For a long time, I have taken the view that the death penalty is a dreadful idea. I often ask supporters of this punishment, “What kind of civilised society would kill their own?”. There are unfortunately many answers to that question, but the most publicised killer of criminals is the United States of America. Recently I’ve been following a case that’s divided opinions, the State of Alabama v Madison, as the Supreme Court ruling that will be revealed later this year will set a whole new precedent. Should memory be a factor in the execution process?
Let’s go back thirty-three years, where this story begins in Mobile, Alabama. A police officer, Julius Schulte, was dispatched to investigate a complaint about a missing child, but when he arrived at the house the child had returned home. However, as the child’s mother and father were in an altercation, Schulte made a fateful decision to remain. The child’s father, Vernon Madison, was extremely unhappy about this and left the residence to retrieve a .32 calibre pistol from another area. Madison later returned, approaching the police car from the rear, and fired two shots into Schulte’s head. Schulte ultimately died from the injuries he sustained that afternoon.
Vernon Madison, then aged 34, was charged with Capital Murder. At his trial, which was set for September 1985, Madison raised the defence of insanity and also claimed lack of knowledge that Julius Schulte was a police officer on duty. At the time, though this requirement in law has now been legally removed, there had to be an awareness that the officer was on duty in order to be convicted of the capital offence of Murdering a Police Officer in the Line of Duty. During the jury selection process the prosecutor used his jury strikes to excuse seven black jurors, meaning it was a white jury that ended up convicting Madison of murder and sentencing him to death. Madison submitted an appeal, challenging on the grounds of a case called ‘Batson v Kentucky’. This case restricts attorneys from using their jury strikes on potential jurors for discriminatory reasons.
The Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals granted Vernon Madison’s appeal and ordered that he be tried again with a new jury. At his second trial, in September 1990, Madison was again convicted of Capital Murder and the death penalty was recommended. Madison appealed his second conviction, this time on the grounds that inadmissible expert testimony contributed to him being found guilty. The expert in question, Dr Harry Albert McClaren, had given his opinion on Madison’s mental state at the time of the offence based on evidence that was not offered or admitted at trial, and this seriously affected “the fairness and integrity of the proceedings”. Vernon Madison was put on trial for a third time.
At the third trial, Madison was again convicted of the murder of Officer Julius Schulte, however a different fate was recommended by the jury. Eight of the jurors recommended a sentence of Life without Parole, with the other four voting for Death by Electrocution. Alabama is actually the only US state to allow a 10-2 verdict in favour of death, but in Madison’s case the jury would not recommend death. Unfortunately for him, the judge decided to override the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Vernon Madison to death. This is particularly interesting because in April 2017, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law a bill restricting judges from overriding jury recommendations. Many argue that Governor Ivey’s bill should be retroactive, but this is unlikely to ever become the case.
In May 2015 and January 2016, Madison suffered two strokes and was diagnosed with various serious medical conditions. He alleges that these damaged his brain, leaving him with diminished mental capacity, severe memory loss and other cognitive function problems. Madison’s brain eventually became so damaged that he lost all recollection of the 1985 murder of Julius Schulte. Madison’s attorney filed a petition arguing that because Madison did not have a rational understanding of why Alabama sought to execute him, killing him would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment (prohibition against cruel punishment). This petition was rejected by the District Court, but their decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in March 2017. It was noted by this court that Madison’s inability to remember the murder remains undisputed, and their reversal meant that Madison was incompetent to be executed by the State of Alabama. Vernon Madison was going to live. In November that same year, however, the Supreme Court delivered a crushing blow of uncertainty. The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, noting that “Madison realises that he will be put to death as punishment for a murder he was found to have committed.”
Last month, the Supreme Court heard from both Vernon Madison’s attorney and the State of Alabama. During an hour of arguments, it was made clear that severe cognitive decline could make a proposed execution unlawful, but it remained unclear whether Madison fits that criteria. The justices must determine whether executing Madison would violate the Eighth Amendment. Alabama’s Deputy Attorney General Thomas Govan said, “Nothing about Madison’s conditions impact the state’s interest in seeking retribution for a heinous crime.” It is uncertain when a decision will be reached by the Supreme Court.
Elliot Tyler 