Mentally_Ill_Offenders

Mohammed Yazdani 81-110-1 Dr James W. Houlihan November 23rd 2009 Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders The Death Penalty has always been a controversial and much debated issue. When mentally ill offenders are added to the mix and sentenced to death in capital punishment trials, this complicates this issue even more. In 1972 the death penalty was banned but reinstated in 1976 by the Supreme Court. According to the American Civil Liberties Union there are approximately 3,400 inmates on the nation’s death row and 10% of them have some sort of mental illness, ranging from mild to severe. Since the resuming of executions in 1976, the Supreme Court has placed two major restrictions on the use of the death penalty. First, the Supreme Court case of Atkins v. Virginia, decided June 20th 2002, states that executions of mentally retarded criminals are of cruel and unusual nature which is prohibited in the Eighth Amendment. Secondly, in March 2005 the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, abolished executions for persons under the age of 18 years. (French, 2005). In this paper, I will be addressing if a person with mental illness has the same amount of diminished culpability as a person with mental retardation and the primary moral, ethical dilemma that is faced by the criminal justice system if a mentally ill person is handed the death penalty. Let me begin by defining the differences between mental retardation and mental illness in its simplest form. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language, mental retardation is defined by having subnormal intellectual development as a result of congenital illness, brain injury or disease and characterized by any of various cognitive deficiencies including impaired learning, social and vocational ability. While mental illness is defined as an impairment of an individual’s normal cognitive, emotional or behavioral functioning and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic or other factors such as infection or head trauma. With this in mind one can say that mental retardation is measurable and usually constant. On the other hand, mental illness is somewhat episodic, it may come and go. (Silverstein, 2001). There has been numerous and well documented cases where the defendants with notable mental illnesses have been allowed to put to death. For the purpose of this paper I would like to use Daniel Colwell’s story. On July 22nd 1996, in Americus, Georgia, two days after being released from a health center, Daniel Colwell began to have suicidal thoughts but could not carry it out himself. So he mustered up a plan on how he could receive the death penalty. By his own confession, he concealed a nine millimeter in his belt and drove to the local Wal-Mart where he chose an elderly white couple. He had convinced himself that he had to kill someone white so he would be guaranteed the death penalty. He shot Mitchell and Judith Bell point blank in the head. (Honberg, 2001). A few minutes after the murder, Colwell turned himself in to the Americus police station. He willingly confessed to the crimes and stated that he wanted to be executed for his crimes. (Honberg, 2001). Once he was found to be competent to stand trial per the Notice of Defendant’s Insanity and Incompetence to Stand Trial Act (Honberg, 2001), Colwell was sentenced to death on October 13 1998 by the Jury. After many appeals later by Colwell’s attorneys, The Georgia Supreme Court finally turned down his final appeal for a stay of his execution even though they all agreed that Colwell suffered from a severe mental disease. (Silverstein, 2001). They also agreed that he was legally competent to be executed because he clearly understood the nature and object of his proceedings and could participate in his case. (Silverstein, 2001). Two years later Colwell took his own life in his jail cell while waiting on death row. Using the above case of Daniel Colwell as an example, his attorneys, used the Insanity defense. They stated that Colwell due to his mental disease is what caused him to concoct this whole plan of murdering Mitchell and Judith Bell. The Insanity Defense is usually used on individuals who have committed a criminal act but maybe not found criminally responsible for the act. (Fersch, 2007) I also would like to add to this that Insanity is a legal term not a psychological term. (Fersch, 2007). Many of the supporters of the insanity defense argue that this plea exists to keep the criminal justice system in check which usually assumes mentally stability while only looking at facts and evidence. (Fersch, 2007). The people that oppose the Insanity Defense state that due to the vague science of mental illnesses, this defense is used to excuse criminals who acted purposely and not take their intentions in to consideration. (Fersch, 2007). In the case of Daniel Colwell, his attorneys argue that before the onset of his brain disorder, Colwell did not have any arrests or was in trouble with the law. All through his childhood, high school and four years of college, he performed very well and stayed out of trouble. Once the onset of his illness began and his encounters with the law, was due to his erratic behavior caused by psychosis and schizophrenia. (Honberg, 2001). The attorneys argued that Colwell committed these murders so he could fulfill his wish of committing suicide to rid him of the torment that was happening in his brain. He did not know the Bells nor had any animosity towards them. He specifically picked this couple because they were white and that it would guarantee him his wish of state assisted suicide. (Honberg, 2001). The attorneys also argued for the State of Georgia to grant Colwell his wish of the death penalty, it would be going against a Georgia’s Statute that states anyone assisting another individual in suicide would be committing a felony. (Honberg, 2001). Hearing the arguments set forth by the attorneys in this case on why Colwell should not be put to death is very hard for me to swallow. The Reason of Insanity defense, in my opinion, should be abolished. Granted the Insanity Defense is very rarely used, almost one percent of criminal trials and is only successful a quarter of the time (Fersch, 2007), I believe it is an excuse to not hold the defendant responsible. I would like to point out that I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, where it prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded. (French, 2005). When it comes to persons with mental illnesses, I believe they should be held accountable for their actions. Let’s take Daniel Colwell’s case, No one denies from the prosecution and defense that Colwell suffered from a mental disorder. His obsession in trying to take his own life made him commit these heinous murders. So we have look at the way Colwell schemed and his thought process on why he chose his victims. He did have a mental disorder but one can say that anyone that commits a murder in this fashion is mentally ill. Colwell was aware of what he was doing was wrong. Many of the cases I read Mason v. Virginia, Panetti v. Texas, in all these cases the defendants all were aware of what they were doing was wrong. In the International Herald Tribune, a lawyer by the name of David Bruck was quoted as saying, “The death penalty is an absolute punishment. If it is imposed at all. It should be imposed on people whose sense of responsibility and judgment is such that they fully appreciated the seriousness of what they were doing”. (Ross, 1999). I do not agree with his statement. Anyone committing a murder has always had a tainted sense of judgment and responsibility. If this existed we would not have crimes of this sort. According to our constitution, it requires the defendants and convicts to be mentally competent to stand trial at all stages of the criminal process and to be competent for execution, the prisoner must understand that he is going to be executed and why. (Spring, 2005). In Colwell’s case he understood all this. At several times during his trial he wanted to be on the prosecutor side because they were trying to achieve the same goal. (Silverstein, 2001). When a prisoner understands all this, there is no reason why a stay in execution should be granted. While in prison Daniel Colwell was under anti-psychotic medication and at times became lucid and began to have second thoughts on wanting to be executed. With this in mind, one primary moral and ethical issue that the criminal justice system has to face is the administering of medication to make a prisoner competent to stand trial and be executed. In the case of Charles Singleton who was on death row for the murder of a grocery clerk in Arkansas. Once he was he convicted and sentenced to be executed, Singleton was diagnosed with schizophrenia. (Spring, 2005). He was only considered to be sane when he was on his medication. With the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in Ford v. Wainwright, where it was unconstitutional to execute a person who did not understand the reality or reason of their execution (Spring, 2005), Singleton’s attorney argued that he could not be forced to take his medication, just so he could be executed. Without his medication Singleton would not understand why he was being executed. After many appeals, the Supreme Court refused to overturn his sentence because Singleton was taking his medication voluntarily. Singleton was executed in January 2004. (Spring, 2005). With this moral and ethical dilemma it puts the criminal justice system in a catch twenty two. Without his medication, Singleton would not be competent to be executed and with it, it would make him sane enough for the execution to be carried out. The key element here was that he was taking it voluntarily which broke no rules. So the carrying out of his sentence was justified. It was also a decision he played a role in deciding. While on medication he was given his options and consequences. Singleton decided to stay on the medication. Granted this is just a brief description of one the dilemmas faced by the justice system, when issuing the death penalty and as stated before when you add the mentally ill to the mix, it complicates the debate even more. In conclusion with the justice system not having any clear set rules regarding the mentally ill and if they should execute them, like they do with the mentally retarded, Ford v. Wainwright, this heated debate is always going to exist. As I stated before the Insanity defense is something that should be abolished and hold the criminals responsible for their actions when they have some sort of mental illness. If they have gone through due process and are given the death penalty then I think it needs to be upheld. Each case should be looked on a individual basis, as it is done now, but what should be also be looked at is the mens rea , the way the crime was committed and the environment it was committed in. If medication needs to be administered to have them competent to stand trial or be executed then it should be done. I do hope that this debate is taken more seriously by the Supreme Court and clear set rules are set forth soon for the mentally ill. References Fersch, E. L. (2007). Thinking about the Insanity Defense. Lincoln: iUniverse. French, L. A. (2005). Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty:The Clinical and Legal Legacy. Federal Probation , 16-20. Honberg, R. S. (2001). Daniel Cowell(Amicus Curiae, National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. Virginia: National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. Ross, M. (1999). Don't Execute Mentally Disturbed Killers. The Humanist , 43-44. Silverstein, K. (2001). By Reason Of Insanity. Mother Jones , 26-31. Spring, J. C. (2005). Sigleton's Story: Choosing between Psychosis. The Hastings Center Report , 30-33.