'Furiosus Solo Furore Punitur': Should Mentally Ill Capital Offenders Be Categorically Exempt from the Death Penalty?

26 Pages Posted: 7 Feb 2014  

Emily E. Randolph

University of Mississippi - School of Law

Date Written: February 5, 2014

Abstract

Rather than continuing to use mental illness as a mitigating factor in determining sentencing of the capital offender, this paper argues that the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishments should be extended to cover capital offenders who suffer from debilitating mental illness. More specifically, if a convicted offender has a medically diagnosed mental disorder as outlined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition or other similar standard for psychological evaluation, he or she should be exempt from the possibility of the imposition of death as a punishment. This paper discusses the Supreme Court cases of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2004), Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), and how to extend the Court's reasoning in those cases to cover mentally ill capital offenders.

Keywords: mental retardation, death penalty, mental illness, juvenile offender, mentally ill offender, Atkins, Ford, Panetti, Roper, capital punishment, mental disorder, mental disease, mental defect, capital sentencing, 8th Amendment, Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, schizophrenia

Suggested Citation

Randolph, Emily E., 'Furiosus Solo Furore Punitur': Should Mentally Ill Capital Offenders Be Categorically Exempt from the Death Penalty? (February 5, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2391486 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2391486

Emily E. Randolph (Contact Author)

University of Mississippi - School of Law ( email )

Lamar Law Center
P.O. Box 1848
University, MS 38677
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
173
Rank
141,427
Abstract Views
602