Lawmakers reviewed a proposal on Aug. 11 in Frankfort that would eliminate the death
penalty for severely mentally ill persons who commit capital crimes in Kentucky.
House Bill 16, sponsored by House Minority Whip David Floyd, R-Bardstown, and Rep.
Darryl Owens, D-Louisville, stalled in the House Judiciary Committee during the 2010 Regular
Session. The bill would have defined “severely mentally ill” defendants under Kentucky law and
eliminated the death penalty for those defendants while leaving courts the option to hand another
sentence down in those cases. Seriously mentally retarded defendants in capital cases and those
who commit capital crimes when they are under age 18 are already exempt from the death penalty
in Kentucky.
Sheila Schuster with the Kentucky Mental Health Coalition told state lawmakers on the
Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary that severely mentally ill persons are not deterred by the
threat of the death penalty and that “it is time to remove this small group from (those eligible) for
the death penalty” while still holding such persons accountable for their crime.
Severe mental illness, according to testimony by psychologist Dr. Russ Williams, affects
only 2.6 percent of the population and includes such disorders as schizophrenia and delusional
disorder, he said. A person with such a disorder often has non-reality based beliefs which
Williams said may include thoughts that the individual is a king or a queen, or even a major
religious figure. “They have no basis in reality of what’s going on,” he said.
“We're not asking that these people not be prosecuted,” said Williams. “We’re asking that
the death penalty be taken off but they still be held accountable for their actions.”
Execution of the severely mentally ill is still legal in most death-penalty states despite a 1986
Supreme Court ruling that execution of the insane violates a ban on “cruel and unusual
punishment” set out in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 24-year-old ruling
did not mandate procedures for states to follow to determine a person’s legal sanity.
The death penalty was eliminated for mentally retarded defendants and defendants who com-
mit capital crimes under the age of 18 as a result of U.S. Supreme Court rulings issued in 2002
and 2005 respectively. Ernie Lewis with the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
explained that mental limitations of the two groups made them less culpable in the eyes of the
Court.
House Minority Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown, questioned language in HB 16 that
states a mental disorder that is “manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct or attributable
solely to the acute effects of voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs” would not, by itself, indicate
the person has severe mental illness. Hoover said the definition of severely mentally ill in the bill
would prevent someone from voluntarily using alcohol or other drugs, thereby allowing mentally
ill persons to claim substance abuse was the cause of their disorder.
HB 16 would define a severely mentally ill defendant as someone who at the time of their
crime “had a severe mental disorder or disability that significantly impaired his or her capacity to
appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness or his or her conduct, exercise rational
judgment in relation to conduct, or conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law...”.
Lewis said HB 16 would have addressed intoxication of a mentally ill person during
mitigation.
As far as competency to stand trial is concerned, Williams said there is a difference between
competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility. A person’s competency can ebb and flow,
while criminal responsibility, he said, is “stuck in time.” That segued into a comment made by
Chris Cohron of the Kentucky Commonwealth Attorneys Association who said state law already
exempts legally insane individuals from the death penalty.
“I’m not aware of any prisoner under a death sentence (in Kentucky) who has been found
guilty but mentally ill,” Cohron said.
But Lewis, in response to another comment, said the behavior of a defendant at the time of
the crime is what matters under the Eighth Amendment and would matter under HB 16.
“Do they meet insanity (standards) or significant mental illness impairment (as defined in
HB 16)?” asked Lewis. Currently in Kentucky, Lewis said there is a “major gap” between the
court’s treatment of a person on trial for a capital crime who is not insane but who is impaired to
such a degree that the person lacks the capacity to determine the impact of his or her behavior.
