Capital Procedure/Severe Mental Disability

An Act to Amend the Capital Trial, Sentencing, and Post-Conviction

Procedures for persons with Severe Mental Disability

State and Federal laws consistently recognize that people with less

capacity to control their behavior due to serious mental illness should not be subject to the same sanctions as

people without such disabilities.

Despite safeguards designed to prevent the execution of a

defendant who is insane, there are prisoners on death row who have severe mental

disabilities

In recent years,

a national effort has begun

to address concerns

regarding the execution of persons with

severe mental disability

The national debate about the

fairness of imposing the

death penalty on defendants with severe mental

disability is escalating

National Organizations Supporting the effort to prohibit the execution of

persons with severe mental illness National Alliance on

Mental Illness

The American Psychiatric Association

American Psychological Association

American Bar Association

Mental Health Association NAMI- North Carolina Chapter North Carolina Psychological Association North Carolina Psychiatric Association Council of Churches NASW- North Carolina Chapter

Local Groups Supporting Proposed Bill

The capital trial, sentencing, and appeal/post-conviction process in North Carolina does not

offer adequate protection for persons with serious mental disability

Current ProcedureTwo-part trial for capital cases

Guilt / innocence phaseSentencing Phase

Current Capital Case Procedure

Capital Case Trial Procedure

Death Penalty Life Sentence

Sentencing Phase

Guilt Innocence

Decision of State to charge as a Capital Case

Currently, our criminal justice system has obstacles to providing fair treatment to people with severe mental

illness

Because of their impairments, people with mental illness often: Undermine their own defense Or are unable to cooperate or assist their attorneys Defendants insist on representing themselves without

assistance of attorney Waiver of appeals

Juries often perceive mental illness as aggravating, not mitigating

Political considerations and public misperceptions about mental

disability have hindered a fair and reasonable resolution to this

problem

This proposed legislation balances the state’s interest

in public safety, and deterrence with an understanding of

mental illness, its effect on individual behavior, and the

particular needs of those with mental disabilities

Why Change is needed Add layers of legal

protection for the seriously mentally ill

Save the State hundred of thousands of dollars by avoiding unnecessary trials

Save time and resources in our over-burdened court system

Proposed Change to Capital Trial Procedures

Proposed Change to Capital Trial Procedure

Accept Plea

Sentencing PhaseDeath Peanlty off the Table

Guilty Innocent

Jury DecidesGuilt or Innocence

Goto Trial

Judge Accepts mental illness

Sentencing Phase

Guily Innocent

Jury DecidesGuilt or Innocence

Goto Trial

JudgeDenies mental illness

Request Judge Hearingto Determine Severity of mental disability

Decision by State to Try as a Capital Case

Atkins v. Virginia

The US Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant’s mental retardation often impedes a fair determination of a defendant’s guilt and sentence, because they are not able to assist in their defense, may appear frightening to jurors due to their mental retardation, they are more likely to be wrongfully convicted.

US Supreme Court

The severity of the appropriate punishment

necessarily depends on the culpability of

the offender

Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell recognized

The death penalty has little deterrent force

against defendants who have reduced capacity for considered choice.

Retribution and deterrence are the two primary justifications recognized by the US Supreme Court for

applying the death penalty…

Neither is furthered by executing defendants with

severe mental illness

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice

everywhere”-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.