Mental illness has long been in existence in our societies. It is an issue that has existed for a long time. People have often feared people with mental illness which is a perception among many laypeople. Based on medieval theory, mental illness is associated with evil spirits. Although it has been viewed negatively, there many areas of concern and has raised discussions centuries after the other where they have been defended and excused from criminal responsibility. In present days there has been efforts and measures put in place in order to improve mental health through improving treatment facilities .However, this illness has much been exposed to death penalty. This disorder has been known as a mitigating aspect among the statutes on death penalty which have asserted under the eight amendment that it is cruel and unusual to punish individuals or execute those whose mental condition makes them unable to understand capital punishment. Regardless, a considerable number of inmates on death row are considered to be mentally ill and scholars and statistics have shown that this condition is an aggravating influence in capital sentencing by legislation bodies. In Phillips’ article Filling the Gap: Mental Illness and the Death Penalty in Indiana, he believes that there exists legal gaps working against the desire for the mentally ill offenders to defend themselves. This essay strives to comprehensively discuss the solutions to this menace.
Legal Gaps
With great concern and accuracy I can assert that mentally ill is quite over represented in the realms of the criminal justice system and especially those on death rows. Medical facts and research prove that people with severe mental illness can have lowered impulse control that can lead to violent acts which could put them in the danger of death penalty. In addition there have been concerns of several hurdles working against the case of mental illness. For instance, there has been a concern that the medical and legal definition of mental illness bars the defendants from seeking any form of insanity plea. “First, the insanity defense is a narrow, all-or-nothing standard: a person is either insane (thus, full excused) or sane (full culpable). Second, a person with mental illness who is not found legally insane may be found guilty but mentally ill (GBMI).”(Phillips 834). Besides, it is hard for people with mental illness to defend themselves sensibly in court against death penalty. On the other hand, those with mental illness find it hard to reason or have certain perceptions and might not even take a stand on defense as they might feel guilty and demotivated to plea for their freedom and innocence. “Is a suicidal defendant competent to stand trial? A depressed defendant? A defendant who believes he deserves to die? A defendant who is traumatized by the homicidal encounter?” Bonnie (1456). Therefore, this makes conviction to death penalty very likely.
There are also many arguments supporting and refuting the use of death penalty on mentally ill offenders. Despite these arguments being both informative and persuasive, they are unimportant as what matters most is whether the act violates the Eighth Amendment which bars against unusual and cruel forms of punishment. “Perhaps the most important of these safeguards is the requirement that the prosecution bear the heavy burden of proving the defendant guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” (Bonnie 1449). If there is no form of violation, then all states can continue retaining their rights of determining the case on death penalty. There are individuals in the justice system who believes that the issue is impossible to solve due to the individual nature associated with mental illness. Phillips states that “-the insanity defense is utilized in less than one percent of felony cases,-” (Phillips 827). This shows that the judicial system gives very little or no room for defense by insanity claim. However, others believe that the claim that the defendant is mentally ill does not provide a sufficient reason to bar execution although it is somehow essential in ensuring judicial competency.
Solutions
One of the greatest solutions to the issue of death penalty is determining whether this practice is in violation of the Eighth Amendment or not. Despite this amendment having been drafted in the past without referring to what is happening today, one needs to understand that whether a certain punishment is unusual or cruel, then one does not have to look at when it was drafted but through the lens of the evolving standards of morality. According to Phillips, the Eight Amendment states that the “basic concept underlying the Eight Amendment stands to assure that this power be exercised within the limits of civilized standards….The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (Phillips 836). The Eighth Amendment falls under the Bill of Rights after getting added in the constitution in 1791. It demands criminal punishments to be considerate, not cruel, excessive or even unusual. In the Constitution, the Eight Amendment states; "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".
