Criminal Law Abdullah Sarfraz 1-16-11 Ford V.

Wainwright ( 1986)

The area of law that this case revolves around is whether executing a mentally insane person violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th amendment. It also examines whether the state of Florida erred in determining the mental competency of individuals who were condemned to the death penalty. The two parties involved in this case are Alvin Bernard Ford, an insane man on the verge of being executed, and the secretary of the Florida Division of Corrections Louie L. Wainwright. Ford's mental capacity diminished while he waited for execution until it was deemed that he was an insane man on death row. The 1963 case Townsend v. Sain set precedent by determining that the state of Florida had violated an inmate's right to due process because of their unfair procedural steps in determining whether an inmate who had received the death penalty was insane or not. The state of Florida denied the petitioner a fair judicial hearing to determine their sanity and this in turn violated their due process rights. In 1974, a Florida court sentenced Alvin Bernard Ford to death for first- degree murder. There was no indication at the time of the murder, the trial, or in the sentencing phase that hinted that Mr. Ford suffered from any mental disorder. However, Ford's mental condition worsened as he awaited his execution. his competency was examined after his Counsel requested two separate

psychiatric examinations; one of them found Ford incompetent for execution. Ford's counsel then used one of Florida's statutes that allowed for a thirty-minute examination to determine the sanity of an inmate condemned to death. After his assessment, Florida's governor signed his death warranty. Lower court decisions begin with Ford's conviction of murder in 1974. After the Governor of Florida signed his death warranty, Ford petitioned for a judicial hearing to determine his competency by the State Court. The State court declined to hear arguments of Ford's competency. Ford then proceeded to petition for a writ of habeas corpus but was subsequently denied because of the prior state court decision. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The case was both politically motivated and controversial because Florida's Governor was a man tough on crime and an advocate of the death penalty. During Ford's competency examination by a panel of psychiatrists, the Governor did not inform Ford's counsel of whether these evaluations would be considered in his decision to sign the death warranty. Also, it is controversial because it established the rule that insane individuals could not be executed because they were protected by the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court decision was 5-4 in favor of Ford. The majority opinion in this case was delivered by Justice Thurgood Marshall writing that the English Common law found the execution of the insane to be "savage and inhumane." He continued to write that these executions did not prove to be beneficial in the least bit to society in terms of deterrence nor retribution. Marshall also observed that no state court had heard Ford's arguments of being insane. He felt that Florida's competency procedures were

inadequate to handle Ford's case. Justice Lewis F. Powell concurred, writing that the execution of an insane person would be a blatant violation of the 8th amendment."The Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it." (Oyez) The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined by Justice Byron R. White. They agreed that Ford's right to due process were denied because of Florida's procedures but argued that the 8th amendment was not a protection against executing the insane. They wrote that no "substantive right" was created. Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger also argued that Florida's procedures drew its provisions from Common Law and that it was not out of step with contemporary practice. I agree with the Court's decision because there is no gain from executing a mentally insane person who is unaware of the consequences of his/her actions. Many times, these inmates do not even fully comprehend the concept of their own execution. Committing such an act would be seen as barbaric, inhumane, and unfit in the world's leading democracy. It also is a violation of the 8th amendment and the "cruel and unusual" punishment clause. As Justice Powell stated in his opinion, an individual who is incapable of understanding why they are being punished should not be forced to suffer the punishment.