Opinion ID: 2618212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the eighth amendment forbids the execution of an insane person

Text: Moreover, Card raises an issue that was not addressed in Searcy. Card argues that it is a violation of the eighth amendment to abolish the insanity defense because as the law now stands an insane person could be sentenced to death. It is established that the eighth amendment bars the execution of someone who, by reason of mental illness, cannot comprehend the reason for the penalty or its implications. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 417, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2606, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). Moreover, the Supreme Court has strongly suggested that executing those unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions would violate the eighth amendment. [16] Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2954, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989): The common law prohibition against punishing `idiots' for their crimes suggests that it may indeed be `cruel and unusual' punishment to execute persons who are profoundly or severely retarded and wholly lacking the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions. Because of the protections afforded by the insanity defense today, such a person is not likely to be convicted or face the prospect of punishment. Of course, Card was not given the protections of the insanity defense. The majority holds that the eighth amendment is not offended because Idaho Code § 19-2523 specifically requires the sentencing court to consider `the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the offense charged.' The flaw in the majority's logic is that I.C. § 19-2523 only requires the trial court to consider the effect of the defendant's mental illness. It does not require the court to spare the life of a mentally ill offender, unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Under the provisions of I.C. § 19-2515(c), the court may order the execution of someone unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to conform his conduct to the law, if the court considers that fact and finds that it does not outweigh the aggravating factors. This statutory scheme violates the eighth amendment. Penry, 492 U.S. at 332, 109 S.Ct. at 2954, Ford, 477 U.S. at 417, 106 S.Ct. at 2606. But, assuming arguendo that Searcy was decided correctly and should remain the law, we nevertheless should hold that an individual who could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or could not conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the offense charged may not be executed.