Ohio: Justice, mental illness and the death penalty

Advertisement

Three years have passed since a statewide task force made 56 recommendations to improve the conduct of the death penalty. Lawmakers have enacted fewer than 10. The courts, too, have been slow to act, though the Ohio Supreme Court led the way in forming the panel. Among the most notable recommendations yet to become law would exclude from the death penalty defendants who suffered from serious mental illness at the time of the crime.

The proposal appears to have strong support. The task force approved the proposal by a 15-2 vote. At one point, nearly every member of the Ohio Senate expressed backing, only to see Keith Faber, then the chamber's president, stand in the way.

Now the legislation has been revived as House Bill 81, sponsored by state Rep. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican, and Nickie Antonio, a Lakewood Democrat. Committee hearings have been held. The time has come to advance this sensible legislation, out of committee, to the floor and then the Senate.

The concept builds on the exclusion already established for juveniles and the developmentally disabled, that the death penalty should not apply to those with diminished capacity. It goes to the idea that capital punishment should be reserved for the "worst of the worst." That doesn't mean those with a serious mental illness would escape accountability. They still would face the severe punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Prosecutors object to the change, arguing the legislation would bring a practical end to the death penalty. They overstate the case. The state public defender's office notes that just 2 of the 2 dozen death row inmates currently scheduled for execution would be affected. The door would not be open to an avalanche of resentencing requests. The legislation identifies 5 precise mental illnesses, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and delusional disorder.

So the application is narrow, a judge determining whether the defendant suffered from the affliction at the time of the crime.

Prosecutors add that the process already accommodates mental illness. During the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial, the defendant presents mitigating evidence to the jury. Yet, as David Niven of the University of Cincinnati points out, studies consistently show that jurors actually see serious mental illness as an aggravating factor and thus are more likely to conclude that a death sentence is warranted.

Why? Researchers note that jurors see the presence of such an illness as a reason to be more confident of guilt and to be more fearful of the defendant. The practice reinforces the powerful stigma still attached to mental illness.

House Bill 81 would remedy what plainly is an injustice, jurors getting wrong the intent of the law. The judge would rule during a pretrial hearing on whether the evidence shows the presence of a serious mental illness. If the answer is yes, the process would move ahead without the death penalty. That is the responsible course, and why House Bill 81 deserves passage soon.

Source: Beacon Journal, Editorial Board, October 10, 2017

⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.

Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde

Share This