Themes/O utlines/Ideas for Short SMI Exemption Documentary by ABA
Overall Message: executing people with SMI is immoral and should be prohibited. (Additionally, the
DP for these defendants creates unnecessary costs and causes unnecessary and prolonged grieving for
many different people, including the defendant who is not deserving of death, as well as his family
members, victims’ family members, jurors, and others.)
Problem/Solution: Problem is that people with SMI are actually being sentenced to death and executed
around the country, even though they are not the worst-of-the-worst and their execution is immoral. The
solution is to change the law.
Audience: Grassroots engagement of as many people as we can get to be interested in issue, contact their
lawmakers, etc. (Alternative/A dditional: State lawmakers as direct audience? Judges)
Possible Scripts/O utlines:
Option 1: Dual Family Perspectives as C onnecting Thread Throughout Movie
+ Part 1 (Apx 5 minutes): “Who the DP Hurts”
o Lead with two different family member perspectives: a victim's family member and a family
member of someone with SMI.
+ Part 2:
Family members will serve as quasi-narrators throughout - starting by telling their
stories and explaining who their loved one is or was. Then, different points they
make will lead into weaving in other voices, including MH experts, lawyers,
lawmakers, etc, throughout the film.
Goal is to show that DP for individuals with SMI harms “people like us” who are the
innocent family members impacted. They can draw sympathy, show that the DP is
not universally wanted by victims (while still honoring their loved one), and
humanize defendants (show that individuals with SMI are not hypothetical
“monsters”, but people with families, lives, and identities beyond their worst act and
beyond their diagnosis). Evoke the idea of “there but for the grace of God goes I...”
and that people don’t choose their mental illness. Victim’s family member can speak
about how DP didn’t bring them peace or closure, but made it more stressful because
they understood that the D had mental illness.
Define SMI and quickly set the stage for the legal issues
Woven into interviews of family members, to “flesh out” points being made, include
a Mental Health Expert who would define/explain SMI early on; how SMI
potentially impairs a person’s conduct and might impact their commission of a
violent act
and/or Mental health advocate to explain that “most people with SMI aren’t violent,”
barriers to access to treatment in our society, and other baseline points to set the stage
for who would be exempted.
“The Problem is Real” (2-3 minutes)
Transition to legal and MH experts talking about how this is something that’s still happening
Advocates or family members telling very quick stories of 2-3 "real SMI cases on death row
or real SMI executions - i.e. Panetti, Morva, Thompson.
* Part 3: “Why it’s Wrong’ (3-5 minutes)
o Weave family members, experts, faith leaders, conservatives to all make different points about
why executing people with SMI is wrong - both morally and practically as a public policy.
0 Possible Points to make:
= Explore different arguments on SMI with Focus on increased understanding of MI
and DP “hasn't caught up,”
= Parallels to intellectual disability and juveniles
= “still backwards in its approach of MI as aggravating rather than mitigating.” (point
to studies that show jurors view it as aggravating rather than mitigating)
= We've witnessed in recent years a growing understanding of the fact that the CJS is
not adequately equipped to deal with individuals with MI. This has resulted in a call
for more CIT training, more MH courts, more diversion programs, etc.
= Actually increases stigma of MI the way we have it now by not recognizing it as a
disability.
= And maybe others of our Talking Points
= inadequate?
¢ Part 4: “The Solution” (3 minutes)
0 Bring in Legislators who sponsored bills or high-profile judges/grasstops voices,
conservatives, MH Advocacy group leaders, to make points like:
= It’s a bipartisan/non-partisan issue.
= Cost saving
= Effort led by MH community and legal neutrals, not by abolitions
= Mention polling support for exemption (maybe create graphics of poll results) -
bipartisan, overwhelming, etc.
= Note trend of bills across the country
= Quick explaination of what bill would do/myth busts (‘Does NOT allow people to get
off’, “Does NOT allow all defendants to claim SMI” etc)
0 If possible, close with video of the two family members together in same shot to demonstrate
their unity on this issue, and having them look at each other and call for reform in this area to
help prevent other families like theirs from being unnecessarily traumatized by the DP for
people with SMI.
o End with “call to action” to support reforms.
+ Throughout
0 Use family photographs of narrators, their loved one, their homes/towns as visuals while they
tell their story. Maybe images of news headlines from their cases.
o Will weave in visuals from news stories/headlines; excerpts of language from court decisions
0 Graphics that highlight major points, show polling, which states are considering bills, etc.
Option 2: Feature one or two real SMI on Death Row Cases as “Poster Children” narrative thread
* — Similar structure to Option 1, but instead of family members, just use alternative narrator to set
up/tell stories of 2-3 real SMI cases (aka Starts with Part 2, basically)
* Use of case studies should be framed with:
0 Medical professional explaining what it is to have SMI/ brain disease (and not evil)
o Conservative saying “there would still be accountability” aka LWOP
Option 3:_Problem/Solution Educational Documentary
+ Could offer Historical perspective
* Could draw parallels with ID and juveniles more directly
+ Focus on one state reform effort as narrative story to show “wave of change”:
o Show images from State House, testimony videos
o Could highlight the many different voices supporting a state campaign
= “how one state is at the forefront of this important issue,” “effort is expanding to
other states...”
o Q: Do any of the current state campaigns have good video footage or pictures from their
prior hearings? Can they get video (and the rights to use the video) of prior hearings or
testimony?
= Any of the groups that have summer study commissions coming up have right to
film legislative hearings and use that footage?
Ideas of “voices” /potential interviewees for the film
+ Family members of victims
+ Defendants’ family members
+ Individuals with SMI/Family members of individuals with SMI
+ — Psychiatrists
+ Mental Health Advocacy Leaders (NAMI, MHA, others)
* Judges
+ — Prosecutors
+ Legal Scholars
* Conservative legislators/bill sponsors
+ High profile supporters (former govemors, celebrities?)
+ Conservatives Concemed/libertarians
+ Faith leaders
+ Legal experts (ABA)
