Advertisement

Determining When Severe Mental Illness Should Disqualify a Defendant from Capital Punishment

  • Bruce J. Winick

Keywords

Death Penalty Severe Mental Illness Trial Judge Capital Case Capital Sentencing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acker, J. R. & Karp, D. R. (2006). Wounds that do not bind: Victim-based perspectives on the death penalty. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).Google Scholar
  3. Allen, M., Mabry, E., & McKelton, D. (1998). Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment : a meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 715–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Bar Association Task Force on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty, (2006). Recommendation and Report on the Death Penalty and Persons with Mental Disabilities. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 30,668–677.Google Scholar
  5. American Psychiatric Association (2005). Mentally Ill prisoners on death row: Position statement, retrieved form http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200505.pdf (last visited November 21, 2007).
  6. American Psychological Association Council of Representatives, (2001). APA policy manual: N. public interest(incorporating policy adopted by the Council of Representatives in February 2006), retrieved form http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmpubint2.html#8 (last visited Feb. 21, 2007).
  7. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. United States Code Annotated, vol. 28, § 2254 (b)(2) (2006).Google Scholar
  8. Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (1991). Homicide as a risk factor for PTSD among surviving family members. Behavior Modification, 15, 545–559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Armour, M. P. (2002). Journey of family members of homicide victims: A qualitative study of their posthomicide experience, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 372–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Armour, M. P., & Umbreit, M. M. (2006). Exploring “Closure” and the Ultimate Penal Sanction for Survivors of Homicide Victims. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(2), 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Google Scholar
  12. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980).Google Scholar
  13. Bentele, U., & Bowers, W. J. (2001). How jurors decide on death: Guilt is overwhelming; aggravation requires death; and mitigation is no excuse, Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1011–1080.Google Scholar
  14. Block, F. A Slow Death, (March 15, 2007) NY Times, Section A; Column 2; P. 27.Google Scholar
  15. Blume, J.H., Johnson, S.L., & Threlkheld, A.B. (2001). Probing ‘life qualfication’ through expanded voir dire. Hofstra Law Review, 29,1209–1264.Google Scholar
  16. Bowers, W. J., Fleury-Steinner, B. D., & Antonio, M. (2003). The capital sentencing decision: Guided discretion, reasoned moral judgment, or legal fiction. In J. Acker, R. Bohm, & Lanier, C. S. (Eds.), America’s experiment with capital punishment reflections on the past, present, and future of the ultimate penal sanction (2nd ed., pp. 413–68). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bowers, W. J., Foglia, W. D., Giles, J. E., & Antonio, M. E. (2006). The decision maker matters: An empirical examination of the way the role of the judge and the jury influence death penalty decision-making. Washington and Lee Law Review, 63, 931–1010.Google Scholar
  18. Bowers, W. J., & Foglia, W. D. (2003). Still singularly agonizing: Law’s failure to purge arbitrariness from capital sentencing, Criminal Law Bulletin, 39, 51–86.Google Scholar
  19. Bowers, W. J., Sandys, M., & Steiner, B. D. (1998). Foreclosed impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors’ predispositions, guilt-trial experience, and premature decision making. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1474–1556.Google Scholar
  20. Bowling v. Kentucky, 163 S.W.3d 361 (2005).Google Scholar
  21. Bright, S. B., & Keenan, P.J. (1995). Judging and the politics of death: Deciding between the Bill of Rights and the next election in capital cases, Boston Univeristy Law Review, 75, 759–836.Google Scholar
  22. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).Google Scholar
  23. Burnside, F. B. (1999). Comment, Dying to Get Elected: A Challenge to the Jury Override, Wisconsin Law Review, 1999/5, 1017–49.Google Scholar
  24. Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior 26, 175–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (1983).Google Scholar
  26. California Bill Analysis, (2003) SB 3, Senate Floor, 2003–2004 Regular Session (Jan. 9, 2003). California Penal Code § 1376 (2007).Google Scholar
  27. Capital Jury Project, (2007). retrieved form http://www.cjp.neu.edu/ (last visited September 26, 2007).
  28. Cleary, E.W. (1959). Presuming and pleading: An essay on juristic immaturity. Stanford Law Review, 12, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).Google Scholar
  30. Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-1.3-1102-1104 (2007).Google Scholar
  31. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996).Google Scholar
  32. Cowan, C. L., Thomson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cusack, R. M. (1999). Stress and Stress Symptoms in Capital Murder Jurors: Is Jury Duty Hazardous to Juror Mental Health?. Ph.D. dissertation, St. Mary‘s University.Google Scholar
  34. Death Penalty Information Center (2007a) Costs of the death penalty, retrieved form http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 (last visited September 27, 2007).
  35. Death Penalty Information Center (2007b). Facts about the death penalty, retrieved form http:// www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf (last visited September 27, 2007).
  36. Death Penalty Information Center (2007c). States that have changed their statutes to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, retrieved form http://www.deathpenaltyinfo. org/article.php?scid=28&did=668, (last visited November 21, 2007).
  37. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).Google Scholar
  38. Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases, Cornell Law Review, 79, 1–17.Google Scholar
  39. Ellis, J. W. (2003). Mental retardation and the death penalty: A guide to state legislative issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 27, 11–24.Google Scholar
  40. Ellsworth, P. C. (1988). Unpleasant facts: The Supreme Court’s response to empirical Research on capital punishment. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science aproache (pp. 177–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982).Google Scholar
  42. Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2004).Google Scholar
  43. Fitzgerald R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process vs. Crime control, Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977).Google Scholar
  45. Garvey, S. P. (2000). The emotional economy of capital sentencing. New York University Law Review, 75, 26–73.Google Scholar
  46. Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gibbons, Tom (1988). Victims again: Survivors suffer through capital appeals. American Bar Association Journal, 64, p. 5.Google Scholar
  48. Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 (1993).Google Scholar
  49. Gray v. Maryland 523 U.S. 185 (1998).Google Scholar
  50. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).Google Scholar
  51. Grigsby v. Mabry, 758 F.2d 226 (8th Cir.) (1985).Google Scholar
  52. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., Vega, L. (1994). Modern death qualification: New Data on its Biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death-qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Haney, C. (1980). Juries and the death penalty: Readdressing the witherspoon question. Crime & Delinquency 26, 512–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 (1995).Google Scholar
  56. Head v. Hill, 587 S.E. 2d 613 (Ga. 2003).Google Scholar
  57. Hovey v. Superior Court. 616 P.2d 1301 (Cal.) (1980).Google Scholar
  58. Idaho Code Annotated § 19-2515A (2007).Google Scholar
  59. In re Johnson, 334 F.3d 403 (5th Cir.2003).Google Scholar
  60. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964).Google Scholar
  61. Kanwar, V. (2002). Capital punishment as “Closure”: The limits of a victim-centered jurisprudence. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 27, 215–256.Google Scholar
  62. Kentucky Revised Statutes § 532.130–140 (2007).Google Scholar
  63. King, R. (2006). The impact of capital punishment on families of defendants and murder victim’s family members. Judicature, 89, 292–296.Google Scholar
  64. Lewis, A., Dow, D. R., Preate Jr., E. D., Bright, S. B., & Tigar, M. E. (1994). Panel discussion: The death of fairness? Counsel competency and due process in death penalty cases, panel one, Houston Law Review, 31, 1105–1204.Google Scholar
  65. Lind, E. A. et al. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  67. Liptak, A. (2007a). Does death penalty save lives? A new debate. New York Times, November 18, p. 1A.Google Scholar
  68. Liptak. A. (2007b). Ruling likely to spur convictions in capital cases. New York Times, June 9, p. 1A.Google Scholar
  69. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, (1986).Google Scholar
  70. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1976).Google Scholar
  71. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure § 905.5.1 (2007).Google Scholar
  72. Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, (1992).Google Scholar
  73. Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2004). Juror stress: Causes and interventions. Thomas Marshall Law Review 30, 237–270.Google Scholar
  74. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992).Google Scholar
  75. National Alliance on Mental Illness (2006). Public policy platform. Section 9.9.12 (November 2006), retrieved form http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=NAMI_Policy?_Platform (last visited September 27, 2007)
  76. Neices, M. L., & Dilahay, R. C. (1987). Death qualification and conviction proness: Witt and Witherspoon Compared. Behavioral Sciences and The Law, 5, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nevada Revised Statute §174.098 (2007).Google Scholar
  78. New Mexico v. Flores, 135 N.M. 759, (N.M. 2004).Google Scholar
  79. New York Code of Criminal Procedure § 400.27(12) (2007).Google Scholar
  80. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).Google Scholar
  81. People v. Fitzpatrick, 32 N.Y.2d 499, 300 N.E.2d 139, 346 N.Y.S.2d 793, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033 & 1050 (1973).Google Scholar
  82. People v. Vasquez, 84 P.3d 1019, 1023 (Colo. 2004).Google Scholar
  83. Perlin, M. (1996). The executioner’s face is always well-hidden: The role of counsel and the courts in determining who dies. New York Law School Law Review 41, 201–280.Google Scholar
  84. Perlin, M. (1994). The sanest lies of jurors in death penalty cases: the puzzling role of mitigating mental disability evidence. Notre Dame J Ethics & Public Policy, 8, 239–280.Google Scholar
