THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY AGAINST THE EXECUTION OF THE INSANE IS SHOWN IN AN ANALYSIS OF THE RATIONALE FOR THIS POLICY AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. MOST STATES RELEGATE THE INITIAL EVALUATION OF A PRISONER'S CLAIM OF INSANITY TO THE EXCLUSIVE DISCRETION OF A PRISON ADMINISTRATOR, ONLY AFTER NEGOTIATING THE THRESHOLD EVALUATION DOES THE CONDEMNED PRISONER PROCEED TO A COURT EXAMINATION. A FRAMEWORK OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IS PROPOSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CONDEMNED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF INSANITY AND TO HAVE THE CLAIM PROPERLY EVALUATED. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN FURMAN VERSUS GEORGIA (1972) STATED THAT THE EXECUTION OF AN INSANE PRISONER WOULD CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THE INSANE WERE NOT EXECUTED UNDER THE COMMON LAW, AND ANY 'INNOVATIVE PUNISHMENT' MORE STRINGENT THAN THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IT SUPERSEDED WOULD BE UNUSUAL. CITING JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S INTERPRETATION IN SOLESBEE V BALKCOM (1950), THE 14TH AMENDMENT OFFERS PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARY PROCEDURES THAT MAY JEOPARDIZE THE RIGHT OF THE INSANE PRISONER NOT TO BE EXECUTED. RECENT COURT DECISIONS INDICATE THAT PROCEDURAL PROTECTION CAN BE LIMITED ONLY IF THE PRIVATE INTEREST IS NONEXISTENT OR MINIMAL, AND THAT SPECIFIC KINDS OF APPELLATE REVIEW IN CAPITAL CASES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE CONDEMNED PRISONER. A PROPER BALANCING OF INTEREST REQUIRES THAT THE PROCEDURAL SYSTEM PROVIDE FOR PROPER DIAGNOSIS OF THE PRISONER'S MENTAL CONDITION, AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW, AND EFFICIENT BUT FAIR CONTROL OF FEIGNED INSANITY CLAIMS. THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ALLEGEDLY INSANE PRISONER PROVIDE COMPELLING GROUNDS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL. ARGUMENTS ARE ALSO MADE FOR THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY BY A PANEL OF PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTS. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK).