| Folks:
One of our colleagues (who shall remain nameless) recently
shared a draft
school report that includes the following sentence: Due Process
was best
defined by David Fellman who defined it as “the community’s
assurance that
prosecutors, judges, and juries will behave properly within
the rules,” as is
mandated by the social contract that exists between individuals
and
government. Due process and its fundamental component together
provide for
the endearing notions of democracy like the quest for justice,
the equality
of all those involved, whether it be man v. man or individual
v. government,
and the perseverance of the rule of law (I think you mean enduring,” Ethan).
In commenting on an earlier draft, I noted that, as ever, “In
theory there’s
no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.” I have
a case for your review that tests the fundamental concept
of due process
beyond anything in my experience. The case is the subject
of an editorial in
the Washington Post of Monday, February 17th.
The relevant quote is: “Charles Laverne Singleton
is a death row inmate in
Arkansas, convicted in 1979 of a brutal stabbing murder.
He is severely
mentally ill. The schizophrenia that now afflicts him was
diagnosed after his
conviction and death sentence. His psychosis can be controlled
only with
powerful drugs. Mr. Singleton sometimes takes his drugs voluntarily,
but
sometimes he must be forcibly medicated. So when Arkansas
authorities set his
execution date, they created an absurd dilemma for the courts.
The Supreme
Court has forbidden the execution of the mentally incompetent
-- people who
don't know what is happening to them or why. And there is
little doubt that
if Mr. Singleton stops taking his drugs, he will render himself
incompetent.
But the high court has also said that someone can be forcibly
medicated only
if he is a threat to himself or others and medication is
in his best medical
interest. So Mr. Singleton's case poses a morbid question:
Can the state medi cate an inmate, which is in his best medical
interests, to make him
competent for death, which is not?”
A side issue not present in the editorial is that apparently
Mr. Singleton
acquired his schizophrenia while in isolation on death row.
Was his psychosis
the result of his incarceration? Was the incarceration the
result of the
appeals that have kept him on death row since 1979? Who is
responsible, the
state of Arkansas or the lawyers who kept filing appeal after
appeal?
I heard the case discussed on National Public Radio, and
the comment was made
that medicating him will have no ill effects – other
than to get him killed.
That sounds like Alice in Wonderland or Franz Kafka to me.
I find this case hard to square with “the social contract
that exists between
individuals and government.” I hope you do, too.
The Post’s editorial ends with “People like
Mr. Singleton ought to be
medicated not to facilitate punishment but because failing
to do so is
inhumane. The legal system must develop the flexibility to
deal with people
who are both obviously guilty and obviously sick. The price
of accepting
treatment cannot be death.”
I hope that this one will be solved before some of you get
out of law school
and have to face it. I can assure you that there will be
other due process
questions and cases just as interesting. There’s still
work to be done.
Bob Knisely
References:
"Medicate
to Kill" , Washington Post Editorial, Monday, February
17, 2003; Page A30
| 
