Ohio upholds death penalty in mental impairment case

The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously upheld the death penalty for Edward L. Lang yesterday -- convicted in 2007 of killing two people in Canton -- the Canton Repository reported yesterday, but with the ruling came a call by three justices for state legislators to examine whether Ohio should continue to execute those who are mentally ill.

The majority opinion in pertinent part on the mentally ill issue said “We find that the R.C. 2929.04(B)(3) factor is not applicable because no evidence was presented showing that “at the time of committing the offense, the offender, because of a mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the offender’s conduct or to conform the offender’s conduct to the requirements of the law. However, we give some weight to Lang’s mental problems under the catchall provision, R.C. 2929.04(B)(7). Testimony showed that Lang suffered from depression and received extensive psychological and psychiatric treatment… But again, there was no evidence of any significant connection between Lang’s mental illness and the murders…” (ORC § 2929.04 )

While she joined the majority in affirming Lang’s convictions and death sentence, the Court’s summary revealed, Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton also entered a concurring opinion… “Noting that major professional associations including the American Bar Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association have adopted policy statements recommending against execution of persons who were severely mentally ill at the time of their offense, Justice Stratton, citing her prior concurring opinion in State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48,wrote: ‘(W)hile I personally believe that the time has come for our society to add persons with severe mental illness to the category of those excluded from application of the death penalty, I believe that the line should be drawn by the General Assembly, not by a court. ... [N]othing prevents the legislature from examining and using those ... evolving standards [of decency]. In fact, it is the legislature’s role to do so. Therefore, I urge our General Assembly to consider legislation setting the criteria for determining when a person with a severe mental illness should be excluded from the penalty of death.’”

The Death Penalty Information Center references the mental health issue:

“Insanity or mental incompetency is a severe form of mental illness and is addressed separately by the legal system. Inmates who are insane, that is, so out of touch with reality that they do not know right from wrong and cannot understand their punishment or the purpose of it, are exempt from execution. The Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399 (1986)) that executing the insane is unconstitutional. However, if an inmate's mental competency has been restored, he or she can then be executed. Inmates who are intellectually disabled (mentally retarded) also cannot be executed. Inmates who are mentally ill, but not insane, have no such exemption.”

State v. Lang, 2011 Ohio 4215