In the United States, thirty-one states still have the death penalty as a sentence, and nineteen states have abolished it or overturned it as a sentence (States, 2017). As of this year, twenty-one inmates have been executed (Execution, 2017). The death penalty, which is also referred to as capital punishment, is given to individuals who have been convicted of capital crimes such as murder or treason (Staff, 2007). Despite being able to sentence those individuals convicted of murder and other capital crimes in states that sanction it, there is a debate among individuals about the death penalty with regard to whether if it deters crime, whether there is a chance innocent individuals have (or will be executed if wrongly convicted), whether factors …show more content…
Lynaugh, which they had originally voted on against exempting individuals with intellectual disabilities from the death penalty (Mossman, 2003). Therefore, stating that the death penalty would be considered as a cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, it stated that previous court case decisions, which prohibited or rarely used the death penalty, and public opinion, which found the execution of offenders with intellectual disabilities unfavorable was used as evidence to support their decision. In addition, it was argued that “offenders considered to have [ an intellectual disability] are categorically less culpable than the average criminal (Atkins, 2001). It further argued that this was a result of incapacity in areas such as “reasoning, judgement, and control of their impulses” (Atkins, 2002). Even more importantly this case has a significant outcome with regard to how psychology is applied in the courtroom. The case helped demonstrate how assessments are important when determining factors that could implicate that an individual suffers from a mental illness, pertaining more to intellectual disabilities, and how that can help mitigate what type of sentence an individual should receive (Mossman, 2003). However, the method used determine whether or not an individual suffers from an intellectual disability and the definition of intellectual disability falls at the discretion of each state (Amos,
The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved.
In the chapter named “Mitigation”, Stevenson focused solely on the treatment of individuals with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. In many instances, prosecutors and judges neglected to consider mental and intellectual disabilities when
In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.
In refers to class discussion, as a result of the M’Nagthen case, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) is only use when the defendant does not understand the nature of the crime committed. Therefore, although neurosis or personality disorders qualify as a mental disease according to the DSM-5; the law has eliminated these types of disorders from being utilized in courts as a form of defense. The law has also excluded the irresistible impulse or inabilities to comply with the rules as a means of defense in the federal
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia stated that it was unconstitutional to execute defendants with “mental retardation.” However, legal questions surrounding this issue remain unresolved. The Court in Atkins left the definition and method of determining intellectual disability up to individual states. It has been said that 46 known “mentally retarded” persons have been executed since 1976. Of these 46, two occurred after Atkins v. Virginia was decided.
Insanity Defense evaluations The insanity defense evaluations are used to justify the mental capacity of a criminal in a court proceeding that committed murder as a result of their conduct in society. According to Heilburn (2006), “One doctor in an attempt to find a legal analogy called the DSM 3 the statute law of psychiatry.” (pp.65) formally known as the lex loci delicti commissi in legal terms is a diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders ever known. However, there are two different ways in going about providing an evaluation to a criminal with a mental disease.
The moral of the death penalty is that when someone commits a heinous crime, they should be prosecuted in a way that is equal to their crime. Robert Blecker, JD said that "We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but only to the degree they deserve it...." This states that people should get what they deserve. If they go out and commit homicide or murder for fun they should get the same treatment. Losing someone can be tragic, but losing someone because a criminal killed them is even worse.
Yet, there is a significant proportion of death row inmates are mentally ill and the research evidence found suggests that mental illness is often, in fact, an aggravating factor as far as capital sentencing bodies are concerned. The Supreme Court eventually came to the conclusion of this: “If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed - who may not be punished at all - in unsafe conditions” (French, 2005) There are rights that each individual has, and there needs to be guidelines to make sure each person is treated fairly, even if they do not deserve such
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a legal process in which a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime by the government of a nation. The United States is in the minority group of nations that uses the death penalty. There are thirty-three states that allow capital punishment and seventeen states that abolished it (Death Penalty Information Center). The morality of the death penalty has been debated for many years. Some people want capital punishment to be abolished due to how it can cost a lot more than life imprisonment without parole, how they think it is immoral to kill, and how innocent people can be put to death.
In 1989, The Supreme Court decided the Penry v. Lynaugh case. Penry, the petitioner, was convicted of rape and murder and was sentenced to death. It was found that Penry, in a competency evaluation, was mentally retarded, known today as intellectually disabled, with an IQ of 54 (Penry v. Lynaugh,1989). Despite Penry’s IQ, the jury found that Penry was competent to proceed and further sentenced him to death. Although there was also an insanity plea, the jury rejected the defense and again sentenced him to death.
The U.S. Supreme Court argued that execution of an individual with an intellectual disability is inconsistent with the “evolving standards of decency test that marks the progress of a maturing society.” The Court held that there was a “national consensus” forbidding execution of the intellectually disabled from the fact that 18 states of the 38 states that permit capital punishment had recently enacted legislation barring execution of the intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins observed that the execution of intellectually disabled criminals in the states that permitted it was no longer common and noted that the practice of such executions “has become truly unusual” and that a “national consensus” against it was emerging. This was evident in the public reaction and national attention
How are the mentally disabled treated in court cases trails? To answer this question, I found two articles that relate to this topic. One of the two articles entitled “In the public Interest: Intellectual Disability, the Supreme Court, and the Death Penalty” targets a specific death penalty court case where the attorney for the defendant did not effectively provide evidence to show that the defendant was viewed as mentally disabled according to the law. This topic is relevant to my topic because it shows how careless attorneys are when fighting for a mentally disabled person’s life. The second article “Reforming Incompetency to stand trial and plead guilty” discuss the issue of the importance of reforming he incompetency doctrine.
As the rule can include both diabetics and sleepwalkers whom do not have a mental illness but have been known to commit crime without the knowledge of what they were doing, causing some individuals to be incorrectly labelled which is both offensive and stigmatising. Also, many defendants may be deterred from using the Insanity Defence as it can result in hospital orders, supervision order or guardianship order, which may last longer and be more severe than serving a prison sentence. (Ashworth, 2009) Also, the M’Naghten rules do not take into account those with uncontrollable impulses (such as pyromania) to commit an act, nor do they observe individuals with learning disabilities whom research suggest are deficient in moral reasoning which inhibits their ability to determine right from wrong. (Raine, 1993)
It is also concluded that approximately 61% of the schizophrenic/schizoaffective and mild mental retardation subgroup was deemed incompetent to stand trial, unemployed defendants were twice as likely to be deemed incompetent, and defendants with psychiatric disorders were eight times as likely to be deemed incompetent (Tarescavage, Anthony M., Luna Jones, Lynn, Lee, Tayla T. C., 2017). In conclusion, because of the limitations of the study, future research is necessary to expand the conclusions. First, because the study took place in a Northeast Ohio single site, the findings may not conclude the same in other parts of the United States. More research is needed in other areas to see if the findings are duplicated.
Sometimes the interview or overall assessment must be used in court. One case that uses the evidence dealing with the mental ability of an individual is the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Defense witness, Dr. Fred Berlin, concluded that Dahmer could not be held responsible for his actions due to the fact that he had a mental illness. Conversely, the prosecution’s Dr. Fred Fosdel testified Dahmer’s crimes were not inspired by mental disease but by the fact he was a “cruel, calculating, and cunning killer” and “utterly unconcerned and unaffected by the heinousness of his acts.” After the prosecution’s victory, many predicted Dahmer’s murder conviction would be the death of the insanity defense (Guest Post).