The mind on trial: mental illness and capital punishment in America's highest execution state

Mentally ill and intellectually disabled capital defendants are regularly sentenced to death in Texas, America’s highest execution state. Psycho-legal scholars argue that the reason for this phenomenon is that Texas courts rely on out-dated clinical criteria and stereotypes without scientific foundation in their mental incapacity evaluations. While existing literature offers significant insights regarding the treatment of mentally incapacitated capital defendants in this and other US jurisdictions, it provides a decontextualized view of the problem which takes for granted the underlying assumptions upon which notions of mental illness and criminal responsibility are based. Starting from the idea that such interpretations are historically contingent and socially constructed, the thesis seeks to identify the ways in which scientific developments, mental health caselaw, and shifting values and standards of behaviour have influenced expert and lay discourse on the intersection of mental illness and crime in the psycho-legal literature and in Texas courtroom interactions. To accomplish this goal, the thesis utilises a socio-historical methodology based on in-depth archival research. Specifically, the thesis analyses forensic psychiatric publications, trial records of male capital defendants who claimed insanity or asked for a mitigation of the sentence due to mental illness, and social and cultural histories of forensic psychiatry and psychology spanning the 20th century. Drawing from critical theory and cultural studies, the thesis argues that despite their claims to scientific objectivity and legal neutrality, American psycho-legal theorists and Texas expert witnesses, defence attorneys, prosecutors, and appellate courts provide morally charged descriptions of mentally ill offenders which reveal a far from dispassionate approach. Moreover, the thesis proposes that, through their arguments and opinions, psychiatrists and legal actors in Texas courts have contributed to the labelling of marginalised male offenders in a way that increases the stigma attached to particular social categories, while encouraging punitive responses amongst Texas jurors.