ABSTRACT
On the related question of the right of defendants who are facing the death penalty to oppose involuntary medication to render them competent to be executed, see Chapter 57.
In an eort to ensure the “worst of the worst” receive death sentences, many jurisdictions encourage jurors to consider the danger a defendant will pose to society in the future by including “future dangerousness” as an aggravating factor
(Vann 2011). e inclusion of this factor, however, assumes the existence of three important facts-not-in-evidence: that mental health professionals can accurately predict dangerousness, that defense counsel can eectively cross-examine state experts on this issue, and that jurors can competently assess this sort of testimony. A review of the case law and the professional literature makes it clear that none of these questions can be answered armatively.
