Mental Illness Deficiency Age the Death Penalty DP Insanity mental Illness the DP Exam 2 Review wouldn t go to prison receive DP Less than 1 of criminal cases that go to trial end in an insanity plea Less than of the 1 end in a jury finding defendant insane Legal Definitions of Insane If a defendant is found to be insane at the time of the crime at the time of the trial they re not convicted McNaghten brought from England acquitted by means of insanity Standard in the US At the time of the act the accused had a defect of reason no knowledge of act nature of crime or didn t know right from wrong Durham Rule Irresistible impulse a criminal act was a product of mental disease the need to commit a criminal act can t be stopped Durham was convicted of burglary federal judge overruled conviction Durham deemed legally Product rule This definition covered too broad of a range of behaviors alcoholism addiction moved away from it insane conduct to the requirements of the law the criminality of an act at the time of the crime Defendant is considered as if having been found guilty but is committed to a mental hospital rather than EX kleptomaniacs can t stop the impulse to steal Problem thin line between resistible non requires a person to prove w convincing evidence that the defendant can t appreciate a person doesn t appreciate the criminality wrongfulness of an act doesn t conform Substantial capacity rule Guilty but mentally ill being imprisoned if an examination shows a need for psychiatric treatment Definitions as used by states McNaghten 25 Durham 1 Abolished insanity defense 4 Substantial capacity 21 3 of these states use guilty but mentally ill Major Insanity Court Cases Ford v Wainwright 1986 Ford convicted of murder DP imposed While on death row he exhibited abnormal behavior delusional Psychiatrists deemed him psychotic mentally ill but still had the mental capacity to understand the DP execution scheduled SCOTUS never decided is an insane person could be executed Does it violate the 8th Amendment to execute a prisoner who is insane at the time of his scheduled Questions execution Were the FL procedures to determine the sanity of a person to be executed sufficient Decision Constitution forbids executions of insane there s no retribution in executing someone who can t comprehend it evolving standard of decency State procedures for determining sanity are inadequate too much control by the executive branch of govt Evidentiary hearing to determine competency must be granted to determine if someone who received DP is insane Summary Importance Violates 8th Amendment to execute someone who s insane at the time of execution FL procedures for determining mental competency for execution are insufficient Violates 8th Amendment to execute someone who becomes legally insane while incarcerated waiting to be executed FL must revise the process it uses for determining the mental competency of a prisoner for execution Singleton v Norris 2003 Question is it a violation of the 8th Amendment to execute a person who became insane while on death row but signs of his insanity are removed by being forcefully medicated against his wishes Summary doesn t violate the 8th Amendment if the medication they re being given is administered for legit reasons other than execution Can be given meds if The state s interests outweigh the individual s to not take them There s no lesser means to achieve the goal Meds must be medically appropriate Importance executions are permitted if sanity is maintained w meds if they have a reason to give them the meds other than for execution EX danger to self others Panetti v Quarterman 2007 Panetti killed his in laws had many prior incidents of mental illness Question can you execute someone who s aware of why they re being executed but b c of mental illness doesn t understand the reason for their execution b c their understanding of reality is distorted by delusions Summary violates 8th Amendment to execute some who b c of mental illness may have factual awareness of the state s reason for their execution but lacks a truly rational understanding of why they re being executed Cases related to Intellectually Disabled Mentally Retarded the DP Penry v Lynaugh 1989 Perry had intellectual level of a 6 y o Sentencing phase Judge told jurors to focus on 3 aggravating factors Were Penry s actions committed w the reasonable expectation that they would result in death Did Penry pose a continuing threat to society Were Penry s actions an unreasonable response to any provocation by the victim Penry s attorneys objected to the judges instructions on several grounds most importantly the failure to instruct the jurors regarding their consideration of mitigating factors including Penry s mental retardation Questions When requested should a jury be instructed by the judge to consider mental retardation as a mitigating factors at the sentencing portion of a capital trial Does the execution of a mentally retarded offender violate the 8th Amendment prohibiting against cruel unusual punishment Decision our reasoning compels a remand for resentencing so that we don t risk that the DP will be imposed in spite of factors which may call for a less severe penalty Settles at common law that idiots lunatics weren t subject to punishment Can t conclude that the 8th Amendment preclude the execution of any mentally retarded person simply by virtue of mental retardation alone Summary Ruling upheld the execution of defendants w mental retardation but struck down the way TX courts considered the issue It s constitutional to impose the DP on a mentally retarded defendant who has the ability to reason But if the defense requests jury instructions concerning mental retardation as a mitigating factors such requests must be granted Importance Mental retardation should be raised as a mitigating factor judges should instruct juries accordingly but it doesn t automatically exclude a defendant from the DP If more states banned the execution of the mentally retarded the majority of the Court thought it might become a violation of the cruel unusual punishment clause of the 8th Amendment Atkins v VA 2002 Jones was more persuasive jury believed him Jones Atkins testified against each other that the other killed Nesbit 2 aggravating circumstances proved in penalty phase of trial Supreme Court of VA affirmed imposition of DP Future dangerousness Vileness of the offense 2 Justices had strong dissents stating that the imposition
View Full Document
Unlocking...