Death Row Inmates Research Articles

Compelling Choice: Forcibly Medicating Death Row Inmates to Determine Whether They Wish to Pursue Collateral Relief

It is unclear exactly how many of the 3,228 inmates on death row are mentally incompetent. A BBC report placed the number at approximately 10%. Some clinical studies have found as many as 40% or even 70% of surveyed inmates are psychotic. Whether the actual number of death row inmates suffering from mental illness is 10% or 70%, mentally ill inmates represent a considerable portion of the death row population and pose unique challenges for the criminal justice system. In July 2008, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that two of these mentally ill death row inmates, Thavirak Sam and Herbert Watson, could be forcibly medicated to render them competent to determine whether they wished to pursue collateral relief under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). This appears to be the first time a court of last resort has resolved the issue raised by Sam and Watson. This comment analyzes whether forcibly medicating an incompetent death row inmate for this limited purpose is permissible, under existing federal law. Part II provides a brief background to legal issues related to the treatment of mentally ill prisoners including executing the mentally ill, forcibly medicating a non-consenting inmate, and forcibly medicating death row inmates to render them competent to execute. Part III describes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. Sam and Commonwealth v. Watson. Part IV analyzes Sam and Watson in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Washington v. Harper, Riggins v. Nevada, and Sell v. United States. Finally, Part V considers some possible alternatives to Pennsylvania’s treatment of death row inmates who, like Thavirak Sam and Herbert Watson, are not competent to determine whether they wish to pursue collateral relief.

Public executions: the death penalty and the media

The death penalty is one of the country's most controversial issues. The fairness of its application is debated in coffeehouses, classrooms, political arenas, and the media. However, despite its representation in the media, most death cases receive surprisingly little national media attention. In fact, of the 1000 people executed in the United States since 1977, and the 3,500 inmates currently awaiting execution, only a handful of cases can be recalled by the public. Those that are memorable are so because only a few are dramatically represented in the media. Why is it that those that receive the most serious penalty are virtually nameless, while the death penalty in general is one of the most discussed aspects of the criminal justice system? What makes some executions more newsworthy than others? What are the implications of this coverage for the public's understanding of this significant issue? This book looks at those death row cases that received the most intensive media coverage from the 1970s through the present, and why. At the same time, it focuses on changes in public opinion about the death penalty and how newspaper coverage and evolving mass sentiment relate to one another. Kudlac covers such celebrated cases as Karla Faye Tucker, Timothy McVeigh, Aileen Wuornos, John Wayne Gacy, and others that captured the attention of the American public and affected public opinion about the death penalty through the help of the media. He considers issues such as religion, politics, race, gender, and class as he reveals the reasons for our attention to certain cases above others. The book concludes with a consideration of where we go from here. With new investigative techniques that have helped to exonerate some death row inmates, and various other considerations that have come into play in recent cases, the future of the death penalty will continue to be shaped by the media and the public.

Children of the Condemned: Grieving the Loss of a Father to Death Row

This article explores the effects of a death sentence and execution on the children of the accused. Insight into the unique bereavement of this population is provided, while contributing to the literature on death and dying. The experience of losing a father to death row and eventual execution is compared to the wider population of children with incarcerated parents and it is determined that children of death row inmates contend with a much more complicated grief process, one that has gone largely unstudied. This article contains a brief discussion of disenfranchised grief and nonfinite loss, two theories that, we argue, shape the children's grief process. The results section of the article uses qualitative data gathered from 19 children to explore the role that nonfinite loss and disenfranchised grief share in the nature of their bereavement. Our discussion focuses on the impact of stigma and violence on the grieving process. Following a discussion of the unique challenges confronting the children of death row inmates is a discussion of the implications that their experience has for practice.