In Bonnie’s article Mental Illness, Severe Emotional Distress, and the Death Penalty: Reflections on the Tragic Case of Joe Giarratano, claims that the society is filled with mixed feelings with regard to death penalty. He explains the situation of Joe who at one hand he is being pitied for mentally ill people while on the other hand they are ambivalent about it. They view mentally challenged individuals as people in need of medical help but at the same time they fear mental illness. This might also provide a legitimate concern that such individuals are a danger to their sane counterparts. “Instead it challenged the constitutionality of the “future dangerousness” predicate in the capital sentencing statutes on its face and as applied in Giarratano’s case, objected to constitutional errors relating to the use of psychiatric testimony to prove dangerousness, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Bonnie 1450-1451). In death penalty cases, such ambivalence is thriving. Despite having eighth amendment which is based on morality, there is still need to preserve our moral values in the society. The act of killing is itself an immoral act. Despite this law having been crafted during an era when executions were normal practice, there is need to rethink of our moral codes. This would mean that proving the acts of mentally ill person do not deserve death penalty would mean that morality in our society has been upheld. Therefore, even if there is any other form of punishment other than death penalty and that which is consistent with the Eight Amendment, then it would mean that justice is served.
Rather than focusing on sentencing mentally ill offenders to death penalty, the justice system needs to uphold a different approach of punishing them. It is a fact that the death penalty would mean nothing to a severely mentally changed person. Even if they are informed of their near death situation, it would be hard for them to decipher what is awaiting them and hence making the practice useless. Those also roaming in the society with mental illness even if they are aware of the consequences and they cannot control their mental state, then the practice would again prove to be useless. Individuals who perform gruesome acts during their mentally incapacitated state, then they even won’t remember what went wrong “some people with mental illness have lowered impulse control” (Phillips 838). They will only realize later when their mental state has stabilized. Placing such a person on death row despite the nature of crime committed demonstrates lack of understanding of their health condition. Therefore, although they do need to be punished, the punishment can be different which does not warrant such a death.
Bonnie suggests that there are alternatives to death penalty include action such as incapacitation (Bonnie 1452). Incapacitation is an act of placing murderers for life imprisonment. Life imprisonment means that the person’s life would be based on prison and at no time would he be eligible to mingle with the rest of the public. This can be considered a humane act as it won’t involve any form of physical torture. The person would also be separate from the public which he or she might pose a danger to due to their condition and also based on their crime. Besides, no individual deserves to die as life is considered to be previous and irrecoverable once lost. “As already indicated, it was clear even then that Giarratano’s ability to recall the event during the time period before, during, and after the killings was severely impaired.” (Bonnie 1452). Death penalty would appear as a form of vengeance on the part of the government and society disguised as justice which results to the devaluation of human life and human dignity. Death penalty therefore becomes self-destructive as it destroys the government which claims to protect its citizens and human life in particular. Even the practice of democracy and its freedoms is undermined by the practice of death penalty.
Mental illness being a medical condition needs medically oriented solution. Mentally ill offenders can be placed under treatment and intervention with an aim of reclaiming their once sane brain. In this case, they can be placed in rehabilitation centers where they can undergo treatment for a given period of time until they recover their health. If this solution is enacted rather than punishing them by death then it would mean that justice is served. They can also be assisted to join the society once they have been checked properly for a period of time.
In conclusion, although the Indiana law gives some ways of ensuring defendants with mental illness does not receive death penalty, currently the law leaves a gap in protection of the same. The existence of these legal gaps when it comes to handling mental illness and death penalty has been a barrier to proper justice provision. The weighing of decreasing circumstances relating to mental disability at ruling stage may hurt rather than helping defendant with this condition due to stigma surrounding mental illness. Law courts have no categorical exemption of defendant whop rule on the matter. Death punishment is a disproportionate for those with mental disability because they fall below extreme culpability. There need for the legal system to consider morality as it is part of justice and make review on the eighth amendment. There is also need for the legal system to have other forms of punishment such as incapacitation and rehabilitation to replace death penalty. The law courts should always rule in favor of life if there is any doubt on correctness of the ruling.
Works Cited
Bonnie, Richard J. "Mental Illness, Severe Emotional Distress, and the Death Penalty: Reflections on the Tragic Case of Joe Giarratano." Washington & Lee Law Review, 2016, pp. 1445-1467.
Phillips, Jeniffer. "Filling the Gap: Mental Illness and the Death Penalty in Indiana." Indiana Law Review, July 2018, pp. 823-852.
