Post on 03-Jan-2016
Capital Procedure/Severe Mental Disability
An Act to Amend the Capital Trial, Sentencing, and Post-Conviction
Procedures for persons with Severe Mental Disability
State and Federal laws consistently recognize that people with less
capacity to control their behavior due to serious mental illness should not be subject to the same sanctions as
people without such disabilities.
Despite safeguards designed to prevent the execution of a
defendant who is insane, there are prisoners on death row who have severe mental
disabilities
In recent years,
a national effort has begun
to address concerns
regarding the execution of persons with
severe mental disability
The national debate about the
fairness of imposing the
death penalty on defendants with severe mental
disability is escalating
National Organizations Supporting the effort to prohibit the execution of
persons with severe mental illness National Alliance on
Mental Illness
The American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Bar Association
Mental Health Association NAMI- North Carolina Chapter North Carolina Psychological Association North Carolina Psychiatric Association Council of Churches NASW- North Carolina Chapter
Local Groups Supporting Proposed Bill
The capital trial, sentencing, and appeal/post-conviction process in North Carolina does not
offer adequate protection for persons with serious mental disability
Current ProcedureTwo-part trial for capital cases
Guilt / innocence phaseSentencing Phase
Current Capital Case Procedure
Capital Case Trial Procedure
Death Penalty Life Sentence
Sentencing Phase
Guilt Innocence
Decision of State to charge as a Capital Case
Currently, our criminal justice system has obstacles to providing fair treatment to people with severe mental
illness
Because of their impairments, people with mental illness often: Undermine their own defense Or are unable to cooperate or assist their attorneys Defendants insist on representing themselves without
assistance of attorney Waiver of appeals
Juries often perceive mental illness as aggravating, not mitigating
Political considerations and public misperceptions about mental
disability have hindered a fair and reasonable resolution to this
problem
This proposed legislation balances the state’s interest
in public safety, and deterrence with an understanding of
mental illness, its effect on individual behavior, and the
particular needs of those with mental disabilities
Why Change is needed Add layers of legal
protection for the seriously mentally ill
Save the State hundred of thousands of dollars by avoiding unnecessary trials
Save time and resources in our over-burdened court system
Proposed Change to Capital Trial Procedures
Proposed Change to Capital Trial Procedure
Accept Plea
Sentencing PhaseDeath Peanlty off the Table
Guilty Innocent
Jury DecidesGuilt or Innocence
Goto Trial
Judge Accepts mental illness
Sentencing Phase
Guily Innocent
Jury DecidesGuilt or Innocence
Goto Trial
JudgeDenies mental illness
Request Judge Hearingto Determine Severity of mental disability
Decision by State to Try as a Capital Case
Atkins v. Virginia
The US Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant’s mental retardation often impedes a fair determination of a defendant’s guilt and sentence, because they are not able to assist in their defense, may appear frightening to jurors due to their mental retardation, they are more likely to be wrongfully convicted.
US Supreme Court
The severity of the appropriate punishment
necessarily depends on the culpability of
the offender
Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell recognized
The death penalty has little deterrent force
against defendants who have reduced capacity for considered choice.
Retribution and deterrence are the two primary justifications recognized by the US Supreme Court for
applying the death penalty…
Neither is furthered by executing defendants with
severe mental illness
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere”-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.