Policy Position: P-44

DEATH PENALTY AND PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

Background
Over the past thirty years, the number of people with mental illness and other mental
disabilities on death row has steadily increased.(1) Although precise statistics are not
available, it is estimated that 5-10 percent of people on death row have a serious
mental illness.(2)

NMHA believes that mental illness can influence an individual’s mental
state at the time he or she commits a crime, can affect how "voluntary" and reliable an
individual’s statements might be, can compromise a person’s competence to stand trial
and to waive his or her rights, and may have an effect upon a person’s knowledge of
the criminal justice system.

The process of determining guilt and imposing sentence is necessarily more complex
for individuals with mental illness. A high standard of care is essential with regard to
legal representation as well as psychological / psychiatric evaluation for individuals
with mental illness involved in death penalty cases. NMHA believes mental illness
should always be taken into account during all phases of a potential death penalty
case. Moreover, the assessment of competency to stand trial as well as competency
to be executed should be conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of qualified
professionals, including professionals with expertise in the defendant’s particular
mental illness.

Some states require a prediction of future dangerousness in order to impose a death
sentence. However, research has shown predictions of future dangerousness to be
unscientific and frequently inaccurate. Therefore, such predictions are highly suspect
as a basis on which to impose the death penalty. Moreover, there is a danger that the
wholly unwarranted perception that mental illness is associated with violence could
bias such predictions. In fact, research shows that people with mental illness pose no
greater risk of violence than the average person. (3) Unfortunately, however, the
misperceived link between mental illness and violence drives both legal policy and
criminal justice system practice with respect to people with mental illness.

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that people with mental illness can be executed if
they understand the punishment that awaits them and why they are being put to death.
This ruling has prompted some states to provide psychiatric treatment to offenders
with mental illness on death row in order to "restore their competency." Consistent
with the code of ethics of the American Medical Association, NMHA is opposed to
the practice of having a psychiatrist or other mental health professional treat a person
in order to restore competency solely to permit the state to execute that person.
Similarly, NMHA is opposed to the practice of medicating defendants involuntarily in
order to make them competent either to stand trial or to be executed. Great care
must be taken to assure informed consent for treatment / no treatment options.

NMHA believes that our current system of fact-finding in capital cases fails to identify
who among those convicted and sentenced to death actually has a mental illness.
Thus, there is reason to believe that individuals with mental illness are being executed
without the criminal justice system knowing of the existence of that illness and,
therefore, without the requisite consideration of whether that mental illness may be a
mitigating factor in these cases. Our current system of justice does not adequately
address the complexity of cases involving defendants with mental illness. Therefore,
NMHA calls upon states to suspend use of the death penalty until more just, accurate
and systematic ways of determining a defendant’s mental status are developed. This
position supports the American Bar Association’s (ABA) call for a moratorium on
the imposition of the death penalty because, in its judgement, "fundamental due
process is systematically lacking" in capital cases.

Juveniles and the Death Penalty

Children with emotional disorders are entering the juvenile justice system in larger
numbers and are subject to increasingly punitive state juvenile crime laws. Despite
statistics that point to a reduction of juvenile crime, popular misconceptions of the
rate of violent juvenile crime persist. In response to these misconceptions, legislators
continue to push strongly for harsher punishments for juveniles. Since 1992, almost
every state has made it easier to try juveniles as adults.(4) Many youth are being waived
into adult court, are serving long-term sentences in adult facilities, or are being
sentenced to death.

Executing juvenile offenders (individuals who committed their crime while under age 18)
is becoming a more common practice. Since 1973, seventeen juvenile offenders have
been executed.(5) Four of these executions were in 2000 alone. Many of these youth
had histories of horrific childhood abuse, serious mental illness, and traumatic
experiences.

Additionally, the death penalty is not reserved for the most serious young offenders.
It is applied primarily to poor children, African American youth, and children with
significant mental health problems and trauma histories.(6)

NMHA believes that all children can grow up to lead normal and productive lives if
given nurturing and positive support. Often, offenses committed by the young
represent a failure of social institutions to nurture and guide young people to behave
in healthy and responsible ways. The sentencing of children to death repudiates this
notion and says that certain children are unmalleable and unsalvageable.

Young people under age 18 should not be held to the same standard of culpability
and accountability for their actions as adults. Impulsiveness, poor judgment, and a
lack of self-control are frequently characteristics of childhood and are the reasons we
limit many of the rights of minors. The age, maturity, mental status, and any history of
abuse / trauma of a youthful offender should always be considered in deciding his or
her punishment. NMHA considers the execution of people for crimes they committed
as children to be unjust and inhumane, serving no principled purpose, and demeaning
to our system of justice.

NMHA’s Position on the Death Penalty

§ Our current system of justice inadequately addresses the complexity of cases
involving criminal defendants with mental illness. Therefore, NMHA calls upon
states to suspend using the death penalty until more just, accurate and
systematic ways of determining and considering a defendant’s mental status
are developed.

§ NMHA believes that mental illness should always be taken into account
during all phases of a death penalty case. Moreover, the assessment of
competency to stand trial as well as competency to be executed should be
conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of qualified professionals, including
professionals with expertise in the defendant’s particular mental illness.

§ NMHA is opposed to the practice of having a psychiatrist or other mental
health professional treat a person in order to restore competency solely to
permit the state to execute that person, and NMHA opposes the practice of
medicating defendants involuntarily in order to make them competent either to
stand trial or to be executed.

§ NMHA believes that the age, maturity, mental status, and any childhood
history of abuse / trauma of a youthful offender should always be considered in
deciding his or her punishment. Young people under age 18 should not be
held to the same standard of culpability and accountability for their actions as
adults.

§ NMHA considers the execution of people for crimes they committed as
children to be unjust and inhumane, serving no principled purpose, and
demeaning to our system of justice.

---------------------------------------------

1 The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Fact Sheet: Mental
Competency and the Death Penalty. Available: http://www.ncadp.org/facts.html

2 Personal communication with the California Appellate Project.

3 Steadman, H., Mulvey, E., Monahan, J., Robbins, P., Appelbaum, P., Grisso, T.,
Roth, L., Silver, E. (May 1998). Violence by People Discharged From Acute
Psychiatric Inpatient Facilities and by Others in the Same Neighborhoods. Archives
of General Psychiatry, (55).

4 The Sentencing Project. Briefing / Fact Sheets: Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court
– An Assessment of Trends and Consequences. Available:

5 Streib, V. (June 2000). The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and
Executions for Juvenile Crimes. Ohio Northern University.

6The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Fact Sheet: Executing Minorities
—An American Tradition.

Approved by the NMHA Board of Directors March 10, 2001 (expires 3/1/06)

Download in Microsoft Word Format

Republished by the Mental Health Association In Michigan