Last Thursday in Fort Worth, a nine judge panel from the Texas Court of criminal appeals heard an interesting case in the Texas Wesleyan Auditorium.

Stephen Kenneth Staley has been sentenced to death for the 1989 slaying of a Fort Worth restaurant manager.

Staley is a paranoid schizophrenic. For several months prison officials have forcibly injected him with medicines that they hope will make him sane enough to execute.
T
he prosecutor and defense attorney differ on the question of forcibly medicating Staley.


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/community/16818366.htm

I don’t want to debate the merits of capital punishment per se, but rather the narrower issue:

Questions for debate:

1. Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)? Why?

1. Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)? Why?

It is cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody should be able to be medicated against their will. These drugs that are supposed to make the defendant "sane," but drugs do not make people sane, the make them complacent, without emotion. If the man committed a crime, then he should be prosecuted through a fair trial and if convicted should be inflicted with the punishment deemed necessary. But he should not be forcibly medicated unless someone can show a law where it says that such a thing is ok.

1. Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)? Why?

First it needs to be established if Staley's paranoid schizophrenia is harmful to the guards or himself(frankly I could care less if it was harmful to himself.).

If so, then the forced medication is needed to keep his illness all the way until the time of his execution.

If not then the execution should proceed forward as planned without the use of medication.




On a personal note, this is one death row inmate I would keep alive in prison. I would just have some of the best horror artists come in and paint his cell walls with the most diabolical images imaginable.

Yes, it is neccesary and should be done. Despite Leder's claim here- this has been my field for 20 years- this is no different than allowing a diabetic to go into a sugar coma to escape punishment. Schizophrenia is empirically able to be diagnosed, through imaging and observation of behaviors. It is most likely a ploy by the inmate to be transfered to a psych hospital to live out his years anyway. He has been made competant to stand trial through medication, and has had ample opportunity to have his defense team show that thier client was incompatent to stand trial. Typically, you have to be pretty disabled to make incompetant to stand trial after forced meds. By the time the trial rolls around anyway- most of the meds are tapered down in dosage once they achieve the loading dose= and those poeple ARE NOT somehow sedated like Leder infers- I know of AT LEAST 200 chronically schizophrenic patients that live in the community that are PROFOUNDLY mentally ill- to the point of playing in thier feces and such. But the meds have made many of them unrecognizable to the public as mentally ill.

The meds stabilize the illness to allow justice to be carried out- it is not the place of the convict to be abl to decide the place and time of his death- he abdicated that right when he took the life of another. No more than we allow an inmate to commit suicide while they are on death row- and staff more for this as well.

I wish everyone that comments on this would work or even volunteer at a place like I work at now

(BTW-my state does not have the death penalty- so I have never had be part of a forensic team to put or keep someone on death row)

But the basic mythos that Joe Public seems to have of state mental health facilities, the poeple that work there, the poeple that come through as patients or inmates is really deep and pervasive. Some comments I hear make me shake my head in wonder about the total lack of understanding of well, every part of this equation.

According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram article, the only statement we have from the prosecutor is that the medication is "necessary to control his [Staley's] psychosis." Absent the transcript from the hearing, we don’t know whether the issue of safety of Tarrant County jail personnel came up.

Absent this information, which you are welcome to research if you desire, I think we'll probably have to proceed with what we have the prosecutor saying. It seems obvious to me that the prosecutor isn't really interested in Staley's wellbeing, but being able to put him to death.

1. Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)? Why?

First of all, how much more money is this costing the state while they are debating this issue? A jury convicted this person fifteen years ago! Medicate him or don't medicate him, who in the world cares at this point! Fifteen years is more than enough time to work out all the "quirks" I would say! To squelch all the fuss, I say don't medicate him; just carry out the execution and be done with it!!

It's not that simple. The problem with this is that such an attempt might be blocked by a state or federal court. If Texas could have legally excuted Staley, I think they would already have done so.



