Introduction
The death penalty is the harshest punishment that can be delivered in most judicial systems, including the American justice system. Considering the irrevocable nature of the punishment, it only makes sense that legislators and legal professionals alike pay close attention to when and how such verdicts can be issued. The central line of thinking is that, in order to be subjected to the death penalty, the accused must be sufficiently aware of his or her situation and the reasoning behind the sentence. This approach naturally excludes some groups that are considered not on equal footing with fully mentally competent adults – such as juveniles or, even more importantly, the mentally disabled. The ultimate purpose of the death penalty is to prevent harm to society rather than execute vengeance, meaning that applying it to the mentally ill is fraught with difficulties. Since the beginning of American legal history, the death penalty has required the accused to be in a proper state of mind. Correspondingly, the current practice holds that apart from the competencies to be tried and sentenced, the accused should also be mentally competent enough to be executed.
Death Penalty in Case of Mental Illness in Accused
American legal thought posited that the defendant’s mental competence was a necessary prerequisite for issuing and implementing the death penalty, albeit for reasoning different from that of today. The main rationale behind the requirement of the defendant’s sufficient sanity was not as much legal as it was religious. As Banner (2002) notes, the person executed had to be in a proper mental state “because on that mental state depended, in large part, one’s eternal fate after death” (p. 16). In other words, since the person was dying and trusting one’s soul into God’s hand, it was of paramount importance to achieve the true consciousness of God. In this respect, American legal tradition posed the requirement of sanity as a prerequisite for capital punishment since its earliest days.
Another debate that historically shaped the issue of the death penalty as applied to the mentally ill was the dilemma of executing versus treating. By the late 18th and the early 19th century, a new trend in sociological thought began to attribute all crime to biological determinants, which, more often than not, amounted to real or perceived mental illness. In 1790, a Maryland resident argued unequivocally that mental disease was “the cause of all crimes” (Banner, 2002, p. 103). With this approach, a retributive justification for capital punishment was null and void because it would make no sense to punish someone for catching a disease. Although this categorical way of interpreting every crime as a result of mental deficiency did not persist in the historical perspective, it brought forth the essential question. Drawing a sharp distinction between conscious criminals who deserve a full measure of punishment and the mentally ill who should be treated rather than executed was hard in the 18th century and is barely easier today.
Some aspects of the problems are common for all cases and not only those involving capital punishment – but, insofar as the topic is concerned, they deserve a brief coverage. First and foremost, the American legal system requires the person to be sufficiently mentally competent to stand trial. In Dusky v. United States, a 1960 landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant has to face minimal requirements in terms of mental health to be competent to stand trial (Malone, 2018, p. 150). In specific terms, it means that the accused needs a sufficient presence of mind to communicate with the lawyer and establish rational understanding. Apart from that, there is also the competence to be convicted. In this regard, the crucial aspect is mens rea or the subjective mental component of the criminal intent. In practical terms, the competence to stand trial requires establishing whether, at the time of the offense, the accused had the understanding of the wrongfulness of the criminal act (Malone, 2018, p. 153). However, even if the defendant is competent both to stand trial and to be convicted, the death penalty complicates the situation further.
As of now, the American legal system does not allow subjecting mentally ill individuals to capital punishment, but the application of this principle remains blurry. In Ford v. Wainwright, in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled out that no insane person should be executed, albeit not elaborating much on the criteria of insanity (Malone, 2018, p.155). In Atkins v. Virginia, 2022, it reiterated the same conclusion, this time with reference to IQ scores (Malone, 2018, p.154). The court held that neither retribution nor deterrence would be served by killing people who could not bear full moral responsibility for their actions due to being intellectually underdeveloped (Malone 154). Intellectual disability as it relates to the death penalty is a separate issue that would not be confused with the competence to either stand trial or to be convicted (Malone, 2018, p.155). Thus, in practical terms, Atkins v. Virginia means that the mentally disabled can both stand trial and receive punishments except the death penalty. However, The Supreme Court left it to the states to define mental disability and its criteria, which ensured that the practice of following the established principle is still complicated.
Finally, it is also necessary to cover the issue of mental competence to be executed. This morbid expression refers to the requirement that the accused must not only be informed about the causal relationship between the offense and the execution but should also understand it. Panetti v. Quarterman, decided in 2007, may serve as a fitting illustration. In this case, the defendant, accused of capital murder, held that the real reason why the prosecution insisted on his execution was the intention “to stop him from preaching” (Malone, 2018, p.156). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that he was competent to be executed because he was informed about the nature of his crime as a factual predicate for the sentence. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision and held that, apart from being informed about the reason for the execution, the accused must understand the causal connection between the crime and punishment (Malone, 2018, p.156). Thus, sentencing a person to death involves an additional mental health barrier beyond the competence to stand trial and be convicted, as with other offenses.
Conclusion
To summarize, the history and the present states of capital punishment as applied to the intellectually disabled demonstrates careful consideration given to the issue. Since the earliest days of American legal tradition, the court required the defendant to be in a proper mental state, although originally for religious rather than legal reasons. The idea that the mentally ill need to be treated rather than punished also goes back all the way to the 18th century. To prevent purposeless and inhumane punishment for the mentally disabled, the justice system requires sufficient mental ability to both stand trial and be convicted. Apart from that, in cases involving capital punishment, the accused needs ‘competence to be executed’ or the ability to fully understand the causal relationship between the offense and the punishment.
References
Banner, S. 2002. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard UP, 2002.
Malone. L. A. (2018). Too ill to be killed: Mental and physical competency to be executed pursuant to the death penalty. Texas Tech Law Review, 51, 147-167.