Dealing with the inevitable: strategies of self-presentation and meaning construction in the final statements of inmates on Texas death row

Last statements of death row inmates represent a genre of discourse characterized by an acute situation in which to express final reflections. This article describes how Texas death row inmates give meaning to their situation by examining their last statements. Between December 1982 and November 2006, 379 offenders were executed on the Texas death row. Through the inspection of 283 last statements made available on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website, we identify strategies of self-presentation. In a first stage, we build a textual framework that uncovers a sequential structuring of what these individuals chose to express. Using this framework, the second stage analyzes the individual texts on a micro-level. Depending on the content of the statements, e.g. accepting or denying guilt, we identify key patterns of how inmates attach meaning to their situation and what they choose to express.

Guarding the Threshold of Birth

This Article examines the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (PBABA) in Carhart v. Gonzales (Carhart II), and suggests that, despite some flawed analysis, the majority reached the proper conclusion. Section II emphasizes that two dimensions of the abortion debate, spatial and temporal, should be viewed in conjunction. While the Court historically has focused exclusively on the temporal dimension (the age of the fetus), Carhart II signals a dramatic shift by not only its recognition of, but its singular focus on the spatial dimension (where fetal demise occurs). Section III continues by examining the Court's reasoning in Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I), and how the majority failed to consider both the spatial and temporal dimensions adequately. This section also highlights Justice Kennedy's Carhart I dissent, and the three important government interests he emphasized. Section IV analyzes Carhart II and the Court's decision to uphold the PBABA, arguing that the opinion is consistent with the controlling standards for abortion regulations, as outlined in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Although the majority attempts to circumvent any direct reversal of Carhart I, this section contends that Justice Kennedy's Carhart II majority opinion is constitutionally correct for the same reasons that his Carhart I dissent was constitutionally correct. Specifically, the PBABA does not create an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain a pre-viability abortion. Further, the unique interests at stake, both spatial and temporal, in post-viability applications of the PBABA justify the Court's decision to not require a health exception. Section V considers in greater detail the important governmental interests emphasized in Justice Kennedy's Carhart I dissent and Carhart II majority, which are also highlighted in the PBABA. First, government has an important interest in protecting fetal life from the outset of pregnancy. This interest was emphasized in Roe, reaffirmed in Casey, and its status has been solidified by Carhart II. Second, government has an important interest in safeguarding the integrity of the medical profession. This interest has been discussed in various contexts. Two such contexts, assisted suicide and involuntary medical treatment of death row inmates, are discussed as comparisons. Third, and most importantly, government has an interest in drawing a clear line between abortion and infanticide. While abortion is secured as a constitutional right through the Court's jurisprudence, neither the Constitution nor the laws of the United States should ever condone infanticide. By examining the historical consensus favoring infanticide and contemporary support for it, this section argues that the government has the constitutional authority, as well as the moral and ethical duty, to draw a clear line between the two procedures.

Elders in the justice system: how the system treats elders in trials, during imprisonment, and on death row

As the average lifespan increases, it becomes increasingly likely that elders will be involved in the justice system. Elders may be witnesses, victims, plaintiffs, or defendants in a trial. They are also prisoners and, in some cases, death row inmates. Because there are special needs and costs associated with elders, it is important to consider how they are treated in each of these areas of the justice system. For instance, jurors may have age biases; some prisons are unable to address elders' health problems; and critics have questioned the constitutionality of executing frail elders. In order to determine whether the court system is treating elders fairly, this analysis reviews current policies, research, and anecdotal evidence from recent high-profile cases. Recommendations for future research and policy changes are offered to ensure that elders are treated fairly in the justice system.

An Artificial Intelligence System Suggests Arbitrariness of Death Penalty

The arguments against the death penalty in the United States have centered on due process and fairness. Since the death penalty is so rarely rendered and subsequently applied, it appears on the surface to be arbitrary. Considering the potential utility of determining whether or not a death row inmate is actually executed along with the promising behavior of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) as classifiers led us into the development, training, and testing of an ANN as a tool for predicting death penalty outcomes. For our ANN we reconstructed the profiles of 1,366 death row inmates by utilizing variables that are independent of the substantive characteristics of the crime for which they have been convicted. The ANN's successful performance in predicting executions has serious implications concerning the fairness of the justice system.

