Mental illness and the death penalty

Subject: Introduction to psychology

Presented to: Mam Humna Haider
Department: LLB 4th Semester
(Mor)

University of Okara
 Presented by: Group 1

Sadia
Smaviya Javaria Ali
Mushta
Nadeem Sabir Asad
q
(1001) (1004) (1012)
(1002)

M. Sania Awais
Nimra
Naveed Ayesha Akram
Aftab
(1023) (1035) (1045)
(1040)
  Introduction
 Arguments in favor
 Arguments against
 International perspective
Contents:  Perspective in Pakistan
 Ban in Pakistan
 Islamic perspective
 Alternative Methods
Introduction:
 Mental illness refers to a range of psychological disorders that affect
a person's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. It involves the
disruption of normal cognitive and emotional processes, leading to
significant distress and impairment in functioning.
 The term "mental illness" was firstly used in 19th century a French
physician Philippe Pinel, who worked in the late 18th and early
19th centuries and The Code of Hammurabi, which dates back to
ancient Babylon (modern-day Iraq) around 1750 BCE. The death
penalty was also prevalent in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome.
 In more recent history, the concept of the modern
death penalty, as a judicial process with specific
procedures, emerged in the 18th century. The first
country to formally codify a modern death penalty
law was the Kingdom of Prussia (now part of Germany) in 1794.
 Ethical and legal
consideration
The issue of executing individuals with mental illness has long been
a topic of ethical and legal debate. While opinions on the death
penalty itself vary, there is a growing consensus that executing
individuals with severe mental illness is both morally and legally
problematic.
✓Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the
practice of legally executing individuals who have been convicted of
certain serious crimes. It is the most severe form of punishment
imposed by the state and typically involves methods such as lethal
injection, electrocution, or hanging, depending on the jurisdiction.
The justification for capital punishment varies across different legal
systems and societies, but commonly includes deterrence,
retribution, and the concept of justice.
 Arguments in favor
 Accountability: One of the primary purposes of the criminal justice
system is to hold individuals accountable for their actions.By
maintaining the death penalty, society sends a message that certain
crimes warrant the ultimate punishment, regardless of mental health
conditions.
 Retributive justice: It acknowledges the harm caused to victims and
their families and seeks to provide a sense of closure and reparation.
For some, the death penalty represents the appropriate retribution for
the most severe crimes committed by mentally ill individuals.
 Deterrence: The death penalty serves as a deterrent for potential
offenders. Although mental illness can diminish an individual's ability
to consider consequences, the existence of the death penalty may
discourage others from engaging in violent acts.
 Institutional limitations: Despite advancements in psychiatric care,
there may be instances where prisons and mental health facilities are
unable to adequately manage and rehabilitate mentally ill individuals.
The death penalty can be seen as a
necessary response in cases where
traditional methods of containment
and treatment are insufficient.
 Public opinion: Numerous surveys have
shown that a substantial portion of the
population supports the use of the death
penalty, particularly in cases involving
severe crimes committed by mentally ill
individuals. Upholding the death penalty
can be seen as a reflection of the democratic will and societal values.
 Arguments against
We will presents the arguments against this concept;
 Lack of Moral Justification: Mental illnesses can significantly impair
a person's capacity for rational thought, decision-making, and
understanding the consequences of their actions and executing them
may be viewed as a violation of basic principles of fairness and
human dignity.
 Risk of Wrongful Convictions: Mental illness can contribute to
wrongful convictions, as individuals with psychological disorders may
be more susceptible to coerced confessions, misinterpreting reality, or
being influenced by external factors.
 Human dignity and compassion: Society's ethical standards
emphasize the protection of human dignity and the promotion of
compassion. Executing mentally ill individuals raises questions about
the humane treatment of vulnerable individuals.
 Inadequate Legal Standards: The legal standards used to determine
whether an individual is fit for trial and execution may not adequately
account for mental illness. The "insanity defense" often requires a high
threshold of proof, with the burden placed on the defendant to
demonstrate a severe mental illness that renders them unable to
understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong.
 International Human Rights Standards:Many countries and
international human rights organizations oppose executing individuals
with mental illness.
 The United Nations, for example, has repeatedly called for a global
moratorium on the death penalty, highlighting concerns about the fair
treatment of mentally ill individuals in capital punishment systems.
Aligning with international standards on human rights ensures that
societies uphold principles of justice and dignity for all.
 International perspective:
The intersection of mental illness and the death penalty raises complex legal and ethical
questions worldwide. The approach taken by different countries regarding these issues varies
significantly, reflecting diverse cultural, social, and legal frameworks.

