Executing the insane: a look at death penalty schemes in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas

Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy, Annual, 2007 by Stephanie Zywien

Faced with such widespread evidence of a restriction upon sovereign power, this Court is compelled to conclude that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane. Whether its aim be to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding, or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment. (1)

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 6, 2004 Charles Singleton ("Singleton"), a man treated often for schizophrenia and psychotic delusions, was executed by the State of Arkansas. (2) Three months prior, on November 4, 2003, the State of Georgia executed James Willie Brown ("Brown"), a man long diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. (3) A third man, Kelsey Patterson ("Patterson"), who struggled with paranoid schizophrenia for more than twenty years, was executed by the State of Texas on May 18, 2004. (4)

Despite the fact that these men all struggled with severe mental disorders, they were nonetheless found competent to be executed under their respective state statutory schemes. (5) In 1986, the Supreme Court handed down Ford v. Wainwright, holding it unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to inflict the death penalty upon an insane prisoner. (6) It is up to the states, however, to build or adjust statutory schemes that fall in line with the Court's holding. (7)

This note, guided by stories of three mentally ill defendants, will explore statutory death penalty and habeas corpus schemes in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas and their respective application to individuals with severe mental illness. Part II will examine the history of the death penalty, the habeas corpus process and mental illness, looking specifically at the Eighth Amendment as well as the landmark decisions Ford v. Wainwright and Atkins v. Virginia. Part III will discuss in further detail the current statutes in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas. Part IV will take a closer look at these three specific cases involving mentally ill defendants. Part V will analyze the implications of applying Atkins to defendants suffering from severe mental illness and, more specifically, how such an application would affect current death penalty statutes in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas. Finally, Part VI will conclude this note emphasizing the pressing need for the exclusion of mentally ill offenders from death penalty eligibility.

II. HISTORY

The idea of a penalty of death as punishment for criminal behavior has existed since the earliest periods of North American history and is currently statutorily recognized by thirty-eight states as well as by the United States Government and Military. (8) While its purpose is continuously debated, the most pervasive justification for the death penalty is the idea of retribution. (9) Retribution is most often referred to as a notion of "justice," but is better defined by the legendary philosophy, "an eye for an eye." (10) Regardless of its justification, the death penalty is well established in the United States and is consistently used in our criminal justice system. (11) Since 1976 more than one thousand people have been executed, many of them mentally ill. (12)

Despite the fact that mentally ill defendants can be incapable of comprehending reality, they continue to be executed for their crimes. (13) One reason for this is that until the 1980's, mental illness itself was ill-defined and often misunderstood. (14) These misconceptions have been somewhat corrected due to strides in the field of psychology, and recognition of mental illness by the Supreme Court. (15) Today, mental illness is defined as "any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic or other factors." (16) The most common mental illnesses experienced by defendants include: bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and borderline personality disorder. (17)

Historically, mentally ill defendants were not protected from a sentence of death. (18) As written in the Constitution, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. (19) What constitutes "cruel and unusual" has been hotly contested for decades. (20) Interpretations of the Eighth Amendment in landmark Supreme Court decisions, however, seek to protect those who cannot comprehend the punishment they face. (21) One of these decisions was Ford v. Wainwright, handed down by the Court in 1986. (22) In 1974, petitioner Ford was convicted of murder in Florida and sentenced to death. (23) While he indicated no signs of mental illness throughout the trial, in early 1982 Ford's behavior began to change drastically. (24) He became confused, paranoid and suffered from delusions of grandeur. (25) In 1983, a psychologist diagnosed Ford with "a severe, uncontrollable, mental disease which closely resembles 'Paranoid Schizophrenia With Suicide Potential.'" (26) When asked if he would be executed, Ford stated, "I can't be executed because of the landmark case. I won. Ford v. State will prevent executions all over." (27)