ford was convicted of murdering the parents of his estranged wife and sentenced to death. While on death row, he suffered psychosis and other mental illness like schizophrenia. The supreme court ruled on the 8th amendment and versed the decision. According to the justices, the constitution prohibited the execution of insane people. However, the decision was reversed to the lower court for further proceedings. The court could not determine with utmost certainty and from the evidence presented by the petitioner that they were mentally incapacitated to understand the reason for execution.
Implications of the ruling
The case Madison v Alabama presented two major issues before the US supreme court. First, whether the facts of the case were consistent with the previous decisions on Ford v Wainwright and Panetti v Quarterman on the eighth amendment. Secondly, the eighth amendment’s ban of cruel and unusual punishments allows for a stay of execution for prisoners whose competency has been compromised by degenerative illness and severe cognitive dysfunction. The court ruled that while the eighth amendment may permit the execution of a prisoner who has no recollection of their criminal past, it prohibits executing people who have dementia and psychotic delusions.
The ruling has various implications on the position of psychology in the criminal justice system. As state released by the joint task force American psychological association and the American Bar Association addressed the nature of mental illness like dementia and schizophrenia and how they affect individuals’ self-awareness and mental competency. The taskforce addressed the roles of mental health experts in determining competency level of prisoners on death row. The APA and ABA jointly agree that if the challenges of the validity of the court procedures have be successfully handled such that no judicial misconduct can be tied to the conviction and the execution date is determined, the court can grant stay of execution on mental grounds of mental incapacitation of the prisoner. The stay will only be granted if the court through its appointed specialists ascertain that the prisoner is not ware of the what the state claim sis the reason behind this execution. Under these circumstance the prisoner’s sentence will be reduced to any other sentence imposed on similar capital offense when death penalty is not an option.
Ethical implication of the supreme court ruling
The ruling on the mental state of the prisoners before execution opens up more question about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. over the years, ethicists have argued on the topic of
Brewer, N., & Williams, K. D. (Eds.). (2017). Psychology and law: An empirical perspective. Guilford Publications.
Leto, J. (2019). Extraordinary and Compelling: Madison v. Alabama and the Issue of Prison Reform for Elderly Prisoners. U. Miami Race & Soc. Just. L. Rev., 10, 41.
Tumlin, M. G. Criminal Justice in Madison County, Alabama: April 1865 to December 1874. Huntsville Historical Review, 19, 3-10.
Hrynkiw, I. (2018). Execution Called off for Alabama Inmate Vernon Madison. Sup. Ct. Preview, 189.
Freeman, C. G. (2019). Supreme Court Cases of Interest. Criminal Justice, 34(2), 62-67.
Almasy, S., & Cuevas, M. (2018). Supreme Court Stays Execution of Inmate Who Layers Say Is Not Competent. Sup. Ct. Preview, 184.
Lain, C. B. (2018). Madison and the Mentally Ill: The Death Penalty for the Weak, Not the Worst. Regent UL Rev., 31, 209.
Sandick, H., & Szymborski, K. (2019). NEW SUPREME COURT TERM TO LOOK AT MAJOR QUESTIONS INVOLVING DEATH PENALTY AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Criminal Justice, 3, 5.
Dresser, R. (2019). Dementia and the Death Penalty. Hastings Center Report, 49(6), 6-7.
Dieter, R. C. (2014). The future of the death penalty in the United States. U. Rich. L. Rev., 49, 921.