Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a separate concurrence,
noting that 67-year-old Vernon Madison, convicted of the murder of a police
officer in 1985, “is one among a growing number of aging prisoners who remain
on death row in this country for ever longer periods of time.”
“Given this trend, we may face ever more instances of state
efforts to execute prisoners suffering the diseases and infirmities of old
age,” Breyer continued.
Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor also joined a separate
concurrence in the case, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that suggested the
issue of “whether a state may administer the death penalty to a person whose
disability leaves him without memory of his commission of a capital offense is
a substantial question” that would merit the court’s attention if
“appropriately presented.”
Three months later, due to some factual and procedural
twists, just such a case came along—a separate appeal by Madison, this one
unencumbered by the intricate habeas restraints imposed by the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
On Jan. 25, Madison had eaten a last meal of two oranges and
was a half-hour away from lethal injection when the Supreme Court intervened
with a stay of execution.
“It is undisputed that Mr. Madison suffers from vascular
dementia as a result of multiple serious strokes in the last two years and no
longer has a memory of the commission of the crime for which he is to be
executed,” said the stay application filed by his lawyers with the Equal
Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama.
“His mind and body are failing,” the filing continued. “He
suffers from encephalomalacia [dead brain tissue], small vessel ischemia,
speaks in a dysarthric or slurred manner, is legally blind, can no longer walk
independently, and has urinary incontinence as a consequence of damage to his
brain.”
On Feb. 26, over the objections of Alabama state officials,
the high court granted full review of Madison’s case, based on the questions of
whether the Eighth Amendment and relevant court precedents permit a state to
execute someone who whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his
commission of the capital offense, and whether evolving standards of decency
bar the execution of a prisoner whose competency has been compromised by
vascular dementia and multiple strokes.
Arguments are scheduled for Oct. 2, the second day of the
court’s new term.
“This case is going to have something to say about dignity,
and who we execute and why,” says John H. Blume, a professor at Cornell Law
School and the director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project.
Blume has represented defendants in many death penalty
cases, though he is not involved Madison’s case.
To read more CLICK HERE
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment