Justice, Mercy, and Mental Illness in Death Penalty Cases

This paper examines how jurisprudential discourse shapes the constitutional and moral boundaries of capital punishment in cases involving mental illness and cognitive impairment. With a focus on the insanity defense and Atkins v. Virginia, it argues that the foundation of Western legal thought has long balanced retributive justice by distinguishing between culpable intent and diminished moral responsibility. Rather than eradicating criminal accountability, these doctrines limit punishment where a defendant’s capacity for intent, judgment, or culpability is diminished by mental impairment. The paper contends that this legal framework mirrors an evolving understanding of human dignity within the death penalty system.