Post by Anja on Jun 12, 2006 10:34:16 GMT -5
Fight looms over meds for condemned man
Steven Staley No one disputes that condemned killer Steven Staley is
mentally ill.
In 15 years on death row, he has suffered from delusions, lain in his own
urine and bruised his own face. He is so sick that prosecutors, defense
attorneys and a judge agree he is incompetent to be executed.
For now.
Tarrant County prosecutors are pushing to have the diagnosed schizophrenic
forcibly medicated for his illness enabling him to be executed.
And, so far, Texas courts are willing, setting up what could be a landmark
legal showdown. Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without
issuing an opinion upheld a district judge's order to forcibly medicate
Mr. Staley.
"It certainly could be a significant case," said Rob Owen, adjunct
professor of law at the University of Texas. "The U.S. Supreme Court
hasn't decided this question."
The issue has bounced around various states' court systems for years, with
some judges ruling that inmates cannot be forcibly medicated just so they
can be executed, and others saying they can.
But in Texas, the nation's No. 1 death penalty state, prosecutors haven't
pushed the issue. Mentally ill inmates are periodically re-examined for
improvement, but some prosecutors opt to let them serve a de facto life
sentence.
Tarrant County prosecutors Chuck Mallin and Jim Gibson decided on a
different route for Mr. Staley.
"We're going to go after anybody who's been sentenced to death," said Mr.
Mallin, chief of the county's appellate division. "Our position right now
is we're not going to warehouse them, we're going to seek to enforce the
judgment of the court until the Court of Criminal Appeals or the U.S.
Supreme Court says we can't."
Mr. Staley, 43, was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of a restaurant
manager. Psychiatrists have declared him to be suffering from
schizophrenia and have prescribed an anti-psychotic drug. To the
frustration of prosecutors, he doesn't always take the drug.
"Mr. Staley was competent for many years," Mr. Mallin said. "And he was on
medication, and one day he decided to stop taking his medication. When he
ceased taking his medication, that rendered him incompetent, and we
believe that was just wrong that he could decide his own fate."
Others contend even death-row inmates have the right to refuse medication.
"It's a basic human rights question," said Richard Dieter, executive
director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "Even those not involved
in the death penalty might be concerned about it because it's symbolic:
How much power do you give the state over the individual?"
Jack Strickland, Mr. Staley's attorney, said he was concerned that the
court ruled on the issue last week.
"I'm a little bit distressed that they didn't entertain either a briefing
of the issue or an opportunity for us to make argument to the court, given
the significance of the issue," Mr. Strickland said.
He intends to take the issue to higher courts. Prosecutors say they will
press on with appeals if Mr. Strickland gets the order overturned.
"We want an answer," Mr. Mallin said. "We want to know what to do."
Litigation on the issue has been limited, partially because it doesn't
come up often. But Mr. Owen, co-director of the capital punishment clinic
at UT, said that could change as more death-row inmates suffer from mental
illness.
The death-row population "includes a much higher proportion of people who
start out with serious mental disorders," he said. "When they spend long
years in what is effectively solitary confinement ... you may see people
break down more frequently over the long haul."
In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that executing inmates who do not
understand that they are being put to death or why amounts to cruel and
unusual punishment. Four years later, the court ruled that an inmate with
a serious mental illness may be forcibly medicated if he is dangerous to
himself or others and the treatment is in his medical interest.
But in the case of a death-row inmate, improving his condition might make
him eligible for execution, and it isn't clear whether or not that's in
his "medical interest." So far, the Supreme Court has not accepted a case
to decide the issue.
"Clearly if you can make a person more comfortable and you can alleviate
the symptoms of a mental illness, that's fine," said Mr. Strickland, the
defense attorney. But, "it seems to me the balancing test would find in
most cases lying in your own urine is preferable to being executed."
Tarrant County prosecutors say they are concerned about Mr. Staley's
health. "I don't think Mr. Staley should be in the penitentiary suffering
from an extreme mental illness," Mr. Mallin said.
But they also don't want Mr. Staley's illness to give him a "free pass" on
the death penalty.
"I don't think it's a free pass," Mr. Strickland said. "I don't think that
anybody is suggesting that Mr. Staley be released from the penitentiary.
... The community is going to be well-protected from Mr. Staley for the
rest of his life."
He likened forcibly medicating Mr. Staley to make him competent for
execution to "destroying the village in order to save it."
Mr. Mallin conceded that restoring Mr. Staley to "normalcy" will cause
"collateral damage to him" but insisted, "You have to be able to separate
the treating of the mental illness."
Mr. Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said it's impossible
to separate treating the illness from execution. "If everyone was just
interested in getting this person to a healthy state, there are ways to do
that," he said. "You commute the sentence [and] get him some help."
Mr. Dieter said the state of Maryland has a law requiring that death
sentences be automatically reduced to life without parole once an inmate
has been declared incompetent.
The American Medical Association also takes that approach. Though
death-row inmates may be treated, according to its policy, "physicians
should not treat the prisoner for the purpose of restoring competence
unless a commutation order is issued."
A spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said their
written policy on forced medication addresses only the issue of
dangerousness and does not address the issue of competence for execution.
Prison officials declined to comment on the Staley case until they receive
the order.
But prosecutors say they aren't concerned about finding someone to treat
Mr. Staley if the order to forcibly medicate him stands up.
"In Texas, we will find a doctor," Mr. Mallin said. "We don't worry about
that."
(source: Dallas Morning News)
Steven Staley No one disputes that condemned killer Steven Staley is
mentally ill.
In 15 years on death row, he has suffered from delusions, lain in his own
urine and bruised his own face. He is so sick that prosecutors, defense
attorneys and a judge agree he is incompetent to be executed.
For now.
Tarrant County prosecutors are pushing to have the diagnosed schizophrenic
forcibly medicated for his illness enabling him to be executed.
And, so far, Texas courts are willing, setting up what could be a landmark
legal showdown. Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without
issuing an opinion upheld a district judge's order to forcibly medicate
Mr. Staley.
"It certainly could be a significant case," said Rob Owen, adjunct
professor of law at the University of Texas. "The U.S. Supreme Court
hasn't decided this question."
The issue has bounced around various states' court systems for years, with
some judges ruling that inmates cannot be forcibly medicated just so they
can be executed, and others saying they can.
But in Texas, the nation's No. 1 death penalty state, prosecutors haven't
pushed the issue. Mentally ill inmates are periodically re-examined for
improvement, but some prosecutors opt to let them serve a de facto life
sentence.
Tarrant County prosecutors Chuck Mallin and Jim Gibson decided on a
different route for Mr. Staley.
"We're going to go after anybody who's been sentenced to death," said Mr.
Mallin, chief of the county's appellate division. "Our position right now
is we're not going to warehouse them, we're going to seek to enforce the
judgment of the court until the Court of Criminal Appeals or the U.S.
Supreme Court says we can't."
Mr. Staley, 43, was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of a restaurant
manager. Psychiatrists have declared him to be suffering from
schizophrenia and have prescribed an anti-psychotic drug. To the
frustration of prosecutors, he doesn't always take the drug.
"Mr. Staley was competent for many years," Mr. Mallin said. "And he was on
medication, and one day he decided to stop taking his medication. When he
ceased taking his medication, that rendered him incompetent, and we
believe that was just wrong that he could decide his own fate."
Others contend even death-row inmates have the right to refuse medication.
"It's a basic human rights question," said Richard Dieter, executive
director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "Even those not involved
in the death penalty might be concerned about it because it's symbolic:
How much power do you give the state over the individual?"
Jack Strickland, Mr. Staley's attorney, said he was concerned that the
court ruled on the issue last week.
"I'm a little bit distressed that they didn't entertain either a briefing
of the issue or an opportunity for us to make argument to the court, given
the significance of the issue," Mr. Strickland said.
He intends to take the issue to higher courts. Prosecutors say they will
press on with appeals if Mr. Strickland gets the order overturned.
"We want an answer," Mr. Mallin said. "We want to know what to do."
Litigation on the issue has been limited, partially because it doesn't
come up often. But Mr. Owen, co-director of the capital punishment clinic
at UT, said that could change as more death-row inmates suffer from mental
illness.
The death-row population "includes a much higher proportion of people who
start out with serious mental disorders," he said. "When they spend long
years in what is effectively solitary confinement ... you may see people
break down more frequently over the long haul."
In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that executing inmates who do not
understand that they are being put to death or why amounts to cruel and
unusual punishment. Four years later, the court ruled that an inmate with
a serious mental illness may be forcibly medicated if he is dangerous to
himself or others and the treatment is in his medical interest.
But in the case of a death-row inmate, improving his condition might make
him eligible for execution, and it isn't clear whether or not that's in
his "medical interest." So far, the Supreme Court has not accepted a case
to decide the issue.
"Clearly if you can make a person more comfortable and you can alleviate
the symptoms of a mental illness, that's fine," said Mr. Strickland, the
defense attorney. But, "it seems to me the balancing test would find in
most cases lying in your own urine is preferable to being executed."
Tarrant County prosecutors say they are concerned about Mr. Staley's
health. "I don't think Mr. Staley should be in the penitentiary suffering
from an extreme mental illness," Mr. Mallin said.
But they also don't want Mr. Staley's illness to give him a "free pass" on
the death penalty.
"I don't think it's a free pass," Mr. Strickland said. "I don't think that
anybody is suggesting that Mr. Staley be released from the penitentiary.
... The community is going to be well-protected from Mr. Staley for the
rest of his life."
He likened forcibly medicating Mr. Staley to make him competent for
execution to "destroying the village in order to save it."
Mr. Mallin conceded that restoring Mr. Staley to "normalcy" will cause
"collateral damage to him" but insisted, "You have to be able to separate
the treating of the mental illness."
Mr. Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said it's impossible
to separate treating the illness from execution. "If everyone was just
interested in getting this person to a healthy state, there are ways to do
that," he said. "You commute the sentence [and] get him some help."
Mr. Dieter said the state of Maryland has a law requiring that death
sentences be automatically reduced to life without parole once an inmate
has been declared incompetent.
The American Medical Association also takes that approach. Though
death-row inmates may be treated, according to its policy, "physicians
should not treat the prisoner for the purpose of restoring competence
unless a commutation order is issued."
A spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said their
written policy on forced medication addresses only the issue of
dangerousness and does not address the issue of competence for execution.
Prison officials declined to comment on the Staley case until they receive
the order.
But prosecutors say they aren't concerned about finding someone to treat
Mr. Staley if the order to forcibly medicate him stands up.
"In Texas, we will find a doctor," Mr. Mallin said. "We don't worry about
that."
(source: Dallas Morning News)
