The analysis concludes that the appropriate definition of incompetency for execution has not been determined. It also notes that inmates spared from execution will be severely mentally ill or impaired. The most restrictive test limits incompetency to an inability to understand that punishment by death is to be exacted or to understand why that punishment has been ordered. An alternative standard additionally requires that prisoners must have the ability to communicate why a capital sentence may have been imposed unlawfully or unjustly. However, the choice of standards is unlikely to matter in most cases. However, the choice seems clear as a matter of principle. Special scrutiny is needed for procedures designed to separate justified from unjustified claims of incompetency. Several approaches would be advisable to ensure effective and efficient procedures. These include appointing an independent panel of psychiatrists or psychologist to examine prisoners whose competency is at issue and allowing appeals after competency decisions. The modest delay involved in resolving claims of incompetency for execution should be a small enough price to pay for a society committed to upholding the principles that underlie the constitutional prohibition against executing incompetent prisoners. Footnotes