See original link.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)? Why?
My understanding is that Texas can only execute him when he's "stable", which is why the forcible medication is desirable. My own perspective is that if he was considered sane when he committed the crime, then his mental state when executed is irrelavent. He's on death row for what he did, not what he is. So, as far as I'm concerned, whether they give him the meds or not doesn't matter. That's with regards to his execution. In the interim, as soon as he slips off into la la land, they should forcibly medicate him. Failing to do so would violate the responsibility the state has for his physical wellbeing until they fry him. When he comes back from la la land, then he can choose the meds or not.

Now, its possible that the defense attorney is basing his argument on the notion that if his defendant is "in his right mind", then the knowledge of his pending demise itself is cruel and unusual. I personally would reject that line of argument, as such knowledge is not unusual, and knowing it isn't cruel. A slightly more credible argument would be that denying him the drugs would be "cruel and unusual", because doing so would subject the alternate personalities to the knowledge of their own demise for something that "they" may not have committed.

One of the wrinkles in this case is that, according to the prosecutor, Salvant is choosing to refuse the medications when he's competent. I think that's where the case is going to turn. If so, then Salvant's going to be medicated as it will be the only way to carry out his sentence. Our laws no longer relieve individuals of the responsibility for their actions when they have rendered themselves temporarily incompetent. If anything, the penalties are even harsher in such cases.

Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)?
I agree with neither. I have a bipolar schizophrenic stepbrother who was released from jail and later a halfway house of his own recognizance a few years ago, unfortunately. Now he refuses to take his medication and I constantly worry about my parents' safety. Staley's Due Process rights don't trump the right of persons in the employ of the city as police officers or hospital staff to be relatively safe around him. Not to mention forcefully medicating an inmate would probably not be considered a gross violation of bodily integrity in any court.

I also know the reason why the prosecution wants to forcibly medicate Staley has little to do with concern over the safety of city employees and a lot to do with the Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in Ford v. Wainwright outlawing the execution of the mentally insane. They figure if they can show he's competent at the time of his execution, his permanent, debilitating mental illness can be whitewashed in the pursuit of justice. His defense is trying to exhaust every avenue available before appealing to the Supreme Court.

And cases like Staley's should be reviewed by SCOTUS considering less than 1% of cases reviewed by the Circuit Courts see certiorari and the constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment needs to be settled. Recently the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling "reversed a 2-1 decision handed down on 12 October 2001 by one of its own three panels of judges, clearing the way for execution of mentally ill inmates if they can be successfully medicated. The panel had previously granted a permanent stay of execution to Singleton, now 43, who has paranoid schizophrenia and who has been on Arkansas’s death row since 1979 for stabbing to death Mary Lou York, a grocer from Hamburg, Arkansas." (Link) I hope the death sentences of Staley and other mentally ill inmates are commuted to life sentences without parole.

1. Do you agree with the prosecutor (that forcible medication is desirable) or the defense attorney (that it is cruel and unusual punishment)? Why?

Yes. many times over I think our legal system, or really the current staffing of such not only operate from a perceptual base, such as hard right or hard left leanings on the justice system, but that if some gross mistake was made, many times over people simply cant let that come to light. I mean think of the reality of the justice doers putting people to death for being severally mentally ill, or rather handicapped. I have an interest in such “disorders” for various interdisciplinary reasons, and have been around them also. They do indeed have severe problems, speaking in tongues overall is a good signal something’s wrong with somebody. Yet our justice system feels the need to execute such individuals, to go along with some platform or issue they hold. So by medicating him, they can elevate his status to “normal” possibly and then execute a “normal” person for the acts of mental illness such as being schizophrenic. To deal with the issue is one thing, to dope someone so the execution might look good is another issue.

Part of the problem is the very way we deal with "diminished capacity" and the law- which is outgrowth of English common law- and I think it has some very big fundamental errors in the way they created English common law and the "diminished capacity" as applied to the mentally ill.

We need to drop the middle ages thinking in regards to the mentally ill and criminal behavior. If the mentally ill are allowed to refuse medication- then they need to accept the responsibility for their behaviors as well. Diminished capacity and punishment need to be seperated permanently- like they have already done in some states.

I agree with the prosecutor for several reasons, not the least of which being that the medication is not punishment. The authorities are not medicating this man to punish him for the crime[s] he committed, they're medicating him because he's ill and because his sentence [death] cannot be served if he remains unmedicated. In addition, and most obviously, if you're insane and pose a risk to the safety of others it becomes the role of the government to protect others from you, even if those "others" include other criminals and especially prison personnel. There is no Constitutional violation here as far as I can see.

CP

I would be curious to hear from the at least two members of this board who firmly believe he is 'just faking it' and that there is no such thing as mental illness or schizophrenia.

Crackpots aside, I have to say this, if you take a step back and look at it for a moment, this is one of the most surreal and bizarre sentences I have ever read:



Sane enough to execute?


Anyways, i think the issue here is, as has been pointed out, is he a danger to himself and others? If so there is plenty of reason, both under the law and morally, to force him to take medication. If that is NOT the case, and he is being strapped down and sedated so he can be 'sane enough to execute', then that entire situation is just grotesque.

I am sure the situation for the Steak and Ale manager was grotesque as well...

I am going to have to agree with Cruising Ram's assessment here.

CR, I know we have had this debate in the past, but I am still not convinced nor shown evidence of how brain imaging shows schizophrenia. Again, the only way that this could be objectively tested is if a psychiatrist took 100 random people and used brain imaging on them and is able to determine who is schizophrenic and who isn't based on that data. Now I have never seen such an experiment done. Why don't we have brain imaging done on a regular basis like an annual checkup to make sure people who are actually schizophrenic are caught and treated? That's because its based on the observations of behavior...observations that are subjective and play into the social construct of society.

Schizophrenia



65%? Doesn't seem like hard science to me when two psychiatrists can agree only 65% of the time. That leaves 35% of cases where there is a disagreement of whether a person is schizophrenic or not. If schizophrenia was really a matter of the brain function, it would be under neurology and not psychiatry.



Sedated may not be the right word, but the medication does restrict the level of dopamine that goes to the brain and that has a lot to do with restricting the behavior of the defendant.



I have to say that i am surprised CP. The state forcibly injecting a person with medication is not justified. The argument that the defendant "may be a harm to himself and others" is a dangerous line of logic. In this country, you cannot be punished for crimes you may committ, only for ones you have committed.

I agree that this is bizarre, but that’s essentially what Tarrant County prosecutor Chuck Mallin said in my original link.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/community/16818366.htm

This statement has to be viewed in the context of Texas. Since resumption of capital punishment in 1976,

Texas has by nearly a factor of 4X executed more inmates -385 – than any other state. Virginia is second with 98.

While California puts people on death row in record numbers, Texas actually carries them out in record numbers.

See page three of information from Death Penalty Information Center linked below.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

So if we don’t know according to you how can you say it should go either way then, with either a stay or an execution?

I mean not to be rude or anything but the brunt of your post is attacking mental illness and its designation within individuals. So do you agree that mental illnesses exist?

Upon further review, my opinion is overturned. You're absolutely right Leder, the prison is, in effect, pre-emptively acting on a crime that this man may commit and by definition that is punishment and in my opinion it is cruel and unusual. Regardless of whether or not you have commited a crime, the state does not have the legitimate power to determine whether or no you are sick and need medication UNLESS you have done something that has made it obvious that you do...I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking before. I once lost, but now am found, thanks Leder.

CP

CP, the application of that line of reasoning is flawed for two reasons. First, the state engages in forcible medication routinely in mental facilities, doing so is not considered to be a punishment, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest notwithstanding. In and of itself, forcible medication is not punishment. gee, perhaps that's why nobody's ever tried that claim with regards to mandatory vaccinations.

