Bills to exempt indi­vid­u­als with severe men­tal ill­ness from fac­ing the death penal­ty are expect­ed in at least sev­en states in 2017. Legislators in Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia have either intro­duced such leg­is­la­tion or announced that they plan to. Six of the sev­en states have spon­sor­ship from Republican leg­is­la­tors, indi­cat­ing bipar­ti­san sup­port for the mea­sures. The author of Indiana’s bill, Sen. James Merritt (pic­tured, R‑Indianapolis), says he sup­ports the death penal­ty but draws a ​“bright line of dis­tinc­tion” around exe­cut­ing peo­ple with severe men­tal ill­ness. There are some vari­a­tions in the bills, but each cre­ates a process in which a deter­mi­na­tion is made — usu­al­ly by a judge — whether the defen­dant qual­i­fies for the exemp­tion. Some bills define seri­ous men­tal ill­ness by par­tic­u­lar diag­noses, oth­ers by behav­ioral impair­ments in func­tion­ing. Qualifying diag­noses under the exemp­tion typ­i­cal­ly includ­ed Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Traumatic Brain Injury. Defendants found to be suf­fer­ing from severe men­tal ill­ness would not be exempt­ed from crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­i­ty, but would be sub­ject to a max­i­mum sen­tence of life with­out parole. Numerous men­tal health orga­ni­za­tions have called for an exemp­tion to the death penal­ty for indi­vid­u­als with severe men­tal ill­ness. The mea­sures have the sup­port of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Mental Health America (MHA), and state-lev­el coali­tions of men­tal health advo­cates. In December 2016, the American Bar Association held a nation­al sum­mit and issued a white paper in sup­port of a severe men­tal ill­ness exemp­tion. Several reli­gious lead­ers also have spo­ken out in favor of the exemp­tion. Richard Cizik, President of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, wrote an op-ed for The Virginian-Pilot in late January say­ing, ​“Their con­di­tions affect many aspects of the legal process, impact­ing their appear­ance in court, the jury’s per­cep­tion of ticks or social­ly inap­pro­pri­ate inter­ac­tions, the defendant’s pre­sen­ta­tion of facts, and even their own admis­sion of guilt. Indeed, stud­ies have shown that defen­dants with severe men­tal ill­ness are more like­ly to give a false con­fes­sion. …As a faith leader, I am com­pelled to advo­cate for com­pas­sion­ate and fair laws such as this.” Glenn Tebbe, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Indiana Catholic Conference, called the bill ​“pru­dent and just.”

(B. C. Ayer, ​“Lawmakers To Consider Death Penalty Ban For Those With Serious Mental Illness,” The Message, January 19, 2017; R. Cizik, ​“An act of com­pas­sion for the men­tal­ly ill,” The Virginian-Pilot, January 29, 2017; M. Brickner, ​“Ohio should reform death penal­ty, not rush back to exe­cu­tions,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 25, 2017.) See Recent Legislative Activity and Mental Illness.

Citation Guide