Severe Mental Illness Article by Paul O'Shea, MES edits, 2018 June 13

Online content

Fullscreen
It’s Cruel But Not Unusual For Virginia
To Execute The Seriously Mentally Ill

By Paul O’Shea
Vice President, Virginians for Alternatives to the Death
Penalty

One of the strongest arguments against capital punishment
is that it can kill an innocent man or woman. Another is
that it can kill a mentally damaged individual. Take the
execution of William Morva almost a year ago, the last
person to be executed in Virginia.

When Virginia completed the task of executing William
Morva at 9:15 p.m. on July 6, 2017, it had killed a disturbed
young man who thought his supernatural powers would
save indigenous tribes. Before he was captured, living in
the woods barefoot in winter, Morva subsisted on a diet of
raw meat, pine cones and cheese.

At Morva’s trial the prosecution’s expert witness told the
jury only that he had “odd beliefs,” hardly a professional
diagnosis that justified depriving someone of life. After his
conviction, in the appeal process, a mental health expert
diagnosed Morva with delusional disorder, a serious
psychotic condition similar to schizophrenia.

Just before he was sentenced to death Morva told the court

he was renouncing his “slave name.” He was now to be
called “Nemo.”

Every execution is dehumanizing, but as The Washington
Post editorialized: “The execution of a man suffering from
severe mental illness is an act of particular barbarism—
especially if his condition may have been misdiagnosed in
trial.”

The daughter of one of Morva’s victims, a sheriff’s deputy,
urged Governor McAuliffe to grant clemency. In a release
to the media, Rachel Sutphin said: “I have fought and will
continue to fight for mercy for all death row inmates until
Virginia declares the death penalty unconstitutional.”

Two predecessors (Governors Kaine and Gilmore) granted
leniency to prisoners with similar disabilities, reducing the
death sentences to life in prison. McAuliffe declined to
change Will Morva’s sentence to life in prison without
parole.

The next currently achievable step toward death penalty
abolition (there are still three prisoners on death row) is to
further shrink capital punishment by passing legislation that
will protect those with severe mental illness from lethal

injection. As we see it,
these mentally challenged individuals were not fully

culpable for their actions. They should not receive the
ultimate punishment.

We’re not alone in our quest for fairness and justice.
Similar legislation has been proposed in at least six other
states, including Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota,
Tennessee and Texas. Most of these proposals define
specific disorders, that would qualify as a serious mental
illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major
depressive disorder, delusional disorder, and post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Now in our twenty-sixth year
, Virginians for
Alternatives to the Death Penalty

is committed to the absolute abolition of capital
punishment.

The death penalty has a long, notorious history here, with
fifteen in the last ten years. Only Texas, well known for its
affinity for the death chamber has executed more people
than the Commonwealth

We can begin to cut the number of unnecessary deaths by
adding those who are mentally ill from the scourge of
execution. While it may take time to finally abolish capital
punishment, now is the time to tinker with the machinery of
death.

Metadata

Resource Type:
Document
Rights:
Date Uploaded:
December 20, 2025

Using these materials

Access:
The archives are open to the public and anyone is welcome to visit and view the collections.
Collection restrictions:
Access to this collection is unrestricted with the exception of select items noted in Series 5.
Collection terms of access:
This page may contain links to digital objects. Access to these images and the technical capacity to download them does not imply permission for re-use. Digital objects may be used freely for personal reference use, referred to, or linked to from other web sites. Researchers do not have permission to publish or disseminate material from these collections without permission from an archivist and/or the copyright holder. The researcher assumes full responsibility for conforming to the laws of copyright. Some materials in these collections may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.) and/or by the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. More information about U.S. Copyright is provided by the Copyright Office. Additionally, re-use may be restricted by terms of University Libraries gift or purchase agreements, donor restrictions, privacy and publicity rights, licensing and trademarks. The Department of Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any copyright owners who are not properly identified so that appropriate information may be provided in the future.

Access options

Ask an Archivist

Ask a question or schedule an individualized meeting to discuss archival materials and potential research needs.

Schedule a Visit

Archival materials can be viewed in-person in our reading room. We recommend making an appointment to ensure materials are available when you arrive.