Second, the behavior of the inmate in question has already established that he is a danger to himself and others. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the state to take reasonable steps to mitigate that danger.

I guess that depends on your definition of "punishment". This forced medication would not be occuring if this man was not caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned for a crime, right? If he were not in jail, the State would not be claiming that they have the authority to forcibly medicate him, right? The medication is a result of his imprisonment, which is a punishment.

He's committed a violent crime in the past, correct, but that does not mean that there should be some pre-emptive punishment for violence that he may inflict on others. If, however, he does harm someone and exhibits signs of mental health issues, by all means, medicate him or better yet, isolate him from the rest of the prison population.

CP

The thing that makes this scenario difficult, well, if the man is refusing consent while truly sentient, then he is in effect avoiding the sentence of death, and he ought not be allowed to do that, so that means we execute him, sane or otherwise, though we could have everything ready and wait for that moment of lucidity and then act quick. Now, if he's never truly sentient and so can never be said to consent or refuse, well, that's a whole new ballgame, I mean, I am the brutal one, or so some report, but we were supposed to be punishing a guilty mens rea and not just an act, and so if he's never of that same mind that was once rather guilty, then I don't know that he ought to be executed. I otherwise suppose that in such a circumstance that those who loved the victim can simply be told that the man is already dead and it's some deluded soul now in possession of the body, and tortured by her/his psychosis. And, Vermillion, sorry, but I'm "obsessing" again, so maybe you should go less with the "wingnut" and "crackpot" since, well, you said:

"Anyways, i think the issue here is, as has been pointed out, is he a danger to himself and others? If so there is plenty of reason, both under the law and morally, to force him to take medication. If that is NOT the case, and he is being strapped down and sedated so he can be 'sane enough to execute', then that entire situation is just grotesque."

Yeah, as if his execution wouldn't be the ultimate harm to self, and so what would be the point of trying to protect him from harming himself when the consequence of such effort at protection is his death by execution? I won't call you "wingnut" or "crackpot", but you ought to think your above remark through [as it were], since in us medicating him to protect him from himself we are ensuring his demise via his execution, and isn't such state of affairs rather Orwellian [to say the least]? Is the argument before the court, Your Honor, we're protecting him from himself so that we might kill him when he's no longer a danger to himself?


gordo:

I don't call it "mental illness" but organic brain disease or injury [resulting in neurological abnormality and/or deficit]. And not otherwise my or Leder's burden of proof. You claim the pathology, so prove it. Oh, and once again, let thefreedictionary.com come to my rescue, since injury is usually understood, while disease is:

"A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms."

And for my objection to much of psychology and psychiatry, the part of the definition that I'd wish we'd avoid:

"A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful."

And it works both ways, since he's diseased 'cause he's gay [and so he can be "cured"], while I'm diseased 'cause I'm homophobic [there's apparently no hope for me, so call me "terminal" in this regard]. Of course, since those making either claim have never shown the pathology, then they're just name-calling.

I think the state would have to violate a court order to execute someone who is not sane, Why don’t we talk about real possibilities instead of legal impossibilities. The law is what it is, not what you want it to be.


I don’t know if you are serious about this Sleeper, but if you are, there is an element of sadism in your statement.

You should read John Grisham’s first non-fiction work An Innocent Man. Ron Williamson, a former minor league baseball player, was convicted of raping and killing Debbie Sue Carter in ada, Oklahoma. Although Williamson had a long history of mental illness, he spent six years on Oklahoma’s death row. According to Grisham’s account, guards at the Oklahoma prison tortured (emphasis mine) Williamson by calling out over the intercom, “Ron Williamson, this is the ghost of Debbie Sue Carter. Why did you kill me?

Williamson was later exonerated through DNA evidence. While there is little doubt about Staley’s guilt, I don’t agree with your torture plan.



I agree with Lesly in principle. There is, however, a problem. Texas has no life without parole provision. Those convicted of capital murder, but not sentenced to death, are eligible for parole after 40 years.