  85. Pruitt v. Indiana, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005).Google Scholar
  86. Profitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).Google Scholar
  87. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).Google Scholar
  88. Roper v. Simons, 543 U.S. 551, (2005).Google Scholar
  89. Rozelle, S. D. (2006). The principled executioner: Capital juries’ bias and the benefits of true bifurcation, Arizona State Law Journal, 38, 769–808.Google Scholar
  90. Russell v. Mississippi, 849 So. 2d 95 (2003).Google Scholar
  91. Sandys, M., & McClelland, S. (2003). Stacking the deck for guilt and death: The failure of death qualification to ensure impartiality. In J. R. Acker, R. M. Bohm, & C. S. Lanier (Eds.), America’s experiment with capital punishment (pp. 413–467). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  92. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004).Google Scholar
  93. Simon, R. J., & Aaronson, D. E. (1988). The Insanity defense: A critical assessment of law and policy in the post-Hinckley era. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  94. Slobogin, C. (2003). What Atkins could mean for people with mental illness. New Mexico Law Review, 33, 293–314.Google Scholar
  95. Slobogin, C. (2000). Mental illness and the death penalty. California Criminal Law Review.1, 3–38. Google Scholar
  96. Smith, B. L., & Stevens, E. H. (1984). Sentence disparity and the Judge-jury sentencing debate: An analysis of robbery sentences in six southern states. Criminal Justice Review, 9, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. State v. Grell, 212 Ariz. 516 (2006).Google Scholar
  98. Steadman, H. J., McGreevy, M. A., Morrissey, J. P., Callahan, L. A., Robbins, P. C., & Cirincione, C. (1993). Before and after Hinckley: Evaluating insanity defense reform. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  99. Stevenson, B. A. (2003). Two views on the Impact of Ring v. Arizona on capital sentencing: The ultimate Authority on the Ultimate Punishment: The Requisite Role of the Jury in capital sentencing. Alabama Law Review, 54, 1091–1155.Google Scholar
  100. Stolle, D., Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (2000). Practicing therapeutic jurisprudence: law as a helping profession. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  101. Tabak, R. J., & Lane, J. M. (1989). The Execution of injustice: A cost and lack-of-benefit analysis of the death penalty, Loyola,LosAngeles Law Review 23, 59–146.Google Scholar
  102. The Federal Death Penalty Act (2002). United States Code vol. 18, § 3596(c).Google Scholar
  103. Thibaut J., & Walker, L. (1978), A theory of procedure. California. Law Review, 66, 541–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tyler, T. R. (1990, 2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  105. United States v. Nelson, 419 F. SUPP. 2d’ 891 (E.D. La. 2006).Google Scholar
  106. United States v. Sablan, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Colo. 2006).Google Scholar
  107. United States v. Webster, 392 F.3d 787(5th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
  108. Uttecht v. Brown, 127 S. Ct. 2218 (2007).Google Scholar
  109. Vandiver, M. (2003). The impact of the death penalty on the families of Homicide Victims and of condemned prisoners. In J. R. Acker, R. M. Bohm, & C. S. Lanier (Eds.), America’s experiment with capital punishment: Reflections on the past, present, and future of the ultimate penal sanction (pp. 613–645). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  110. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).Google Scholar
  111. Washington State Bar Association (2007). Final report of the death penalty subcommittee of the committee on public defense, retrieved form http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/groups/websiteposting42707. pdf (last visited on November 16, 2007
  112. Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (1991). Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  113. Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (1996). Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  114. Winick, B. J. (2007a). Overcoming psychological barriers to settlement: Challenges for the TJ Lawyer. In M. A. Silver (Ed.), The affective assistance of counsel: Practicing law as a healing profession (pp. 341–363). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  115. Winick, B.J. (2007b) A legal autopsy of the lawyering in Schiavo: A therapeutic jurisprudence/ preventive law rewind exercise. Univeristy of Miami Law Review 61, 595–664.Google Scholar
  116. Winick, B. J. (2005). Civil Commitment: A therapeutic jurisprudence model. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  117. Winick, B. J. (1993). Presumptions and burdens of proof in determining competency to stand trial: An analysis of Medina v. California and the Supreme Court’s new due process methodology in criminal cases. University of Miami Law Review, 47, 817–866.Google Scholar
  118. Winick, B. (1982) Prosecutorial peremptory challenge practices in capital cases: an empirical study and a constitutional analysis. Michigan. Law Review, 81, 1–98.Google Scholar
  119. Winick, B. J., & Wexler, D. B. (2003) Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  120. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce J. Winick
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations