In 2003, Patricia Zapf, Marcus Boccaccini, and
Stanley Brodsky published a checklist to be used in
the evaluation of competency for execution. This
checklist was developed after a review of the available
literature on criminal competencies, including a
review of the available case law on competency for
execution, and after conducting interviews with pro-
fessionals involved in conducting evaluations of com-
petency for execution.
The checklist is divided into four sections: (1) under-
standing the reasons for punishment, (2) understanding
the punishment, (3) appreciation and reasoning (in
addition to simple factual understanding), and (4) abil-
ity to assist the attorney. These four sections are repre-
sentative of the legal criteria for competency for
execution that have been set out in various jurisdictions.
Most jurisdictions model their statutes pertaining
to competency for execution after the criteria set out
in the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
of Ford v. Wainwright(1986) and, therefore, only con-
sider the prisoner’s ability to understand the punish-
ment that is being imposed and the reasons why it is
being imposed. The first two sections of the checklist
parallel these two Fo rd criteria. The first section tar-
gets the offender’s understanding of the reasons for
punishment—that is, his or her understanding of
the crime and other conviction-related information.
Specific topic areas include the offender’s understand-
ing of the reasons why he or she is in prison; his or her
place of residence within the prison; the crime for
which he or she was convicted, including an explana-
tion of the criminal act and victim-identifying infor-
mation; the perceived justice of the conviction; and
the reasons why other people are punished for the
same offense and also any self-identified, unique,
understandings of the offense and the trial that the
offender might have.
The second section targets the offender’s under-
standing of the punishment: that is, that the punish-
ment he or she is facing is death. Specific topic areas
include the offender’s understanding of the sentence,
the meaning of a sentence of death, what it means for
a person to be dead, and the reasons for execution and
also specific understandings about death from execu-
tion. Questions about death are asked from a number
of different angles (e.g., the meaning of death, specific
understandings about death from execution) so as to
facilitate a thorough evaluation of any irrational beliefs
or ideas that the offender may hold regarding death.
The literature on other types of competencies (e.g.,
competence to consent to medical treatment) indicatesthat there is often a relationship between the severity of
the consequences (to the individual being assessed)
and the stringency of the standard used to evaluate
competence. Thus, given the gravity of the conse-
quences in the particular instance of competency for
execution, it seems appropriate and important to assess
the offender’s appreciation and reasoning abilities (in
addition to simple factual understanding). Therefore,
the third section of the checklist lists topic areas spe-
cific to the assessment of an offender’s appreciation
and reasoning abilities with respect to death and
execution—areas that may go above and beyond the
specific Fo rdcriteria but that are arguably important to
a comprehensive evaluation of competency for execu-
tion. Specific content areas in this section include the
offender’s appreciation of the personal importance of
the punishment and the personal meaning of death; the
offender’s rationality or reasoning about the physical,
mental, and personal changes that occur during and
after execution; his or her beliefs regarding invulnera-
bility; inappropriate affect; the offender’s acceptance
of or eagerness for execution; and his or her beliefs
against execution. Although the Fo rdcriteria are often
interpreted as dealing with the offender’s factual
understanding, it appears justified that mental health
professionals involved in competency for execution
evaluations should also assess the offender’s apprecia-
tion and reasoning and leave it to the court to deter-
mine how to interpret the Fo rd (or other relevant)
criteria in each specific case.
The last section of the checklist identifies issues
related to the offender’s ability to assist his or her
attorney. This section is especially relevant in jurisdic-
tions that rely on criteria that are broader in nature
than those outlined in Fo rd , such as the capacity to
comprehend the reasons that might make the capital
sentence unjust and to communicate these reasons
effectively. Specific topic areas in this section include
the identity of the offender’s attorney and the amount
of time that the attorney has been working for the
offender, the offender’s trust in the attorney, his or her
awareness of the execution date, the status of the
appeals, what the attorney is attempting to accomplish
through the appeals, how the appeals will be processed
and assessed, the actual substance of the appeals,
important content that the offender may have withheld
from the attorney, and any pathological reasons for
not planning or discussing appeals.Patricia A. ZapfSee also Competency for Execution64 ———Checklist for Competency for Execution EvaluationsC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 64