In what may be the Supreme Court's final day in session for 2006-2007, opinions handed down are a mixed bag. But at least there is one small step forward for mankind, or for the nation.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the "liberals" on the high court to rule that insane Death Row inmate Scott Panetti will not be executed under the narrow definition of delusionality supported by the lower courts, ie let's not give those mentally deranged patients and inmates any loopholes.

The case is "Panetti v. Quarterman (06-6407). Doctors who examined Scott Louis Panetti found him to have a mental disorder, although they concluded that he knew he was to be executed after killing his wife's parents. But the doctors concluded that Panetti had a personal belief that he was going to be put to death by the state because he was "preaching the gospel" and that the "forces of evil" were set against him. His lawyers claim that he is too mentally unstable to be executed without violating the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The appeal is supported by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. It and Panetti's petition argue that the lower court decision in his case runs against the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Ford v. Wainwright barring the execution of the mentally ill." Quoted from Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog.

One of Panetti's earlier symptoms was repeatedly striking the wall with a knife, claiming (shrieking) that the devil was in the wall. His parents, who have fought hard for his execution to be stayed, have known for years that he was mentally ill and tried to get help for him. His former wife -- whose parents he murdered in a fit of delusional rage, the crime for which he was sentenced to death -- has reversed her earlier demand that he be executed.

This topic is hard for me to write about. For one thing, the very idea of putting to death any insane person -- like the idea of executing a mentally retarded person, or the idea of executing a minor -- is so on-its-face barbaric that it's paradoxically hard to argue against. What do you find to say, to a nominally educated person who thinks executing mentally ill convicts is something acceptable for the state to do?

Closer to home -- and in the interest of full disclosure -- the whole picture is unbearable to me probably partly because my only sibling is a brother who was diagnosed with schizophrenia many years ago. The situation has few parallels with any Death Row situation, since my brother never engaged in violent crime. But the ghastly ill will and bad faith that characterizes "debate" over executing Death Row lunatics -- particularly among the highly educated and the highly paid, sad to say -- also characterizes most other debates about treatment of the mentally ill, and most other debates about other social problems.