Perry v. Louisiana

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Perry v. Louisiana
ArgueDate=October 2
ArgueYear=1990
DecideDate=November 13
DecideYear=1990
FullName=Michael Owen Perry v. State of Louisiana
USVol=498
USPage=38
Citation=
Prior=Certiorari to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana
Subsequent=Remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana
Holding=The forcible medication of individuals to render them competent to be executed is impermissible.
SCOTUS=1990-1991
PerCuriam=yes
Majority=
JoinMajority="unanimous"
Concurrence=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
NotParticipating=Souter
LawsApplied=

Perry v. Louisiana ussc|498|38|1990 is a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of the forcibly medicating a death row inmate with a mental disorder in order to make sure he is competent to be executed.cite book
first=Gary
last=Melton
year= 1997
title= Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers
edition= 2nd
publisher=The Guilford Press
location=New York
pages=pp 184–185
id= ISBN 1-57230-236-4]

Circumstances

Michael Owen Perry was sentenced to the death penalty in Louisiana. After his sentencing the trial court found that his competence to be executed depended on his taking psychiatric medication and ordered that he be forcibly medicated to be sure he remained competent. "Ford v. Wainwright" has already established that an insane inmate cannot be executed .

Appeals

Perry appealed to the state appellate court which affirmed the trial court's ruling so Perry petitioned on a writ of certiorari to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana which also affirmed. Perry then sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. Amici curiae briefs were filed by the American Psychiatric Association and the Coalition for Fundamental Rights and Equality of Ex-patients.

Ruling

Per curiam, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court's ruling without issuing an opinion. The case was remanded to the Louisiana Supreme Court for further deliberation in view of Washington v. Harper (1990), also a case involving involuntary medication, which had been decided after the District Court's ruling.cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/498/38/case.html
title=Perry v. Louisiana Certiorari to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana
publisher=supreme.justia.com
accessdate=2007-12-19]

Upon remand, the lower court ruled against the forcible medication of individuals in order to maintain their competency for execution. This decision was based on the distinction that, unlike "Harper v. Washington" which was concerned with involuntary medication for treatment issues, forcing medication for the purposes of execution was not medical treatment (being "antithetical to the basic principles of the healing arts") but punishment.

In addition, the court found two state laws on which to base its holding. First it found that forcibly medicating a person for the purposes of execution was cruel and unusual punishment under Louisiana state law because "it fails to measurably contribute to the social goals of capital punishment" by adding to the individual's punishment "beyond that required for the mere extinguishment of life," and could be "administered erroneously, arbitrarily or capriciously". It also held that forcible medication in this situation violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Louisiana State Constitution because the inhumanity of the situation rendered the state's interest in executing a person under these conditions less compelling.

ignificance

Per "Ford v. Wainwright", a psychotic inmate who does not have an understanding of what is about to occur is not competent to be executed and therefore cannot be executed. The complex issues of forcibly medicating an individual to make him competent for execution posed in "Perry v. Louisiana" illustrates the conflict between the judicial interests in imposing capital punishment for certain murderers and the medical doctor's Hippocratic Oath, "first do no harm." Medical ethics are primarily guided by "first do no harm". If other states follow Louisiana's example and specify that the judiciary must provide legal support for this medical ethical imperative, the practice of forcibly medicating death row inmate would cease, and the conflict between these issues would disappear. [cite web
author=
year=1994
month=
url=http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/usdp/8.htm
title=Medical Ethics and Physician Involvement
publisher=Human Rights Watch
accessdate=2007-12-20] [cite web
author=
year=1991
month=Winter
url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12186078&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
title=Perry v. Louisiana: medical ethics on death row—is judicial intervention warranted?
publisher=PubMed
accessdate=2007-12-20] However, currently these conflicting issues continue to exist. [cite web
author=William J. Rold, JD, CCHP-A
year=2003
month=Winter
url=http://www.ncchc.org/pubs/CC/legal_specialneeds.html
title=Legal Affairs - Special Needs and Mental Health Care: A Closer Look
publisher=National Commission on Correctional Care
accessdate=2007-12-20]

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 498
*"Washington v. Harper"

Footnotes

External links

*caselaw source
case="Perry v .Louisiana", 498 U.S. 38 (1990)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./498/38/
justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/498/38/case.html
* [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=946 Condemned Prisoner Treated and Executed - Editorial]
* [http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:lqj-efqgXIYJ:digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1327%26context%3Dlawfaculty+Frendak+v.+United+States&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us Whose Right is It Anyway?: Rethinking Competency to Stand Trial in Light of the Synthetically Sane Insanity Defendant]