America (USA)

In the United States, the issue of mental illness and the death penalty
has garnered considerable attention. The U.S. Supreme Court has
addressed the matter in several landmark cases.The Eighth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual
punishment. Applying the death penalty to individuals with severe
Australia
mental illness may be seen as a violation of this constitutional
protection.
Australia abolished the death penalty in 1967, and its stance on
executing individuals with mental illness aligns with its commitment to
human rights and mental health care. Australian courts consider
mental impairment as a mitigating factor during sentencing and may
impose lesser penalties or alternative forms of punishment .
 European Union: The European Union (EU) has taken a strong stance
against the death penalty. The EU considers capital punishment to be a
violation of the fundamental right to life and has made its abolition a key
objective of its external human rights policy. EU member states are
bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which prohibits the death
penalty. Moreover, the EU seeks to prevent the use of the death penalty
for individuals suffering from mental illness, emphasizing the importance
of human dignity and the need for appropriate medical care and
treatment.
 Canada: The Supreme Court of Canada has held that it is
unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals suffering
from a mental disorder that renders them incapable of appreciating the
nature and consequences of their actions. This standard takes into
account the principles of fundamental justice and the inherent dignity of
individuals with mental illness.
 Continued
China:
China has one of the highest rates
of execution in the world, and its
legal system has been criticized for
its treatment of defendants with
mental illness. While Chinese law
recognizes the concept of mental
illness as a mitigating factor, the
burden is on the defendant to
prove their mental condition and
its impact on their culpability.
However, the Chinese legal system
lacks clear guidelines for
evaluating mental illness claims,
leading to concerns about the
fairness and accuracy of
determinations in capital cases
involving mentally ill defendants.
England:
In England, the legal concept of the death
penalty for individuals with mental illness
has undergone significant changes. The
death penalty was abolished for all
crimes in England in 1965, including
cases involving individuals with mental
illness. Today, the law prohibits the
execution of individuals with mental
health conditions, recognizing the
importance of considering their mental
state in determining their culpability.
Instead, alternative sentences and
treatment options are explored to address
their specific needs within the criminal
 Perspective in Pakistan

Mental Illness and Death Penalty in Pakistan:

 In Pakistan, mental illness is recognized as a mitigating factor in

criminal cases, including those potentially subject to the death
penalty.

 The Mental Health Ordinance of 2001 in Pakistan exempts individuals

suffering from severe mental illnesses from being executed.

 However, the determination of mental illness and its severity is often

challenging in legal proceedings, leading to inconsistent application
of this exemption.

 There have been concerns raised about the lack of adequate mental
health assessments and access to appropriate treatment for
 Legislation in Pakistan:

 Pakistan's law have clear legislation about the people who are mentally ill:

 According to section 84 of PPC:

 "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time

of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind , is incapable of
Knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law."

 Section 464 to 475 of CRPC deals with Lunatics: These sections deal with;

• Procedure in case of mentally ill person sent before court

• Resumption of inquiry or trial
• Judgement of acquittal on ground of Lunacy
• Safe custody in case of detention
 Ban on execution in Pakistan:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, as the highest judicial authority in
the country, holds the power to interpret the law and ensure justice
for all citizens.
 In recent years, there has been a significant development
regarding the treatment of individuals with mental illness within the
criminal justice system.
 Recognizing the importance of human
rights and the need for fair and just legal
practices, the Supreme Court has issued
a landmark ruling banning the imposition
of the death penalty on individuals with
mental illnesses. This decision marks a
crucial step forward in safeguarding the rights and dignity of
vulnerable populations in Pakistan.
 Case Study:
Landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of Pakistan commuting
the death sentences of Imdad Ali and Kanizan Bibi, which places a
ban on the death penalty being applied to those with mental
disabilities.

 According to human rights group Justice Project Pakistan, Imdad Ali

and Kanizan Bibi, who have been on death row since 1991 and
2002 respectively, have been repeatedly diagnosed with
schizophrenia. Both have had multiple execution warrants issued
for them before securing stays on the basis of their psychosocial
(mental) disabilities. Both Imdad and Kanizan were convicted of
murder.
 On 10 February, the Supreme Court passed a historic order
 Islamic perspective:
When it comes to the issue of criminal sanctions for individuals
suffering from severe mental illness, the Islamic legal tradition is
clear: only those who are aware of their actions can be judged and
considered responsible for their actions. As we find repeated by
almost all the ‘ulamâ’ throughout our history (whatever their school of
law), the punishment cannot be enforced on young people or
mentally ill human beings.
 There are several Hadiths that discuss the issue of mental illness
and responsibility for one's actions. One such Hadith is narrated
by Abu Hurairah, who reported that
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "The Pen has been lifted
from three: from the sleeping person until he awakens, from the child until he
reaches puberty, and from the insane person until he regains his sanity"
(Sunan Ibn Majah 2041).
 Islamic perspective
Cont.
 This Hadith suggests that individuals who are mentally ill are not held
accountable for their actions until they have regained their sanity. This
principle is consistent with the Islamic view that justice must be
tempered with mercy.
 Another Hadith that is relevant to the issue of mental illness is
narrated by Abu Dawud, who reported that the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) said:
"The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions,
and every person will get the reward according to what he has
intended" (Sunan Abu Dawud 4789).
 This Hadith emphasizes the importance of intention in Islam, and
suggests that individuals who are mentally ill may not be held
responsible for their actions if they did not intend to commit a crime
 Alternative Methods:
When it comes to dealing with mentally ill offenders, there are several alternatives to
the death penalty that can be considered.

 Life imprisonment: Instead of the death penalty, mentally ill offenders can be
sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This ensures
public safety while also recognizing the individual's mental health condition.

 Diversion to mental health courts: Some jurisdictions have specialized mental

health courts that aim to provide alternatives to traditional criminal proceedings for
mentally ill individuals. These courts focus on rehabilitation, treatment, and support
rather than punishment.

 Improved Training for Legal Professionals: Providing comprehensive training

is essential for effective implementation of alternatives to the death penalty.
Training should focus on understanding mental illness, recognizing symptoms, and
adopting compassionate approaches when dealing with mentally ill offenders.
 Sentencing Reforms: Sentencing reforms play a vital role in addressing the
unique circumstances of mentally ill offenders.

 Enhanced Mental Health Assessment and Treatment: A crucial step in

addressing mentally ill offenders is to ensure comprehensive mental health
assessments during the legal process. By employing qualified mental health
professionals, the court can better understand the individual's mental state,
history, and capacity to comprehend the consequences of their actions. These
assessments should be ongoing, ensuring access to proper treatment and
medication throughout the judicial proceedings and post-conviction.

 Rehabilitation and reintegration: Emphasizing rehabilitation and

reintegration into society can be a more compassionate approach. Mental
health programs within correctional facilities can offer counseling, vocational
training, and educational opportunities to help mentally ill offenders reintegrate
successfully.
T h a n k yo u .

R e p o r te r :X XX X
D e p a r tm e n t:S c h o o l
of Law