Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 14, 2025

Setup and Execution Of the Blindfolded Code Training Exercise
Published on: March 29, 2019
Evaluating Competency for Execution after Madison v. Alabama
Alexander H Updegrove1, Michael S Vaughn2
1Dr. Updegrove is Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas. Dr. Vaughn is Professor, Institute for Legal Studies in Criminal Justice, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.
Abstract:
This article summarizes the evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for assessing defendants' competency for execution. In Ford v. Wainwright (1986), the Court categorically exempted insane defendants from execution but failed to agree on how to define insanity. In Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), the Court ruled that defendants may be executed only if they rationally understand why they are being punished. In its most recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Madison v. Alabama (2019) that defendants who cannot remember committing the original crime may be executed, but dementia may prevent defendants from rationally understanding why they are being punished. The Court remanded the case to Alabama's trial court with instructions to re-determine Mr. Madison's competency. This article concludes by recommending best practices for those who evaluate defendants for competency to be executed.
More Related Videos
11:18Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat
Published on: September 12, 2014
09:00Author Spotlight: Validation of SICOLE-R for Assessing Cognitive and Reading Skills in Spanish-Speaking Children and Its Role in Personalized Education
Published on: August 16, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Reliability and Validity
Milgram's Obedience to Authority
Obedience
Theory of Attribution II: Kelley's Covariation Theory
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Torts III
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.