Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Discussion

This Resolution does not take a position on the death

penalty generally. Neither the ABA, which organized

the Task Force and ultimately approved the Resolution,

nor organizations such as the American Psychological

Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or

the National Alliance on Mental Illness intended their

endorsement to reflect a broader position on capital

punishment applicable beyond the scope of the

Resolution.

In some respects, this Resolution is largely consistent

with established law. In Prong 1, for example, the Res-

olution language is quite consistent with the Supreme

Court’s decision in Atkins, although it does expand the

possible reasons for significantly limited intellectual

functioning and adaptive behavior so that it now

includes mental retardation as well as other possible

sources of deficit (e.g., dementia, brain injury).

In other respects, however, the Resolution goes well

beyond what is presently established under the law. It

proposes to exempt from capital punishment those

who, at the time of the offense or prior to execution,

display both severe mental disability and impaired

functional legal capacities. It does so in a traditional

fashion, without the per se bar of a specific kind

of mental disability or the defendant’s age. However,

there is no question that what is proposed in the

Resolution’s second and third prongs would change

the law in some significant ways if the Resolution’s

language were adopted by state legislatures and used

by appellate courts.

This Resolution should not be interpreted as an

attempt to absolve offenders of responsibility for their

actions or exempt them from punishment. But it does

recognize that there are degrees of culpability for very

serious offenses and that severe mental disability may

reduce that culpability somewhat. Even for those who

might meet the criteria described in this Resolution,

however, the reduction in sanction is from a death

sentence to life incarceration—an attempt to balance

our society’s interest in punishing the guilty with

the importance of punishing them as culpability and

fairness dictate.

Kirk Heilbrun, Joel Dvoskin,

and Diane Marsh

See also Competency for Execution; Death Penalty; Mental

Illness and the Death Penalty

Further Readings

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Bonnie, R. (2005). Mentally ill prisoners on death row:

Unsolved puzzles for courts and legislatures. Catholic

University Law Review, 54,1169–1193.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).

Heilbrun, K., Radelet, M., & Dvoskin, J. (1992). The debate

on treating individuals incompetent for execution.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 149,596–605.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Task Force on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty.

(2006). Recommendation and report on the death penalty

and persons with mental disabilities. Mental and Physical

Disability Law Reporter, 30,668–677.

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIESACT(ADA)

Psychologists may become involved with the Ameri-

cans with Disabilities Act (ADA) through consulta-

tions with employers and workers or as an expert

witness in litigation involving the act. In all these roles,

the psychologist must gain an understanding of the

many definitions in the act and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations man-

dated by it. The ADA not only is a valuable tool for

use by disabled people against discrimination but

also an arena of practice for forensic psychologists.

Although the ADA is a complex mixture of definitions

and rules, the forensic practitioner may enter this arena

using many of the skills developed in tort cases or

in civil rights cases involving sex or race. This entry

describes the ADA, discusses the roles that psycholo-

gists may play in workplace consultations, and exam-

ines the use of psychological evaluations in litigation

related to disability.

Background of the ADA

The ADA was signed into law in 1990 and came into

effect 2 years later. The law was designed to eliminate

discrimination against people with disabilities. The

statute (42 U.S.C. 12101, Section 2 b (1), 1992)

enabled the development of regulations by the EEOC

and has been shaped by a number of U.S. Supreme

Court decisions. The most obvious impact of the ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)——— 23

A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 23