Disenfranchised Grief and Nonfinite Loss as Experienced by the Families of Death Row Inmates

The families of death row inmates experience grief and loss issues that have been neglected by scholars and clinicians alike. The issues found in this population are unique and require our understanding. The present study uses the concepts of disenfranchised grief and nonfinite loss to uncover the pain experienced by the children and other family members who have a loved one on death row. Kenneth Doka's (1989) concept of disenfranchised grief is utilized to bring attention to the ways in which the circumstances surrounding an execution leave the family members of those condemned to death outside of the "grieving rules" that exist in the United States. Family members are disenfranchised from their grief, as society does not socially validate their pain. The loss that they feel is also nonfinite (Bruce & Schultz, 2001) in that it is continuous and denies the families all of the hopes, dreams, and expectations that they had for their loved one who now sits on death row. The qualitative interview method was utilized by the authors of this study to gather data from 26 family members of death row inmates who are incarcerated along the East Coast of the United States. The reactions of this group of family members are varied and complex, yet they include the following common responses: social isolation due to stigma and their own feelings of criminalization, intensified family conflict between family members who grieve differently from one another, diminished self-esteem, shame, diffused and specific feelings of guilt, and a chronic state of despair. This study explores virtually untapped terrain. An examination of the microlevel effects of the death penalty on families provides insight in to the area of death and dying, especially as it is related to disenfranchised loss and nonfinite grief. In addition, this study provides insight into the death penalty and its effects.

The cycle of violence: The life histories of 43 death row inmates.

The life histories of 43 men on death row were examined in a qualitative analysis of the multiple intermediary factors in the cycle of violence. Severe and multiple forms of abuse were endemic in this sample of men. Abuse was typically multigenerational and almost universally linked to intergenerational substance abuse. After experiencing abuse, the majority of these men manifested extensive developmental problems, from severe difficulties in school to chronic relationship and occupational problems. For most, the transition to adulthood was seriously compromised. Results are discussed in terms of the interaction between developmental trauma and masculine socialization.

Ethical issues in the evaluation and treatment of death row inmates

To summarize recent ethical analyses of psychiatrists' participation in the evaluation and treatment of death row inmates. Psychiatric participation in death penalty cases remains highly controversial in the United States, whereas there appears to be a more worldwide consensus that it is ethically inappropriate. Psychiatrists working in death penalty settings are functioning in a complex ethical arena, and must consider the implications of their decisions to participate and/or abstain from various activities with great care and attention to the circumstances of the individual cases at hand.

“Self-Execution” and State Execution

In the United States from 1977 to 1999, the suicide rate of death row inmates was not associated with their probability of execution (r = -.25).

Hidden victims: the effects of the death penalty on families of the accused

Sharp's book reemphasizes the tremendous costs of maintaining the death penalty--costs to real people and real families that ripple throughout generations to come.--Saundra D. Westervelt, author of Shifting the Blame: How Victimization Became a Criminal Defense Everyone concerned with the effects of capital punishment must have this book.--Margaret Vandiver, professor, department of criminology and criminal justice, University of Memphis Murderers, particularly those sentenced to death, are considered by most to be unusually heinous, often sub-human, and entirely different from the rest of us. In Hidden Victims, sociologist Susan F. Sharp challenges this culturally ingrained perspective by reminding us that those individuals facing a death sentence, in addition to being murderers, are brothers or sisters, mothers or fathers, daughters or sons, relatives or friends. Through a series of vivid and in-depth interviews with families of the accused, she demonstrates how the exceptionally severe way in which we view those on death row trickles down to those with whom they are closely connected. Sharp shows how family members and friends--in effect, the indirect victims of the initial crime--experience a profoundly complicated and socially isolating grief process. Departing from a humanist perspective from which most accounts of victims are told, Sharp makes her case from a sociological standpoint that draws out the parallel experiences and coping mechanisms of these individuals. Chapters focus on responses to sentencing, the particular structure of grieving faced by this population, execution, aftermath, wrongful conviction, family formation after conviction, and the complex situation of individuals related to both the killer and the victim. Powerful, poignant, and intelligently written, Hidden Victims challenges all of us--regardless of which side of the death penalty we are on--to understand the economic, social, and psychological repercussions that shape the lives of the often forgotten families of death row inmates. Susan F. Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma.

Where to Go From Here?

In recent months we have witnessed a host of major changes to state and federal sentencing. State commissions and legislatures have acted on the Supreme Court’s mandate in Blakely and amended sentencing legislation. Similarly, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has continued its data collection resulting from Booker, though it has not issued any strong recommendations to Congress. The Department of Justice, on the other hand, and some members of Congress continue to press for a sentencing regime that would provide a floor and turn the statutory maximum into the Guidelines maximum.1 In the absence of legislative guidance, so far, federal courts on the trial and appellate level have attempted to respond to the myriad of questions Booker left unresolved. The Supreme Court decided some sentencing issues during the last term and already has granted writs of certiorari in other sentencing-related cases.2 Not all of these matters are guideline-related—the death penalty and the development of the meaning of the Eighth Amendment are likely to return to the Court’s docket in the near future. This Issue presents an impressive array of articles, written by practitioners and academics, which address some of the sentencing issues facing the Supreme Court. The questions range from the survival of Harris to the use of foreign court opinions in developing the meaning of the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause; they cover the role of the Chief Justice in the rule-making process as well as the relevance of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision in the Avena case to the fate of Mexican death-row inmates in state prisons around the country; they address the use of risk-based sentencing and challenge the continued viability of Williams v. New York.3 The Issue highlights the scope of the unresolved questions facing the Court and their importance to the future of federal and state sentencing. It is particularly timely as two new Justices have changed the face of the Court and may be crucial in the resolution of some of these issues. In addition, this Issue features an article that begins to develop a new approach to a particularly harsh collateral sanction—deportation. Moreover, we publish a set of primary materials from the Inter-American Commission’s hearings on mandatory minimum sentences in the federal system.

Secondary Trauma Associated with State Executions: Testimony regarding Execution Procedures

Secondary trauma associated with state executions refers to distress, harm, and injuries suffered by individuals other than the condemned prisoner. This article reviews the available research on this topic presenting findings, suggesting risks to correctional officers, judges and judicial staff, journalists, as well as the family members of the death row inmate, and the family members of the victim of the homicide. The literature review was prepared for testimony before a state department of corrections hearing regarding execution procedures. According to the authors, secondary trauma associated with state executions warrants further research and should be considered in the context of public policy regarding state executions.

Capital consequences: families of the condemned tell their stories

Those who support capital punishment often claim that they do so because it provides justice and closure for the victims' families. In Capital Consequences, attorney Rachel King reminds us that there are other families and other victims who must be considered in the debate over the death penalty. Combining a narrative voice with vivid, passionate, and painful accounts of the families of death row inmates, the book demonstrates that crimes that lead to death sentences also devastate the families of those convicted. These families, King argues, are the unseen victims of capital punishment. King challenges readers to question the morality of a punishment that victimizes families of the condemned and ripples out through future generations. Chapters tell the stories of families that have lost life savings supporting an accused loved one, endured intense public scrutiny, been subjected to harassment by the media, and are struggling to live with the inhumane treatment that their loved ones receive on death row. The author also explores the unique nature of the grief that these families suffer. Because their pain tends to elicit less attention and empathy than that of the crime victims' families, King shows how it becomes much more desperate and isolating. On a human level, this book is a powerful reminder that tragic events have tragic consequences that far outreach their immediate victims. At the same time, the accounts illustrate many of the flaws inherent in the judicial system--racial and economic bias, incompetent counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, the execution of juveniles, and wrongful convictions, some of which are only now being overturned because of recent advances in DNA technology. Regardless of which side of the death penalty issue you are on, this book will lead you to pause and consider that all acts--criminal and retributive--have broader human implications than we are sometimes willing to realize.

