Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Solesbee v. Balkcom — Opinion of the Court

The heart of the common-law doctrine has been that a suggestion of insanity after sentence is an appeal to the conscience and sound wisdom of the particular tribunal which is asked to postpone sentence. We cannot say that the trust thus reposed in judges should be denied governors, traditionally charged with saying the last word that spells life or death. There is no indication that either the Governor or the physicians who acted on petitioner's application violated the humanitarian policy of Georgia against execution of the insane.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Solesbee v. Balkcom — Opinion of the Court

Postponement of execution because of insanity bears a close affinity not to trial for a crime but rather to reprieves of sentences in general. The power to reprieve has usually sprung from the same source as the power to pardon. Power of executive clemency in this country undoubtedly derived from the practice as it had existed in England. Such power has traditionally rested in governors or the President, although some of that power is often delegated to agencies such as pardon or parole boards.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Solesbee v. Balkcom — Opinion of the Court

We are unable to say that it offends due process for a state to deem its Governor an 'apt and special tribunal' [3] to pass upon a question so closely related to powers that from the beginning have been entrusted to governors. And here the governor had the aid of physicians specially trained in appraising the elusive and often deceptive symptoms of insanity. It is true that governors and physicians might make errors of judgment. But the search for truth in this field is always beset by difficulties that may beget error. Even judicial determination of sanity might be wrong.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature