June 28, 2007

Panetti spared.

A 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy will mean more consideration of the question whether Panetti is too mentally ill to understand why he is being punished. Here's the case. I will have to read and write about it later, but there are some complexities about when a person may bring more than one habeas petition and the extent to which the right asserted was "clearly established." Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion -- joined by Roberts, Scalia, and Alito -- deals with the requirements of the habeas statute: "Because the Court’s ruling misinterprets AEDPA, refuses to defer to the state court as AEDPA requires, and rejects the Court of Appeals’ approach without any constitutional analysis, I respectfully dissent." Without any constitutional analysis? That's harsh.


MadisonMan said...

I didn't realize that Panetti grew up in Hayward WI 'til I read the summary.

Internet Ronin said...

It is concise as well. Interesting.

HA HA HA said...

yeh theres no piont executing sombody if he cant learn from teh experience.

amba said...

The division down the center of the country really does go right down the center of the Supreme Court . . . slightly to the right of Justice Kennedy's heart?

Internet Ronin said...

On Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays of alternate weeks, it does indeed, amba. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays of alternate weeks, it probably can be found sightly to the left of his heart. What happens on Sundays is anyone's guess.

Gahrie said...

The point of executing someone is not to "teach them a lesson." It is to punish them, and deter future crimes by preventing them from committing them and teaching everyone else the lesson.

HA HA HA said...

gahrie - right! an the mesage here is 'if ur a tard go ahead an clobber whoevers handy'. teh tards may not follow these decisians so maybe itll be ok.

but balieve you me next time i see a tard comin im gonna shoot first.

blake said...

Maybe HA HA HA needs to learn how to duck lest those who share his views have a case of (not so) mistaken identity.

The Drill SGT said...

I'm a simple Westerner, though not a Texan, and of course not a lawyer so much of this lawyer stuff goes over my head, but as I understand it.

1. a jury found him competent to stand trial
2. a judge found him competent to represent himself
3. a jury found his insanity defense less than cogent despite having shrnjs testify
4. he admits to having done the deed in front of witnesses, the daughter and granddaughter of the victims
5. a jury found him guilty
6. appeals courts found he understands why the State intends to put him to death.

But Kennedy says, because the murderer "doesn't believe" that the state is telling the truth about why they are executing him, the State can't do it?

Lordy, what a can of worms that opens up!!