Too mentally ill for death? Florida executes man who lost Supreme Court appeal.
The case of John Errol Ferguson, executed Monday in Florida, raised the thorny question of how much mental illness is too much for someone facing execution. But the US Supreme Court declined to intervene.
(Page 2 of 2)
“Ferguson believes that he can’t be killed, that the state does not have the special powers that he has and therefore cannot execute him,” Handman wrote in his brief to the high court. The lawyer quoted Ferguson as once saying, “just like Jesus, you’ll come and look [in my grave] and you won’t find me there.”Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The defense lawyer cited Ferguson’s belief in life after death as proof of his client’s inability to “rationally and meaningfully comprehend the consequences of execution.”
A panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta rejected the argument.
“Ferguson has a mental illness but he does understand that he is going to die by execution, and he understands that it is going to happen because he committed eight murders,” wrote Judge Edward Carnes for the three-judge panel.
“Ferguson also believes, as tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of other people do, that there is life after death,” Judge Carnes said. “Countless people also believe, as he does, that they are among God’s chosen people. But Ferguson’s religious belief is more grandiose than that because he believes that he is the Prince of God.”
The central issue in Ferguson’s emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court was whether the Florida Supreme Court applied the correct judicial test when it earlier decided that Ferguson was fit enough to be executed.
The relevant standard was set in a 2007 US Supreme Court decision. The high court declared that it wasn’t enough that a condemned inmate was “aware” that he was about to be executed. Instead, the justices said an inmate must possess a “rational understanding” of the reasons for his pending execution.
Defense attorney Handman said that the Florida high court used the wrong test in the Ferguson case and that the federal appeals court failed to hold the state court accountable for the error.
“That is not deference; it is an abdication,” he said.
The American Bar Association filed a friend of the court brief urging the justices to take up the case. The ABA brief said that lower courts have applied conflicting standards in similar cases and that clarification is sorely needed.
A group of mental-health organizations also filed a friend of the court brief. The National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Florida Psychological Association, and the Florida Psychiatric Society said the Florida courts had applied an unconstitutional standard in the Ferguson case.
“A prisoner with such a disorder can be highly intelligent and rational in certain respects yet entirely fail to grasp the true reason for his execution. Without this 'rational understanding,' his execution is senseless and unconstitutional,” the brief said.
“Florida’s competency standard fails to protect against such senseless and unconstitutional executions,” the brief said. “It allows the execution of prisoners who do not truly understand why they are being put to death.”