Sentenced to Die: Last Statements and Dying on Death Row

Moments prior to execution, death row inmates are given time to say anything they desire. In these moments, what do inmates find most important to express? This study first examined the context of dying on death row. Conflicts over high death stigma (Silverman, 1994), just world beliefs (Lerner, 1980), system justification needs (Jost & Banaji, 1994), high death salience, lack of control, and facing their own crime were explored. Next, last statements were studied. Six themes, forgiveness, claims of innocence, silence, love/appreciation, activism and after life belief, were found. Lastly, suggestions for future research on death and dying on death row were made, with special attention paid to terror management theory (see Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszcynski, 2004 for review) and system justification theory (see Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004 for review).

The Freedom of Information Act, Personal Privacy, and Litigants

here is a belief that government should be highly transparent so that citizens X may monitor its actions, including those of government officials who appear in court. While this belief has been enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the common-law right of access to judicial records in civil suits, it has not been absolute. One exception to a presumption of disclosure relates to personal privacy: under what circumstances may personal information about those involved in litigation be withheld from public view? Two cases bearing on this question are dis cussed here. Capital Collateral Counsel. Capital Collateral Counsel (CCC), an organiza tion representing death-row inmate Michael Mordent, sought to compel the Department of Justice to release information concerning disciplinary proceedings conducted against Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Cox in connection with a previous case. In that case, United States v. Sterba, 22 F.Supp.2d 1333 (M.D.Fla. 1998), it was discovered that, to secure a conviction, Cox purposely misrepresented the identity of a witness. Cox was investigated by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which reported its findings to James Santelle, deputy director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. After a final meeting with Cox, Santelle imposed on her a two-week suspension without pay. Cox faced contempora neous proceedings before the Florida Bar, whose recommendation of only a public reprimand was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court, which instead imposed a one year suspension. Florida Bar v. Cox, 794 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2001). CCC requested that, pursuant to the FOIA, the Department of Justice disclose all records concerning Cox's disciplinary proceedings. The department initially nei ther confirmed nor denied existence of the requested documents but, after CCC filed a complaint in federal district court, agreed to release over 1,000 pages of material while refusing to divulge five requested documents. The district court reviewed those five documents in camera and held that two documents must be turned over although names of third parties in one could be redacted; the court also awarded attorney's fees to CCC. The department appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision to compel release of the documents and remanded the case so that the district court could reconsider the

Predictions of Future Dangerousness in Capital Murder Trials: Is It Time to "Disinvent the Wheel?"

Although recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the death penalty (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) have renewed interest in mental health issues, one topic that has not received much attention recently is the ongoing use of expert testimony to support claims that defendants represent a "continuing threat to society." In this article, we (a) review prior research relevant to determining the accuracy of clinical predictions that capital defendants will commit future acts of criminal violence; (b) summarize new data from current and former death row inmates in Texas that bolster the claim that such predictions are gross overestimates of risk; and (c) review extant research addressing the potential utility of various risk assessment instruments that increasingly are being used to reinforce clinical predictions in capital trials. Despite significant recent advances in the field of risk assessment, clinical assertions that a defendant is likely to commit future violent acts appear to be highly inaccurate and ethically questionable at best. Moreover, available research offers little support for the claim that the accuracy of these predictions will be appreciably improved by relying on more structured risk assessment measures that have some demonstrated predictive validity in other contexts.

Macroeconomic Impact of Trade on Namibian Growth: An Empirical Illustration

The present research deals with the issue of death penalty in the US which creates tension whether it remains as a justified and valid form of punishment. It discusses the history of capital its adoption in the US, the way some US States started to abolish a and unusual punishment, the attempted reforms. it further analyses current approach of death penalty, the reforms focused on the process by which it is applied and with the limits of what is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The cases that made changes in the US legal system are also reviewed. Forms of executions, federal death penalty, court decisions regarding people with mental disabilities, juveniles, religion, women, the issues of race, innocence, financial facts, the roles of International Organizations and current statistics of the Bureau of Justice, DPIC, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, regarding death row inmates by state, number of executions by region is presented and reviewed. The research displays public opinion and analyses current situation in the US by presenting Gallup annual Crime Surveys, DPIC and Lake Research Partners polls. It poses a question whether a just society requires death penalty for the taking of a life. The research concludes that the U.S is a party to several fundamental human rights treaties that impact capital though it has refrained from being a party to the treaties that have most direct effects through invoking domestic law. By involvement of the U.S. in these treaties it will initiate the reform and restrict the death penalty from a human rights perspective. It will reduce exercising any unnecessary measures which threaten innocent life.

Singleton's Story: Choosing between Psychosis and Execution

Singleton's Story:Choosing between Psychosis and Execution Julia C. Spring (bio) In early 2003, an episode of "The Practice" featured a psychotic death row inmate who stopped taking medication in order to avoid execution. The court forced the prisoner to take the medication but then commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds that executing someone who is mentally ill would be cruel and unusual punishment. In real life cases where death row convicts think about foregoing antipsychotic medication, few endings are happy. Mentally ill convicts are sometimes executed, competent or incompetent, while being medicated forcibly, voluntarily, or not at all.1 The Constitution requires defendants and convicts to be mentally competent at all stages of the criminal process. To be competent for execution, the prisoner must understand that he is to be executed and why. Applying that principle to the mentally ill, the Supreme Court's 1986 Ford opinion held that the "Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane."2 The majority opinion did not mention antipsychotic medication and its potential for improving mental capacity, although these drugs had by then been used to treat the mentally ill for at least two decades. However, a footnote in a concurring opinion stated that "if [Ford] is cured of his disease, the State is free to execute him."3 This opened up the possibility—a loophole for the prosecution—that antipsychotic drugs or some other treatment might make a mentally ill capital convict sane enough to meet the minimal competency requirement for execution, even though the treatment would not actually "cure" the underlying illness. Ford has been followed by extensive litigation about the forcible medication of mentally ill convicts. Because the Constitutional privacy right to refuse unwanted intrusion into the body applies to the incarcerated as well as to the free, the Court has held that a prisoner may be medicated involuntarily only if he is dangerous to himself or others and the medication is in his best medical interest. 4 In 2003, however, the Court upheld and refined the Eighth Circuit's Sell decision, holding that under limited circumstances the Eighth Amendment permits forcible psychotropic medication to make a nondangerous defendant competent to stand trial.5 A few months later, the Court declined to review Singleton, in which the same federal appeals court had denied an Eighth Amendment claim by a capital convict, Charles Singleton, that he should not be forcibly medicated to be made competent for execution.6 The Eighth Circuit majority opinion made much of the fact that Singleton was already taking psychotropic medication voluntarily. It allowed Singleton to be put to death when his voluntary medication had the incidental effect of making him competent to be executed. Thus the only way for Singleton to postpone or possibly escape death was to stop taking medication, regress to psychosis, become dangerous to himself or others, lose his ability to understand that he was to be executed and why—and then start the whole cycle over again. He chose not to take this path. Charles Singleton—taking antipsychotics voluntarily, formally competent yet hearing voices—was executed by lethal injection on January 6, 2004. His last words were "a largely rambling missive peppered with Biblical references."7 Sell and Singleton keep alive the question that Ford seemed to settle in 1986. Although the Supreme Court let the Eighth Circuit's Singleton opinion stand, it has not itself ruled on forcible medication for competence to be executed, and no other circuits have followed Singleton. What will happen when the case of a Charles Singleton who continues to refuse medication arrives at the Court, as it surely will? Certainly the Court will not treat a condemned prisoner's rights and interests as cavalierly as the Eighth Circuit did in Singleton. It will use Sell's "generic" test, which was designed to balance the state's interest in moving toward a final criminal judgment with the convict's right to refuse medication.8 However, the Court found that the Sell test did not permit forcible medication of Charles Sell himself, at least on the...