Why Severely Mentally Ill Persons Should be Exempt from the Death Penalty

Those who support the death penalty promise us that it is reserved for the "worst of the worst."

The US Supreme Court has held that juveniles (anyone under 18) and those suffering from mental retardation are by defintion never the worst of the worst. For that reason, they can never face the death penalty.

In Atkins, the US Supreme Court said: Because of their impairments, however, by definition [the mentally retarded] 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 than others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan, and that in group settings they are followers rather than leaders. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish.

In Simmons, the Court added: "The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. "

As a result, retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of immaturity or intellectual limitations.

These same arguments apply with greater force to persons who are sevrely mentally ill. The relative culpability of individuals whose ability to know right from wrong or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law is substantially imparied is, by defintion, less than what is required for the "worst of the worst."

If we are to continue with the death penalty in this state, we must prohibit the execution of the severely mentally ill and we must do so, now. As former Chief Justice Warren said, at stake here is "nothing less than the dignity of man."