|
Four bills have been introduced in Pennsylvania that would implement the US Supreme Court's decision in Atkins, which bars the execution of persons with mental retardation.
Those of us who supported the efforts of Senators Helfrick and Kukovich during the 2003-04 session will be most interested in HB 1410 introduced by Representative Kathy Manderino and SB 631 introduced by Senator Mary Jo White because both bills provide for the possibility of a pre-trial determination of whether the defendant is a person with mental retardation.. The bills are not identical. They have differing definitions of mental retardation. The language regarding pre-trial determination is identical.
The other two bills, HB 698 introduced by Representative Dennis O'Brien and SB 334 introduced by Senator Stewart Greenleaf, are identical and provide for a determination of mental retardation only after a verdict of guilty of first degree murder.
If you want to help us support HB 1410 and SB 631, please contact your State Representative and let him/her know you support HB 1410 and contact your State Senator and let him/her know you support SB 631.
Reasons to Support Pre-Trial Determination rather than Post-Conviction Determination
A finding that a person has mental retardations is an absolute bar to the imposition of the death penalty. In fact, Atkins essentially held that a defendant with mental retardation is not even eligible for the death penalty. Being a person with mental retardation exempts one from the death penalty and should exempt a person with mental retardation from a death penalty trial.
Both HB 1410 and SB 631 include a fair and balanced procedure for a pre-trial determination of whether a defendant is a person with mental retardation. A defendant can seek a pre-trial hearing on this issue and must carry the burden of demonstrating he or she is a person with mental retardation. These bills also include a procedure for the Commonwealth to appeal a court's pre-trial determination.
Deferring a decision on the issue of mental retardation post-conviction poses numerous problems:
- It will be expensive. Why go through an entire death penalty trial if the defendant is not eligible for the death penalty? Death penalty cases are more costly because the prosecutor puts more resources into them, the county frequently has to pay for defense counsel and experts, and the trial takes longer. For the smaller counties, each death penalty case puts a strain on the budget. Why not permit our courts to resolve clear cases early on, thereby saving our counties considerable resources?
- It can be hard on the families and friends of both the victim and the defendant. Why put all of these people through the emotional strain of a death penalty trial if it can be determined early on that an individual is not eligible for the death penalty?
- There are many other instances where issues of constitutional significance (motions to suppress a confession, identification or evidence found in a search, motion to quash, double jeopardy issues) are first presented to the judge and our courts decide those issues, even when those decisions could lead to a dismissal of charges. Why shouldn't we permit such a judge to do the same thing in a death penalty case involving a defendant who claims he or she is mentally retarded? Why should we create a special post-trial procedure for this class of defendants?
- The issue of mental retardation goes to the status or condition of the defendant. The underlying facts of the case are simply not relevant to the issue of whether someone is a person with mental retardation. A decision by a jury only after it has heard the facts of the case poses the risk that the jury will be unfairly influenced by the facts of the crime and not by a sole consideration of whether the definition of mental retardation has been met.
- There have been cases where a defendant with mental retardation has been convicted largely on the basis of a confession. They have then been sentenced to death. Years later it becomes clear that the defendant did not commit the crime and that the confession was not true. Because of the risk of "false confessions" by individuals with mental retardation, and the risk of wrongful convictions, it is much fairer to determine whether someone has mental retardation, before the jury learns about, or hears the confession.
- In the Atkins decision, the Supreme Court wrote about the considerable risk that persons with mental retardation might give false confessions. That conclusion is supported by many academic studies that show that persons with mental retardation often give incriminating, but "untrue," confessions in order to mask their disability and to please authority figures. The Supreme Court also discussed the inability of a person with mental retardation to give meaningful assistance to his lawyer and the problems associated with what appears to the jury as inappropriate demeanor of the defendant. Because of these significant problems, there is a real danger that a person with mental retardation could be wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed. To avoid these risks, it is far better to have the decision on mental retardation made before trial rather than after the facts of the case have been heard.
- The majority of our sister states permit a pre-trial determination of mental retardation.
|
