Supreme Court Case Studies

When sentencing, many states categorize offenders into classes such as age and mental
state. Non-execution option is given to non-homicide, juvenile offenses, or all juvenile cases, but
age factor is shunned some states. The population of mentally ill offenders in jail has increased
from 30000 in 1955 to 250000 in 1999, in contrast to population at mental illness facilities that
have dropped from 570000 to 80000 in the same period (Denckla & Bernard, 2001).

1. Capital Punishment for Juveniles
   Mentally unwell persons are granted parole option, for example, in Atkins v. Virginia,
   536 U. S. 304. Before granting stay of execution, courts consider the national interest and
   societal standards, for example in Graham v. Florida (NJDC, 2010b). In determining the
   constitutionality of Graham’s sentence, the court borrowed from Aitkin, Ropa, Kennedy at 564,
   whose sentences were declared ineligible for execution (NJDC, 2010a). The court also examined
   if the death sentence violates the constitution and if Graham’s case racially motivated, as claimed
   by demonstrators.
   Graham elicited much activism as the date of execution drew closer with eminent
   personalities like Rev. Jesse Jackson, Bianca Jagger of Amnesty International and actor Danny
   Glover, throwing their weight behind Graham (CPIC, 2006). It was observed that juvenile

SUPREME COURT CASE STUDIES 2
offenses were racially linked and Graham probably did not kill Bobby Lambert, as claimed by
the sole witness. The mass protests were organized, and this convinced the judges to rethink the
conclusion (NJDC, 2010a). NJDC observes that, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570
(2005), the law cannot be morally right to equate the mistakes of a minor to those of an adult,
knowing that adults are incorrigible, whereas minors can be rehabilitated. The death penalty does
not give the offender a chance to reform (CPIC, 2006). The support given Graham was
overwhelming, but it was wrong to equate it to a racial issue, instead it should have been
presented as a juvenile class issue.

2. Mental Illness and Involuntary Medication
   The appeal court was to determine if a mentally ill person was competence to stand trial,
   as with Sell v. United States. Sell who was charged with fraud, was released on bond. The bond
   was revoked on account of violence, which was caused by a deterioration of his mental
   condition. The magistrate committed him to a mental hospital, and later ordered that he
   involuntarily take medication. Referring to Riggins v. Nevada, the court had affirmed the liberty
   interest to not take antipsychotic drugs unless there was compelling reason, such as an overriding
   state interest, security and prevention of serious crime. The court noted that government interest
   was going to lessen if the accused choose incarceration over medication (Justia, 2007) . The
   government could instead have a guardian appointed to serve the offender’s interest, thus avoid
   an involuntary medication contest. Sell was declared incompetent to decide, and dangerous to his
   and other people’s lives. Medication would return him to competence. The appeal court faulted
   the claim of endangerment because the district court had already returned Sell to a regular prison,
   implying he posed no danger. It upheld the involuntary medication (Justia, 2007). Forced
   medication violated Sell’s right to privacy, could render him competent to stand trial to his own

SUPREME COURT CASE STUDIES 3
detriment. Alternatively, it could impair his memory and make him incompetent to stand a fair
trial. The judges ordered delinking of the fraud case, which was a criminal offense, from forced
medication, which was a civil case that was also an appealable collateral order. Finally the
appeal court noted that, the offender had been confined for a long time, without signs of change
in mental health. This would deny him of his freedom.
In advocacy for this issue, I would note that although prisons offer round the clock
supervision, they are not psychiatric hospitals. Only one in seven mental cases receives treatment
while in incarceration, and most offenders leave jail in worse mental health and more
predispositions to repeat crimes (Buckley, 2009). A better approach is to establish mental health
courts and substitute voluntary medication for incarceration. Like in King County, offender
should be given short-term psychiatric treatment before going to trial. Mental institutions should
be re-opened to absorb patients and offenders.

3. Death Penalty for Mentally Ill Offenders
   In Panetti v. Quarterman, the mentally-ill convict was sentenced to death, despite a
   history of mental illness and medication. The petitioner’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme
   Court, but the court did not decide on his mental incompetence at trial. He had been evaluated
   and judged fit to stand trial and execution thereon. When he petitioned for stay of execution on
   account of mental illness and incompetence to be executed, the court denied his petition and
   claimed it lacked jurisdiction. When he filed at the district court, he was granted stay of
   execution. A report by experts concluded that he was competent to understand the reason for his
   execution, and so the judge closed the case (Denckla & Bernard, 2001). On appeal to the federal
   district court, the court faulted the proceedings, citing Ford v. Wainwright, 477 US 399, 410. The

SUPREME COURT CASE STUDIES 4
state cannot execute an insane person. The court should decide judicially whether to accept or
reject a successive presentation of a claim, considering the finality of execution. Panetti’s failure
denied the district court of jurisdiction. The federal court indicated that all prisoners develop
mental condition owing to the gravity of their sentences. The court should grant the petitioner a
stay by reason of incompetence. Petitioners could have their own expert reports. In Panetti’s case
the court had not even held a competence hearing or seen the medical report at trial, and
therefore violated the eighth and fourteenth amendments. The court further noted that the
prisoner’s mental condition could so bad that they could not link their crimes to the punishments.
Panetti had stopped taking his medication before the trial began. The same court had found him
incompetent to take a habeus after sentence. This contradicted the court’s earlier stand (Denckla
& Bernard, 2001).
While the law prohibited execution of mentally retarded persons, for example Atkin v.
Virginia, it did not address mentally ill persons, for example Wuornos v. Florida, who showed a
serious case of mental illness, and even waived her right to appeal against capital punishment.
She had borderline personality disorder, and a family history of sexual abuse, suicides, child
molestation, rape, and incest. Even at execution she spoke incoherently, and insisted she killed a
rapist in self-defense (Broomfield, 2007). Watching the Wuornos video, I am convinced that,
mass activism should be employed in all states to stop all executions, and offenders should be
sent to mental illness institutions-cum-correctional centers.

4. Detention of Mentally Ill Sex Offenders Beyond Date of Their Release
   The court can order commitment of a mentally ill, sexual offender after their release date,
   in a civil suit, as with United States v. Comstock et al. such a prisoner must be mentally ill and

SUPREME COURT CASE STUDIES 5
has been sexually violent in the past. The district court and supreme courts dismissed the state’s
prayer to commit the offenders under civil case, stating that congress had over-reached its
powers (Supreme Court, 2010). Congress does enact laws that are convenient and beneficial to
the state, as in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 413, 418. In this scenario, the
state was effectively creating and seeking punishment for crimes that were not listed on the
charge sheet. Congress had provided for mental care for prisoners, but could not use this as an
excuse to detain all mentally prisoners past their sentence, under the 1984 act on insanity defense
reform (Supreme Court, 2010). Only patients who posed danger to society were listed for
detention, and only the Federal and not state authorities had such powers. The prisoner is
allowed to be represented, subpoena witnesses, and to testify.
According to studies, sex offense is the second most common crime for which offenders
are convicted. One in ten sex offenses is committed by mentally ill persons. Common offenses
include inappropriate advances, assort, sex with minors, and rape (The Arc, 2009). Some of the
offences can be tackled through counseling and therapy, rather than extended incarceration. The
Arc advocates that individuals should be held responsible, but should be given sentencing
options other than regular jail, for example they can be put in safe house, treatment facility, sex-
relationship training, and so on (The Arc, 2009).
As part of activism, more research should be done to ascertain the relationship between
mental illness and sexual crimes (Buckley, 2009). This way, counseling and rehabilitation
programs can be designed to correct the problem. Offenders should be sensitized to see their
mistakes as serious crimes.

SUPREME COURT CASE STUDIES 6

Works Cited

Broomfield, N. (2007). “Life and Death of a Serial Killer” (2003). Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/yFBcjII3QAE
Buckley, S. (2009). Advocacy Strategies and approaches: Overview | Association for Progressive
Communications. Apc.org. Retrieved 27 February 2016, from
https://www.apc.org/en/node/9456
CPIC,. (2006). The Case of Gary Graham – Post-Trial Period | Capital Punishment in Context.
Capitalpunishmentincontext.org. Retrieved 27 February 2016, from
http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/cases/graham/posttrial
Denckla, D., & Bernard, G. (2001). RETHINKING THE REVOLVING DOOR A Look at
Mental Illness in the Courts (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Supreme Court. Retrieved from
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-6407.pdf
Justia,. (2007). Sell v. United States 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Justia Law. Retrieved 27 February
2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/166/case.html
NJDC,. (2010a). Roper v. Simmons | NJDC. NJDC. Retrieved 27 February 2016, from
http://njdc.info/our-work/amicus-briefs/roper-v-simmons/
NJDC,. (2010b). Graham v. Florida | NJDC. NJDC. Retrieved 27 February 2016, from
http://njdc.info/our-work/amicus-briefs/graham-v-florida/

SUPREME COURT CASE STUDIES 7
Supreme Court,. (2010). United States v. Comstock et al (1st ed., pp. 1-58). Washington, DC:
The Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-
1224.pdf
The Arc,. (2009). The Arc | People with Intellectual Disability & Sexual Offenses. Thearc.org.
Retrieved 27 February 2016, from http://www.thearc.org/what-we-do/resources/fact-
sheets/sexual-offenses