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.

中文翻译：

---

在麦迪逊诉阿拉巴马州案之后评估执行能力。

本文总结了美国最高法院评估被告执行能力的标准的演变。在Ford v。Wainwright（1986）一案中，法院将疯狂的被告人免于处决，但未能就如何定义精神错乱达成共识。在Panetti v。Quarterman（2007）一案中，法院裁定，只有在被告合理地理解为何受到惩罚的情况下，他们才能被处决。最高法院在其最近的裁决中，在麦迪逊诉阿拉巴马州（2019）一案中裁定，可能不记得最初犯罪的被告可以被处决，但痴呆症可能会阻止被告理性地理解为什么要惩罚他们。法院将该案发还给阿拉巴马州的初审法院，指示重新确定麦迪逊先生的能力。