Mental+Illness

The United States Supreme Court currently exempts defendants from the death penalty who are insane or intellectually disabled. While the American Heritage Dictionary (4th edit., 2000) defines mental illness as “Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual’s normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors,” insanity, or mental incompetency, is a severe form of mental illness, and is addressed separately by the legal system. There is no such exemption for the merely mentally ill. Unfortunately, there are “grey areas” in which the court system cannot easily determine an accused’s mental status. In order to prevent the unfair sentencing of a criminal, the court system needs to develop a more accurate and systematic way of determining a defendant’s mental status. In many states, a simple IQ test--which can vary by several points from test to test on the same individual--determines mental retardation, which can in turn determine eligibility for the death penalty. In addition, mental conditions can affect the reliability of the accused's statements, which in turn can compromise their competence to stand trial, and potentially waive their rights. Lastly, there is no retributive value in executing a person who was not fully in control of their actions. If a mental illness, whether it be schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, or a variety of other illnesses, compromises a person’s right judgment and ability to think, they should not be sentenced to execution.

The United States justice system must develop a more accurate and systematic way to consider a defendant's mental status. Determining a defendant’s guilt varies based on the jurors as every human being is unique, and therefore the decision of life or death for a human being is completely dependent on who the jurors are. In most cases, the jury is given information on the defendant, and his life, including early developmental childhood. Mental retardation manifests itself before age 18, and is apperant at birth (Ellis, James W. Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty). Therefore, someone who is mentally unstable and eligible for the death penalty can create mixed opinions among the jury upon whether they should be sentenced to death or not. Part of this process is determining the defendant's IQ. an IQ score of 70 and under would be considered mentally retarded (Ellis, James W. Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty). Unfortunately, these tests can vary several points from test to test and in turn, change the decision of the jury. This creates an area of uncertainty, something which we cannot allow in such serious matters. The process to determine the outcome of one's life is unreliable and it is imperative we develop an improved set of courtroom guidelines to give mentally ill Americans the right to a fair trial.

If a defendant’s mental capacity is insufficient or unstable their statements can jeopardize the case and could possibly effect the results of the trial. Without the proper measures taken in order to fairly accuse a mentally disabled defendant, that individual can put themselves at risk to wrongful accusations. A disabled defendant can falsely confess to a crime because of intense or stressful situations. In some occurrences it is believed that mentally incompetent defendants have been tried without a mental handicap accounted for, which can greatly affect the outcome of the trial. A defendant needs to be rigorously tested to determine whether or not a mental disability is originally admitted or manifest (Intellectual Disibilities and the Death Penalty). Every American has the given right to a fair trial but in the case of unnoticed mentally incompetent defendants, this natural right would be stripped from them. All defendants need to be evaluated in order to insure that mentally unreliable defendants receive their American rights and given full immunity from certain evidence and trial procedures based on their mental condition.

If a defendant is declared mentally competent, they cannot be executed. However, if their competency is restored, the execution can proceed. This has led to administering professional help to restore mental competency for the purpose of continuing with the execution. This practice is cynical and immoral. If the defendant was not mentally competent when the crime was committed, and did not understand the consequences or immorality of their actions, what purpose does it serve to restore competency simply to allow for execution? The fact remains that during the act, the accused was not in right mind, and no matter what treatment they might receive, the circumstances of their actions in the moment will not change. Executing a person who was not in control of their actions at the time of a crime serves no purpose, regardless of their mental state at the time of execution.

This is a problem that is very difficult to solve, considering all of the different variables that can change from case to case. However, the system in itself can be vastly improved, and make this process more fair. The execution of one who was not in control of their actions has no retributive value, and frankly, is a violation of human rights. The justice system is also not entirely capable of determining the mental status of a defendant, and the slight variations in the testing can result in the unnecessary loss of a life. Finally, the rights that we are given as citizens of the United States can be put into question when the defendant is not properly able to defend him or herself. Unless the court system is vastly improved, and these injustices are removed, the mentally ill should not be executed.



Scott Panetti - One of the many cases that deal with the controversy of executing the mentally ill. Scott Panetti is currently in Texas Death Row facing the death sentence but has many supporters outside the prison lines who believe he is mentally ill and shouldn't be executed. 