Here are some books that deal with the mentally handicapped and the death penalties issed on them.

Christopher Slobogin of the University of Florida's Law School has written a new book about the state's legal authority to deprive people with mental disabilities of life or liberty. The book discusses a number of well known cases such as that of John Hinckley and Andrea Yates. It also includes discussion of laws dealing with the insanity defense, the death penalty, commitment of sexual predators, and hospitalization of people considered unable to make rational decisions. The book advances new ways of thinking and calls for a complete revamping of the insanity defense, the abolition of the guilty but mentally ill verdict, and a prohibition on execution of people with mental disability. ("Minding Justice: Laws that Deprive People with Mental Disability of Life and Liberty," Harvard Univ. Press 2006). See Mental Illness and Books.

• Katherine Norgard's recent book, "Hard to Place: A Crime of Alcohol," is a personal account of the trauma experienced by her family when her adopted son is charged with a capital crime. The book is the author's story of fighting to save her son after he was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of an elderly couple in Tuscon, Arizona. At the time of his trial, she still did not know that her son, John Eastlack, had been born with fetal alcohol syndrome, despite his signs of mental illness. The disorder occurs when mothers drink during pregnancy, and it often leaves children with seriously impaired judgment. Eastlack's brain damage was discovered after he was on death row. Eight years after he was sentenced to die, his sentence was reversed. He will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. CUNY Law Professor Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier notes, "Kathy Norgard's book gives a unique personal and professional insight into the difficulties a family faces when a loved one is charged with a capital crime. As a mental health professional, she uses her personal experiences to illustrate how mental disabilities, and fetal alcohol syndrome in particular, relate to our nation's capital punishment system. As a mother, she reveals a love for her family and illustrates a side of the death penalty that is rarely considered." Norgard, a Tuscon psychologist, now works to prevent other children from being born with fetal alcohol syndrome, the leading cause of mental retardation in the United States. Her book contains a forward by Sister Helen Prejean, who writes: "You, the reader of this book, are privileged to enter into her soul. Her words are transparent, unsparing of herself. She takes you to the deep places. She's brave to write such a book and to share it with the world." (Recover Resources Press, 2006).
• John Grisham has written 18 best-selling novels. The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town is his first work of non-fiction and focuses on a case in which a mentally ill man, Ron William, spends 20 years on death row for a murder he did not commit.
  It comes at a time when, on January 5, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a man with schizophrenia in Texas in order to set standard for determining when mental illness is so severe that execution is unconstitutional—a case in which NAMI has filed a "friend of the court" brief  on the issue (See below).
  Grisham's focus is less about standards of mental illness than making a case that the criminal justice system is so inherently vulnerable and flawed that the death penalty is inherently wrong. He is passionate in presenting a case that "not in my most creative moment could I have conjured up." It has all the plot elements of an American tragedy.
  Ron Williamson, a major league baseball draft pick from Oklahoma is signed with the Oakland As in 1971 and later traded to the Yankees for the minor league reserves. But after six years, he returns home, with broken dreams. He develops schizophrenia.
  Unable to keep a job, Williamson moved in with his mother and slept 20 hours a day. Local police, seeking to solve a rape and murder case focused on him. "He certainly seemed suspicious," Grisham notes. "He acted strange, kept strange hours…and most damning of all, lived close to the murder scene."
  During his trial, Williamson's jailers "fine-tuned" his condition with Thorazine. When he was in his cell and they wanted peace, "they pumped him full." Other times, they reduced the dose so that he would appear more intense, loud, and belligerent when he was in court. His court-appointed lawyer, who was blind and working alone, was afraid of him, sitting as far away as possible
  Although innocent, Williamson was convicted—based on bad police work, bad science, faulty eyewitness identification, and an arrogant prosecutor. Along with lazy lawyers and bad lawyers, Grisham notes, these are the ingredients for countless wrongful convictions.
  Even when appeals succeed, the cost is steep—in time and money, on both sides, and on the life of the defendant.
  Williamson spent 20 years on death row, before his conviction was overturned. While in prison, his mental condition deteriorated, and the book is notable for its description of how he was treated. Guards would amuse themselves at night by pretending to be voices, sending him into a frenzy.
  As sick as he was, Willamson never wavered in his protest that he was innocent. Once acquitted, after a new trial, he exhibited remarkable grace and dignity, even forgiveness, refusing to dwell on the past.
  After his release from prison in 1999, Williamson was interviewed on Good Morning America and treated as a celebrity in New York City. He toured Yankee Stadium, where he had once hoped to play. Standing in awe on the field, he said: "All I ever wanted to do was play baseball. It's the only fun I've ever had."
  In the case of Panetti v. Quarterman, which the Supreme Court accepted this month for argument, the facts are different and harsher. No one challenges the facts that Texas inmate Scott Panetti fatally shot his in-laws in front of his estranged wife and three-year old child in 1992. The Navy veteran, however, had been hospitalized 14 times for schizophrenia. Nonetheless, he was found both competent to stand trial and to represent himself instead of through a lawyer.
  During the trial, Panetti was often incoherent. He tried to subpoena Jesus Christ, Pope John Paul II, and President John F. Kennedy as witnesses. Although he understands that he is sentenced to be executed, he believes it is largely because the state is trying to keep him from preaching the gospel.
  Under a 1986 Supreme Court opinion, execution of mentally ill persons is constitutionally prohibited as cruel and inhuman punishment—but only under a narrow "awareness test" in which defendants need to be able to understand "the punishment they are about to suffer" and "why they are to suffer it."
  NAMI's brief in the case argues that the test "makes no sense when applied to a prisoner who is plagued by delusions of grand prosecution."
  More broadly, Grisham believes such cases should shock, disturb, and infuriate anyone who maintains faith in the criminal justice system and the death penalty. The Innocent Man is worth reading as a test.

This song perfectly describes a senario dealing with my topic! Check below for more info.

Please enjoy this music as you look through the site! ( I would suggest that you press play and then continue to read the story below first.)

Thinking Time!!!
Tears of An Angel...(song by RyanDan) I thought of this song as I was doing some research on my topic:It relates in the way that the poem and song lyrics mirror what could be thought by a loved one who maybe knew someone who was executed. I picture someone ( a family member or so of a mentally handicapped inmate) spending the last few minutes with someone about to be killed by the government. They can not cope with the thought of having to give up and witness their son, daugthter, dad, mother, brother, or sister executed the next morning. They hope and pray that time will pass slow enough for the judge/jury to change their minds at the last minute, but it doesn't come soon enough. The next morning,the family is led to a viewing room, and  they watch as their relative is helped onto the gurney and strapped to the bed. 2 hooded  men recieve the go ahead......
...and nod to each other ......
.......and press the buttons.....                   

                                                                          -How  did this make you feel? Does the music help put you in the enviornment of sorrow I was trying to create? Are you more sympathetic because of the music or did the story alone touch you?

I was reading an article from  aclu.org. I wanted you guys to check it out. It read: (I bolded and enlarged some sections that caught my eye.)
On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with mental retardation violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, overruling its Penry v. Lynaugh  decision in 1989.
The difference, according to the Court, was its finding that a public consensus had emerged, demonstrating ""evolving standards against executing people with mental retardation.""
Between 1989 and 2002, sixteen states outlawed executing mentally retarded people, bringing the total to eighteen of the 38 states that have the death penalty.  The Court also looked to public opinion polls that have consistently shown support for banning executions for people with mental retardation, as well as international law and opinion that universally condemns the practice.
The ruling means states that have the death penalty are now under a Constitutional mandate to craft legislation and other procedures to ensure that people with mental retardation are not executed. It is not an easy task.
Mental retardation is a commonly misunderstood disability.   It is defined by the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) as "significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period." Three factors must be taken into account in order for a person to be classified as mentally retarded.
First, a person must have sub-average intellectual functioning. Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.) tests are one means of determining sub-average functioning but it is important not to confuse IQ with mental retardation.  A common standard is an I.Q. of 70 or below; but numbers alone do not always determine mental retardation.
Second, a person must have difficulty coping in the everyday world. People with mental retardation, particularly in its less-severe form, are often able to be autonomous members of society, holding jobs, and living without assistance. However, they have greater difficulty than the average person in dealing with stressful situations. Their intellectual development and reasoning are limited, as is their ability to predict cause and effect.
Third, the disability must manifest itself prior to adulthood, which is usually considered age eighteen. (This third requirement makes it impossible for a defendant to ""fake"" mental retardation.)
People with mental retardation are at a higher risk of wrongful convictions and death sentences.  They may be more likely to falsely confess to a crime because they want to please the authorities that are investigating the crime. They are less able than others to work with their lawyers to help to prepare their defense. Because of the stigma attached to mental retardation, people with this disability often become adept at hiding it, even from their lawyer, not understanding the importance of this information to the outcome of the case.  
State legislatures across the country are working to bring their laws into compliance with the Atkins decision, crafting definitions and developing processes to determine mental retardation.
Definitions can be too limiting.  For example, some states, like Idaho, have defined mental retardation by a fixed IQ number, even though experts agree that these numbers alone do not determine mental retardation.  Under Idaho law, someone with an IQ of 71 could be executed, even if he or she otherwise qualified as mentally retarded.  
Another crucial issue is when the determination is made, and by whom.  Advocates for the mentally retarded want the decision made pre-trial, by a judge or unbiased jury, based solely on evidence of retardation.  Prosecutors in states like Virginia and Louisiana have been arguing for the decision to be made post-conviction by the same jury that found the person guilty of murder.  It is clear that a  pre-trial decision makes more sense; if a person is mentally retarded and not eligible to be executed, the state saves the hundreds of thousands of dollars associated with a death penalty prosecution.
Case Study
Earl Washington:  The case of Earl Washington is a poignant example of how those with mental retardation are more vulnerable in the criminal justice system. Washington was sentenced to death in 1983 for a crime he did not commit. Because of his mental retardation he was induced by police into confessing to the crime. DNA evidence eventually proved his innocence, but not before Washington came dangerously close to being executed. Washington spent ten years on death row and then several more years in prison before he was finally released in January of 2001. <<<This is Earl Washington.

