ILNews

Commission studies mental illness, death penalty

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana could be the first state to bar the mentally ill from being executed, two recognized legal experts told a legislative commission Friday.

Of course, doing so would mean first agreeing on a definition for what "mentally ill" entails.

That was the topic discussed during the first legislative meeting of the Bowser Commission, the legislative interim study committee designed to study mental illness as it relates to the death penalty. The group was formed in recognition of the late Sen. Anita Bowser, D-Michigan City, who died in March and was a champion of death penalty laws.

Joseph Hoffman, acting executive associate dean at Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, suggested that commission members examine capitol sentencing when mental illness arises at the time of legal proceedings, and how mental illness could be removed as a mitigator to instead serve as a barrier to the death penalty - similar to how mental retardation and juvenile status is treated.

He noted that guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States has been unclear on the issue of mental illness falling short of the legal definition.

To date, no state court or legislator has stopped executions of those dubbed mentally ill, Hoffmann said. Reasons are that this group of people is more difficult to define and there's not an agreed-upon definition, that a "slippery slope" exists in that courts could broadly interpret language, and that society overall is split on the topic of mental illness.

"We're all struggling with this issue, and there's a good reason why courts and legislators haven't addressed this," Hoffmann said.

Indiana Public Defender Council assistant director Paula Sites encouraged the study commission to consider a model bill that would define mental illness and bar the death penalty for those meeting that language. The proposal echoes one introduced earlier this year by Sen. Bowser before her death, but that bill did not make it out of its legislative committee.

As defined by the previous legislative language, a "mentally ill individual" means someone who, at the time of the offense, had a severe mental disorder or disability that significantly impaired the capacity to "appreciate the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness of the person's conduct; exercise rational judgment in relation to the conduct; or conform the individual's conduct to the requirements of the law."

A court would have to order an evaluation of the defendant, and if that person was determined to be mentally ill, then a murder conviction could result in a prison term between 45 and 65 years - as is currently allowed by Indiana law.

Sites countered arguments about a "flood of litigation," citing the 1994 legislative changes championed by Sen. Bowser that barred the mentally retarded from being executed. That change happened eight years before guidance came from the SCOTUS, she noted, and since then only eight cases have raised that mental retardation defense.

"Indiana could be the first to do this," she said of a death penalty prohibition for the mentally ill. "Maybe they are less blameworthy, but by no means are they getting off scot-free. This death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst offenders."

Sen. Brent Waltz, R-Greenwood, said the language of "mental illness" gives him pause and he finds that mapping out a standard could be troubling. He asked what the differences would be for someone who stops taking anti-psychotic medication compared to someone who takes illegal substances such as methamphetamine.

That would be something the legislature could research in future meetings and eventually rely on criminal law foundations, she said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT