In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court in Fo rd v.
Wainwrightdetermined that it was unconstitutional to
execute a prisoner who became mentally incompetent
after his conviction. Such an execution was said to
“offend humanity” and violate the country’s “evolving
standards of decency.” Thus, the execution was a vio-
lation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishment. The “evolving standards”
guideline, set forth by Trop v. Dulles(1958), is gener-
ally measured by factors including the public’s opinion
and existing state legislation. For instance, the Court
considered it relevant that, at the time of the Fo rdrul-
ing, no state permitted the execution of the mentally ill.
The Court then detailed the common law and histori-
cal evidence indicating that executing the mentally ill
has long been rejected in American society. Finally, the
Court determined that executing the mentally ill serves
no state interest and is not a deterrent to crime. As
such, it is cruel and unusual punishment. More recent
Supreme Court rulings require that defense attorneys
investigate and present evidence that would explain the
defendant’s conduct (e.g., if his or her crime was
related to mental illness) or lead the jury to reject a
death penalty. Thus, the Supreme Court has taken sev-
eral measures to protect mentally ill defendants.
Social science researchers and mental health profes-
sionals have two main roles associated with the execu-
tion of the mentally ill. First, social science researchers
have conducted research and public opinion polls con-
cerning the execution of mentally ill prisoners. Second,
mental health professionals conduct evaluations to
determine a prisoner’s competency for execution.Social Science Research
Public opinion polls have been used to measure
the community’s evolving standards of decency.
Community support for execution of the mentally ill
has not been well studied. Generally, support for the
execution of the mentally ill is lower than the level of
support for the death penalty in general. For instance,
a survey published in 2003 revealed that 13% of
respondents favored executing the mentally ill. However,
a 2004 study revealed that 57% of respondents
favored executing prisoners who had become ill while
in prison. This discrepancy may be due to the timing
of the illness: The first study could be interpreted to
measure support for executing prisoners who were ill
at the time of the crime, while the second clearly indi-
cated support for executing prisoners who became illafter the crime. This latter finding seemingly contrasts
the notion that executing the mentally ill violates the
community’s standards of decency.
Research has also indicated that jurors do not
properly consider mental illness when determining
whether or not a defendant deserves the death
penalty. Although many sentencing statutes list men-
tal illness as a mitigator (i.e., a factor that suggests
that the defendant is not deserving of death), research
shows that evidence of mental illness instead often
leads jurors to sentence the defendant to death.
Furthermore, jurors who support the death penalty
are more likely than opponents to find a mentally ill
defendant guilty and are less likely to believe that the
crime was caused by mental illness. Thus, jurors (and
the public as a whole) express some disfavor toward
mentally ill defendants.The Role of Mental
Health Professionals
The legal system relies on mental health professionals
to evaluate defendants for a variety of reasons, includ-
ing making determinations concerning a prisoner’s
suitability for execution. The Supreme Court in Fo rd
was not specific about the criteria that should be used
in this determination. Incompetencyis a legal term
that does not directly translate into psychiatric diag-
noses. Legal incompetency is often interpreted to
mean that the prisoner suffers from severe mental ill-
ness and does not understand the nature of the punish-
ment or why he should suffer it. In general, mental
illnesses that affect competency are schizophrenia,
bipolar disorders, and delusional disorders. Mental ill-
ness, as defined for competency purposes, does not
generally refer to personality disorders.
The execution of mentally ill prisoners presents
mental health professionals with ethical dilemmas.
Ford v. Wainwrightprohibits the execution of mentally
ill prisoners; however, it is allowable to medicate pris-
oners so that they become mentally competent. Many
mental health professionals and mental health associ-
ations do not promote treating mentally ill prisoners
so that they may be put to death.
In sum, it is currently unconstitutional to execute
mentally ill prisoners, although it is generally accept-
able to medicate them so that they become competent
to be executed. The Supreme Court has found that the
public’s standards of decency forbid such an execu-
tion, though some public opinion research contradictsMental Illness and the Death Penalty——— 497M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 497