NCJ Number
215463
Date Published
January 2006
Length
192 pages
Annotation
This report by Amnesty International examines the use of the death penalty for seriously mentally ill defendants, arguing that existing legal safeguards for mentally ill defendants are inadequate.
Abstract
The analysis concludes that current legal protections for mentally ill offenders, such as allowing a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill,” are inadequate and have mainly been methods of assuaging public outrage following high profile cases in which defendants were found not guilty by reason of insanity. Amnesty International has long worked toward the worldwide abolishment of the death penalty. While this accomplishment is likely to take decades, Amnesty International urges the United States to at least put a halt to the execution of people with serious mental illness. Several recommendations are presented, including the recommendation that all government officials should promote the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. State legislatures are urged to consult with experts in criminal law and mental health in order to craft and adopt legislation prohibiting the execution of people with serious mental illness or other impairments at the time of the crime or at the time of execution. Prosecutors are urged to participate in training programs to recognize the signs and symptoms of serious mental illness and to reject the pursuit of the death penalty against defendants who have credible evidence of their serious mental illness or other impairment. Capital defense lawyers are advised to attend training programs on mental illness and on how to effectively defend mentally ill defendants from the death penalty. Recommendations are also offered for clemency authorities, prison authorities, and mental health professional organizations. The report reviews research, Supreme Court decisions, and case examples in its analysis of the use of the death penalty for seriously mentally ill defendants. The analysis focuses on factors such as competence to stand trial, the special risk status of the mentally ill, and the nature of the justice system. Footnotes, appendixes