445:
these decisions, even in the absence of a direct connection between the illness and the illegal action (as is required in the guilt phase of the insanity defense), the court acknowledges that the effects of a severe mental illness have pervasive effect on a person's behavior and can therefore be a relevant consideration in death penalty considerations. If all relevant mitigating factors are not considered in a death penalty case, the punishment can be considered "cruel and unusual", the
Supreme Court ruled in
297:
234:
170:
25:
581:
350:, and if they do, the powers of the court to impose the maximum punishment are taken away and the sentence to be pronounced is reduced in accordance with the scale laid down in art. 463 of the Code penal. The most important result of this rule in earlier times was to enable a jury to prevent the infliction of
441:, saying that the jury be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions. The Supreme Court's rulings have broadened the definition of mitigating evidence in the United States and systematically removed the procedural barriers to jury consideration and weight of that evidence.
461:
that a defendant facing the death penalty is entitled to present any aspect of character or record, and any circumstance of the offense that might serve as a basis for a sentence less than death. The court may limit evidence not pertaining to these issues as "irrelevant". Although it has been argued
444:
The effect of these decisions is to broaden the definition of mitigating factors related to mental illness within the U.S. justice system, and to be more consistent with standard psychiatric and psychological findings that correlate specific behaviors to identifiable mental disorders. As a result of
271:
According to the Indian procedure the provision of
Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code calls upon the Court that the convicted accused must be given an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence. This provides the accused an opportunity to place his antecedents, social and economic
275:
Besides the statutory provisions, the
Constitution of India also empowers the President and the Governor of the State to grant pardon to the condemned offenders in appropriate cases. These powers are, however, co-extensive with the legislative powers. The power to cut short a sentence by an act of
276:
executive in India and elsewhere. The controversy raised in this regard in
Nanavati's case has been settled by the Supreme Court once for all in the case of SARAT CHANDRA V/S. KHAGENDRA NATH which affirmed the principle that sentencing power of judiciary and executive are readily distinguishable.
380:
There is empirical evidence that expert testimony on future dangerousness has less effect on jury decisions than does expert testimony on the defendant's mental functioning. However, there is no evidence so far that expert testimony does influence the jury on sentencing outcomes in death penalty
150:
rather than a mitigating factor, as an act done in justified self-defense is not deemed to be a crime. If the offender was provoked but cannot be considered to have acted in self-defense, then the provocation can be used as a mitigating factor but not as a legal defense.
449:, a case in which the prosecution sought to exclude evidence of a low IQ in the penalty phase of the trial. There is also an ongoing tendency of the Supreme Court to seek to include evidence of a defendant's potential for rehabilitation and a law-abiding future.
362:
In the U.S., most mitigating factors are presented in ways that are best described by clinical evaluations of the defendant and the circumstances, thus involving psychological or psychiatric analysis in the presentation to the court. Approximately one half of
405:
must be given the opportunity to consider all mitigating evidence before determining the sentence. Thus the Court has stressed that because of the constitutional requirement of the fundamental respect for human dignity set out by the
207:
According to historical
English and Welsh procedure, the jury has no power to determine the punishment to be awarded for an offense. The sentence, with certain exceptions in capital cases, is within the sole discretion of the
381:
cases. Mitigation efforts are also often met with cynicism where the presentation of trauma and abuse in the context of a death penalty case can be viewed as nothing more than "the abuse excuse", a phrased coined by
316:
It should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (including the references, if any). When you have completed the review, replace this notice with a simple note on this article's talk
253:
It should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (including the references, if any). When you have completed the review, replace this notice with a simple note on this article's talk
189:
It should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (including the references, if any). When you have completed the review, replace this notice with a simple note on this article's talk
752:
722:
782:
651:
753:"Death Penalty Mitigation - A State Court Cannot Bar the Consideration of Mitigating Evidence if the Sentencer Could Reasonably Find That Such Evidence Warrants a Sentence Less Than Death"
340:, art. 345), it is the sole right and the duty of a jury in a criminal case to pronounce whether or not the perpetration of the offense was attended by extenuating circumstances (
462:
that the defendant should be able to offer evidence questioning the morality of the death penalty or descriptions of the execution process, no court has allowed such testimony.
596:
283:, the judge is entitled to take into account matters proved during the trial, or laid before him/her after verdict, as a guide to determining the quantum of punishment.
783:"Death Penalty Mitigation - Future Likelihood of Making a Positive Contribution to Society (Rehabilitation) Considered Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing"
220:, a rider recommending the accused to mercy on the ground of grave provocation received, or other circumstances which in their view should mitigate the penalty.
424:
414:, information must be provided on the character and previous history of the defendant, as well as the circumstances surrounding the particular offense.
407:
98:
presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Unlike a
35:
371:
as a mitigating factor, if it is accompanied by an evaluation that the defendant's ability to appreciate the criminal aspect of his offense (
212:, subject to the statutory prescriptions as to the kind and maximum of punishment. It is common practice for juries to add to their verdict,
489:
601:
307:
244:
180:
562:
102:, the presentation of mitigating factors will not result in the acquittal of a defendant. The opposite of a mitigating factor is an
688:
483:
394:
723:"Mitigating Factors in the Death Penalty Jury Instructions Must Directly Address Mitigating Factors in Death Penalty Cases"
346:). They are not bound to say anything about the matter, but the whole or the majority may qualify the verdict by finding
398:
820:
634:
547:
69:
401:
has attempted to make the sentence of death in the United States less arbitrary by emphasizing that the judge or
411:
689:"The Importance Of Recognising Trauma Throughout Capital Mitigation Investigations And Presentations"
495:
51:
626:
622:
Psychological
Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers
620:
47:
880:
437:
in death penalty cases did not ask the jury to consider as mitigating factors the defendant's
896:
377:), or his ability to control his behavior to meet the requirements of the law, was impaired.
586:
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the
43:
652:"Commentary: Expert Testimony as a Potential Asset in Defense of Capital Sentencing Cases"
474: – Formal statement by a defendant who has been found guilty prior to being sentenced
8:
131:
347:
351:
115:
816:
663:
630:
543:
512:
434:
368:
103:
506:
419:
429:
382:
147:
99:
95:
890:
592:
587:
438:
667:
393:
In the United States, the issue of mitigating factors is most important in
143:
83:
841:
272:
background and mitigating and extenuating circumstances before the court.
858:
662:(4). Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: 519–522.
213:
118:
of
England and Wales lists the following as possible mitigating factors:
367:
allow evidence that the defendant was under extreme mental or emotional
793:(3). Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: 391–393
733:(1). Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: 110–111
605:. Vol. 10 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 86.
492: – Rules for sentencing convicts in the U.S. federal courts system
477:
471:
364:
217:
763:(2). Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: 265–267
373:
787:
Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
757:
Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
727:
Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
656:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
863:
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
846:
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
209:
883:
from the Federal Defender Services Office Training Division.
402:
280:
123:
815:. Westbury, N.Y.: The Foundation Press. pp. 725–726.
306:
is largely based on an article in the out-of-copyright
243:
is largely based on an article in the out-of-copyright
179:
is largely based on an article in the out-of-copyright
625:(2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp.
780:
509: – Condition caused by long-term substance abuse
519:
Pages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
502:
Pages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
840:Spain, Sarah; Schmedlen, George W. (January 2006).
781:Beszterczey, Sara; Grudzinskas, Albert J. (2007).
279:Quite independently of any recommendation by the
888:
542:. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3.
397:cases. In a series of decisions since 1972, the
839:
750:
721:Fluent, Thomas; Guyer, Melvin (January 2006).
650:Edersheim, Judith G.; Beck, James C. (2005).
649:
32:The examples and perspective in this article
614:
612:
341:
335:
751:Spain, Sarah; Schmedlen, George W. (2005).
720:
490:United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines
16:In criminal law, extenuating circumstances
859:"Mitigating Factors in the Death Penalty"
609:
122:Admitting the offense, such as through a
70:Learn how and when to remove this message
591:
574:
572:
570:
517: – United States Supreme Court case
500: – United States Supreme Court case
804:
716:
714:
686:
484:Capital punishment in the United States
889:
810:
618:
856:
567:
537:
711:
290:
227:
163:
159:
18:
13:
833:
154:
14:
908:
874:
857:Romeo, Alicia A. (January 2006).
579:
486: – Death penalty in the USA
388:
357:
295:
232:
168:
23:
774:
744:
680:
643:
556:
531:
433:, remanded cases in which the
425:Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
337:Code d'instruction criminelle
313:, which was produced in 1911.
250:, which was produced in 1911.
186:, which was produced in 1911.
524:
354:for murder (now abolished).
7:
811:Bonnie, Richard J. (1997).
480: – Catholic Church law
465:
399:United States Supreme Court
109:
46:, discuss the issue on the
10:
913:
842:"Death Penalty Mitigation"
687:Wayland, Kathleen (2008).
538:Tonry, Michael H. (1997).
457:The Supreme Court held in
412:United States Constitution
597:Extenuating Circumstances
452:
343:circonstances atténuantes
286:
497:Strickland v. Washington
223:
94:, is any information or
92:extenuating circumstance
602:Encyclopædia Britannica
423:, and subsequently the
309:Encyclopædia Britannica
246:Encyclopædia Britannica
182:Encyclopædia Britannica
342:
336:
619:Melton, Gary (1997).
417:The Supreme Court in
881:Mitigation resources
52:create a new article
44:improve this article
34:may not represent a
90:, also known as an
693:Hofstra Law Review
563:Sentencing Council
540:Sentencing matters
352:capital punishment
334:Under French law (
116:Sentencing Council
104:aggravating factor
514:Tennard v. Dretke
447:Tennard v. Dretke
435:jury instructions
332:
331:
269:
268:
205:
204:
160:England and Wales
88:mitigating factor
80:
79:
72:
54:, as appropriate.
904:
870:
853:
827:
826:
808:
802:
801:
799:
798:
778:
772:
771:
769:
768:
748:
742:
741:
739:
738:
718:
709:
708:
706:
704:
684:
678:
677:
675:
674:
647:
641:
640:
616:
607:
606:
585:
583:
582:
576:
565:
560:
554:
553:
535:
520:
507:Settled insanity
503:
420:Penry v. Lynaugh
408:Eighth Amendment
345:
339:
327:
324:
318:
311:Eleventh Edition
299:
298:
291:
264:
261:
255:
248:Eleventh Edition
236:
235:
228:
200:
197:
191:
184:Eleventh Edition
172:
171:
164:
75:
68:
64:
61:
55:
27:
26:
19:
912:
911:
907:
906:
905:
903:
902:
901:
887:
886:
877:
836:
834:Further reading
831:
830:
823:
809:
805:
796:
794:
779:
775:
766:
764:
749:
745:
736:
734:
719:
712:
702:
700:
685:
681:
672:
670:
648:
644:
637:
617:
610:
595:, ed. (1911). "
580:
578:
577:
568:
561:
557:
550:
536:
532:
527:
518:
501:
468:
459:Lockett v. Ohio
455:
430:Bigby v. Dretke
391:
383:Alan Dershowitz
360:
328:
322:
319:
315:
300:
296:
289:
265:
259:
256:
252:
237:
233:
226:
201:
195:
192:
188:
173:
169:
162:
157:
155:By legal system
139:Showing remorse
112:
76:
65:
59:
56:
41:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
910:
900:
899:
885:
884:
876:
875:External links
873:
872:
871:
854:
835:
832:
829:
828:
821:
803:
773:
743:
710:
679:
642:
635:
608:
593:Chisholm, Hugh
566:
555:
548:
529:
528:
526:
523:
522:
521:
510:
504:
493:
487:
481:
475:
467:
464:
454:
451:
390:
387:
359:
356:
330:
329:
303:
301:
294:
288:
285:
267:
266:
240:
238:
231:
225:
222:
203:
202:
176:
174:
167:
161:
158:
156:
153:
141:
140:
137:
134:
129:
128:Mental illness
126:
111:
108:
78:
77:
38:of the subject
36:worldwide view
31:
29:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
909:
898:
895:
894:
892:
882:
879:
878:
869:(1): 118–120.
