Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentences of Mentally Ill

In April 2007, The US Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of three Texas men convicted of murder. Their sentences were thrown out by a 5-4 decision because it was the court’s opinion that the juries were not able to consider relevant information about their mental histories that could have been used to lessen their sentences.

One of the cases was Brewer vs. Quarterman (05-11287) see Brewer V Quarterman for details about the case. In short, in 1990 Brent Brewer stabbed a man to death during the course of a robbery in Amarillo, TX. He was found guilty of the murder, but during the sentencing phase wanted the jury to consider his history of being physically abused as a child and of him having a substance abuse problem.

The jury was not allowed to use this information to determine the severity of his sentence, but the prosecutor used the information to suggest that Mr. Brewer was a risk of future dangerousness. The court ruled that the prior judges were in error by not letting the jury consider this information as mitigating evidence (evidence that could lighten his sentence). As a result, Mr. Brewer was sentenced to death.

This ruling could affect the approximately 40 Texas inmates awaiting execution.

As a forensic psychiatrist, I’ve performed evaluations on inmates in similar situations, usually for the purpose of determining whether or not they have a mental illness that could have affected their behavior or made them unable to understand that what they were doing was wrong. Sometimes if the defendant’s legal team did not think the mental problem rose to the level of making them no longer responsible for their actions, they may still have a psychiatrist evaluate the extent of their problems so that a jury can consider this during the sentencing phase.

Juries have a high calling. They essentially exact justice by deciding people’s fate. As a psychiatrist, I’m asked specific questions about whether or not a mental disorder exists and what affect it has on the defendant’s behavior. Although this takes skill, I still consider the difficult decisions to lie with the jurors. What do you think of someone who has abused drugs who says have mercy on me for killing someone? Or, do you think someone who has been abused as a child should have a lighter sentence if they kill someone? These are hard questions that involve moral reasoning as opposed to purely clinical or legal reasoning.

In the case of Mr. Brewer, the trial judge relieved the jury of having to answer the questions I just posed by not allowing the information to be heard. The Supreme Court said this was an error and he now can either be retried by Texas or have his sentence converted to life.