{"id":221955,"date":"2017-06-21T22:09:59","date_gmt":"2017-06-22T02:09:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/the-death-penalty-and-mental-illness-an-evolving-standard-psychiatric-times.php"},"modified":"2017-06-21T22:09:59","modified_gmt":"2017-06-22T02:09:59","slug":"the-death-penalty-and-mental-illness-an-evolving-standard-psychiatric-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/fifth-amendment\/the-death-penalty-and-mental-illness-an-evolving-standard-psychiatric-times.php","title":{"rendered":"The Death Penalty and Mental Illness: An Evolving Standard? &#8211; Psychiatric Times"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The use of the death penalty in the Americas dates to the 15th    century when European settlers brought with them the practice    of capital punishment. Because nowhere in the US Constitution    is capital punishment explicitly addressed, the death penalty    was imbued with intrinsic constitutionality by the Founding    Fathers. The Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth    Amendment (due process clause) of the Bill of Rights have    attempted to provide guidelines on how capital punishment    should be handled. The Fifth Amendment states that no person    shall be held to answer for a capital [crime], unless on a    presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, while the Eighth    Amendment states that nor cruel and unusual punishments [be]    inflicted.  <\/p>\n<p>    Although the death penalty was viewed as an acceptable form of    punishment at the time the US Constitution was created, it did    not take long for various states to begin to limit or even ban    such practices. The first state to do so was Michigan in 1846.    Today, 31 states still permit capital punishment. Although this    number may represent a majority of the states, it may not    represent the true national mood regarding capital punishment    because many of these states have not had an execution in more    than 10 years.  <\/p>\n<p>    Evolving standards  <\/p>\n<p>    Over the years, the US Supreme Court has ruled on many cases    that have addressed the topic of evolving standards of decency    in regards to the Eighth Amendment. The 1910 Supreme Court case    Weems v US helped define the notion of evolving    standards as a basis to view historically accepted punishments    as no longer acceptable in modern society. In the    Weems case, a man was sentenced to multiple years of    hard and painful labor [in chains] for the crime of    falsifying documents.  <\/p>\n<p>    Although the use of irons was common in the 1700s, the Court    found that its use was not appropriate for a sentence in the    1900s. The term evolving standards of decency was coined by    Chief Justice Earl Warren in Trop v Dulles (1958) when    he noted that, when determining what punishment the Eighth    Amendment prohibits, evolving standards of decency . . . mark    the progress of a maturing society.1,2  <\/p>\n<p>    The 1972 case of Furman v Georgia (1972) resulted in a    brief national moratorium on the death penalty because of a 5    to 4 ruling that [the death penalty] could not be imposed    under sentencing procedures that created a substantial risk    that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious    manner.3 In an unusual scenario, each justice wrote    his own opinion, with Justices Brennan and Marshall citing    evolving standards of decency to explain why they believed the    death penalty was unconstitutional.  <\/p>\n<p>    The landmark cases of Atkins v Virginia (2002) and    Roper v Simmons (2005) determined that because of    evolving standards of decency, certain definable groups such as    individuals with intellectual disability and minors could not    be sentenced to death.4,5 In both instances, the    Court, within a relatively short period, revisited the issue of    an evolving standard after already having ruled on the issue,    ie, execution of people with intellectual deficiencies    previously addressed in Penry v Lynaugh (1989) and    certain youths in Stanford v Kentucky    (1989).6,7 The majority opinion for Atkins v    Virginia, written by Justice Stevens, noted that the    consistency of the direction of change, but not so much the    number of these States [prohibiting the execution of    individuals with intellectual disabilities], was important in    determining an evolving standard.4  <\/p>\n<p>    The cases of Atkins v Virginia and Roper v    Simmons are particularly interesting because the opinions    were based on legal as well as scientific and medical    principles. The legal principles that were discussed included    whether the death penalty had a deterrent effect for these    populations and whether these populations were at a fundamental    disadvantage in defending themselves in the court system    against the ultimate irreversible punishment. In Atkins v    Virginia, Justice Stevens wrote, . . . frequently    [individuals with intellectual disability] know the difference    between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial . . .    [but] because of their impairments . . . by definition they    have diminished capacities to understand and process    information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and    learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to    control impulses, and to understand the reactions of    others.4  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read more: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.psychiatrictimes.com\/forensic-psychiatry\/death-penalty-and-mental-illness-evolving-standard\" title=\"The Death Penalty and Mental Illness: An Evolving Standard? - Psychiatric Times\">The Death Penalty and Mental Illness: An Evolving Standard? - Psychiatric Times<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The use of the death penalty in the Americas dates to the 15th century when European settlers brought with them the practice of capital punishment.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/fifth-amendment\/the-death-penalty-and-mental-illness-an-evolving-standard-psychiatric-times.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[261462],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fifth-amendment"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221955"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}