Deciding who is crazy: Reform Florida's procedure
Dublin Core
Title
Deciding who is crazy: Reform Florida's procedure
Subject
Capital punishment--Florida.
Capital punishment--Florida--Public opinion.
Insanity Defense--United States--Legal Cases.
Description
Opinion editorial by Michael Mello about changing the process for declaring someone legally insane or incompetent.
Creator
Mello, Michael A.
Source
The Miami Herald
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1985-01-20
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
1 jpg
300 dpi
Language
English
Coverage
Miami, Fl
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
The current debate over execution of those Florida Death Row inmates who are, or who may be, insane raises difficult issues of law and public policy. But the issue, at least in Florida, is not whether the insane should be executed. That matter has long been resolved in the negative as a matter of state law. However, that brings us to the genuinely difficult inquiry: How can the legal system determine who is really crazy, and can Florida's administrative procedure be trusted to reliably make this life-or-death death determination?
In 1927 the Florida Supreme Court held that there was a right to judicial determination of competency when a Death Row inmate claimed to be incompetent. In the 1930s the Florida Legislature enacted the present-day statute on execution competency. That law sets out a procedure for deciding who is crazy and who is not.
The statute provides that when the governor is informed that a person who is under sentence of death may be insane, he or she shall appoint a commission of three psychiatrists to examine the convicted person. Counsel for the convicted person and counsel for the state may be present at the examination. After receiving the report from the commission, the governor makes and independent determination of whether the convicted person, in the language of the statute, "understands the nature and effect of the death penalty and why it is to be imposed upon him."
But this procedure is insufficient to vindicate Florida's interest in not executing people who really are insane. The system invites error and, as Robert Sherrill's article in The Herald (Viewpoint, Dec. 16) demonstrated, has already resulted in error.
The basic problem is that the statute provides for no hearing before the decision maker. There is no right of cross-examination and no right to present defense witnesses. The statute permits counsel to be present at the psychiatric examination, but the decision maker is not the psychiatric commission. The decision maker is the governor, and there is no hearing before him. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that the present governor has a "publicly announced policy of excluding all advocacy on the part of the condemned in the process of deciding whether a person under sentence of death is insane."
A hearing before the governor would serve a variety of social values.
It would provide the adversarial debate our legal system recognizes as essential to the truth-seeking process. This is especially true here, where the questions are legal, not medical, and where proper resolution of those questions is difficult under even the best of circumstances.
The present procedure encourages the governor to become a slave to the psychiatric commission and to simply follow the recommendation of the doctors. This is precisely what has happened in every case so far. In Arthur Goode's case, the psychiatric commission decided that Goode was sane and the governor ordered his execution. In Gary Alvord's case, the psychiatrists found insanity and the governor stayed Alvord's execution.
An open hearing also ensures that the governor recognizes that his decision profoundly affects the lives of human beings. Otherwise, it is all too easy to retreat behind a shield of paper and anonymity. Further, a hearing effectively fosters a belief that one has received his "day in court," even though he may disagree with the governor's decision.
The risks of error at the initial competency determination are enhanced by the fact that Florida provides no procedure for review. The Florida Supreme Court has decided that the governor's statutory procedure is "now the exclusive procedure for determining competency to be executed." But if the judiciary is to be excluded from the initial competency determination, then some mechanism for reconsideration of the determination is needed.
Reform of Florida's statutory procedure for determining execution competency can come from any of three sources:
• The legislature could amend the statute.
• The governor could voluntarily open the process up to advocacy.
• The federal courts could mandate, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that Florida's procedure are inadequate. That precise issue is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.
Ideally, change should come from the Legislature or the governor. It is our statute. We should see to it that it produces reliable results.
In 1927 the Florida Supreme Court held that there was a right to judicial determination of competency when a Death Row inmate claimed to be incompetent. In the 1930s the Florida Legislature enacted the present-day statute on execution competency. That law sets out a procedure for deciding who is crazy and who is not.
The statute provides that when the governor is informed that a person who is under sentence of death may be insane, he or she shall appoint a commission of three psychiatrists to examine the convicted person. Counsel for the convicted person and counsel for the state may be present at the examination. After receiving the report from the commission, the governor makes and independent determination of whether the convicted person, in the language of the statute, "understands the nature and effect of the death penalty and why it is to be imposed upon him."
But this procedure is insufficient to vindicate Florida's interest in not executing people who really are insane. The system invites error and, as Robert Sherrill's article in The Herald (Viewpoint, Dec. 16) demonstrated, has already resulted in error.
The basic problem is that the statute provides for no hearing before the decision maker. There is no right of cross-examination and no right to present defense witnesses. The statute permits counsel to be present at the psychiatric examination, but the decision maker is not the psychiatric commission. The decision maker is the governor, and there is no hearing before him. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that the present governor has a "publicly announced policy of excluding all advocacy on the part of the condemned in the process of deciding whether a person under sentence of death is insane."
A hearing before the governor would serve a variety of social values.
It would provide the adversarial debate our legal system recognizes as essential to the truth-seeking process. This is especially true here, where the questions are legal, not medical, and where proper resolution of those questions is difficult under even the best of circumstances.
The present procedure encourages the governor to become a slave to the psychiatric commission and to simply follow the recommendation of the doctors. This is precisely what has happened in every case so far. In Arthur Goode's case, the psychiatric commission decided that Goode was sane and the governor ordered his execution. In Gary Alvord's case, the psychiatrists found insanity and the governor stayed Alvord's execution.
An open hearing also ensures that the governor recognizes that his decision profoundly affects the lives of human beings. Otherwise, it is all too easy to retreat behind a shield of paper and anonymity. Further, a hearing effectively fosters a belief that one has received his "day in court," even though he may disagree with the governor's decision.
The risks of error at the initial competency determination are enhanced by the fact that Florida provides no procedure for review. The Florida Supreme Court has decided that the governor's statutory procedure is "now the exclusive procedure for determining competency to be executed." But if the judiciary is to be excluded from the initial competency determination, then some mechanism for reconsideration of the determination is needed.
Reform of Florida's statutory procedure for determining execution competency can come from any of three sources:
• The legislature could amend the statute.
• The governor could voluntarily open the process up to advocacy.
• The federal courts could mandate, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that Florida's procedure are inadequate. That precise issue is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.
Ideally, change should come from the Legislature or the governor. It is our statute. We should see to it that it produces reliable results.
Original Format
Newspaper article
Contributor of the Digital Item
Dyke, Corey
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Mello, Michael A. , “Deciding who is crazy: Reform Florida's procedure,” HIST299, accessed March 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/88.