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
Therefore the question that should be asked is, Is the execution of a defendant with intellectual disabilities (mental retardation) cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.",
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.
Andrea was arrested and charged with 5 counts of capital murder, to which she pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. However, after her first trial, she was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison based on a testimony that would eventually be found to be false, leading to another trial, which would then result in her acquittal, by reason of insanity. Based on the fact that Andrea was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison during her first trial, it is obvious how difficult it was for a jury to decide whether Andrea should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. In fact, during her second trial, “jurors deliberated for 13 hours before finding that Yates did not know her crime was wrong because of her long history of mental illness” (Death Penalty Information Center, 2006). This is due to Texas state’s – where Andrea was tried – laws requiring that a severe mental illness be what prevents someone who is committing a crime from knowing that it is
Before the court can evaluate the specific details of this section, they must first re-define what a mental disorder is based on case laws. There are three crucial cases which contributed in shaping the definition of a mental disorder: Cooper v. R., R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, and R. v. Stone cases. In Cooper v. R. (1980), Justice Dickson defines disease of the mind— also known as mental disorder— as the following: ...“[D]isease of the mind” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning… [where of] such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing that it is
A mental health expert in a criminal trial may offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense PA rules of evidence adopted the FRE 704(A) which states that an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). PA rules of evidence does not adopt FRE 704B. However, PA courts have ruled that expert testimony, which concerns a defendant's mental capacity to form the type of specific intent a conviction for murder of the first degree requires, significantly advance the inquiry as to the presence or absence of an essential element of the crime, resulting in relevant testimony. (Commonwealth v. Walzack). In this criminal case a mental health expert is prepared to offer an opinion on the whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.
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.
Cecil had no understanding of what he did wrong and also had no understanding of what was happening to him. “In the past decade, six psychiatric evaluations have found that Clayton should be exempt from execution because he does not understand that he will be executed, or the reasons for his execution. However, since his execution date was set, he did not have a competency hearing before a judge that could spare him from execution” (“Mentally Ill Prisoners Who Were Executed”). This shows another example of the court ignoring someone's psychological illnesses and continuing to treat this person like they were an average person who killed someone. This relates heavily to Bryan Stevenson’s case with Herbert Richardson and how his psychological illness was ignored and he was also sentenced to death and executed.
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the court ruled that the mentally retarded should not be tried for death penalty because they do not bear the proper guilt that even the worst adult criminal bears upon committing a crime. The mentally retarded have trouble reasoning and controlling their
Both "Christmas Surprise" and Panchito's Christmas share some attributes about their Christmas mornings. A common characteristic between the two events is the fact that the parents gave the children what they could. In "Christmas Surprise" the parents could afford a trip to Disney World. So those parents could provide their children with such an experience. While in Panchito's Christmas the parents where really poor and gave their children what they could, which was candy.
In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman
Two-thirds of the Supreme Court Justices, had voted against capital punishment for the mentally ill based on the argument about how the mentally handicapped have a lower capacity of understanding their actions and consequences, and therefore are not able to fully understand the reasons for their sentences. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin, and Justice Clarence Thomas; their arguments were based off the case of Penry v Lynaugh, a roughly similar situation compared to Atkins v Virginia which had occurred about 13 years prior. These Justices claim that the Eighth Amendment does not directly state that the execution of the mentally ill classifies is cruel and unusual punishment, but rather they believe that the decision was based off a bias opinion rather than an interpretation of the Amendment (Source #2). These dissenting justices also believed that a law that would generally prohibit all states from executing any mentally ill offenders would be unsuitable, as a case by case method of determining whether or not capital punishment would be applied would better suit circumstances regarding mentally handicapped offenders, since the degree of the crime and mental capacity are both variable and can change from case to case (source #3). The
Mental health courts handle people with mental illness who have been charged of a crime. Mental health court is defined as “a specialized court docket for certain defendants with mental illnesses” where the individual’s mental health is first evaluated (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008, p.4). Then, judicial staff and mental health professionals decide a treatment plan for the person (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008). Mental health court is an acceptable system because it allows people with mental illnesses to be treated differently than in a traditional court system.
According to Correctional Administration: Integrating Theory and Practice by Richard P. Seiter, substantive issues are characterized as those that are a piece of the learning particular to the training and profession of corrections. These issues may incorporate discovery approaches to extend spending dollars without decreasing open security, how to manage packed penitentiaries, and how to oversee detainees who are serving to a great degree of long terms. Correctional administrators must manage grouping and hazardous issues to which prisoners ought to be regulated within the community instead of a correctional facility. Difficulties may likewise incorporate the assortment of sexual orientation, age, and programs needs in a given correctional
My rationality was frozen that I could not foresee the consequences of acting upon their advices. The judge who heard the case bluntly believed the prosecution and condemned me for life imprisonment with solitary confinement and medication for mental illness, a psychotic killer who well befitting. Since I was senseless and was mindless under the effect of forced drugging, I didn’t think anything consciously. I had no anxiety, no fear or no feeling of remorse.
