Invisapeeps 2.0

A hot topic with the Texas death penalty right now is a flawed science that was used to determine if someone was mentally retarded and therefore should be exempt from the death penalty.

Just thinking outloud here, but if it is up to the DA to prove guilt for the conviction and the suspect's lawyer to prove innocence, who's plate does proving mental (in)competence fall on?  I'm speaking in more general terms, not the specific situation going on in Texas right now because it is clear many had issues witht he "science" the state's expert was using. 

I'm curious who should be supplying the psychological experts. Both sides? The state?

from the Code of Criminal Procedure 46B
"The court may appoint as experts under this chapter qualified psychiatrists or psychologists employed by the local mental health authority or local mental retardation authority."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.46B.htm

Along with Mischa's post - If they are found not guilty due to insanity are they required to spend a certain number of years in a treatment facility (say the same # of years a not-insane person would have spent in jail for similar crime)?

Would not guilty due to insanity and guilty but not punishable by death penalty due to mental retardation be treated differently? How can you be considered sane enough to be found guilty but not to receive full extent punishment? Should mentally illness and mentally retardation (Intellectually Disability) be treated differently?

EmmDee wrote:

---

A hot topic with the Texas death penalty right now is a flawed science that was used to determine if someone was mentally retarded and therefore should be exempt from the death penalty.

Just thinking outloud here, but if it is up to the DA to prove guilt for the conviction and the suspect's lawyer to prove innocence, who's plate does proving mental (in)competence fall on?  I'm speaking in more general terms, not the specific situation going on in Texas right now because it is clear many had issues witht he "science" the state's expert was using. 

---

The prosecution has the burden of proof. The defense doesn't have to prove innocense.

Also, as tigerlily says, there are two different issues here-a person can be found guilty of the crime but still not competent to be executed.  A developmentally disabled person may be ineligable for the death penalty but that doesn't mean that their disabilty meets the definition of legal insanity that would produce a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.

Obviously people schooled in the law could say more here.

I think having a 3rd party do the evaluation is the right way to go about it. There should be some sort of guideline created by mental health professionals (and/or whatever associations govern them) to determine competancy. If someone is found not competant to stand trial/plead guilty/etc, then they should not automatically be allowed to go 'free'. I'm guessing most are referred for treatment.

It seems that it would be all of society's responsibility to refer someone for the competancy evaluation. So the defense/prosecution/judge/etc should all have an obligation to look out for that.

In the case of execution - I don't really see the point in making sure they are competant enough to be executed. They are being executed for the crime they commited when they were apparently competant and not insane. What is the point in treating them just so they can understand they are being executed?

If you can't execute someone who is found incompetant by an evaluation, i'd assume that mental retardation would be a permanent incompetency evaluation (as in they'll never be found competant since the issue can't be 'fixed'). So...what do you do? Create mental/treatment/care facilities where they will spend the rest of their lives. If they can't be held to the same standards as society, they shouldn't be allowed to have free reign in society either.

In that particular case - if it was a condition from before the crime was commited, I would think they shouldn't have stood trial in the first place to ever receive that sentence. If it was due to something happening after they recieved the sentence, then I'm not sure I agree with not fulfilling that sentence. But they wouldn't be able to stay with the general prison population in either case, so it's back to being in a treatment/care facility instead.

It may seem cold of me, But I don't think there should be a different sentence for the mentally handicapped. Sorry. It sucks for them, but the punishment for {X} should ALWAYS be {Y} is how I feel.

HOWEVER, I would be fine with a different charge for the mentally handicapped... then that lesser charge could (and would) have a lesser sentence.

I know it doesn't make much sense, but I think it's more important to find them guilty of the right charge, than to find them guilty of the wrong charge and adjust the sentence.


Murder is "the intentional killing of a person with malice aforethought". If someone is so mentally handicapped that they don't know "right" from "wrong" then they are incapable of committing murder... because they don't have "malice aforethought". Malice to me means that they knew it was wrong, but wanted to anyway.

If BEING right or wrong can change whether or not killing someone is Murder (or even the degree of murder) then KNOWING right from wrong applies in my opinion.

Example, It's right and just (legally) to kill someone that's threatening to kill others and has proven that he/she will or has the capability to do it (self defense and/or defense of others) That's a "right" reason to kill. Then there are accidental reasons to kill (the brakes failed and the car crashed into the dining terrace of the restaurant)... not "right", but not "wrong" either... just an accident. Then there's the unintended consequence of a negligent act (if those brakes failed because the owner refused to fix a known problem)... that's wrong, but it's not murder, it's manslaughter. Then, finally there is murder, the ultimate "wrong" killing of a person or people... but even in that there are degrees of murder.

It's not murder EmmDee if you can prove she (It's Froot you wanna kill... right?) was trying to poison you... take a few LIGHT hits of arsenic every day for a few days... then hide a bottle of it in her cabinet...