Page:Vernon Madison v. Alabama.pdf/11

Rh have described, the parties disagreed about those matters. See supra, at 4–8. But at this Court, Madison accepted Alabama’s position on the first issue and Alabama accepted Madison’s on the second. See, e. g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 36. And rightly so. As the parties now recognize, the standard set out in Panetti supplies the answers to both questions. First, a person lacking memory of his crime may yet rationally understand why the State seeks to execute him; if so, the Eighth Amendment poses no bar to his execution. Second, a person suffering from dementia may be unable to rationally understand the reasons for his sentence; if so, the Eighth Amendment does not allow his execution. What matters is whether a person has the “rational understanding” Panetti requires–not whether he has any particular memory or any particular mental illness.

Consider initially a person who cannot remember his crime because of a mental disorder, but who otherwise has