In the case of Rees v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent in 1965, Melvin Davis Rees Jr., a convicted murderer on death row, sought to withdraw his previously submitted petition for writ of habeas corpus (a legal action against unlawful detention). The U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether he was mentally competent enough to make such a decision. The court ruled that before allowing withdrawal of the appeal, it must be ascertained that Rees had the capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or on the other hand whether he is suffering from mental disease rendering him incapable of making a rational decision in this matter. Therefore, they remanded (sent back) the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding Ree's competency at which both parties could present evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for Rees v. Peyton, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the death penalty was unconstitutional and should be abolished entirely. He believed that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments, as it involved premeditated killing by state officials. Furthermore, he contended that there were significant racial disparities in how the death penalty was applied, with African Americans disproportionately sentenced to death compared to white defendants who committed similar crimes. Additionally, he pointed out flaws in jury selection processes which often excluded individuals opposed to capital punishment from serving on juries in capital cases - a practice he viewed as biased and unfair.