PubMed · 8465900
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E R Pinta. 1993. Competency for execution.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8465900/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In the United States, a critical controversy is taking place in regard to psychiatrists' and other physicians' participation in legal executions. Under pressure from the criminal justice system and legislatures to expedite executions, some forensic psychiatrists have succeeded in loosening traditional prohibitions against such participation. Further, there has been a weakening of the prohibition against treatment designed to facilitate immediate execution of those condemned to death. The rationale offered for these departures from current psychiatric ethical codes is the novel notion that when a psychiatrist acts in the court or criminal justice situation, that individual is no longer a psychiatrist and is not bound by psychiatric ethics. Rather, the forensic psychiatrist, termed a 'forensicist', serves as an assistant in the 'administration of justice' or 'an agent of the State' and thus works in a different ethical framework from the ordinary psychiatrist. This justification has similarities to the rationale offered by physicians involved in human experiments and other criminal acts in Nazi Germany, as well as psychiatrists in the former Soviet Union who explained their involvement in psychiatric abuse as a result of being agents of the State and thus not responsible for carrying out orders. Clearly, this controversy could be eliminated by a campaign for the abolition of capital punishment, characterised by the American Psychiatric Association as 'anachronistic, brutalizing [and] ineffective'. Such a campaign should serve as a call for psychiatrists and other physicians to join in the struggle to uphold ethical and moral principles.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Death row prisoners may elect to forgo appeals, thus hastening execution. There are many reasons for such a decision, including depression, psychosis, incompetence, conditions in prison, and others. Due to the gravity of the sentence, and the states' duty to ensure fairness, some jurisdictions impose restrictions on the waiver. An inmate who lacks trial competence may be subject to a habeas corpus hearing and the appointment of a "next friend," often a family member. Moreover, the Constitution forbids execution of the "insane." The decision, then, may be taken out of the inmate's hands. The author outlines the various tests for competence to waive appeals. The Pennsylvania case of Gary Heidnik (In re Heidnik, 112 F.3d 105 (3rd Cir. 1997); and In re Heidnik, 720 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998)) illustrates the issues surrounding waiver of appeals that concern psychiatrists, attorneys, and judges. Following a discussion of Heidnik and related cases, the author offers a proposal for a classification of types of inmates requesting waiver.