Talking Points

Prohibiting Death Sentences for Severely Mentally Disordered Individuals

The death penalty reflects the evolving standards of decency that govern a maturing society.

Washington has traditionally been on the forward curve of those evolving standards of decency. In 1993, our legislature prohibited the execution of “mentally retarded” defendants. Almost a decade before the United States Supreme Court held that such death sentences are unconstitutional in Atkins v. Virginia.

That same year, the Washington Supreme Court held that our statute prohibits death sentences for someone under 18 years old. Almost twelve years later, United States Supreme Court followed suit in 2005 in Roper v. Simmons.

This bill prohibits the execution of defendants who suffer from severe mental illness or brain damage at the time of the crime. The bill sets up, in effect, a conclusive "defense" against the death penalty for capital defendants who can demonstrate the requisite level of impairment due to severe disorder at the time of the offense.

Those persons who kill as the result of a severe mental disease or defect which substantially impairs their ability to either know right from wrong or to control their actions do not possess the degree of culpability to warrant a death sentence.

The bill’s definition of severe mental illness is very narrow. It excludes mental conditions that are the result of the use of drugs or alcohol. It also excludes anti-social personality traits.

In addition to proof of severe mental illness or disorder, the bill also requires proof that the defendant’s actions were the result of that mental condition. Thus, the bill requires proof of severe mental illness and proof that the crime was committed as a result.

The bill sets forth a pre-trial procedure where the defendant must prove the existence of severe mental disorder at the time of the crime. In those cases where the defendant meets this burden, the death penalty will be dismissed—resulting in a significant savings to our justice system.

The bill also creates a procedure for adjudicating a claim of mental retardation, a defect in the current law that renders it vulnerable to constitutional attack.

This bill is very similar to a recent ABA proposal, which was the result of a task force involving some of this country’s most knowledgeable lawyers and mental health professionals.