A Gap in the Evolving Standards of Decency

The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency.

A landmark decision in June 2002 finally outlawed the death penalty for people with mental retardation. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held by six votes to three that the execution of such offenders is an excessive sanction, violating the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The Court reasoned that mental retardation diminishes personal culpability, and renders the death penalty in the case of this category of offenders difficult to justify on deterrence and retribution grounds.

The Atkins ruling overturned a 1989 decision, Penry v. Lynaugh, by finding that "standards of decency" in the USA had evolved in the intervening years to the point at which a "national consensus" had emerged against such executions – primarily reflected in state-level legislation banning the execution of the mentally retarded. From an international human rights perspective, an encouraging footnote attached to the Atkins opinion acknowledged that "within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved."

On 1 March 2005, the US Supreme Court removed another category of defendant from the reach of the death penalty, namely children. In Roper v. Simmons, a majority of five Justices to four brought the USA into compliance with "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty."

The Court "affirmed the necessity of referring to the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual". In finding that the death penalty against offenders who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime was indeed excessive, the Roper majority quoted the Atkins decision: "Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution".

The Atkins and Roper decisions cannot but leave a question mark over another category of offender, namely the mentally ill. If the diminished culpability associated with youth and mental retardation render the death penalty an excessive punishment when used against offenders from those categories, what about people suffering from serious mental disorder other than retardation, such as serious brain damage, at the time of the crime? Should they not also be ineligible for execution? Justice Stevens, writing for the Supreme Court majority in Atkins, concluded that:

"Mentally retarded persons… have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. There is no evidence that they are more likely to engage in criminal conduct that others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan…Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability."

While mental retardation and mental illness are not the same, the analysis given in the Atkins ruling nevertheless could be applied to the latter. For example, a mentally ill person’s delusional beliefs may cause them to engage in illogical reasoning and to act on impulse. A former President of the American Psychiatric Association wrote following the Atkins decision that:
"… the mentally ill suffer from many of the same limitations that, in Justice Stevens’ words, ‘do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability".

Some judges in the USA have already recognized this fundamental inconsistency. In July 2003, for example, Judge Robert Henry on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit noted the Atkins ruling, and concluded that the imposition of the death penalty against Robert Bryan, a mentally ill Oklahoma death row inmate, "contributes nothing" to the goals of retribution and deterrence. Although Judge Henry was joined by three other judges on the court, it was not enough to stop Robert Bryan going to his execution in June 2004. In similar vein in September 2002, Justice Robert Rucker of the Indiana Supreme Court dissented against the death sentence of Joseph Corcoran, an Indiana inmate suffering from mental illness including schizophrenia. Justice Rucker drew attention to the Atkins decision:

"I respectfully dissent because I do not believe a sentence of death is appropriate for a person suffering a severe mental illness. Recently the Supreme Court held that the executions of mentally retarded criminals are ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. There has been no argument in this case that Corcoran is mentally retarded. However, the underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency".