Situating Staley: Investigating the Constitutionality of Forcibly Medicating a Texas Death Row Inmate to Render Him Competent for Execution

I. INTRODUCTIONPhilosopher Michel Foucault stated that the State's power to punish involves a power to discipline, which "regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise . . . . It is not a triumphant power . . . it is a modest, suspicious power."1 Foucault's words about the State's power reveal the tension within the question facing the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals: does the State have the power to force a death row inmate with mental illness2 to take medication which may render him competent for his own execution?3 The issue raises the question of who possesses the power over the treatment of an individual with mental illness and brings to the surface an underlying dilemma between mental illness and the legal system's competency to address it.4Courts have struggled to define the scope of the constitutional protections that safeguard an inmate with mental illness.5 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of an inmate who is unable to comprehend the reasoning for his or her execution in light of his or her mental illness.6 Still, this allows for an inmate who is diagnosed with a mental illness to face execution. Moreover, while an inmate who has a mental illness has a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to refuse medication, courts have had difficulty defining the scope of this right.7 A State's interest in enforcing an inmate's sentence must be weighed against the means of enforcing its interest since anti-psychotic medication provides no panacea for mental illness and may cause irreversible effects.8 This balancing test is further complicated when the State aims to enforce the death penalty.9 Courts struggle to establish an adequate balance in such circumstances and adopt conflicting notions of what constitutes an inmate's best medical interest in regards to his or her treatment.10It is within this unsettled jurisprudence that the Staley case is situated.11 Staley was convicted of capital murder, sentenced to death, and later diagnosed with schizophrenia.12 When medicated, Staley is considered by courts to be competent for execution, yet when unmedicated he is commonly considered to be incompetent for execution. Absent medication, he at times believed that the judge convicted him and sentenced him to death as part of a plot to steal his one-of-a-kind red pickup truck.13 Staley also has a history of being treated with older medication, experiences undesirable effects from his medication, and often refuses to take this medication because of these effects.14 The issue is whether the State can force Staley to take this medication, which may render him competent for execution.This Comment argues Staley's forcible medication violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it unjustifiably interferes with his right to bodily integrity and deprives him of his dignity.15 Part II of this Comment outlines the Eighth Amendment prohibition against executing an inmate who, due to mental illness, cannot understand the connection between his or her crime and punishment and the progression of the right to refuse medication.16 This Comment also describes the growing controversy around the issue of forcibly medicating an inmate just prior to his execution.17 Part III applies this constitutional analysis to Staley's case and argues that his sentence should be commuted.18 Part IV finds that society has an interest in preserving the integrity of the medical community and in avoiding placing inmates in a situation wherein their medication's effectiveness makes them eligible for forcible medication and execution.19 Part V concludes that the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals should rule that Staley's forcible medication is unconstitutional because it violates his dignity and bodily integrity.20II. BACKGROUNDA. The Constitutional Foundation for the Forcible Medication of Death Row Inmates1. The Eighth Amendment Protects an Inmate From Experiencing Cruel, Unusual, and Disproportionate Punishment. …