868:
864:
860:
855:
852:(1): 118–120.
851:
847:
843:
838:
837:
824:
822:1-56662-448-7
818:
814:
807:
792:
788:
784:
777:
762:
758:
754:
747:
732:
728:
724:
717:
715:
698:
694:
690:
683:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
646:
638:
636:1-57230-236-4
632:
628:
624:
623:
615:
613:
604:
603:
598:
594:
589:
588:public domain
575:
573:
571:
564:
559:
551:
549:9780195094985
545:
541:
534:
530:
516:
515:
511:
508:
505:
499:
498:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
469:
463:
460:
450:
448:
442:
440:
439:mental health
436:
432:
431:
426:
422:
421:
415:
413:
409:
404:
400:
396:
395:death penalty
389:Death penalty
386:
384:
378:
376:
375:
370:
366:
358:United States
355:
353:
349:
344:
338:
326:
314:
312:
310:
304:This section
302:
293:
292:
284:
282:
277:
273:
263:
251:
249:
247:
241:This section
239:
230:
229:
221:
219:
215:
211:
199:
187:
185:
183:
177:This section
175:
166:
165:
152:
149:
148:legal defense
145:
138:
135:
133:
130:
127:
125:
121:
120:
119:
117:
107:
105:
101:
100:legal defense
97:
93:
89:
85:
74:
71:
63:
60:December 2010
53:
49:
45:
39:
37:
30:
21:
20:
897:Criminal law
866:
862:
849:
845:
813:Criminal Law
812:
806:
795:. Retrieved
790:
786:
776:
765:. Retrieved
760:
756:
746:
735:. Retrieved
730:
726:
701:. Retrieved
696:
692:
682:
671:. Retrieved
659:
655:
645:
621:
600:
558:
539:
533:
513:
496:
458:
456:
446:
443:
428:
418:
416:
392:
379:
372:
361:
333:
323:January 2020
320:
308:
305:
278:
274:
270:
260:January 2024
257:
245:
242:
206:
196:January 2020
193:
181:
178:
144:Self-defense
142:
113:
91:
87:
84:criminal law
81:
66:
57:
33:
365:U.S. states
348:extenuation
132:Provocation
124:guilty plea
797:2007-10-20
767:2007-10-20
737:2007-10-12
673:2007-10-17
478:Canon 1324
472:Allocution
218:not guilty
525:Footnotes
136:Young age
48:talk page
891:Category
703:24 March
668:16394229
466:See also
374:mens rea
369:distress
110:Examples
96:evidence
42:You may
627:265–266
590::
410:to the
819:
666:
633:
584:
546:
453:Limits
287:France
214:guilty
699:: 923
317:page.
254:page.
224:India
210:judge
190:page.
146:is a
50:, or
817:ISBN
705:2021
664:PMID
631:ISBN
544:ISBN
403:jury
281:jury
114:The
86:, a
599:".
427:in
216:or
82:In
893::
867:34
865:.
861:.
850:34
848:.
844:.
791:35
789:.
785:.
761:33
759:.
755:.
731:34
729:.
725:.
713:^
697:36
695:.
691:.
660:33
658:.
654:.
629:.
611:^
569:^
385:.
106:.
825:.
800:.
770:.
740:.
707:.
676:.
639:.
552:.
325:)
321:(
262:)
258:(
198:)
194:(
73:)
67:(
62:)
58:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.