Thinking Time!!

What's Your Take On: this info? I personally didn't know (before I did this Senior Exit Project) that the average IQ is
between 90 and 109. Considering this, any number below 70 is an obvious red flag/indicator of some sort of mental hindrance.

"The Ultimate Nightmare"---- Governor George Ryan's Take on Execution Errors

Death Penalty and Innocence

Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.


"I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."
--Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, in declaring a moratorium on executions in his state, after the 13th Illinois death row inmate had been released from prison due to wrongful conviction. In the same time period, 12 others had been executed. (photo © AFP) 

                                         Thinking Time!!

Do you guys agree with the statement that Governor George Ryan made here? Do you think that the system has proven to be a faulty one? Do you think it's as faulty now as it was in 2000? (which was when the statement was made.) Have you come to a decision? Now , consider this...between 1973 and 2008, Illinois had the second highest number of death penalty inmates wrongfully convicted and exonerated (a staggering 18.56 % of their inmates.), only lead by Florida which had 22.68%. These  are the people that managed to get away with their lives. They are the lucky ones. NOW answer the question I asked above. Do you think other states should put a moratorium on the death penalty like the one Gov. Ryan was pushing for?

Here is a liitle chart I found that was relevant to my topic on the association of mental disabilites and false confessions.

In 2001, the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern Law School analyzed the cases of 86 death row exonerees. They found a number of reasons why innocent people are wrongly convicted in capital cases.
>>>>Original info can be found here: all rights go to deathpenaltyinfo.org
Note: Nearly half of the cases included more than one reason for a wrongful conviction. Therefore the total of the cases in the chart equals more than 86.

Key to the Graph:

eyewitness error - from confusion or faulty memory.
government misconduct - by both the police and the prosecution
junk science - mishandled evidence or use of unqualified "experts"
snitch testimony - often given in exchange for a reduction in sentence
false confessions - resulting from mental illness or retardation, as well as from police torture
other - hearsay, questionable circumstantial evidence, etc.

•People with mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they are tempted to accommodate and agree with authority figures. Further, many law enforcement interrogators are not given any special training on questioning suspects with mental disabilities. An impaired mental state due to mental illness, drugs or alcohol may also elicit false admissions of guilt.


                            Thinking Time!!! :)

What do you guys think about this? Atleast 8 men/ women were wrongly convicted because of false confessions. Please rermember, 8 lives sentenced to die is big considering that these men and/ or women gave FALSE CONFESSIONS! They didn't committ the crime and still took the blame for it. Also, you have to take into consideration that this is just ONE case study from ONLY ONE year! (2001). Imagine how many more could have been sentenced to death in the time span between then and now. Ten years later, imagine how many could be sitting on death row as we speak, with mental dissabilites that caused them to falsely confess!! It's astounding to believe that even one can slip through and be incorrectly sentenced to die but 8?? Wow! Feel free to comment on your thoughts to this. Do you think this is evidence enough to need more  extensive evaluations put in place?

Hey, you guys.

Hey you guys! Thanks for taking the time out to come and check out my blog. I hope I can inspire you all and maybe even get some feedback. Your'e always welcome to come post your opinions. I promise you I wont fight with you. This is for my Senior Exit Project so i'm just looking to recieve some comments and respond. My thesis is : Inmates with psychological handicapps in America should have extensive evaluations before death sentencing because they often confess to crimes they did not commit, and are often misunderstood during the time between their arrest and trial, or may have apathetic attorneys who could have little knowledge of, or do not stress the severity of their mental conditions.