6.6 Insanity and Criminal Sentencing
As you have learned by now, many people with mental disorders will face arrest, trial and conviction in the criminal courts, despite the purported availability of diversion opportunities and the insanity defense. As a result of these convictions, many people with mental disorders are serving prison sentences throughout the United States, and some face the death penalty.
Depending on the state, some defendants are allowed to offer evidence of mental disorders as mitigation. A mitigating factor is something that serves to explain the defendant’s conduct, and, while not excusing the conduct, it may soften our judgment of the conduct, thereby providing a reason for a judge or jury to impose a reduced sentence. For example, a mental disorder offered in mitigation of a murder might save the convicted person from the death penalty in favor of a life sentence.
However, assuming the person is duly convicted of a crime, there is no legal requirement that mental illness reduce or otherwise impact sentencing decisions. As noted earlier in this chapter, Oregon is typical in identifying nearly 30% of its adults in custody as currently requiring high-level mental health treatment. Treatment of mental disorders in prison is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 of this text.
6.6.1 Mental Disorders & the Death Penalty
Even the death penalty may be imposed on a person with a severe mental disorder, despite mitigation efforts by the defense. The Supreme Court has made clear that only legal “insanity” in this specific context – defined as the inability to understand the punishment being imposed – renders execution unconstitutional. The precise level of impairment needed to make execution unconstitutional has been elusive; in its most recent pronouncement on the issue, the Supreme Court stopped the execution of Vernon Madison, whose dementia had rendered him blind, confused, and with no memory of his crimes due to multiple strokes while in prison (Madison v. Alabama, 2019). Madison died in 2020 at Holman prison, in Alabama (Equal Justice Initiative, 2020).
Figure 6.11 is a photo of Vernon Madison. He was convicted of shooting a police officer and sentenced to death, but lost all understanding of his legal situation in the ensuing years as his dementia progressed.
Moreover, even if granted, an insanity reprieve lasts only as long as the insanity lasts. As in restoration of competency to stand trial, a person may be restored for execution if medication or other treatment can make them competent to be executed. (Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 1986; Dewan, 2017).
Some mental disorders that are persistent and severe could serve to permanently close the door to execution, if the impacted person can obtain a supporting evaluation that qualifies them for a permanent reprieve. For example, a person with significant intellectual disability (which is not treatable in the sense of being subject to improvement from medication) may not be executed at all. The Supreme Court found in its 2002 decision, Atkins v. Virginia, that the 8th Amendment to the Constitution banned execution under these circumstances because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was less culpable due to this impairment. 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Similar reasoning supported a ban on executing children, issued a few years later. Roper v. Simmons (2004).
However, all states have different standards for what constitutes intellectual disability, and many of those standards do not correspond with modern medical practice for diagnosing intellectual disability (LaPrade & Worrall, 2020). In Idaho, for example, a person with a tested I.Q. (intellectual quotient, the standard assessment for intelligence) score over 70 can be executed, without regard to other factors that inform a diagnosis, such as life functioning (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.).
Barriers in proving that a person cannot be Constitutionally executed are especially concerning when coupled with the reality of the prison population, where people with intellectual and developmental disorders are found in much higher numbers than the population at large. People who experience intellectual disabilities are, for example, far more likely than other people to falsely confess to crimes – and to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. The story of Earl Washington, in the Spotlight in this chapter, is just one example of how this injustice can unfold. It is estimated that up to a quarter of the people who have been exonerated after false confessions are intellectually disabled – an overwhelmingly greater percentage than exists in the general public, where intellectual disability is estimated to impact about 1% of the population (American Psychiatric Association, n.d.; Schatz, 2018).
6.6.2 SPOTLIGHT: Earl Washington
Before Rebecca Lynn Williams succumbed to the more than thirty stab wounds inflicted upon her during a violent rape, she was able to describe her lone assailant as, simply, a Black man. It was June of 1982, and Rebecca’s three children were now robbed of their mother in a most vicious way.
In 1983, in a county not far from the location of Rebecca’s murder, a young Black man was arrested for breaking into one of his neighbor’s homes and wounding them during an alcohol-fueled dispute. This young man was Earl Washington, aged 23 (figure 6.12). Earl had an estimated IQ of 69, qualifying him for a diagnosis of intellectual disability. For more information on intellectual disability, see Chapter 2.
Figure 6.12. Earl Washington, pictured here speaking later in his life.
During a two-day interrogation, investigators were able to coerce five confessions out of Earl, for five different crimes. One of these crimes was the murder of Rebecca Lynn Williams.
The confession to this rape and murder was full of red flags that should have given investigators pause. Despite claiming responsibility, Earl wasn’t even able to guess Rebecca’s race correctly. The investigators continually corrected Earl’s version of events to fit the evidence, and he would agree with their corrections and change his story accordingly. A good defense attorney could have poked holes in the prosecution’s case, but Earl’s defense was ineffective at best. Earl Washington, an innocent man, was convicted of capital murder in 1984 and sentenced to death. At that time, and for another almost twenty years, execution of people with intellectual disability was not prohibited under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
Fortunately for Earl Washington and other inmates like him, the field of DNA forensic testing has evolved over time. In the year 1993, having already spent 9 years on death row, Earl’s post-conviction defense attorneys were granted permission to analyze DNA evidence left at the scene of the murder. The results excluded Earl as a match. Even so, the appeals court refused to hear the case further. Earl came dangerously close to being executed in 1993, and his death sentence was commuted to a life sentence just 9 days before he was scheduled to die.
And so, Earl Washington continued to sit behind bars, albeit now no longer on death row, for a heinous murder he didn’t commit. It was in the year 2000 that even more advanced DNA testing was able to match the crime scene DNA to another man by the name of Kenneth Tinsley. Earl Washington was finally given a full pardon and released from prison.
6.6.3 Insanity and Criminal Sentencing: Licenses and Attributions
“Insanity and Criminal Sentencing” by Anne Nichol is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
“SPOTLIGHT: Earl Washington” by Monica McKirdy is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Figure 6.11. Photo of Vernon Madison from https://eji.org/cases/madison-v-alabama/ is included under fair use.
Figure 6.12. Photo of Earl Washington from https://innocenceproject.org/cases/earl-washington/, included under fair use